WRITTEN QUESTION E-0020/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Council. The outermost regions and the allocation of structural funds.
3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/159 Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (23 February 2000) Only France has so far granted aid under the Guidelines on State aid for undertakings in deprived urban areas (1). With regard to the other questions, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to her written questions P-2628/97 (2), P-3945/97 (3) and E-173/99 (4). The Guidelines in question lay down the criteria on the basis of which the Commission examines whether State aid to deprived urban areas is compatible with the common market, but they do not require Member States to grant such aid. The fact that these Guidelines have been applied to only a limited extent means that it is not at present possible to draw up a report or produce a list of good practices. (1) OJ C 146, 14. 5. 1997. (2) OJ C 82, 17. 3. 1998. (3) OJ C 18, 16. 6. 1998. (4) OJ C 341, 29. 11. 1999. (2000/C 280 E/181) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0020/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Council (20 January 2000) Subject: The outermost regions and the allocation of structural funds The programming of structural funds in the Autonomous Region of the Azores for the period 1994 to 1999 envisaged structural support worth PTE 149 200 075 million or EUR 744 207 million, equivalent to EUR 124 034 million per year, according to the latest rescheduling in 1999. Although it already reflects the upward adjustment resulting from the relevant deflator, the amount is still quoted at current prices, since it is difficult to update it to 1999 prices. In a letter to the Portuguese authorities dated 1 July 1999 the Commission proposed an indicative allocation of EUR 757 million for the Autonomous Region of the Azores for the period 2000 to 2006, equivalent to EUR 108 million per year. This represents a substantial reduction, much more than the apparent reduction of EUR 16 million, in that the value for 1994-1999 has not been updated for 1999 and does not take account of the rise in revenue in both the Azores and the Community. This Commission proposal blatantly contradicts all the promises and statements made by the Commission with regard to the outermost regions, in particular: 1. 2. 3. that the resources would be concentrated in the poorest regions; that these regions would receive more amounts per year; that the outermost regions in particular would benefit. Apparently insensitive to the reality of numbers, the Commission continues to claim that the reform of the structural funds has brought more resources to all the outermost regions. Does the Council not consider it necessary to carry out a thorough review of the impact of the reform of Community policies in the poorest and most isolated regions, such as the Autonomous Region of the Azores, in particular in the context of the application of Article 299(2) of the Treaty? C 280 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 Reply (28 March 2000) The Council is aware of the problems arising from the special situation of the outermost regions and 1. has always attached great importance to the instruments designed to reduce the structural handicaps stemming from their remote location. 2. The Structural Funds are an important instrument for action, having a positive impact on growth, convergence and the upgrading of infrastructures ü especially port and airport infrastructures ü in the outermost regions. By virtue of the new regulatory framework for the Structural Funds, the Commission, in agreement with the Member States concerned, is considering adopting the Community support frameworks over the next six months containing the strategy and priorities for the action of the Funds and of the Member State concerned, their specific objectives, the financial contribution by the Funds and the other financial resources. In any event, it is not for the Council to intervene in the process of setting up the Community Support Framework or to comment on the policies and choices of the Member States and of the Commission. 3. More specifically as regards the implementation of Article 299(2) of the Treaty, the Council can only act on a proposal from the Commission. The Council is not as yet in receipt of a Commission proposal along the lines mentioned by the Honourable Member. (2000/C 280 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0023/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 January 2000) Subject: Leader + In the draft communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for the Community initiative for rural development (Leader +), the Commission made provision for up to 50 % participation at the decision-making level within the local action groups by partners that are elected office- holders. It has emerged following discussion of the communication at the STAR management committee that an amendment has been adopted which stipulates a minimum participation by economic and social bodies of 50 % at the decision-making level. What view does the Commission take of this provision? Does it consider it to be more flexible or more restrictive towards elected office-holders? Does the Commission perhaps have certain reasons for aiming at some kind of elimination of local government, and if so, could it state them? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 February 2000) The implications for local representatives of the amended provision referred to by the Honourable Member are no different from the Commissionís original proposal, which it is intended simply to clarify. The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that this provision is in no way designed to exclude local representatives and authorities from local action groups (LAGs). The Commissionís objective is to ensure that participation by the public sector as a whole, including elected representatives, in decision making does not exceed the 50 % limit to enable the private sector to develop its own initiatives, given the bottom-up approach of Leader+ and in particular its aim of stimulating socio-economic operators to come up with ideas and become actively involved in the future of their regions