title: Регламент (ЕО) № 2495/97 на Комисията от 12 декември 1997 година относно изменение на Регламент (ЕО) № 1460/96 за установяване на подробни правила за изпълнение на преференциалните търговски мерки, прилагани за някои стоки, получени след преработката на селскостопански продукти, предвидени в член 7 от Регламент (ЕО) № 3448/93 на Съвета

eurovoc_concepts:
agricultural product
agro-industry
generalised preferences
originating product
tariff quota
third country

formats: html pdf print xhtml

text: 03/т. 23 BG Официален вестник на Европейския съюз 105 31997R2495 L 343/18 ОФИЦИАЛЕН ВЕСТНИК НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИТЕ ОБЩНОСТИ 13. 12. 1997 РЕГЛАМЕНТ (ЕО) № 2495/97 НА КОМИСИЯТА от 12 декември 1997 година относно изменение на Регламент (ЕО) № 1460/96 за установяване на подробни правила за изпълнение на преференциалните търговски мерки, прилагани за някои стоки, получени след преработката на селскостопански продукти, предвидени в член 7 от Регламент (ЕО) № 3448/93 на Съвета КОМИСИЯТА НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИТЕ ОБЩНОСТИ, като взе предвид Договора за създаване на Европейската общност, като взе предвид Регламент (ЕО) № 3448/93 на Съвета от 6 декем- ври 1993 г. за определяне на търговския режим, приложим за някои стоки, получени след преработката на селскостопански продукти (1), и по-специално член 8, параграф 3, първа алинея от него, като има предвид, че член 10 от Регламент (ЕО) № 1460/96 на Комисията от 25 юли 1996 г. за установяване на подробни пра- вила за изпълнение на преференциалните търговски споразумения, прилагани за някои стоки, получени след преработката на селско- стопански продукти, предвидени в член 7 от Регламент (ЕО) № 3448/93 на Съвета (2), установява правила за управление на тарифни квоти; като има предвид, че след приемането на въпросния регламент Рег- ламент (ЕИО) № 2454/93 на Комисията от 2 юли 1993 г. относно установяване на разпоредби за изпълнението на Регламент (ЕИО) № 2913/92 на Съвета за създаване на Митнически кодекс на Общността (3), последно изменен с Регламент (ЕО) № 1427/97 (4), обединява правилата относно управлението на тарифните квоти, които трябва да бъдат използвани, следвайки хронологичния ред на датите на приемане на декларациите за пускане в свободно движение; като има предвид, че сегашният текст на член 10 от Рег- ламент (ЕО) № 1460/96 на Комисията следва да бъде заменен от препратка (ЕО) № 2454/93; към членове 308а—308в Регламент от като има предвид че мерките, предвидени в настоящия регламент, са в съответствие със становището на Управителния комитет за хоризонтални въпроси, засягащи търговията с преработени селско- стопански продукти, които не са изброени в приложение II, ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ: Член 1 Член 10 от Регламент (ЕО) № 1460/96 се заменя със следния текст: „Член 10 Тарифните квоти, включени в настоящия регламент, се управляват от Комисията в съответствие с разпоредбите на членове 308а—308в от Регламент (ЕИО) № 2454/93 на Комисията (*). (*) ОВ L 253, 11. 10. 1993 г. , стр. 1. “ Член 2 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила на третия ден след публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейските общности. Той се прилага от 1 януари 1998 г. Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави-членки. Съставено в Брюксел на 12 декември 1997 година. За Комисията Martin BANGEMANN Член на Комисията (1) ОВ L 318, 20. 12. 1993 г. , стр. 18. (2) ОВ L 187, 26. 7. 1996 г. , стр. 18. (3) ОВ L 253, 11. 10. 1993 г. , стр. 1. (4) ОВ L 196, 24. 7. 1997 г. , стр. 31


title: PREGUNTA ESCRITA n. 3953/97 del Marjo MATIKAINEN-KALLSTRÖM a la Comisión. Solicitudes de ayudas con cargo a los programas de política regional y de investigación

eurovoc_concepts:
EU regional policy
administrative formalities
administrative transparency
development plan
operational programme
research and development
research programme

formats: html pdf print

text: C 187/100 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 16. 6. 98 ¿Hasta que· punto es cierta esta informacio·n y que· piensa hacer la Comisio·n Europea para que tanto e·ste como otros institutos gocen de mayor libertad de opinio·n y de actuacio·n? Respuesta del Sr. Van den Broek en nombre de la Comisio·n (19 de enero de 1998) La Comisio·n comparte la preocupacio·n de Su Sen(cid:152)or(cid:14)·a (similar a la del Consejo de Europa y de las organizaciones internacionales de derechos humanos) por el respeto de la libertad de expresio·n y asociacio·n en Croacia. La Comisio·n considera que las recientes acciones legislativas y judiciales del Gobierno croata contra la sociedad civil y las organizaciones de derechos humanos, como el Open Society Institute, y contra los medios de comunicacio·n independientes, crean graves obsta·culos al desarrollo de una democracia pluralista y a la proteccio·n de los derechos humanos. El respeto de derechos humanos es una de las condiciones para la mejora de las relaciones entre Croacia y la Comunidad. En efecto, la libertad de expresio·n y asociacio·n figura expresamente entre las conclusiones del Consejo de 29 de abril de 1997, que establecen las condiciones para el desarrollo de relaciones bilaterales con los pa(cid:14)·ses concernidos por el enfoque regional de la Comunidad en el sudeste de Europa. La actitud de Croacia hacia las organizaciones no gubernamentales que promueven los derechos humanos y la libertad de expresio·n debe situarse en este contexto. (98/C 187/151) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-3953/97 de Marjo Matikainen-Kallstro¤m (PPE) a la Comisio·n (12 de diciembre de 1997) Asunto: Solicitudes de ayudas con cargo a los programas de pol(cid:14)·tica regional y de investigacio·n En la pregunta escrita formulada a la Comisio·n el 17. 9. 1997 (E-2961/97) (1) se solicitaba una reduccio·n de la burocracia en la pol(cid:14)·tica regional y de investigacio·n de la UE. Una vez recibida su respuesta, ¿podr(cid:14)·a indicar la Comisio·n cua·les son los motivos ma·s frecuentes a la hora de rechazar los proyectos? (1) DO C 134 de 30. 4. 1998, p. 44. Respuesta de la Sra. Wulf-Mathies en nombre de la Comisio·n (27 de enero de 1998) Los principales criterios empleados para evaluar las propuestas de proyecto de los programas de investigacio·n y desarrollo tecnolo·gicos (I+D) de la Comunidad son la calidad cient(cid:14)·fica y te·cnica, la innovacio·n, la colaboracio·n supranacional (valor an(cid:152)adido europeo), la rentabilidad, la competencia de los autores de las propuestas y las perspectivas de divulgacio·n y explotacio·n de los resultados. Adema·s, cada programa espec(cid:14)·fico fija en su plan de trabajo los criterios fundamentales para lograr sus objetivos concretos. Debido a la limitacio·n de los fondos disponibles y a la gran competencia por obtenerlos se rechazan como norma general las propuestas que no cumplen los niveles exigidos para cada uno de estos criterios (los cuales se hacen pu·blicos). El motivo ma·s frecuente de rechazo de las propuestas en la mayor(cid:14)·a de los programas es la falta de innovacio·n cualitativa cient(cid:14)·fica y te·cnica. La informacio·n sobre las razones ma·s frecuentes de rechazo de proyectos de I+D de los programas de los Fondos estructurales deber(cid:14)·a recabarse de los propios Estados miembros, puesto que aplican sus propios procedimientos espec(cid:14)·ficos de seleccio·n de proyectos a trave·s de los comite·s de seguimiento. Asimismo, los criterios de seleccio·n de proyectos var(cid:14)·an en funcio·n de las prioridades concretas del programa en cuestio·n


title: VERORDENING (EG) Nr. 2488/97 VAN DE COMMISSIE van 12 december 1997 betreffende de afgifte van uitvoercertificaten van het B-stelsel in de sector groenten en fruit

eurovoc_concepts:
citrus fruit
export licence
nut
pip fruit


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE Nr. 3938/97 von Heidi HAUTALA an die Kommission. Schutz des Naturlachses in der Ostsee

eurovoc_concepts:
Baltic Sea
authorised catch
catch by species
fishing net
fishing rights
protection of animal life
sea fish
sea fishing

