WRITTEN QUESTION E-1897/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Leader II (1994-1999).
C 219 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 include a technical dossier, supplying the information necessary to evaluate foreseeable risks, whether immediate or delayed, and an evaluation of the impact and risks posed by the GMOs to human health or the environment. The competent authority evaluates this information and, if satisfied that the requirements of the Directive have been met, forwards the information to all Member States for their opinions. The role of the Commission is to facilitate the exchange of information. The release can only proceed with written consent of the competent authority of the Member State. If information becomes available subsequently to the competent authority which could have significant consequences for the risks posed by the release, the competent authority may require the notifier to modify the conditions of the deliberate release, or suspend or terminate it. (1) OJ L 117, 8. 5. 1990. (2000/C 219 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1897/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 October 1999) Subject: Leader II (1994-1999) The total amount allocated to Italy from the Communityís structural funds for the Leader II Community initiative on rural development to approx. LIT 546 billion). for the period 1994-1999 is ECU 282 million (equal Will the Commission state what agencies (public or private), institutions, companies, cooperatives and individuals have been allocated funding under Leader II (specifying whether payments have already been made) and how much each of them has been allocated? Has it checked how the amounts have actually been used and whether the proposed measures have been successfully implemented? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 November 1999) For the period 1994-1999 an overall Community contribution of €329 million was allocated to Italy for the purposes of the Leader II Community Initiative. A notable feature of Leader II is its decentralised implementation (in line with the competences of each local collective body) under the subsidiarity principle. As indicated in the Notice to Member States on Leader II (1) each rural innovation programme of each LAG (local action group: combination of public and private partners implementing a multisectoral development strategy in a rural area forming a local community) can span a number of fields of action and categories of recipient. The Commission does not take part in selection of the LAGs, in Italy numbering 200, and approval of the local action plans to be implemented by them falls to the Member State, specifically to the decision-making partnership at regional level. The individual projects are selected by the LAGs with due respect for Community policies and the eligibility criteria set in the Structural Fund provisions. The detailed information sought by the Honourable Member cannot therefore be provided at this time. 1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/45 The recipients under Leader II programmes are for the most part rural SMEs, agricultural enterprises, local communities (notably communes) and the LAGs themselves as promoters of the innovation with which Leader II is concerned. It will be possible to provide the Honourable member with very detailed information on the full range of assistance granted once Leader II has come to an end. (1) OJ C 180, 1. 7. 1994. (2000/C 219 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1914/99 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 October 1999) Subject: Implementation of Regulation on the registration and operation of certain types of subsonic jet aeroplanes Is there any truth in the report in the Financial Times of 10 September 1999 on the state of 1. negotiations with the USA on authorising aircraft with hushkits? 2. Is the Commission aware that on 16 September 1998 the European Parliament adopted by a qualified majority a Regulation banning such modified American aircraft from European airports as from 1 April 2002 (Council Regulation 925/1999 (1) of 29 April 1999)? 3. Why did this Regulation not enter into force on the agreed date, thereby creating additional opportunities to import these noisy American aircraft into Europe? What legal basis did the Commission have for doing this? The visit by Commissioner Kinnock to the Committee on the Environment in July 1999 certainly did not provide any legal basis for deferring or amending the Regulation! Is the Commission aware how much is being spent in the Member States on acoustic barriers and the 4. insulation around national and regional airports (remedial action) and how strong an interest authorities and the public therefore have in ensuring that aircraft are quiet (action at source)? 5. Why is the American aircraft-manufacturing industry being treated with kid gloves? Apparently, even the slightest protest from the United States is sufficient to prevent European rules from being implemen- ted, or to secure their postponement. Can an undertaking be given that the European Regulation (which is directly applicable) will enter 6. into force without delay? (1) OJ L 115, 4. 5. 1999, p. 1. Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (3 December 1999) 1. The article in the Financial Times of 10 September 1999 reflects the position taken by the American Administration during a hearing on 9 September 1999 in a committee of the American Congress on the hushkits regulation and does not reflect the Commissionís assessment of the discussions with the United to the other Community institutions of States. This is set out in its communication (1) in detail