WRITTEN QUESTION E-0738/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Regions which are to lose their Structural Fund Objective 1 status.
Date: 2004-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU regional policy, Structural Funds, economic and social cohesion, eligibility criteria, eligible region, less-favoured region

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/861

(2004/C 84 E/0952)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0732/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Dam-building on the international stretch of the river Minho

The Portuguese Water Institute has been asked to consider a proposal for three hydroelectric dams to be
built on the international stretch of the river Minho by Unión Fenosa (a Spanish conglomerate operating in
the electricity sector).

These proposals have arisen in the wake of an earlier case, in 1998, in which the idea of building the Sela
dam on the same river was abandoned because it would not have been feasible, on account of the highly
damaging environmental impact.

The present proposals could likewise have serious adverse environmental effects, as environmentalists, local
councillors, fishermen, and wine-growers fear.

The Commission:

1. Does it know about Unión Fenosa’s plan to build three hydroelectric dams on the river Minho, which

forms a natural border between Portugal and Spain?

2. How does it view the environmental impact of the proposals and what measures will it take to deal

with the concern of the Portuguese public, organisations, and institutions in the region?

3. Will any Community funding be granted for the project?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the proposals to build dams on the river Minho by the Unión Fenosa.

Under Community law, proposals to construct dams require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) if
they are likely to have significant effects on the environment. If the storage capacity of a dam will exceed
10 million cubic metres, an EIA is mandatory (under Annex I of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) as
amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2)); in other cases (which come under Annex II
of the same Directive), the competent authority in the Member State must screen the proposal in order to
determine whether significant effects are likely. The EIA involves the provision of information on the
proposed project and its likely effects, as well as consultation with environmental authorities and the
public and, if there are likely to be transboundary effects, with any Member State whose territory is likely
to be affected. The information and the results of the consultations must be taken into account by the
competent authority in the decision-making procedure.

The project
Structural Funds where Portugal is concerned.

to which the Honourable Member refers has not received any co-financing under the

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2004/C 84 E/0953)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0738/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Regions which are to lose their Structural Fund Objective 1 status

Would the Commission say which regions which currently come under Structural Fund Objective 1 now
have an income exceeding 75 % of average Community GDP and will therefore be excluded from that
Objective in future?

C 84 E/862

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

We adopted our Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion on 19 February 2003. It concluded that
on the basis of the 1999, 2000 and 2001 figures available the regions with a per capita gross domestic
product (GDP) of more than 75 % of the Community (EU 15) average losing their eligibility after 2006
would be: Sterea Ellada and South Aegean (Greece), Castile-Leon, Valencia and Canary Islands (Spain),
Border, Midlands and Western (Ireland), Sardinia (Italy), Burgenland (Austria), Madeira (Portugal), East
Finland, and South Yorkshire (United Kingdom).

We draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that future eligibility for the ‘convergence’
objective will however be based on the average of the figures for the three most recent years available
when the regulatory framework for the Structural Funds is adopted.

(2004/C 84 E/0954)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0741/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Fiscal incentives to encourage job creation

(11 March 2004)

Has the Commission any precise statistics concerning job creation within the European Union as a result
of fiscal incentives offered to companies which provide jobs for certain population groups (women, young
people, etc.)?

Have any studies been carried out which analyse (cid:1) from a cost-benefit point of view (cid:1) the effect which
reducing the levies imposed on employment (including social-security contributions) has on the labour
market?

Has any analysis been carried out into whether or not such a reduction could jeopardise budget stability
and whether or not a moderate increase in indirect taxation would be sufficient to counter that risk?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

There are no EU level statistics on the employment effects of fiscal incentives for enterprises.

in their national actions plans for employment and in their
However, some Member States report
evaluations on these plans that the reduction in social security contributions (SSC) from enterprises, have
significant effects on employment when they are targeted. In France, it was estimated that a FFR 40 billion
reduction of employers’ SSC had created 106-170 000 jobs between 1993 and 1999 (plus 67 000 jobs
through the introduction of the 35-hours week). Reduced employers’ SSC have even reversed the upward
trend in unskilled labour.

Moreover, a Spanish report provides econometric estimates of the elasticity of employment with respect to
different types of taxes;
it concludes that, despite some methodological uncertainties, a reduction of
employers’ SSC has, by far, the most positive employment effects. Similar conclusions are reached in a
Belgian report, on the basis of macro-simulations from the Federal Planning Bureau (23 000 jobs created
by a EUR 1,2 billion reduction of employers’ SSC; 10 700 jobs created in the social profit sector by a
EUR 0,25 billion reduction). The ultimate criterion used here is the number of jobs created per billion euro
net investment in different measures, where the term ‘net investment’ means that feedback effects have
been taken into account (through wage and price adjustments, government budgets, consumption, etc.).