WRITTEN QUESTION E-0059/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The relationship between the Structural Funds and the non-implementation of EU environmental legislation by a Member State.
28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/19 Thus the Regional Development Plan presented by the Portuguese authorities on 13 October 1999 proposed allocating to the autonomous region of the Azores, under the regional operational programme to be applied, a total of EUR 848 million from the Structural Funds, plus a sum still to be determined for aid from Cohesion Fund. The Commission has no objection to the Portuguese proposal. As requested by the Cologne European Council, the Commission will submit to the Council a report on measures to implement the new Article 299(2) (ex Article 227) of the EC Treaty concerning the outermost regions. This report should be submitted to the Council during the Portuguese Presidency and will also be forwarded to Parliament. (2000/C 374 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0040/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission (19 January 2000) Subject: Cuts in the Poseima budget In its letter of amendment No 4 to the PDB for 2000, the Commission increases the appropriations for other programmes to the detriment of Poseima, claiming that budgetary requirements for the latter are declining. However, according to the report on the outermost regions which it adopted on 22 December 1999, spending on Poseima in 1999 exceeded the initial budget. What are the Commissionís grounds for cutting this budget? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 March 2000) The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commissionís answers to his Written Question E-0038/00 (1) and to Written Question E-2403/99 by Mrs Fiqueiredo (2). (1) OJ C 303 E, 24. 10. 2000. (2) OJ C 225 E, 8. 8. 2000, p. 125. (2000/C 374 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0059/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission (20 January 2000) Subject: The relationship between the Structural Funds and the non-implementation of EU environmental legislation by a Member State Given that, on 23 June 1999, Mrs Wulf-Mathies and Mrs Bjerregaard, then Commissioners, wrote to Member State governments warning them of possible delays in approval of programmes and projects if, in particular, notifications of protected sites under the Habitats and Wild Bird Directives had not been received, that Court proceedings had been started against Ireland in February 1999 because of unsatisfac- tory notification and delays in Irelandís designation of protected sites under the Habitats Directive and that the Commission was also considering infringement proceedings against Ireland under the Wild Birds Directive, what is the likelihood that the Commission will not proceed with the approval of plans and operational programmes from Ireland, and/or what is the likelihood that EU funding will be suspended, in part or in whole, as a result of Irelandís perceived non-compliance on these issues? C 374 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (14 March 2000) The letter mentioned by the Honourable Member has been followed up or is currently being followed up in the assessment by the Commission of the admissibility of the plans submitted by the Member States for the programming period 2000-2006 and in the negotiations with the regions on the programmes. The Commission assesses each plan or programme as to its individual content, including from the point of view of the requirements of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2), the Habitats and Birds Directives. If certain elements of information are missing, the authority concerned (often through the Member State) must give a firm commitment that any possible negative impact on sites protected or to be protected under Natura 2000 will be properly assessed and appropriate measures will be taken. If needed, a time path for this commitment has to be established in the programme. Subsequently, the progress of the programme becomes conditional on the time path being followed. The Commission regrets the lack of compliance of some Member States, including Ireland, with the Habitats and Birds Directives. Appropriate action is being taken as is evidenced by the Court proceedings that have already been initiated. The negotiations with the Irish authorities on the plan for structural funding 2000-2006 are progressing according to the time schedule laid out in the general structural funds Regulation and the Commission is confident that the issues concerning the Habitats and the Birds Directives will find a satisfactory solution. (1) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992. (2) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979. (2000/C 374 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0073/00 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (24 January 2000) Subject: Sewage sludge in animal feedstuffs Can the Commission allay EU consumersí fears that there is absolutely no risk to human health following alleged reports of animal feedingstuffs being contaminated by sewage sludge? Is the Commission also certain that diseases which threaten human health cannot be passed from any contaminated feed back into the human food chain? Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (3 March 2000) The animal nutrition sector is undoubtedly an important factor in obtaining healthy food products from animal origin. The use of sewage sludge as feed material is not acceptable. Even after processing under a high-pressure, high-temperature treatment, due to the presence of heavy metals, sewage sludge might present a risk for public and animal health if used as feedingstuff. Therefore, in order to deliver a high level of public health and consumer protection, Commission Decision 91/516/EEC of 9 September 1991, establishing a list of ingredients whose use is prohibited in compound feedingstuffs (1), specifically prohibits the use of sludge from sewage plants treating wastewaters