WRITTEN QUESTION E-2806/99 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Innovation and technology at ministry level.
28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/17 ECHO operates through the intermediary of non-governmental and international organisations. As regards purchases, Article 16. 4 of the framework partnership contract requires humanitarian organisations to give preference to the country of the operation or countries in that region when placing their orders. This way of doing things allows food aid to be supplied at lower prices and also allows better correspondence between the products provided and the dietary habits of the beneficiaries. Article 16. 2 of the framework contract also specifies that the humanitarian organisation must take all the necessary steps to ensure that the products are those which best meet local needs and habits. The food products supplied are often cereals (wheat, maize), oil, rice and pulses. Canned fish is entirely marginal to the food aid supplied by ECHO. (1) OJ L 166, 5. 7. 1996. (2000/C 374 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2806/99 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: Innovation and technology at ministry level (18 January 2000) One of the great challenges for the European Union is to succeed in combining its development with technological innovation, which is essential in view of the advances being made in the sector by world powers such as the United States, Japan and south-east Asia. More than ever, public opinion in general and businessmen in particular need to be made aware that innovation and technology are the most demanding issues to be tackled by society at national and regional level in the spheres of industry and research. In view of this, does the Commission consider that it should encourage the Member States of the European Union to raise to ministerial level the various agencies dealing with innovation and technology, in order to emphasise publicly and officially the important role they have to play in all Member Statesí governmental activities? Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (21 February 2000) The Commission agrees the innovation perspective deserves a more central role in public policies promoted at national and regional level. Since enterprisesí ability to innovate is the first step towards competitiveness in advanced economies, the promotion of innovation is a challenge to public action. The complexity of the innovation process means that strategies and policies affecting innovation are often handled by several different government departments, some of which may have conflicting objectives. It is therefore essential to encourage dialogue and to organise the co-ordination of the policies which depend on it. (starting with the Green paper on The policy debate on innovation launched by the Commission, innovationí (1) and subsequently the Action plan on innovationí (2)) already recommends that Member States take the necessary steps for effective co-ordination of the measures deriving from various policies to ensure their coherence in boosting innovation in our societies. These questions, naturally, are primarily matters for Member States. However, it is desirable to identify and promote good practices in this field. The Commission intends to facilitate the design and implementation of initiatives in this area setting up a joint reference framework on innovation. That will help Member States in the exchange and adoption of good practices, including appropriate internal co-ordination mechanisms of innovation-oriented enterprise policies. C 374 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 To this end the Commission has launched a benchmarking initiative of innovation performances and policies in the Community. Innovation will also be discussed at the informal meeting of industry ministers on 10 March 2000 in Nordwijk in the Netherlands. The Commission hopes the discussions will give a significant input into the Lisbon European Council of 23-24 March 2000. (1) COM(95) 688 final. (2) COM(96) 589 final. (2000/C 374 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0021/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission (19 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 Commission 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? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (15 March 2000) The Commissionís letter to the Portuguese Government of 1 July 1999 to which the Honourable Member refers did no more than set out the consequence of the mathematical application of the general criteria that it had laid down for distributing structural aid to the various regions. Accordingly, this letter contained a purely hypothetical allocation of these amounts and did not seek to replace an analysis based on other considerations that might be taken into account when preparing the Community Support Framework