text: C 196/38 DE Amtsblatt der Europa¤ischen Gemeinschaften 22. 6. 98 (98/C 196/53) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-3938/97 von Heidi Hautala (V) an die Kommission (12. Dezember 1997) Betrifft: Schutz des Naturlachses in der Ostsee Laut einer Untersuchung der finnischen Wild- und Fischwirtschafts-Forschungsbeho¤rde war 1996 beim Ostsee-Naturlachs in dem Flu(cid:223) Tornio die seit 30 Jahren ho¤chste Fortpflanzungsrate zu verzeichnen. Die Forscher sehen den Grund fu¤r dieses gute Ergebnis in den Einschra¤nkungen der Treibnetzfischerei im Ostseeraum. Das Ergebnis kann sich jedoch plo¤tzlich aus verschiedenen Gru¤nden verschlechtern, und deshalb ist in den na¤chsten fu¤nf bis acht Jahren eine hohe Fortpflanzungsrate notwendig. In der Arbeitsgruppe des finnischen Ministeriums fu¤r Land- und Forstwirtschaft ist eine Lockerung der Einschra¤nkungen vorgeschlagen worden, u. a. durch einen zwei Wochen fru¤heren Beginn der Seefischereisaison und durch den U¤ bergang zu Fangquoten pro Schiff bei gleichzeitiger vollsta¤ndiger Aufhebung der zeitlichen Begrenzungen. Nach Aussagen der Sachversta¤ndigen, die sich mit der Fischwanderung bescha¤ftigt haben, wa¤ren diese Ma(cid:223)nahmen fu¤r den Naturlachs katastrophal. Welche Position vertritt die Kommission in der Ostseefi- schereikommission? Der Rat (cid:132)Fischerei(cid:147) hat beschlossen, der Treibnetzfischerei au(cid:223)erhalb des Ostseeraums ein Ende zu setzen. Welche Ma(cid:223)nahmen beabsichtigt die Kommission einzuleiten, damit die Treibnetzfischerei in der Ostsee eingestellt wird? Antwort von Frau Bonino im Namen der Kommission (28. Januar 1998) Die Kommission weist darauf hin, da(cid:223) die Information von der finnischen Wild- und Fischwirtschafts- Forschungsbeho¤rde u¤ber den starken Anstieg der Fortpflanzungsrate bei Wildlachs noch nicht vom Internatio- nalen Rat fu¤r Meeresforschung (ICES) besta¤tigt wurde, a¤hnliche Informationen aus verla¤(cid:223)lichen wissenschaft- lichen Quellen aber aus Schweden eingegangen sind, wo Wildlachs in Flu¤ssen ha¤ufiger vorkommt als in Finnland. Diese positive Entwicklung zeigt, da(cid:223) die schrittweise durchgefu¤hrten, von der Internationalen Ostseefischerei- kommission (IBSFC) empfohlenen Verringerungen der zula¤ssigen Gesamtfangmenge (TAC) fu¤r Lachs offenbar zu den erwu¤nschten Ergebnissen fu¤hren. Die Verringerungen der TAC in vier aufeinanderfolgenden Jahren auf beinahe die Ha¤lfte des Niveaus von 1993 haben in einer gemischten Fischerei auf Wild- und Zuchtlachs direkte Auswirkungen auf die Fangmenge von Wildlachs. So kann mehr Wildlachs entkommen und zur Reproduktion zu den Ausgangsflu¤ssen zuru¤ckkehren. Der IBSFC-Aktionsplan fu¤r Lachs (SAP) wurde Anfang 1997 verabschiedet und soll die Auswirkungen von reduzierten zula¤ssigen Gesamtfangmengen noch versta¤rken, indem Ku¤stenstaaten aufgefordert werden, zusa¤tzliche einzelstaatliche Ma(cid:223)nahmen wie zeitliche oder o¤rtliche Fangverbote fu¤r die vom IBSFC-Abkommen nicht erfa(cid:223)ten Gebiete und die Binnengewa¤sser zu treffen. Im Aktionsplan sind klare Ziele und Strategien fu¤r die einzelnen Flu¤sse zur Wiederherstellung des Wildlachsbestandes auf mindestens 50 % der Produktionskapazita¤t eines jeden Flusses oder Flu(cid:223)systems vorgesehen. Wie die Frau Abgeordnete unterstreicht, kann diese Zielsetzung aufgrund des Lebenszyklus der Lachse nur innerhalb einer Periode von zehn Jahren erreicht werden. Die IBSFC hat fu¤r die Zeit vom 15. Juni 1998 bis zum 30. September 1998 im von der Konvention betroffenen Gebiet ein totales Lachsfangverbot empfohlen. Dies ist die Mindestanforderung fu¤r die Vertragsparteien. Die Kommission hat › neben dem IBSFC-Sommerfangverbot › au(cid:223)erdem von Finnland erste Informationen u¤ber die geplante Verabschiedung von einzelstaatlichen Ma(cid:223)nahmen fu¤r 1998 zum Schutz von Wildlachs wa¤hrend der Laichwanderung erhalten. Die Kommission ist der Meinung, da(cid:223) die Auswirkungen der kombinierter Ma(cid:223)nahmen wie der weniger intensiven Befischung in der mittleren Ostsee, des generellen Sommerfangverbots und der zusa¤tzlichen lokalen Ma(cid:223)nahmen dazu beitragen werden, da(cid:223) das Gesamtziel des Aktionsplans fu¤r Lachs bis zum Jahre 2010 erreicht wird. Zu der konkreten Frage der Frau Abgeordneten weist die Kommission darauf hin, da(cid:223) Wildlachs teilweise auch mit anderen Fanggera¤ten als Treibnetzen, wie zum Beispiel mit Langleinen, Fischfallen oder normalen Netzen gefangen wird. Ein Verbot der Treibnetzfischerei wird daher die unvermeidbaren Fa¤nge von Wildlachsexem- plaren, die sich wa¤hrend der Wanderung mit Zuchtlachs vermischen, nicht ausschalten ko¤nnen. Bei der Diskussion u¤ber die Zweckdienlichkeit der Treibnetzfischerei geht es ausschlie(cid:223)lich um die mo¤glichen Beifa¤nge von Vo¤geln und Sa¤ugetieren. Wiederholten Erkla¤rungen des Internationalen Rates fu¤r Meeresfor- schung zufolge sind solche Beifa¤nge in der Ostsee sehr selten


title: Ehdotus neuvoston asetukseksi (EY) tiettyjen kolmansien maiden lipun alla purjehtiviin aluksiin sovellettavista kalavarojen säilyttämis- ja hoitotoimenpiteistä 200 meripeninkulman kalastusvyöhykkeellä, joka sijaitsee ulapalla Ranskan departementin Guyanan rannikolla vuodeksi 1998

eurovoc_concepts:
ACP countries
French Guiana
conservation of fish stocks
fishery management
fishing licence

