WRITTEN QUESTION E-2156/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Utilisation of structural funds by the Latium Regional Council.
3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/11 the current uncertainty about the the Commission believes that the adjourned round, In spite of negotiations should cover several subjects that relate to fisheries, including tariffs, subsidies, services, investment and trade and environment. Rather than isolate discussions on fisheries, however, it is in the Community interest to deal with fisheries in the context of the negotiations of all non-agricultural products, regarding market access and other negotiating areas as appropriate. The Community believes that the Millennium Round should provide the opportunity to integrate considerations of environmental protection and sustainable utilisation of resources into all aspects of World trade organisation (WTO) negotiations, including fisheries. To ensure that the WTO contributes positively to the pursuit of sustainable development world-wide, the Community is proposing that WTO members should take the decision to enter into a commitment to ensure duty-free market access no later than the end of the new round for essentially all products exported by the least-developed countriesí (2). This will also apply to fishery products. (1) COM(99) 331 final. (2) Paragraph 10 of the Council conclusions of 25 October 1999 on the Preparation of the Third WTO Ministerial Conferenceí. (2000/C 280 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2156/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission (24 November 1999) Subject: Utilisation of structural funds by the Latium Regional Council Following the reform of the Structural Funds, it would be useful for regional councils in Italy ü in particular the Latium Regional Council ü to reorganise their affairs (inter alia taking the lead from examples of good practice identified in other Member States) so as to make it easier for local companies to gain access to such funding. Over recent years a low rate of utilisation of Community funds has been recorded in the Latium region. Given the above, would the Commission state: 1. whether it can supply details of the utilisation of structural funds to date by the Latium Regional Council, including the uses to which they have been put, in respect of Objectives 2, 3, 4 and 5b; 2. whether there are any studies or documents highlighting examples of good practice in the utilisation of structural funds in other Member States; 3. its general opinion of the utilisation of structural funds in Italy (in particular, in the Latium region), inter alia with reference to the situation in other Member States. Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (24 January 2000) According to the latest information available from the Italian authorities, the state of play regarding 1. the implementation of programmes in the Lazio region is as follows (figures at 30 June 1999) (1). Commitments Payments (%) Objective 2 1994-1996 100 Objective 2 1997-1999 Objective 3 1994-1999 Objective 4 1994-1999 Objective 5b 1994-1999 (1) Figures at 31 October 1999. 36 88 91 85 86 4 (1) 58 30 43 C 280 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 The Commission has to date issued four publications describing key projects carried out with 2. Structural Fund support (2). Other booklets on certain Member States are currently being prepared; one on the United Kingdom is scheduled for the end of 1999. In addition, information concerning the most significant projects carried out in individual Member States (ásuccess storiesí) is available on the Inforegio website (http://www. inforegio. cec. eu. int). 3. Under the partnership approach, the Commission takes every possible step to ensure that full use is made of the resources available from the Structural Funds. Although Italyís administrative procedures are somewhat slow, the country has achieved undeniable progress in implementing its structural programmes in recent years. This effort to improve matters must, however, be sustained, particularly in view of the new programming period and the new management mechanisms, which hinge on a greater degree of subsidiarity. it must be acknowledged that It should be pointed out that, in terms of its implementation capacity, the Lazio region has achieved the average rate for Italian non-Objective 1 regions. (1) (2) The figures refer to the commitments and payments made to final recipients, expressed as a percentage of the total cost of the programmes approved under each objective. The publications concerned are: Job challenge: ten innovative projects tell their storiesí ISBN 92-828-4241-X; Regional success stories: profiles of 36 projects in Europeí ISBN 92-827-6539-3; Deutschlandreise ü Projekte der EU-Regionalforderungí ISBN 92-828-2680-5; Tour de France des rØgions ü 27 projets soutenus par les Fonds structurelsí ISBN 92-828-2678-3. (2000/C 280 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2158/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission (24 November 1999) Subject: Regional development funding Is it true that the Directorate-General for Regional Policy recently rejected the Italian Governmentís 1. proposals concerning Objective 2? 2. If so, why? 3. Can the Commission state whether the new criteria for the utilisation of structural funds laid down at the Berlin summit, which are different from those in force during the period 1994-1999, are behind that rejection? 4. If so, which Member States would benefit from those new criteria, and which would be penalised? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (21 January 2000) The proposed list of areas eligible for Objective 2 sent by the Italian authorities on 1 October 1999 1. was found by the Commission to be not acceptable. The proposal was not in compliance with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation No 1260/1999 of 2. 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), under which the areas that satisfy the Communityí criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) must contain at least 50 % of the population eligible for Objective 2 assistance in each Member State. The areas put forward by the Italian authorities in line with the Communityí criteria contained only 2,2 million people (i. e. only 29,6 % of the total eligible population)