WRITTEN QUESTION E-0691/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Application of the Leader programme in the Autonomous Region of the Azores.
26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/87 central banks. Insurance companies operate mainly on the long-term capital markets (bonds and shares) and accordingly are less sensitive to monetary policy decisions. Prudential regulation of insurance companies is based on specific techniques, very different from the rules applied to banking. These facts explain why no central bank in the Community should be responsible for the prudential supervision of insurance companies. The emergence of financial conglomerates combining credit, investment and insurance firms obviously challenges the traditionally sectoral organisation of prudential supervision of the finance industry. Community legislation, which has liberalised the exchange of prudential information between regulatory authorities, has encouraged closer cooperation between the three sectors. In a number of countries, áintegratedí authorities have been put in place to ensure prudential supervision of the three sectors, namely, the banks, investment services and insurance companies. It should be noted that these authorities are framework encourages the exchange of clearly distinct information with the monetary authority. from the central banks, although the legal In its Communication Implementing the framework for financial markets: action planí (1), the Commission undertook to propose a prudential framework to ensure effective supervision of financial conglomerates. For that purpose, a joint technical group consisting of experts from the three sectors was set up to draft proposals in the fields of capital adequacy; intra-group transactions and risk concentration; the evaluation of shareholders and directors, in particular at the time of merger-acquisition operations; the exchange of information between competent authorities; and the identification of a coordinator from among the supervision authorities and the definition of his tasks. At the same time, the Commission is the originator of the conference of supervision authorities which groups the various European bodies with responsibility for the rules and prudential supervision of the three sectors (2). By encouraging concerted action on matters of common interest, the Commission hopes to take into account the multi-sectoral dimension of financial conglomerates and to maximise cooperation between the various prudential supervision techniques. The Commission feels that it is unnecessary to introduce into the Treaty a legal basis conferring on the ECB certain specific tasks in the prudential supervision of insurance. (1) COM(1999) 232 final. (2) Banking: Banking Advisory Committee, Banking Supervisory Committee, Contact Group. Securities: Forum of European Securities Commissions (FESCO). Insurance: European Insurance Committee, Conference of Insurance Supervisors. (2001/C 26 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0691/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission (9 March 2000) Subject: Application of the Leader programme in the Autonomous Region of the Azores On 18 February 2000, at the invitation of Adeliaçor I had the opportunity of visiting a series of projects developed by this association with financial support from the Leader programme in the rural district of Capelo on the island of Faial in the Autonomous Region of the Azores, where many of the 293 projects already approved by this association have been developed. The projects visited included a vast range of activities, for example the rebuilding of homes destroyed by the Capelinhos volcano for the development of rural tourism projects, improvements in small tourist centres, the restoration of buildings for the promotion of handicrafts, the construction of viewing points and the preparation of waymarked routes for walkers, recreational centres for children, tourist leaflets and videocassettes, the marketing of agricultural products, etc. C 26 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 It is no exaggeration to say that the Leader programme is changing the face of this rural district and making an exemplary contribution to improving its quality of life and economic development. In this context I had the opportunity of confirming that the Leader programme is exceptionally successful and it is hard to imagine a more suitable instrument for rural development. However, I noted a degree of apprehension on the part of the leaders of Adeliaçor on two fundamental points, firstly the timetable for the application of the Leader+ programme there, and secondly the deadlines for payment. Could the Commission indicate the foreseeable timetable for all the measures needed to ensure that the Leader+ programme is introduced there (approval of the programme, deadlines for the submission of applications by the Member States and the launching of tendering procedures on the spot)? Does the Commission not consider it would be useful to carry out a detailed study of the channels and financial formalities for the structural funds involved from the moment the money leaves the Communityís coffers until it reaches the promoter of individual projects, as well as the actual deadlines, so as to make it clear why payments are systematically delayed? In any event, can the Commission say what level of priority it considers should be given to the application of the Leader+ programme in the most remote areas of the outermost regions? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 April 2000) The expected timetable for implementing Leader+ is as follows: once the lawyer-linguists have examined the text of the guidelines, formally adopt it and the Leader+ communication containing the final version will be published in the Official Journal; Member States will then have six months to submit their programmes to the Commission, which in turn will have a maximum of five months to approve them; once the programmes have been approved, Member States will have a maximum of two years to select beneficiaries. the Commission will Having noted a number of implementation problems with Leader II, particularly in relation to the complexity of certain financial channels, the Commission states in the draft Leader+ communication that it áfavours the use of global grantsí where this aims for simplification, without prejudicing the principle of sound and rigorous management. In addition, programmes will be required to describe áthe management arrangements and the procedures for the mobilisation and circulation of financial flows, including the Community funding, as far as the final beneficiary. The ex-ante evaluation must confirm that the implementing arrangements are appropriateí. All rural areas in the Community will be eligible for Leader+, including the remotest rural areas of the outermost regions. Member States will be free to opt for specific zoning of Leader+ if necessary, depending on the strategy chosen. (2001/C 26 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0693/00 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (3 March 2000) Subject: Effective depollution of the Thermaic Gulf ü environmental conditions for biological treatment One of the biggest infrastructure projects for the protection of the environment in the Thessaloniki region, financed by the Cohesion Fund, threatens not to meet the environmental protection standards for which it was designed. The project ü Extension and completion of a plant for the biological treatment of sewage in Thessaloniki ü Stage IIí ü is at risk of not being completed, being financially unsustainable and, above all, of creating a second source of pollution and eutrophication, thereby defeating the object of the exercise. The legitimate concerns that the project falls short of the environmental standards required to clean up the