text: EUROOPAN YHTEISÖJEN KOMISSIO Bryssel, 12. 12. 1997 KOM(97) 700 lopull. Ehdotus NEUVOSTON ASETUKSEKSI (EY^ tiettyjen kolmansien maiden lipun alla purjehtiviin aluksiin sovellettavista kalavarojen säilyttämis-ja hoitotoimenpiteistä 200 meripeninkulman kalastusvyöhykkeellä, joka sijaitsee ulapalla Ranskan departementin Guyanan rannikolla vuodeksi 1998 (komission esittämä) PERUSTELUT 1. 2. 3. Tässä asetusehdotuksessa vahvistetaan Ranskan Guyanan kalastusvyöhykkeellä kolmansien maiden alusten osalta sovellettava kalastusjärjestelmä 1 päivän tammikuuta 1998 ja 31 päivän joulukuuta 1998 välisenä aikana. Asetusehdotus on jo aiemmin noudatettujen periaatteiden mukainen, ja erityisesti neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N. o 405/971, jossa vahvistetaan kyseinen järjestelmä 1 päiväsiä tammikuuta 1997 31 päivään joulukuuta 1997, periaatteiden mukainen. Tieteellisten lausuntojen perusteella ehdotetaan, että vuonna 1997 voimassa olleet kiintiöt ja lisenssit säilytetään ennallaan vuonna 1998. 1 EYVL N:o L 066,06. 03. 1997 /l Ehdotus NEUVOSTON ASETUS (EY) tiettyjen kolmansien maiden lipun alla purjehtiviin aluksiin sovellettavista kalavarojen säilyttämis-ja hoitotoimenpiteistä 200 meripeninkulman kalastusvyöhykkeellä, joka sijaitsee ulapalla Ranskan departementin Guyanan rannikolla vuodeksi 1998 EUROOPAN UNIONIN NEUVOSTO, joka ottaa perustamissopimuksen, huomioon Euroopan yhteisön yhteisön kalastus- huomioon ja ottaa vesiviljelyjärjestelmän 20 päivänä joulukuuta 1992 annetun neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 3760/921 ja erityisesti sen 8 artiklan 4 kohdan, perustamisesta ottaa huomioon komission ehdotuksen, sekä katsoo, että (ETY) N:o 3760/92 8 artiklan asetuksen mukaisesti määrittelee neuvosto tapauskohtaisesti suurimman sallitun saaliin ja/tai suurimman sallitun pyyntiponnistuksen tai kalastusryhmälle kullekin kalastukselle pohjalla kestävällä kalavarojen olevan järkiperäisen ja vastuullisen hyväksikäytön varmistamiseksi, lipun sovellettava kolmansien maiden aluksiin säilyttämiseksi yhteisöllä on ollut vuodesta 1977 alkaen alla tiettyjen ohjelma purjehtiviin kalavarojen ja hoitamiseksi kalastusvyöhykkeellä, joka sijaitsee ulapalla 200 meripeninkulman Ranskan departementin Guyanan rannikosta; ohjelma on vahvistettu viimeksi asetuksella neuvoston asetus (EY) N:o 405/972 annettu 20 päivänä joulukuuta 1996, jonka voimassaolo päättyy 31 päivänä joulukuuta 1997, päässä (l)EYVLN:oL 389, 31. 12. 1992, s. 1 (2) EYVL N:o L 066, 06. 03. 1997 s. 112 (3) EYVLN:oL 261, 20. 10. 1993, s. 1 tämän ohjelman jatkuvuus olisi varmistettava erityisesti pitämällä voimassa tällä vyöhykkeellä tiettyjä koskeva kalakantoja pyyntiponnistusrajoitus tämän säilyttämiseksi ja kyseisten kalastajien toiminnan kannattavuuden varmistamiseksi, Ranskan departementin Guyanan alueella oleva tämän jalostusteollisuus sijaitsevalla departementin kolmansien kalastusvyöhykkeellä maiden alusten lastin purkamisista, on ulapalla riippuvainen toimivien tämän takia olisi turvattava sellaisten alusten joilla on sopimus purkaa kalastustoiminta, saaliinsa Ranskan departementissa Guyanassa, kalastamiseen lausuntojen perusteella tarkoitetut, katkarapujen tieteellisten lasketut kalastuslisenssit annetaan kolmansille maille, joiden alukset toimivat kyseisen departementin vyöhykkeellä; ja asetuksessa tässä tarkoitettuun kalastustoimintaan on sovellettava yhteiseen kalastuspolitiikkaan sovellettavasta valvontajär jestelmästä 1993 annetussa neuvoston asetuksessa (ETY) No 2847/933 asianmukaisia valvontatoimenpiteitä, 12 päivänä lokakuuta säädettyjä liitteessä I olevassa 1 kohdassa mainitun maan lipun alla. Näiden lisenssien mukaan sallitut saaliiden määrät, lisenssien enimmäismäärä ja merellä vietettävien päivien enimmäismäärä, joiden aikana lisenssi on voimassa, on ilmoitettu liitteessä I olevassa 1 kohdassa. tarkoitetut lisenssit 2. Edellä 1 kohdassa annetaan asianosaisen maan esittämän ja komission hyväksymän kalastussuunnitelman perusteella asianosaisen maan I rajoitusten olevassa 1 kohdassa esitettyjen mukaisesti. liitteessä 3. Jokaisen 1 kohdassa tarkoitetun lisenssin voimassaoloaika rajoittuu kalastusjaksoon, joka on merkitty lisenssin myöntämisen perusteena olevaan kalastussuunnitelmaan. aluksille 1 kohdassa 4. Kaikkien tarkoitettujen annettujen kolmansien maiden lisenssien voimassaolo päättyy heti, kun havaitaan, että tälle maalle liitteessä I olevassa 1 kohdassa vahvistettu kiintiö on käytetty loppuun. 4 artikla 1. Muuhun kuin katkaravun kalastukseen voidaan antaa lisenssi aluksille, jotka purjehtivat jonkin liitteen I 2 kohdassa mainitun maan lipun alla. Näiden lisenssien enimmäismäärä jokaista maata kohden on ilmoitettu liitteen I 2 kohdassa. 2. Purppuranapsijan kalastukseen tarkoitettujen lisenssien myöntämisen on kyseisen aluksen varustajan velvoite purkaa 75 prosenttia saaliista Ranskan departementissa Guyanassa. edellytyksenä 3. Hain kalastukseen tarkoitettujen lisenssien myöntämisen edellytyksenä on kyseisen aluksen varustajan velvoite purkaa 50 prosenttia saaliista Ranskan departementissa Guyanassa. ON ANTANUT TÄMÄN ASETUKSEN: / artikla saavat kalastaa lipun alla Liitteessä I mainittujen maiden tässä purjehtivat alukset edellytysten vahvistettujen asetuksessa mukaisesti 1 päivästä tammikuuta 31 päivään joulukuuta liitteessä 1998 mainitussa luetteloituja kalalajeja 200 meripeninkulman departementin kalastusalueella Ranskan 12 sijaitsee Guyanan meripeninkulman laskettuna perusviivoista. joka päässä rannikolta, 2 artikla 1 Edellä artiklassa tarkoitettua 1. kalastustoimintaa harjoitettaessa aluksella on oltava komission yhteisön puolesta antama lisenssi, jossa mainittuja edellytyksiä, samoin kuin valvontatoimenpiteitä ja muita kyseisen vyöhykkeen ohjaavia säännöksiä, on noudatettava. kalastustoimintaa toimiville 2. Lisenssihakemukset esitetään kyseisissä kolmansissa maissa komission elimille viimeistään viisitoista päivää ennen toivottua voimassaolon alkamispäivää. Lisenssit annetaan kolmansien maiden viranomaisille. kyseisten keulan molemmille 3. Alusten, joilla on lisenssi, rekisterikirjaimet sekä rekisterinumerot on merkittävä selvästi ja aluksen kansirakennuksen sivulle näkyvimpään kohtaan. Numerot ja kirjaimet on maalattava rungon ja kansirakennuksen väristä poikkeavalla värillä eikä niitä saa poistaa, muuttaa, peittää tai kätkeä millään lailla. jokaiselle puolille 3 artikla 5 artikla 1. Katkaravun kalastukseen voidaan antaa jonkin lisenssi aluksille, jotka purjehtivat 1. Toimitettaessa komissiolle lisenssiä koskevia hakemuksia mukana on oltava seuraavat tiedot: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) aluksen nimi, rekisterinumero, 7 artikla ulkoiset tunnuskirjaimet ja -numerot, rekisterisatama, Lisenssit voidaan mitätöidä uusien lisenssien antamisen yhteydessä. Mitätöinti tapahtuu päivänä, jona komissio antaa uuden lisenssin. omistajan tai rahtaajan nimi ja osoite, nettovetoisuus ja kokonaispituus, moottorin teho, kutsutunnus ja radiotaajuus, aiottu kalastustapa, kalastettava kalalaji, 8 artikla 1. Penaeus sub ti lis ja penaeus brasiliensis -katkarapujen kalastus on kielletty alle 30 metrin syvyisissä vesissä. Jos tämä troolialuksilla, kalastus sallitaan sivusaaliit. suoritetaan 2. Tonnikalan kalastus sallitaan ainoastaan pohjasiimaa käyttäville aluksille. (k) ajanjakso, jolle lisenssiä haetaan. 2. Kukin lisenssi koskee ainoastaan yhtä alusta. Jos kaksi alusta tai useampi alus osallistuu samaan kalastukseen, jokaisessa aluksessa on oltava lisenssi. 6 artikla 4 ja Edellä kohdassa hain mainittuja 1. purppuranapsijan kalastukseen tarkoitettuja lisenssejä hankittaessa on jokaisen asianosaisen aluksen osalta todistettava, että ja Ranskan lisenssiä hakevan varustajan departementissa sijaitsevan Guyanassa jalostusyrityksen välillä on voimassa oleva 75 prosenttia sopimus, purppuranapsijasaaliista prosenttia 50 haisaaliista on purettava tässä departementissa, jotta ne voidaan käsitellä yrityksen laitoksissa. jonka mukaan ja oltava 2. Edellä 1 kohdassa mainitussa sopimuksessa viranomaisten Ranskan on hyväksymismerkintä ja tieto siitä, että niiden mukaan sopimus on sopimuspuolena olevan ja Guyanan jalostusyrityksen mukainen. talouskehityksen Lisenssihakemuksen mukana on oltava jäljennös tästä sopimuksesta. kapasiteetin tavoitteiden Purppuranapsijan 3. sallitaan ainoastaan pohjasiimaa tai merioja käyttäville aluksille. kalastus kalastus sallitaan verkkoja, ainoastaan 4. Hain joiden pohjasiimaa tai vähimmäissilmäkoko 100 millimetriä, on käyttäville aluksille. Se on kielletty alle 30 metrin syvyisissä vesissä. 