WRITTEN QUESTION E-0885/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Projects financed under LIFE II.
C 26 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 (2001/C 26 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0879/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Council (23 March 2000) Subject: EU initiatives on education in the Third World With reference to the question tabled by Graham Watson MEP on 19 November 1999 (No. P-2163/99 (1)) regarding initiatives to promote literacy in lesser developed countries, can the Council clarify what collective action has so far been taken by the Member States to promote education in the Third World? How exactly does the Council intend to develop the provision for education in its aid programmes? (1) OJ C 219 E, 1. 8. 2000, p. 107. Reply (8 June 2000) 1. The Council would reiterate that it considers support for education in developing countries of vital importance, in particular as it can make a significant contribution to the fight against poverty which is one of the principal objectives of Community development policy. The Council has no information on action taken by Member States, 2. bilateral aid, to promote education in the third world. in the framework of their The Council would draw the honourable Membersí attention to the fact that the Commission is 3. responsible for the development and management of the Communityís aid programmes. (2001/C 26 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0885/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Projects financed under LIFE II On 24 February 2000 the Official Journal of the European Communities published the communication of six decisions (Nos C(1999) 1800, C(1999) 4712, C(1999) 2414, C(1999) 4063, C(1999) 2073 and C(1999) 2261) to grant Community financial support for demonstration projects forwarded under the LIFE instrument concerning the environment (1). As a result of these decisions 94 projects were selected 1999 under LIFE-Nature and 152 projects under LIFE-Environment submitted by organisations, public or private bodies, local authorities and businesses. For these projects a total of EUR 64. 8 million was allocated under LIFE-Nature (7. 9 million for projects submitted by Italian applicants) and a total of EUR 65 million under LIFE-Environment (9. 4 million for projects submitted by Italian applicants). For the 26 projects under LIFE-Environment and the 19 projects under LIFE-Nature Italy therefore received a total of EUR 17. 3 million, equivalent to approximately Lit 33. 5 billion. The beneficiaries of these projects belong to the following regions: Lombardy (7 projects), the Veneto (8 projects), Emilia Romagna (2 projects), Liguria (3 projects), Tuscany (6 projects), Calabria (1 project), Umbria (1 project), Sicily (4 projects), Basilicata (1 project), Lazio (9 projects), Apulia (1 project) and Sardinia (2 projects). Among the projects submitted by Italian applicants not one from Piedmont was selected. Can the Commission explain why none of the Italian projects selected was from the Piedmont region and whether this was due to a lack of adequate information? If so, can it say who is responsible? 26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/127 Finally, can the Commission say whether any projects were submitted from the Piedmont region and, if so, how many there were and why none of them was selected? (1) OJ C 52, 24. 2. 2000, p. 4. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (18 April 2000) The projects which the Italian authorities submitted to the Commission in 1999 for funding under Council Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 of 15 July 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (LIFE) (1) were selected in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 9(a) of that Regulation and the procedure set out in Article 13 thereof. Sufficient funding was available to support only a proportion of the selected projects, taken in the order of classification established during the evaluation phase. In 1999, none of the projects from submitted from the Piedmont region were classified in a position which resulted in funding. The same is true for seven other regions of Italy. The Commission does not believe that this can be attributed to a lack of adequate information on the in 1999 the region benefited from a LIFE information day territory of the Piedmont region. Indeed, organised in Turin by the regional authorities and attended by a representative of the Commission. A total of 12 projects were submitted from Piedmont in 1999 for funding under the LIFE Regulation. All of them related to action covered by Article 2(1)(b). However, the projects granted LIFE funding in 1999 include LIFE 99 ENV/IT/000051, which was put forward by CENSIS in Rome but is to be carried out in the province of Novara, and LIFE 99 NAT/IT/6279, to be carried out by the Ministry of the Environment in collaboration with all the Italian regions. (1) OJ L 181, 20. 7. 1996. (2001/C 26 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0897/00 by Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission (16 March 2000) Subject: Crisis in the citrus fruit sector in southern Italy Farmers in Sicily and southern Italy are worried about the crisis the sector has been going through. Although Sicily is in a good geographical position for the cultivation of quality oranges it is at a disadvantage because of its backward economy and its distance from European markets. All these factors, aggravated by competition from citrus fruits from third countries produced at lower cost, are seriously threatening the survival of tens of thousands of farms, with serious social repercussions on employment and hence on the economy of a region with very high unemployment, where the major source of jobs is, precisely, agriculture. No less important is the environmental impact and the enormous genetic resources which would be lost if this type of farming were abandoned. In order to reassure citrus fruit producers, can the Commission say: 1. what steps it intends to take to support citrus fruit production in Sicily and southern Italy; 2. whether it intends, with regard to the COM in citrus fruit, to revise the aid system by giving preference to aid per hectare, which would be more compatible with the principles of Agenda 2000, replacing the current system of aid per product sent for processing?