WRITTEN QUESTION E-0972/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Natura Network — funding.
Date: 2004-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU financing, Portugal, budget policy, environmental protection, protected area, rural development

C 88 E/258

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Various political analysts believe that there could shortly be conflict between Venezuela’s various legal
authorities and institutions, particularly between the SCJ’s electoral and constitutional chambers, and the
NEC.

The Commission:

1. What information does it have concerning these facts?

2. Does it believe that the holding of the referendum revoking the presidential mandate should remain

unscheduled?

3. What consequences does it think that this situation could have for Venezuela?

4. What initiatives is it taking or does it intend to take to help prevent this possible tension between
institutions, and ensure that the Venezuelan people are finally given the chance to speak, the only way
of resolving the democratic crisis which Venezuela is undergoing?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

After the National Electoral Council (CNE) announced the preliminary results for the Presidential recall
referendum on 2nd March 2004, the legal activity on the recall referendum has been intense. The CNE
ruled that, out of the amount of signatures examined (3 086 013 (cid:1) the opposition said it submitted
3 467 050), just over 1,8 million signatures have been declared valid, 876 017 doubtful, and more than
230 000 invalid. The signatures considered doubtful are the result of the so called ‘planillas planas’
(signature forms where the basic data of those who signed have been filled in similar handwriting) and
would have to be double-checked in a ‘repair process’ (‘reparo’), together with certain other signatures
originally declared invalid. As a consequence, according to the CNE, more than 1 million signatures needed
further verification and they had to be confirmed, by those who signed. 2,4 million signatures are needed
to call the Presidential referendum.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s Electoral Chamber ruled, on 15 March 2004, that the ‘planillas planas’
were valid. The CNE appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Chamber, which
considered that the Electoral Chamber was not competent according to the 1999 Constitution and ordered
it to refrain from ruling on the referendum process. The Electoral Chamber has reaffirmed its competence
on the matter and asked the Court’s plenary to decide. The outcome cannot be predicted with any
certainty. This Constitutional controversy is causing further delays for the possible referendum on President
Chávez.

The European Union supports the role of the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the Carter Center
in the conflict and the efforts they are making to implement the political agreement signed on 29 May
2003 by the Venezuelan government and the opposition, in line with the OAS resolution 833, which calls
for a pacific, democratic, constitutional and electoral solution. The EU has reiterated the importance of
implementing this agreement. Nevertheless, even if a referendum takes place, the polarisation in society
will take time to overcome as will the recovery of the economic situation.

(2004/C 88 E/0263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0972/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject: Natura Network (cid:1) funding

The Portuguese Secretary of State for the Environment, José Eduardo Martins, recently stated that the
amounts which the EU was preparing to assign Portugal for the management of the Natura Network were
quite clearly inadequate, and fell far short of what was required. He said that merely for the management
of Portugal’s Natura Network between 2003 and 2007, Portugal needed some 220 million euros, but that
the EU financial perspective fell far short. Apparently, a similar problem will occur with Spain, Italy,
France and Greece.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/259

It appears that the problem is a result of the fact that the environment and agriculture, under the new
financial framework, appear on the same budgetary line, where in the case of Portugal, 80 % of the money
is then captured by agriculture.

The Commission:

(cid:1) how is it going to respond to these problems, difficulties and inadequacies;

(cid:1) can it guarantee that the Natura Network and its objectives are not going to be thrown into crisis by

financial shortfalls and inadequate budgeting?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission has committed itself to submiting a Communication on the Financing of Natura 2000 in
2004. This Communication is expected for the first half of 2004. Furthermore, the Commission has so far
integrated the Natura 2000 network and its needs in all
its major proposals for future Community
Financing. These include the Commission’s proposal for the future Financial Perspectives and the Third
Report on Economic and Social Cohesion.

The Commission stated in the Communication on the new Financial Perspectives for the period post-
2006 (1) that rural development actions related to Natura 2000 would be an important objective of the
future rural development policy. Furthermore, one of the important activities included in the environ-
mental priorities for the period 2007-2013 within the same chapter of the future financial perspectives is
the development and implementation of the Natura 2000 network of sites to protect European biodiversity
as well as the implementation of the biodiversity action plans. The Commission has also indicated in the
Third Cohesion Report on economic and Social Cohesion (2), that investing in infrastructures which are
linked to Natura 2000 and contribute to overall regional competitiveness is one of the areas in which
structural funds interventions may take place in the future.

the same time,

At
the Commission confirmed that cohesion policy is based on the principles of
subsidiarity and of partnership with Member States and regions, and that the co-funded measures should
reflect regional priorities and economic development needs. The Commission cannot go against these key
principles and oblige Member States and regions to finance precise actions or, even more, to earmark
financial resources to a given policy area. However, in the course of the programming dialogue, which will
be reinforced and made more strategic, the Commission would discuss with Member States and regions the
best way to incorporate Community priorities, including the financial needs of the Natura 2000 network.

(1) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament Building (cid:1) our common Future (cid:1) Policy

Challenges and budgetary means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013, COM(2004) 101 final.

(2) Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, COM(2004) 107 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0977/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject: Health insurance in the Czech Republic

in the Czech Republic, there is one large and several smaller health
Is the Commission aware that,
insurance companies? Is it also aware that the large company has experienced financial problems? Is it
further aware that the Czech Government has authorised the redistribution of premiums from the smaller
the approval of
companies to the large company, without
the policyholders involved? Does the
Commission agree that
to be in the interests neither of competition nor of
this would appear
policyholders, and will it raise this issue with the Czech authorities?