9 artikla Jokaisen kalastustoimen jälkeen on täytettävä liitteessä II esitetty kalastuslomake. Jäljennös tästä komissiolle Ranskan viranomaisten välityksellä 30 päivän kuluessa jokaisen matkan viimeisestä päivästä. lomakkeesta toimitetaan 10 artikla on tarkoitettu 1 kohdassa 1. Jokaisessa aluksessa, jossa on 3 artiklassa ja 4 lisenssi, artiklan päällikön III tonnikalan määrättyjä toimitettava kalastuksen osalta ja erityisesti siinä tarkennetut tiedot. Nämä edellytykset ovat osa lisenssiä. noudatettava erityisedellytyksiä liitteessä 3. Jos Ranskan viranomaiset eivät myönnä 2 hyväksymismerkintää, kohdassa mainittua asiasta on ja asianosaiselle komissiolle ja toimitettava näille perustelut sisältävä lausunto. ilmoitettava 2. Jokaisessa aluksessa, jossa on 4 artiklan 2 ja 3 lisenssi, päällikön on kohdassa tarkoitettu toimitettava jokaiselta matkalta rantauduttua Ranskan jonka paikkansapitävyydestä hän yksin on vastuussa ja viranomaisille ilmoitus, jossa ilmoitetaan edellisen ilmoituksen jälkeen saaliiksi saadut ja aluksella pidetyt määrät. Tämä ilmoitus tehdään liitteessä IV olevan mallilomakkeen mukaan. 11 artikla 2 10 artiklan 1. Ranskan viranomaiset toteuttavat tarvittavat toimenpiteet kohdassa tarkoitettujen ilmoitusten paikkansapitävyyden tarkistamiseksi erityisesti vertailemalla niitä 9 artiklassa tarkoitettuun kalastuslomakkeeseen. Tarkistuksen toimivaltainen jälkeen viranomainen allekirjoittaa ilmoituksen. 2. Ranskan viranomaisten on huolehdittava siitä, että jokaisesta aluksesta, joka rantautuu Ranskan departementtiin Guyanaan ja jolla on 4 artiklan 2 ja 3 kohdassa tarkoitettu lisenssi, tehdään 10 artiklan 2 kohdassa tarkoitettu ilmoitus. 3. Ranskan viranomaiset toimittavat komissiolle ennen jokaisen kuukauden loppua 2 kohdassa tarkoitetut ilmoitukset edellisen kuukauden osalta. 12 artikla Kolmansien maiden aluksille myönnettävän lisenssin edellytyksenä, on että varustaja sallii komission tulon alukselle. tarkkailijan pyynnöstä 13 artikla toimenpiteet, mukaan toteutettava 1. Ranskan viranomaisten on tarvittavat lukien säännölliset käynnit aluksilla, varmistaakseen velvoitteiden tässä noudattamisen. asetuksessa esitettyjen 2. Ranskan viranomaiset ilmoittavat komissiolle rikkomuksista havaituista asianmukaisesti viipymättä, kuitenkin viimeistään 30 päivän havaitsemispäivästä, kuluttua kyseisen aluksen nimen ja mahdollisesti toteutetut toimenpiteet. rikkomuksen 14 artikla 1. Lisenssit poistetaan käytöstä, tässä säädettyjä velvoitteita, mukaan asetuksessa lukien 6 artiklassa tarkoitetussa sopimuksessa sovittu koko saaliin tai osan saaliista pakollinen purkaminen, ei noudateta. jos Tälle alukselle ei anneta lisenssiä neljästä kahteentoista kuukauteen laskettuna päivästä, jolloin rikkomus on havaittu. 2. Jos alus kalastaa 1 artiklassa tarkoitetulla vyöhykkeellä ilman voimassa olevaa lisenssit ja tämä alus kuuluu varustajalle tai siitä vastaa ryysinen henkilö tai oikeushenkilö, jolla on yksi tai useampi alus, jolle on myönnetty lisenssi, tai joka hoitaa tällaisia aluksia, yksi näistä lisensseistä voidaan peruuttaa. 3. Lisenssin myöntämisestä voidaan kieltäytyä 1 kohdassa tarkoitetun ajanjakson aikana yhden tai useamman sellaisen aluksen osalta, jolta on peruutettu lisenssi tämän artiklan mukaisesti tai joka on kalastanut 1 artiklassa tarkoitetulla vyöhykkeellä ilman lisenssiä. 15 artikla 1. Jos komissiolle ei toimiteta yhden kuukauden aikana 10 artiklan 1 kohdassa tarkoitettuja tietoja aluksesta, jolla on 3 ja 4 artiklassa lisenssi tarkoitettu peruutetaan. tämän aluksen lisenssi, 16 artikla Lisenssien, jotka ovat asetuksen (EY) 405/97 1 artiklan mukaisesti voimassa 31 päivänä joulukuuta 1997, voimassaoloa voidaan pidentää 31 päivään tammikuuta 1998 asianosaisen maan joiden viranomaisten pyynnöstä. Lisenssit, lasketaan voimassaoloa on näin pidennetty, pidennyksen ajan mukaan vastaavien lisenssien liitteessä I vahvistettuun määrään siten, että kokonaismäärää ei voi ylittää. 17 artikla Tämä asetus tulee voimaan päivänä, jona se julkaistaan Europaan yhteisöjen vivallisessa lehdessä. Sitä sovelletaan 1 päivästä tammikuttoa 1998 31 päivään joulukuuta 1998. Tämä asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sitä sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa. Tehty Brysselissä Neuvoston puolesta Puhenjohtaja UITEI Asetuksen 3 artiklassa tarkoitetut lisenssit. Maa, jonka lipun alle alus kuuluu Sallittujen saaliiden määrä Alusten, jolla voi olla lisenssi, enimmäismäärä Merelläolopäivien enimmäismäärä Barbados Guyana Surinam Trinidad ja Tobago 24 24 p. m. 60 5 5 p. m. 8 200 200 p. m. 350 Asetuksen 4 artiklassa tarkoitetut lisenssit. Laji Maa, jonka lipun alle alus kuuluu Lisenssien enimmäismäärä a) Tonnikalat b) Purppuranapsija c) Hai Japani Korea Venezuela Barbados Venezuela p. m. p. m. 41 5 4 LIITE II W 5Û* n u nc un r c t nc L UU o n c ci 73 74 75 7» 7T N om du navire Vessel name Official No Nation - N* dr licence ZEE Fishing licence No S U R I N AM >- •*' J* '"*• Captain's name No in crew Départ de — Depart from Débarquement à Landed at Date Date JÊÊ • 1 • * • <* G U Y A N I^ FRANÇAISI 1 5* 1 1 M o i s / M o n th Jour• Day Zone n° Sonde Depth Jour ou nuit Day or night (D or N) N o m b re de loi» ou les engin» ont eie m i*. \ l'eau Number of urnes gejr it shot. T o t al heures de pèche Hours fished Queues de crevette • Head-off» shrimp (kg) Crevettes entières • Head-on» shrimp (kg) Crevettes conservées a bord Shrimps retained on board Penaeus: subtilis brasiliensis Xyphopenaeus Kroyerii Vivaneaux Snapper Requins Shark Thonides Tuna D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D b N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N hi N N N N N N N N N N 1 p UITE1II Erityise dellytykset 1. Alusten, joilla on 3 artiklassa ja 4 artiklan 1 kohdassa (tonnikala) tarkoitettu lisenssi, on toimitettava tiedot Euroopan yhteisöjen komissiolle Brysseliin (teleksi: 24189 FISEU-B) Ranskan viranomaisten välityksellä seuraavan aikataulun mukaisesti: a) b) c) d) e) jokaisen kalastusvyöhykkeelle, joka sijaitsee ulapalla 200 meripeninkulman päässä Ranskan departementin Guyanan rannikosta, jäljempänä 'vyöhyke', saapumisen yhteydessä jokaisen vyöhykkeeltä poistumisen yhteydessä jokaisen jonkin jäsenvaltion satamaan saapumisen yhteydessä jokaisen jonkin jäsenvaltion satamasta lähdön yhteydessä joka viikko kuluneen viikon osalta a alakohdassa saapumisesta tai d kohdassa tarkoitetusta satamasta lähdöstä lukien. tarkoitetusta vyöhykkeelle 2. Lisenssin mukaisesti 1 kohdassa määrätyn aikataulun mukaisesti toimitetuissa tiedoissa on oltava tarvittaessa seuraavat osat ja ne on toimitettava seuraavassa järjestyksessä: aluksen nimi, kutsutunnus, lisenssin numero, kyseistä pyyntimatkaa koskevan viestin järjestysnumero, viestityypin tunnus 1 kohdassa mainittujen alakohtien mukaisesti, päivämäärä, kellonaika, maantieteellinen sijainti, aluksella olevat saaliin määrät (kilogrammoina) kalalajeittain kalastuksen aikana, kaikkien edellisen ilmoituksen jälkeen pyydettyjen saaliiden määrät (kilogrammoina) kalalajeittain, sen alueen tarkka maantieteellinen sijainti, jolta saaliit on pyydetty, edellisen ilmoituksen jälkeen muille aluksille jälleenlaivatut saaliit kalalajeittain (kilogrammoina), sen aluksen nimi, kutsutunnus sekä tarvittaessa lisenssin numero, jolle jälleenlaivaus suoritettiin, aluksen päällikön nimi. 3. Aluksella olevien kalalajien 2 kohdassa tarkoitettuun ilmoittamiseen käytettävä koodi : PEN: Penaeidae -katkarapu, BOB: Xyphopenaeus kroyerii -katkarapu, TUN: SKH: XXX: muut. tonnikalat, hai, 4. Jos alus, jolla on lisenssi, ei ylivoimaisen esteen takia voi lähettää tietoja, toinen alus voi lähettää sanoman sen puolesta. 9 UITEIV Asetuksen 10 artiklan 2 kohdan mukaisesti tehty ilmoitus LASTIN P U R R A ^ ^ N ^ ' I U S1 Aluksen nimi : Aluksen päällikön nimi : Päällikön allekirjoitus : Pyyntimatkan kesto: Purkusatama Rekisteri numero : Edustajan nimi : (mistä) (mihin) Katkaravun pyrstöjä : kg Puretut määrät (kilogrammoina) Kokonaisia katkarapuja kg eli ( x 1,6) = kg kokonaisia katkarapuja Tonnikalaa: kg Purppuranapsijaa (Lutjanidae) Haita: kg Muita lajeja : kg kg Aluksen päällikkö pitää yhden kappaleen, valvonnasta vastaava viranomainen pitää toisen kappaleen ja kolmas lähetetään Euroopan yhteisöjen komissiolle. /o ISSN 1024-4492 KOM(97) 700 lopullinen ASIAKIRJAT FI 03 11 Luettelonumero : CB-CO-97-719-R-C ISBN 92-78-29198-6 Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisten julkaisujen toimisto L-2985 Luxemburg (I


