WRITTEN QUESTION E-2708/99 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Objective 2 areas in Spain.
C 303 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 January 2000) The multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets of all Member States fix capacity targets in tonnage and engine power measured in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 of 22 September 1986 defining the characteristics of fishing vessels (1). Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 was modified by Council Regulation (EC) No 3259/94 (2) and by Com- mission Decision No 95/84/EC (3), which require that the tonnage of fishing vessels be measured in units of gross tonnage (GT) as defined by the London Convention of 1969. All vessels of more than 24 metres length between perpendiculars should already be measured in units of GT. For vessels greater than or equal to 15 metres overall length but less than 24 metres length between perpendiculars, estimates of the GT must be progressively replaced by measures of GT before the end of 2003. For vessels less than 15 metres overall length, the GT is defined by a simplified formula based on the length, breadth and depth of the vessel. Following a call for tenders the Sea fish industry authority in the United Kingdom has been contracted to evaluate the way in which these provisions are applied in each of the Member States. Its final report will be forwarded to the Commission in the first quarter of the year 2000. The way in which engine power is measured is also currently under review. To this end the Commission is consulting with the European committee for standardisation to determine possible courses of action. This is now considered to be a priority for the Community and may result in a further modification to Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86. (1) OJ L 274, 25. 9. 1986. (2) OJ L 339, 29. 12. 1994. (3) OJ L 67, 25. 3. 1995. (2000/C 303 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2708/99 by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Objective 2 areas in Spain During October and November the Commission approved the lists of Objective 2 areas for the period 2000-2006. However, the lists of 10 Member States have still not been approved. At what stage of the process is Spainís list of Objective 2 areas? Did the Spanish government submit the list by the deadline? If not, what was the cause of the delay? Given that the current regulation expires at the end of 1999, what action will the Commission, and those Member States whose lists have not yet been approved, take to ensure that existing programmes continue to run and new projects can be set up as from 1 January 2000? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (24 February 2000) On 1 July 1999 the Commission invited the Member States to send in their proposed list of areas eligible for Objective 2 in the 2000-2006 programming period before 31 August 1999. For those Member States which had proposed a list of eligible areas by early September 1999, an initial decision was taken in October and November 1999 in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). The Commission only received the Spanish proposal on 15 September 1999. Following consultation with the Spanish authorities, the Commission took a decision in principle on the draft list of areas eligible for 24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/95 Objective 2 on 22 December 1999. Under the above Regulation, the final decision is to be taken after consultation with three committees. These committees were consulted on 25, 26 and 31 January 2000. The Commission will therefore take a final decision in the course of February 2000. With regard to the transition between the two programming periods, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, in respect of assistance in the 1994-99 programming period, payments may be made by the final beneficiaries in respect of measures which were the subject of binding legal and financial provisions prior to 31 December 1999 up until 31 December 2001. In addition, for the 2000-06 programming period, Article 52(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 provides for a retroactive date of in respect of which the eligibility of expenditure under certain conditions. Expenditure actually paid, Commission has received an application for assistance between 1 January and 30 April 2000 and which fulfils all the conditions laid down in the above Regulation, may be regarded as eligible from 1 January 2000. (1) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 303 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2709/99 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: La Punta agricultural area (Valencia, Spain) The Valencian Ministry of Public Works, Urban Development and Transport is supporting a proposal for a logistics park (ZAL) for the port of Valencia at La Punta, an agricultural area on the edge of the city with exceptional features as a model of sustainable and efficient agriculture serving urban consumers, unique in the European Union. The environmental impact assessment for the project did not include consultation of the residents who would be affected or consider alternatives to the project, and therefore did not comply with Directives 85/337/EEC (1) and 97/11/EC (2) on environmental impact. The plan justifies the failure to consider alternative locations on the grounds of poorly defined operational factors, the most important of which seems to be the need for logistical services to be very close to the port. However, there are locations which are even closer to the container terminal than La Punta, where the impact on the environment, the structure of production and agricultural labour, and on heritage would be markedly less than in La Punta. Furthermore, the ZAL plan does not analyse the possible impact on the neighbouring Albufera nature reserve, protected by Valencian legislation and also listed in several international conventions (Ramsar, special protection area for birds and Directive 92/43/EEC (3) on habitats). The planís environmental impact assessment recognises, for example, the risk that the ZALís activities could result in pollution of the Valencian Plain aquifer, but does not examine in sufficient detail the possible effects on the nature reserve. The plan also acknowledges that as a result both of the water- proofing effect caused by the ground being tarmacked, and the closure of La Punta for various infrastructure projects to be carried out, the ZAL would create an increased risk of flooding caused by water collecting after heavy local rainfall. It therefore proposes a series of corrective measures in the area set aside for the planned industrial complex. However, it does not take into consideration the risk of flooding in the residential areas adjoining the ZAL, which would lose the drainage capacity currently provided by the agricultural area. Does the Commission agree that the Spanish authorities have not complied with the directives on environmental impact assessments, particularly as regards the obligation to consult the persons affected and to consider alternative proposals? What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Albufera nature reserve is not adversely affected by the ZAL plan? (1) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985, p. 140. (2) OJ L 73, 14. 3. 1997, p. 5. (3) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 7