WRITTEN QUESTION E-0650/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Regional policy.
C 46 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 The following consents under Directive 90/220/EEC for placing on the market of the genetically modified parental material have been given: the varieties Compa CB and Jordi CB, by Commisison Decision 97/98/ EC (Novartis Bt-176 maize line), the variety Chardon LL, by Commission Decision 98/293/EC (AgrEvo T25 maize line), and the variety Elgina by Commission Decision 98/294/EC (Monsanto 810 maize line). On that basis, three Member States (Spain and Portugal for Compa CB; Spain for Jordi CB; Netherlands for Chardon LL and Portugal for Elgina) have notified to the Commission the acceptance of these varieties in their national catalogues in accordance with the provisions of Directive 70/457/EEC for marketing of seeds within their respective territories. Under the acceptance procedures carried out by the three Member States concerned, material of these varieties has been subjected to field trials. The free marketing of such seeds throughout the Community would require, under the same Directive, the inclusion of the four varieties in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species. However, the initial acceptance of the varieties Compa CB and Elgina in the Portuguese national catalogue was suspended by a decision of the ministry of Agriculture of Portugal dated 27 December 1999. As a consequence the variety Elgina is currently no longer eligible either for inclusion in the common catalogue or for marketing in the Community. This does not apply to the variety Compa CB, because of its acceptance by Spain. At present, discussions with Member States are going on, in order to provide a coherent solution in respect of all aspects relating to the marketing of GMO products. Therefore, the Commission has at this stage not completed the examination of the qualification of the remaining three varieties for inclusion in the common catalogue. The standing committee on seeds and propagating material for agriculture, horticulture and forestry has been informed accordingly. (1) OJ L 117, 8. 5. 1990. (2) OJ L 225, 12. 10. 1970. (2001/C 46 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0650/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission (9 March 2000) Subject: Regional policy Addressing the Committee on Regional Policy, Mr Landaburu recently stated that if there is to be improvement and greater efficiency it is essential to modify or broaden the criteria, rather than simply continuing to use GDP per inhabitant as the sole indicator. What other criteria does he believe should be included? Has a decision already been taken on these new indicators? When is any such decision expected to be adopted? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (31 March 2000) Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) refers to per capita gross domestic product (GDP). The Article states that the regions covered by Objective 1 (those whose development is lagging behind) are NUTS level II regions whose per capita GDP, measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of Community figures for the last three years available on 26 March 1999, is less than 75 % of the Community average. 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/27 The GDP of a region is a global indicator of its production activity. It is therefore a suitable instrument for measuring regionsí levels of economic development. Moreover, since 1998 the per capita GDP expressed in purchasing power parity and calculated at NUTS level II has been used to determine whether regions may be covered by Objective 1. In accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the aforementioned Regulation, the list of regions covered by Objective 1 was drawn up by the Commission on 1 July 1999. This list will remain valid until 31 December 2006. With this in mind, for the 2000-2006 period the Commission does not intend to propose eligibility criteria for Objective 1 different to those adopted by the Council and Parliament. In addition, the distribution of total appropriations between regions eligible under Objective 1 is based on criteria other than the regionís per capita GDP, in particular the unemployment rate. The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that, in the context of Objective 2 (regions under conversion), Article 4 of the same Regulation envisages a number of criteria in addition to the per capita GDP which may be used to justify the eligibility of the proposed areas. (1) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2001/C 46 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0655/00 by Michel Rocard (PSE) to the Council (13 March 2000) Subject: International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention on the áworst forms of child labourí (No 182) In June 1999 the ILO adopted a new convention on áthe worst forms of child labour (No 182)í. Which Member States have ratified this convention? Does the current Council Presidency envisage measures to encourage all the Member States to ratify this convention as soon as possible? Reply (10 July 2000) At the end of March 2000, the United Kingdom, Finland and Ireland had ratified the Convention in question. In addition, two other European States and seven non-European States had ratified it. In Spain, the instrument of ratification is before the Parliament. The Presidency underlines the importance of this Convention being ratified by as many States as possible, recalling its exceptional unanimous adoption by the International Labour Conference in 1999, and its significant role in the efforts to improve the situation of the children of the world. Consequently the Presidency, although it is aware of the differences between the Member States as regards their ratification procedures, will use the means at its disposal to underline for them the necessity and importance of the ratification as soon as possible of this important Convention