title: Report pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 (LIFE)

eurovoc_concepts:
EU environmental policy
EU financial instrument
activity report
budget policy
environmental protection

text: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 12. 12. 1997 COM(97) 633 final REPORT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7(3) OF REGULATION (EC) No 1404/96 LIFE (Presented by the Commission) SUMMARY. CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Context of the report 1. 2 Description of LIFE 2. LIFE - NATURE 2. 1 Projects received and co-financed 2. 2 Financial management 2. 3 Geographical distribution of projects 2. 4 Types of projects co-financed and comments 3. LIFE-ENVIRONMENT 3. 1 Projects received and co-financed 3. 2 Financial management 3. 3 Geographical distribution of projects 3. 4 Types of projects co-financed 4. LIFE - THIRD COUNTRIES 4. 1 Projects received and co-financed 4. 2 Financial management 4. 3 Geographical distribution of projects 4. 4 Types of projects co-financed and comments 5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 3 4 4 5 6 6 8 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 SUMMARY This report has been prepared pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Regulation governing LIFE, the financial instrument for the environment - Council Regulation1 (EEC) No 1973/92 of 21 May 1992 modified by Council Regulation2(EC) No 1404/96 of 15 July 1996. It also fits in with SEM 2000 (the Sound and Efficient Management initiative). Articles 7(3) and 14 of the LIFE Regulation require two reports: one to evaluate the reference amount for LIFE II and one to make proposals for any adjustments to be made with a view to continuing the action beyond the second phase. The Commission has decided to make a stage-by-stage evaluation. This first report pursuant to Article 7(3) covers the period which has elapsed since LIFE was first implemented. It outlines the next stages in the process for evaluating implementation of the Regulation, and considers the relevance of its objectives and whether they have been achieved, and whether the ideas behind the scheme remain valid. The second report will make proposals for any adjustments to be made with a view to continuing the scheme. It will also help to identify future actions. This report looks at implementation of the three aspects of LIFE: nature conservation (LIFE-Nature), demonstration projects local authorities (LIFE-Environment), and cooperation with third countries bordering the Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea, other than the countries of Central and Eastern Europe which have signed association agreements with the European Union (LIFE-Third countries). industries and involving Since 1996 the Commission has been receiving some 900 projects each year. One third of these projects are eligible but only half of them can be co-financed with the financial resources currently available, which means that LIFE would actually be able to put to good use greater resources up to and even beyond the current reference amount of ECU 450 million for the period from 1996 to 1999. However, at a time of rigorous budget policy, the Commission considers it necessary to propose to the budgetary authority a preliminary draft budget requiring no increase in appropriations. As a result, the amount requested for LIFE will make it impossible to attain the reference amount originally planned for the period as a whole. 1 OFFICIAL JOURNAL NO. L 206 , 22/07/1992 P. 0001 FINNISH SPECIAL EDITION. : T 15 VOLUME 11 P. 108 SWEDISH SPECIAL EDITION. : T 15 VOLUME 11 P. 108 2 Official journal NO. L 181 , 20/07/1996 P. 0001 1. INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Context of the report The financial instrument for the environment, LIFE, is governed by Council regulation Regulation1 (EEC) No 1973/92 of 21 May 1992 modified by Council Regulation2 (EC) No 1404/96 of 15 July 1996 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (LIFE). Articles 7(3) and 14 of the Regulation stipulate that: "On the basis of a report to be forwarded by the Commission before 30 September 1997 the Council will, before 31 December 1997, examine the reference amount with a view possibly to revising it, in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Treaty, within the framework of the financial perspective and taking in account applications received" (Article 7(3)). "No later than 31 December 1998, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of this Regulation and on the use of appropriations and shall make proposals for any adjustment to be made with a view to continuing the action beyond the second phase. " (Article 14). These two reports are prepared in the context of the Sound and Efficient Management (SEM 2000) initiative, which calls for systematic evaluation of all Community programmes financing various activities so the implications in terms of resources are known before decisions are taken. For the review of LIFE, since the deadlines for the two reports are relatively close together the Commission has decided on a stage-by-stage evaluation. that This document reports on the implementation of LIFE to date, outlines the following evaluation stages and gives views on a possible review of the reference amount. During discussions of the Commission's proposal to continue the LIFE scheme with a second phase from 1996 to 1999, the Council and Parliament discussed setting a reference amount. Parliament argued in favour of a reference amount of ECU 800 million for the period from 1996 to 1999, while the Council considered that the current. budgetary outlook made it impossible to exceed ECU 450 million. However, in view of the environmental requirements addressed by the scheme, the Council felt that it should consider a possible review of the reference amount at the end of 1997. This report therefore goes beyond simply analysing applications received, and evaluates the extra financial requirements which could arise in 1998 and 1999 as a result of the interest shown by Member States in LIFE and the legitimate expectations of the public or private bodies proposing projects. The report required under Article 14 of the Regulation will draw on the results of the detailed appraisal ordered by the Commission from outside experts, who will complete their work in June 1998. The objective of this detailed appraisal is to evaluate performance with implementation of the scheme and how efficiently it has been attaining its objectives, while assessing the relevance of its objectives and whether the ideas behind the scheme remain valid. It will point the way to any adjustments to be made with a view to continuing the scheme in the next stage and should help to identify future actions more clearly. In particular, it will have to answer the following questions: - Has the scheme helped to develop or implement Community environment policies and legislation and, if so, how? - Has the scheme had a knock-on effect on other Community policies or instruments? - Has the project selection procedure succeeded in choosing projects fitting in well with the criteria in the Regulation? - Have the financial resources available been put to appropriate use or should the conditions for granting them be changed? - What is the potential of the scheme in the medium to long term? 1. 2 Description of LIFE 1. 2. 1 The general purpose of LIFE is to help develop and implement Community environment policy and legislation (Article 1 of the LIFE Regulation) by co-financing specific actions in the eligible areas of activity. 1. 2. 2 The eligible areas of activity are: nature conservation actions (LIFE-Nature) demonstration actions authorities (LIFE-Environment) involving industries and local third countries the cooperation with Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea, other than the countries of Central and Eastern Europe which have signed association agreements with the European Union (LIFE- Third countries). bordering The LIFE Regulation specifies that 92% of the resources shall be allocated to actions on Community territory, half of them for - 5- 1. 2. 3 1. 2. 4 nature conservation, 5% for third country actions and 3% for accompanying measures. Since 1992, LIFE has attracted close to 6 500 proposals for projects, of which almost a third were eligible. Approximately half of the eligible proposals were granted co-financing totalling ECU 542 million. Some 750 projects are in progress. Beginning in 1996, three information packages were prepared for LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third countries. From past experience it was possible to define the scope of the instrument more precisely. At the same time, the package and the information meetings for potential proposers have helped to improve both the technical and financial quality of the projects. 1. 2. 5 Applications are evaluated according to the specific nature of the area of activities. In the case of. LIFE-Nature, with the help of outside scientific consultants, the Commission makes an initial selection of applications officially acceptable and eligible according to the criteria in the Regulation. Then, in the Habitat Committee, it puts forward a list of the best projects at Community level for the opinion of the Member States. In the case of LIFE-Environment, a parallel evaluation procedure is conducted in the Member States and by the Commission. Bilateral discussions are held to agree on a shortlist of projects which are then examined by panels of independent experts. On the basis of this three-fold evaluation procedure, the Commission submits a list of projects to be funded to the LIFE Management Committee, consisting of representatives from the Member States, for its opinion. In the case of LIFE-Third countries, the evaluation procedure is similar to that for LIFE-Environment except that the independent experts evaluate all the proposals considered officially eligible by the Commission. 2. LIFE - NATURE 2. 1 Projects received and co-financed Between 1992 and 1997, the Commission received 1 308 applications for co- financing under LIFE-Nature for a total of ECU 1 328 million. The financial resources available made it possible to co-finance 299 projects totalling ECU 239. 5 million. The table below gives a year-by-year breakdown. Table N° 1 LIFE I LIFE II 92 93 94 95 96 97 (EUR 12) (EUR 12) (EUR 12) (EUR 15) (EUR 15) (EUR 15) 1. Number of projects received 2. Contribution requested (in ECU million) 3. Number of projects eligible 4. Eligible contribution (in ECU million) 5. Number of projects financed 6. Financial contribution granted (in ECU million) 86 227 -. -. 35 36. 9 198 294 80 1863 22 296 270 116 153 47 313 235 139 139 72 241 174 123 93 63 174 128 97 76 60 20. 6 47. 7 48. 5 43. 4 42. 4 (The amounts have been rounded off to millions of ECU and account only for the proportion co-financed by the Community, generally between 50 and 75% of the total cost. ) Some information on the context in which decisions are taken is required in order to interpret these figures: • Some projects are the second phase of a project already in progress. Others involve several beneficiaries operating in various regions or Member States. • In 1995, the new information package was tailored to types of action specific to nature projects, with applicants being asked to target and plan their proposed actions more precisely. In the short term (1995-1996), tliis need for greater precision meant that more projects were then ruled unacceptable or ineligible. However, 1997 saw a marked improvement in the average quality of applications. • In 1996, LIFE II introduced much closer linkage with the implementation of the Natura 2000 network of sites. Prior entry on the national Natura 20004 list became compulsory in 1996 for projects connected with these 3 Including ECU 61 million for one single project. 