WRITTEN QUESTION P-2318/99 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Funding under the Leader + programme and adoption of Leader + final guidelines.
18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/163 The hucho is a freshwater fish, although under marine conditions it has a much higher growth potential; this is why efforts are being made to import it into Finland. If reared in freshwater, fish must be kept in open pond systems with water supplies from surface water, in order to obtain high quality products. If the hucho seed fish are kept at a constant moderate temperature in groundwater the spawn is of less value. In Germany and Austria these open systems for breeding hucho are regularly monitored by the health inspectorates and tested for disease. Is it possible to obtain a derogation for importing into Finland hucho or hucho fry which are not bred in closed systems? What certificates or documentary evidence would be required? Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1999) The conditions for intra-Community trade in live fish for breeding purposes are laid down in Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products (1). The purpose of this Directive is to prevent the spreading of fish diseases during commercial transactions. Under Directive 91/67/EEC, Finland has obtained the status of a disease free country with regard to infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS), two main diseases in salmonid species. Any Member State wanting to export salmonid species to Finland must give the guarantees laid down in Community legislation about the absence of these diseases. Since hucho is a member of the salmonid family, any export of this species to a disease free country is subject to that condition. No derogation to that principle is foreseen. No specific Community import requirements for salmonids from third countries have been established. Directive 91/67/EEC lays down that, under such conditions, Member States shall ensure that imports are subject to conditions at least equivalent to those applying to the production and placing on the market of Community products. (1) OJ L 46, 19. 2. 1991. (2000/C 203 E/210) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2318/99 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Funding under the Leader + programme and adoption of Leader + final guidelines While I appreciate the fact that the amount of Structural Funds available to Ireland for the period 2000- 2006 is lower than for the previous period, can the Commission justify the severe cuts it has made in a model programme, such as Leader, which has proven its worth in fostering partnership, local ownership, professionalism, social inclusion and the creation of jobs and local economic growth throughout Ireland? When will the guidelines for the Leader+ programme be adopted in their final form and published? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 December 1999) The Commission agrees that under Leader I and II many rural communities have been given the opportunity to develop and put into practice integrated and innovative approaches to stimulate the development of the local rural economy, achieving very positive results. In the Commissionís view many of C 203 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 the experiences gained under Leader I and II are now ready to be passed into the mainstream rural development programmes currently being prepared by Member States. The new Initiative Leader + will help support excellence and innovation and will complement the mainstream programmes by promoting integrated plans conceived and implemented by active partnerships operating at local level. The combina- tion between them can contribute to the creation of synergies, in an integrated approach for the development of the economy of Irish rural areas. The Commission has communicated the draft Leader + guidelines to, amongst others, the STAR committee and the Parliament. The final version will be adopted on receipt of the opinion of the STAR committee and the views of the Parliament. This is likely to be early in the year 2000. (2000/C 203 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2319/99 by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Liberalisation of the telecoms sector in Sweden Sweden has far-reaching plans to introduce legislation forcing all public- and private-sector owners of mobile telephone networks to allow service providers access to their infrastructures, in which they have invested heavily and which they have developed in a competitive environment. Does the Commission intend to allow such an infringement of the principle of competition on an equal footing to take place? How does it plan to ensure that willingness to invest in mobile network capacity remains as high as it has been, in view of the major new requirements stemming from the introduction of UMTS? What view does it take of regulating the distinction between network operators and service providers in this way? Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (13 December 1999) The Commission is aware of the proposals in Sweden for legislation governing access by service providers to the networks of licensed mobile operators. However, it understands that the final scope and conditions of such legislation have yet to be determined. The Commission recognises that regulation both at Community and Member State level should be kept to a minimum. As stated in the Commissionís recent communication on the 1999 communications review ( Towards a new framework for electronic communications infrastructure and associated servicesí) (1), an áunduly restrictive regulatory system risks acting as a brake on investment or may fail to stimulate sustainable investment. Much of the current regulatory framework addresses the need to create a competitive market, for example by requiring incumbent operators to meet all requests for access to and interconnection with its network. Once a competitive market is effectively established, many of these provisions should no longer be necessary and it would therefore be sufficient to rely mainly on the application of the competition rules of the EC Treatyí. the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (2) provides in Article 4(2) The current Directive 97/33/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application áorganisations of authorised to provide public telecommunications networks and publicly available telecommunications services as set out in Annex I which have significant market power shall meet all reasonable requests for access to the network including access at points other than the network termination points offered to the majority of end usersí. Under this provision, Member States may regulate for fair and reasonable access to that