WRITTEN QUESTION E-0592/00 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission. The Moluccas.
C 46 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 (2001/C 46 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (29 February 2000) Subject: European sustainable transport policy In terms of identifying the major cities along the T-TEN priority project routes, can the Commission say how such decisions were made and who was involved in this decision-making process? What criteria were used and who were the winners and losers in such decisions? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (13 April 2000) The Trans-European Network-transport (TEN-T) guidelines identify the key routes of trans-European importance, which include those routes covered by the TEN-T priority projects. The guidelines contain a set of maps, outlining all these key routes. Where cities are named on these maps, they are included only as reference points, and many cities have access to the TEN-T network, without appearing on the maps. Over 1990-1992, the Commission set up a number of working parties, with representatives from each Member State, which developed a set of outline plans. These plans identified the routes of trans-European importance, taking account of traffic flows and the need to link peripheral regions with the centre of the Community. The working parties did not specifically identify cities along the TEN-T routes. These outline plans were then incorporated into the TEN-T guidelines, adopted by the Council and Parliament under the co-decision procedure in 1996 (1). The Commission is currently considering how best to take forward these issues in its report on the revision of the TEN-T guidelines that will be submitted to the Council and Parliament this summer. (1) OJ C 17, 22. 1. 1996. (2001/C 46 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0592/00 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission (29 February 2000) Subject: The Moluccas The second emergency aid programme for the Moluccas (€ 900 000) will end in late February. The Commission is now working on a third programme. Up to now this aid has been channelled through French and Belgian NGOs. Is the Commission prepared to involve Dutch NGOs which consult with Moluccan organisations in the Netherlands with diverse links with the Moluccas in order to achieve a peaceful, stabilising effect? Will the Commission also ensure that structural aid, which it has given to Novib and Oxfam UK, for example, and which cannot be spent because of the conflicts, can be spent on reconciliation and preventive action in the context of emergency aid and rehabilitation? Can the Commission inform us of the additional support for developing Indonesia? From which category will any appropriations be taken? Is it prepared to include in the aid package the possibility of contacts and exchanges between the capital, Djakarta, and the conflict regions such as the Moluccas and Aceh? 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/17 Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (10 April 2000) The Commisionís Humanitarian Office (ECHO) intervenes in the Moluccas in order to ease the welfare of the inhabitants. In 1999, € 1 million were committed for two projects, covering medical supplies, water and sanitation, and food. At present, an aid project covering the same areas is under way for an amount of € 900 000. The Commission is examining the continuation of these projects for another six months for food, medical and water and sanitation assistance to the displaced people. It is expected that further funds will be committed for this purpose. The Commission has not received any project proposals for humanitarian assistance to Moluccasí displaced people from Dutch non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The Commission is also particularly attentive regarding the tens of thousands of displaced people in northern Molucca. As to the question whether unused funds for previous or continuing projects can be re-directed to support reconciliation and preventive action, it is clear that such a re-attribution exceeding the objectives of the original project is not possible, according to the legal basis of the Commissionís action. through the available co-operation instruments, The recently published communication on developing closer relations with Indonesia (1), outlines the Commissionís pro-active development strategy, understood as a long-term and comprehensive approach. It includes contributions, to the social and economic development of Indonesia. Particular attention is paid to poverty alleviation and to the sustainable management of natural resources (forestry-co-operation is already one of the key areas). It also includes the establishment of a comprehensive political dialogue to support the anchoring of democracy, the promotion of human rights, the rule of law, good governance, internal dialogue and reconciliation within the country, and the intensification of Community trade and investment relations with Indonesia. The document calls on all the Communityís partners to support the process of restructuring Indonesiaís economy. For the 1995-1999 period, Community funding for Indonesia ü from the general Asia development budget line ü amounted to less than € 20 million a year, to which some funding for human rights projects should be added, available through the Asia human rights budget line. The Commission is committed to increase its financial input for Indonesia, in line with the above priorities. (1) COM(2000) 50. (2001/C 46 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0605/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission (3 March 2000) Subject: Possibility of granting the outermost regions permanent Objective 1 status The outermost regions of their geographical remoteness and the distances separating them from the nerve centres of the respective Community countries to which they belong. the European Union face particularly severe difficulties because of Because of this, and the fact that some of the outermost regions of the EU may exceed the ceiling of 75 % of average Community income, which would exclude them from the group of regions covered by Objective 1, with the risk that they would end up rejoining that group as a result of lack of assistance, it has been suggested that the outermost regions should be considered as belonging by definition to Objective 1