4 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora Official journal NO. L 206 , 22/07/1992 P. 0007 - 0050 Finnish special edition/ Swedish special edition. : Chapter 15 Volume IIP. 114. : Chapter 15 Volume IIP. 114 The aim of this Directive shall be to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies(Article 2. 1). A coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation shall be set up under the title Natura 2000. This network, composed of sites hosting the natural habitat types listed in Annex I and habitats of the species listed in Annex II of the regulation, this Because of linkage between LIFE-Nature and sites. the implementation of Community legislation, many applications were ruled ineligible in 1996 and 1997. It also meant that potential applicants refrained from submitting applications concerning sites not yet proposed to the Member States. • In 1997, projects had to be sent to the Commission before the end of January, scarcely three months after the end of the 1996 selection procedure, which had been delayed because of the late adoption of the LIFE II Regulation. This telescoping of the two rounds had the effect of reducing the number of projects submitted. • The average contribution per project in 1996 and 1997 was in the order of ECU 700 000, with contributions usually ranging from ECU 100 000 to ECU 2 000 000. 2. 2 Financial management During the period from 1992 to 1997, 100% of the appropriations allocated were committed. This high utilisation rate is due to the careful monitoring of projects by the Commission. Only a third of the projects were co-financed for the amount originally requested by the applicant. Instead the Commission examines each proposal shortlisted to see which measures could be co-financed by other Community funds (EAGGF, ERDF, Cohesion Fund, etc. ) or are not essential to the success of nature conservation work. The principal problems encountered with implementation of the budget have been delays in implementation of the project by the recipients and, to a very small extent, submission of ineligible expenditure on completion of the project. Less than 1% of the commitments have been cancelled. 2. 3 Geographical distribution of projects LIFE-Nature is a Community instrument with no provision for fixed percentage shares for each Member State. It therefore makes little sense to have an annual breakdown of funds by Member State. However, an analysis over a longer period is more revealing. Certain conclusions can be drawn for the period 1992-1997: • LIFE-Nature primarily benefited those regions and Member States the greatest number of natural habitats and species of with Community interest. This is what was intended. shall enable the natural habitat types and the species' habitats concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. • Although not its primary purpose, LIFE-Nature helped towards Community cohesion. Because of their natural riches, the four Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund resources benefited from a level of co- financing far above the Community average. 2. 4 Types of projects co-financed and comments As the scheme has progressed, the type of projects co-financed has changed. Since the adoption of LIFE II, there has been more emphasis oh land- related actions. Generally, LIFE-Nature has made it possible to control and manage numerous areas needed to protect habitats and species. • LIFE-Nature co-financed many local and national inventories (in Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal) by way of preparation for Natura 2000. This type of action no longer has priority under LIFE II. • There were very many bird protection projects. LIFE-Nature co- financed specific action to conserve 18 of the 23 species of bird threatened worldwide which are found in Europe and contributed to the designation of dozens of new special protection areas under the Birds Directive. • Several projects helped to stabilise or increase the population of severely endangered species (Hierro giant lizard, bearded vulture, monk seals, etc. ). • Wetlands have been well represented, and feature in more than a third of the projects. This priority reflects Member States' commitment to fulfilling their obligations under the Ramsar Convention and the recent communication on wetlands. • Many of the projects concern agricultural areas, and in many cases follow on from agricultural and environmental measures taken under Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92. LIFE has made it possible to mobilise Community structural appropriations (e. g. for the protection of biotopes in Greece). • Similarly, many projects have contributed to preparation and implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Europe by helping to: - prepare inventories of the natural heritage in several Member States and regions; - prepare plans for managing future sites in Germany, France and the United Kingdom using local help; - identify management methods and the associated costs for maintaining or restoring sites, e. g. moorland; - training staff in ecological site management. • Most of the beneficiaries of co-financing are national, regional or local public bodies, depending on how the Member State is organised. This emphasis on public bodies reflects the interest shown by national - 9- instrument for in this Community authorities implementing nature directives. NGOs are the second direct beneficiaries of LIFE-Nature and in many cases are also associated with projects submitted by public bodies, either directly or because they have been made responsible for some of the proposed actions. LIFE-Nature is the only Community financial instrument specifically intended for nature conservation. Between 1992 and 1997 demand was therefore very high for urgent action which promised no economic benefits in the short term but could lead to more sustained activities in the context of other funding mechanisms. By the end of 1997 several thousand new sites should be on the national lists proposed by Member States under the Habitats Directive. This should result in a marked increase in the number of LIFE-Nature proposals in 1998 and 1999. LIFE-Nature alone cannot claim to be the appropriate instrument for financing the whole of Natura 2000. It is designed solely as a catalyst. The only way of making a significant contribution to this Community network is to make complementary use of other funding mechanisms. LIFE-Nature has made it possible for local operators who often have very different interests to begin to work together on specific projects and to raise public awareness, an important factor, though often hard to quantify. 3. LIFE - ENVIRONMENT 3. 1 Projects received and co-financed Outside the nature conservation sector, between 1992 and 1997 the Commission received 4 815 proposals. Between 1993 and 1997, applications were received for financial support totalling ECU 5 600 million from LIFE. During the same period, because of financial constraints, LIFE was able to co-finance 680 projects (14%) totalling some ECU 272 million (5%). The table below gives a year-by-year breakdown: - 1 0- Table N° 2 LIFE I LIFE II 92 93 94 95 96 97 (EUR 12) (EUR 12) (EUR 12) (EUR 15) (EUR 15) (EUR 15) 1. Number of projects received 300 1447 1224 729 2. Contribution requested (in ECU million) 3. Number of projects eligible 4. Number of projects short listed 5. Contribution requested for short-listed projects (in ECU million) 6. Number of projects financed 7. Financial contribution granted (in ECU million) Difference between projects short-listed and financed (in ECU million) - 2 012 about. 185 ~ 70 39. 6 601 306 79 99 44. 7 33. 8 653 721 258 84 160 53. 1 30. 6 2 214 431 264 84 135 48. 1 36. 0 601 393 283 177 90 104 43. 3 47. 2 514 328 244 194 81 112 43. 6 37. 4 (The amounts have been rounded off to millions of ECU and account only for the proportion co-financed by the Community, generally between 30 and 50% of the total cost. ) • Between 1992 and 1995 many projects submitted did not come within the scope of the scheme (structural projects, high-cost projects, study projects, etc. ). However, after 1996, results were much more consistent. • By improving the legal framework (selection criteria) and information given to potential applicants, with the help of the Member States, it was possible to reduce the number of projects which were officially unacceptable or ineligible under the scheme. Because of the increasing quality of proposals, both from industry and from local communities, it was possible to short-list a large number of projects worth financing. • The average contribution in 1996 and 1997 was in the order of ECU 400 000, with contributions usually in the ECU 100 000 to ECU 1 000 000 range. 3. 2 Financial management The percentage utilisation rate of appropriations for commitment for LIFE- Environment is high (99. 93%) because each year the draft budget is negotiated with future beneficiaries so as to prevent any over-evaluation of projects. innovatory nature, the projects financed by LIFE- Because of their Environment pose certain technical and financial risks. Scaling up industrial projects from the laboratory to pilot project scale sometimes leads to a -11 - technological dead-end; similarly, forming local partnerships between local authorities, associations and businesses can take longer or prove harder than expected. > These risks give rise to: - delays in implementation of the projects, ranging from a few months in three quarters of the cases to over a year for a quarter of the projects; to avoid such delays, since 1996 the Commission has been asking applicants for more detailed forward planning, defining the timing and budget for each task; - incomplete or deficient the Commission to reduce its contribution or recoup all or part of the advance paid; to date, funds have been recouped from 25 projects; since 1997 these amounts are re-used for new projects as far as possible; implementation of projects, forcing - ten or so projects were cancelled by the beneficiaries themselves before work started, due to changes in economic circumstances between submission of the proposal and the Commission's decision; - finally, fraud was suspected in three projects; the relevant files have been passed to the Fraud Prevention Unit (UCLAF). Since 1993 the Commission has taken measures to prevent such risks: individual decisions, technical monitoring by outside teams and bank guarantees required from beneficiaries in the private sector. Moreover, before the final payment a technical appraisal is conducted of the results attained by each project and spending on the project is audited by independent approved auditors, whether the beneficiaries are from the private or public sector. 3. 3 Geographical distribution of projects LIFE-Environment makes no provision on the share-out of the amount available between Member States. The evaluation procedure is designed to select proposals on merit only, under each particular subject heading (waste, water, air, etc. ). This merit-based evaluation system takes account of the state of the environment in each Member State to avoid putting at a disadvantage less innovatory projects which may nevertheless set an example and have considerable local impact. • During the first phase, the main beneficiaries of LIFE were Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom (each receiving approximately 14%) followed by Spain, Greece and the Netherlands (each with some 7%). • There is no point giving a geographical breakdown for the first two years of the second phase since it would give no indication of the breakdown at the end of the second phase. The gap of just six months between the 1996 and 1997 rounds created cyclical problems for some Member States. Also, 12- participation in the scheme by the new Member States must gradually settle down. 3. 