WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1151/98 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. NUTS II
22. 12. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 402/83 does not consider from the information given by the Honourable Member that there is a basis for it to intervene in this matter which falls under national competence. 4. With respect to the impact on the environment this is usually assessed through an environmental impact assessment according to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1). Projects concerning the transmission of electrical energy are included in Annex II to this Directive which means that an EIA is not mandatory, but is carried out when Member States consider it necessary as a result of its size, location, etc. A recent modification of this Directive by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) renders such an assessment mandatory as of 14 March 1999 for construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kilowatt or more and a length of more than 15 kilometres. The Commission does not dispose of information on the technical characteristics of this project and related environmental assessments. (1) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14. 3. 1997. (98/C 402/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1151/98 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (24 April 1998) Subject: NUTS II If per capita GDP at NUTS II level is acceptable for Objective 1 but not for Objective 2 at NUTS III level, why is per capita GDP acceptable for state aids at NUTS III level? Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 May 1998) Gross domestic product (GDP) is a broad measure of regional prosperity and development and therefore an appropriate indicator for the selection of the least developed objective 1 regions. It is particularly relevant to large regions (nomenclature of territorial statistical units (NUTS) II Level) where commuter flows tend to be limited, so that the GDP generated within the region can be attributed to the resident population. On both these counts, GDP is an inappropriate indicator for the new objective 2 proposed by the Commission. The areas potentially eligible for this objective are those seriously affected by economic restructuring which is not directly related to their level of prosperity. Such areas experience other problems indicated by the rate of unemployment, the levels of industrial employment, the level and development of activity in agriculture and in the fishing industry and the degree of social exclusion. Objective 2 areas would also typically be significantly smaller than the large less developed regions eligible for objective 1. For smaller areas, the GDP statistic is often a poor representation of the level of prosperity because of the effects of commuter flows. Thus otherwise prosperous residential areas may have low levels of GDP per head of population because the enterprises responsible for wealth creation are located in an adjacent region. As regards eligibility for state aids, according to the new guidelines, GDP per capita at NUTS III level will not be used for the selection of assisted areas under Article 92, 3c of the EC Treaty but, together with the unemployment rate, will serve to calculate the population ceiling of eligible areas for each Member State. GDP per capita is thus used as a general indicator of the incidence of problem regions in a Member State, while the actual selection of areas would be based on a range of other criteria. Where GDP per capita is used to decide on assisted areas, i. e. for the least developed areas under Article 92, 3a of the EC Treaty, this decision is again based on data at NUTS II level