4 Types of projects co-financed The four main types of project covered by LIFE during the period from 1992 to 1995 were: • waste management and clean-up of contaminated sites (36% and 8% of funding respectively); • promotion of clean technologies ( 14% of funding); • methods of detecting pollution and monitoring networks (17% of funding); • land-use planning and urban problems (21% of funding). The remaining 4% of funds were allocated for administrative cooperation schemes and environmental awareness campaigns. Overall, the level of funding by LIFE in 1996 for industry and local authorities remained similar (ECU 18. 2 million and ECU 19. 7 million respectively). On the other hand, the proportions varied considerably by Member State. The highest level of funding for industry (clean technologies and recycling) was in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy and Greece, while funding for local authorities was highest in Spain, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. In the first group of countries, the majority of LIFE beneficiaries tend to be private bodies while in other countries beneficiaries are primarily public bodies responsible for land use management schemes involving local socio-economic operators. Sector-by-sector analysis reveals certain trends: • Industry: LIFE has already contributed to promoting clean technologies in some industries with a particularly high level of pollution, notably: - - tanneries (reducing pollution of water by chromium and of air by solvents) the paper industry (introducing a closed-circuit water system, recovering fibres, using ozone in the recycling of waste paper) - surface treatment (solvent- and acid-free cleaning using high-pressure jetsofwaterorice) - textiles industry (reduction of inked waste in textile printing). • Apart from clean technologies, LIFE has encouraged recycling in the following sectors: plastics, household appliances (dismantling used - 1 3- refrigerators without emission of pollutants), ceramics and metallurgy (recycling of foundry moulding sand). the main problems are the management of water Local authorities: (improving monitoring systems, detecting micropollutants), waste and air quality, although there have been a large number of projects on the management of urban areas (traffic management systems, non-polluting means of transport) and suburban areas (taking account of agriculture when organising suburban land use). In 1996 most of the preparatory measures concerned rational management of coastal zones, as provided for in the demonstration programme decided by the Council. In 1997 few proposals for preparatory measures were submitted. Because of corresponding activities under other Community programmes or schemes, particularly Leader II, LIFE-Environment supported very few projects in rural areas, apart from in France and Spain. 4. LIFE - THIRD COUNTRIES Since 1996 LIFE-Third countries covers non-Community countries bordering on the Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea, other than the countries* of Central and Eastern Europe which have signed association agreements with the European Community, which can, however, now participate in LIFE-Nature and LIFE-Environment as a pre-accession measure based on specific agreements with the countries in question. The main objective of LIFE-Third countries is to support technical assistance projects, nature conservation projects and demonstration projects to promote sustainable development, for environmental protection in these countries. to promote awareness of the need in order LIFE II is different from LIFE I in two ways: • • the instrument no longer applies to Poland, Slovenia and the three Baltic States which are now associated Central and Eastern European countries; on the other hand, since 1996 it includes the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and, since 1997, Bosnia and Herzegovina; it may cover demonstration projects on sustainable development and nature conservation in addition to simple technical assistance as was the case with LIFE I. 4. 1 Projects received and co-financed Between 1992 and 1997, the Commission received 371 applications for co- funding under LIFE-Third countries. Over the same period 80 projects were If all the projects selected for funding totalling almost ECU 30 million. considered eligible by evaluators had been taken into account more than twice this number of projects could have been financed. 14 The table below gives a year-by-year breakdown. Table No 3 Life I Life II 92 93 94 95 96 97 1. Number of projects received 2. Number of projects eligible 3. Contribution requested (ECU million) 4. Number of projects financed 5. Financial contribution granted (ECU million) 65 103 40 29 82 23 18. 4 10. 2 10. 0 12 3. 5 14 4. 8 16 5. 7 13 6. 0 5. 3 121 28 9. 8 16 4. 2 (The amounts have been rounded off to millions of ECU and account only for the proportion co-financed by the Community, generally between 50 and 100% of the total cost. ) In 1995, which was the last year of LIFE I, the total number of acceptable projects increased considerably because of the information campaign on LIFE-Third countries. On the other hand, the number of projects considered eligible by the Commission decreased, because much greater emphasis was placed on technical quality. By the end of the year, only 16 out of 29 projects had been funded, with a Community contribution totalling ECU 5. 7 million (less than 60% of the total amount for eligible projects, which is a very small percentage). The smaller number of projects accepted in 1996 is due to the fact that the new LIFE Regulation was adopted late leaving a relatively short period for submitting projects. The number of projects eligible and financed is similar to that for 1995. 4. 2 Financial management The annual utilisation rate for the commitment appropriations allocated to LIFE-Third countries is 100%. The principal problem with implementation of the budget has been the delays in implementation of the projects by the beneficiaries. The causes include political instability in some of the countries eligible, administrative and (licensing, banking specific procedural difficulties procedures, etc. ) and weaknesses in the local contributions. to each country Since 1995 the Commission has been forced to pull out of two commitments totalling ECU 638 000. One concerned a project in Croatia, where the Community has suspended its cooperation, the other a scheme in Albania, at the request of the Ministry concerned. 15 4. 3 Geographical distribution of projects LIFE-Third countries covers two geographical regions: the Mediterranean (15 countries and territories) and the Baltic Sea (since 1996 only the Baltic region of Russia, i. e. Kaliningrad and St Petersburg). Up until 1995, approximately 65% of the funding for LIFE-Third countries went to Mediterranean countries and 35% to the Baltic region. As regards LIFE H, a total of 29 projects have been fijnded, five of them in Baltic Russia, sharing a total of ECU 1 934 000. 4. 4 Types of projects co-financed and comments Since 1996 the types of activities eligible have been defined more clearly: technical assistance, nature conservation and demonstration activities. "Technical assistance" projects are the largest group of applications received, accounting for between 50 and 70%. This can be explained by the fact that LIFE-Third countries is targeted primarily on national administrations wishing to define their environment policies and action programmes. Most of the "nature" projects are concerned with conservation and/or establishment of coastal or wetland habitats. The pilot projects, first co-funded in 1997, cover a very wide range of fields: waste management and treatment, use of bicycles in towns and management of coastal areas. Between 1992 and 1997 LIFE-Third countries has helped to establish ECATs, environmental centres for administration and technology (in St Petersburg, Kaliningrad, Tirana, etc. ), which combine the know-how of third countries and the Community in developing environmental policies in Central and Eastern Europe. LIFE-Third countries has also contributed successfully to Mediterranean Action Plan activities by funding projects submitted by some of its regional centres (Rempec, Blue Plan). Many projects involving several countries from the South and the East Mediterranean have also been financed under the Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Programme. The statistics are encouraging but LIFE-Third countries is much more important than mere statistics. The instrument plays an essential role in promoting awareness of environmental protection in the third countries neighbouring the European Union. Indeed, their response and active participation is an obvious sign of interest. In 1996, the scheme was opened up to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip where four projects were accepted and one project financed in the very first year. In 1997 the programme was extended to Bosnia and Herzegovina where 10 projects were considered acceptable. Since it also disseminates and applies results of Community interest (e. g. the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle) and concentrates - 1 6- primarily on technical assistance, LIFE-Third countries is an instrument for bringing the environmental principles and legislation of third countries- closer into line with those of the European Union and for transferring Community technology and know-how to these regions. 5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The Commission has launched the important process of evaluating LIFE, the financial instrument for the environment. The first part of the exercise has been carried out by the Commission and resulted in this report. Evaluation is of crucial importance given the increasingly difficult budget situation. A full evaluation will be available during the second half of 1998. The Commission, in its preliminary draft budget for 1998, proposed an increase of 6. 8 MECU, compared to 1997, to the annual budget for LIFE. This gives a total budget of 101. 3 MECU. However, this is below the 121. 8 MECU originally envisaged for 1998. Given the budgetary discipline applied, the amounts available to LIFE in appropriations for commitment during the period from 1996 to 1999 will not reach the ECU 450 million specified as a reference amount in the Regulation. LIFE has now reached a certain level of maturity. Each year it attracts an average of around 900 project proposals (see Table 4 below), one third of which could be considered valid, in other words formally eligible and worthwhile (included on the short list). Of these 300 or so projects, allowing Community funding of 180 MECU, only about half are accepted for co-financing. In order to finance all the valid projects, the financial resources currently available would have to be more than doubled. Table No 4 Annual averages for LIFE II ( 1996 to 1997) Projects received Projects considered valid Cost of valid projects (in ECU million) Projects co-financed Community contribution (in ECU million) 867 321 180 184 91 This means that LIFE, the financial instrument for the environment, would actually be able to use greater resources up to and even beyond the current reference amount of ECU 450 million for the period from 1996 to 1999. However, in the current public finance situation in Europe, the Commission considers it necessary to submit a preliminary draft budget permitting virtually no increase in total appropriations over the previous year: As such, the reference amount for LIFE will not be possible to attain. 17 ISSN 0254-1475 COM(97) 633 final DOCUMENTS EN 09 Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-665-EN-C ISBN 92-78-28412-2 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg It


title: Komission asetus (EY) N:o 2492/97, annettu 12 päivänä joulukuuta 1997, asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2315/76 3 a ja 4 a artiklan mukaisen julkisesti varastoidun voin myynnin keskeyttämisestä

eurovoc_concepts:
butter
public stock
sale

formats: html pdfa1b print


title: VERORDENING (EG) Nr. 2487/97 VAN DE COMMISSIE van 12 december 1997 tot vaststelling van de maximumrestitutie bij uitvoer van rondkorrelige volwitte rijst in het kader van de inschrijving bedoeld in Verordening (EG) nr. 2098/97

eurovoc_concepts:
award of contract
export refund
rice
third country


title: SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG nr. 3928/97 van de leden Giampaolo D'ANDREA , Pierluigi CASTAGNETTI , Antonio GRAZIANI , Gerardo BIANCO , Maria COLOMBO SVEVO aan de Commissie. Clandestiene immigratie

eurovoc_concepts:
Italy
aid to refugees
human rights
illegal migration
immigration
integration of migrants
migrant
protection of minorities
right of asylum

text: 16. 6. 98 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen C 187/93 (98/C 187/140) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-3928/97 van Giampaolo D(cid:146)Andrea (PPE), Pierluigi Castagnetti (PPE), Antonio Graziani (PPE), Gerardo Bianco (PPE) en Maria Colombo Svevo (PPE) aan de Commissie (12 december 1997) Betreft: Clandestiene immigratie Momenteel stellen wij vast dat grote aantallen clandestiene migranten, meestal Koerden, proberen om via Italie¤ de EU binnen te dringen. Het is een ware exodus van vluchtelingen uit door burgeroorlogen verscheurde gebieden, waar de mensenrechten objectief niet meer gewaarborgd zijn. Welke initiatieven denkt de Europese Unie te nemen enerzijds om deze exodus tegen te gaan en anderzijds om ervoor te zorgen dat de rechten van deze etnische minderheden en dus ook hun recht op een menswaardig bestaan worden gewaarborgd? Antwoord van de heer Santer namens de Commissie (10 februari 1998) In zijn conclusies verwijst de Europese Raad van Luxemburg naar de massale instroom van immigranten, die hoofdzakelijk afkomstig zijn uit Irak (1). De Raad werd ermee belast een actieplan op te stellen, waarin ook de oorzaken van de toevloed van personen zullen worden behandeld, waarvan het humanitaire aspect en de naleving van de rechten van de mens een integrerend onderdeel uitmaken. In het plan zal worden vastgesteld welke maatregelen in het kader van de buitenlandse betrekkingen van de Unie moeten worden genomen en in het onderdeel (cid:132)Justitie en binnenlandse zaken(cid:148) daarvan zullen in het bijzonder het asielbeleid en het immigratie- beleid worden behandeld. De Commissie van haar kant neemt bij alle bevoegde instanties actief deel aan de voorbereiding van dit actieplan. Zij wijst erop dat zij in 1997 in deze context twee bijzonder adequate instrumenten heeft voorgesteld, die nog bij de Raad in behandeling zijn. In maart 1997 heeft zij een voorstel voor een gemeenschappelijk optreden ingediend inzake de tijdelijke bescherming van ontheemden, waarover het Parlement werd geraadpleegd (2) en dat een passend juridisch kader zou verschaffen voor personen die tijdelijk internationale bescherming behoeven. In juli 1997 heeft zij een voorstel voor een gemeenschappelijk optreden ingediend ter invoering van het Odysseus-programma (3) voor de opleiding, de uitwisseling en de samenwerking op het gebied van het asielbeleid, het immigratiebeleid en de overschrijding van de buitengrenzen, waarover het Parlement eveneens werd geraadpleegd en dat het mogelijk zou maken zowel tussen de lidstaten onderling als met de doorreislanden gerichte acties op te zetten. (1) Punt 64 van de Conclusies van de Europese Raad. (2) PB C 106 van 4. 4. 1997. (3) PB C 267 van 3. 9. 1997. (98/C 187/141) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-3929/97 van Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) aan de Commissie (12 december 1997) Betreft: Freight freeways voor goederenvervoer over de weg Is de Commissie ervan op de hoogte dat er momenteel 16 Europese landen zijn die 50 verschillende soorten regelingen op het gebied van rijverboden kennen en dat deze rijverboden voor het verladend en vervoerend bedrijfsleven een zeer hoge kostenpost veroorzaken? Is de Commissie van mening dat veel van de bestaande rijverbodsregelingen vaak discriminerend werken en een belemmering kunnen vormen voor het vrij verkeer van goederen in de Europese Unie? Zo ja, zal de Commissie zich ervoor inspannen dat er geharmoniseerde regelingen voor rijverboden op EU- en Europees niveau tot stand komen, waarbij afspraken worden gemaakt om ongewenste wildgroei van regionale en nationale regelingen tegen te gaan?


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3967/97 by Reimer BÖGE to the Commission. Need for a general directive on animal feedstuffs

eurovoc_concepts:
EC Directive
animal health
animal nutrition
milk
product quality
protection of animals

text: C 196/42 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 22. 6. 98 Svar fr(cid:229)n Sir Leon Brittan p(cid:229) kommissionens va¤gar (2 februari 1998) Respekten fo¤r de ma¤nskliga ra¤ttigheterna och de grundla¤ggande friheterna i Kina a¤r en konstant ka¤lla till bekymmer fo¤r kommissionen. Kommissionen tar alla tillfa¤llen i akt att na¤r den s(cid:229) finner befogat uttrycka sin oro, i synnerhet na¤r det ga¤ller la¤get betra¤ffande de ma¤nskliga ra¤ttigheterna i Tibet. Kommissionen har inte tillg(cid:229)ng till n(cid:229)gra na¤rmare uppgifter om de ha¤ndelser som parlamentsledamoten redogo¤r fo¤r. Om de bekra¤ftas kommer kommissionen, p(cid:229) samma sa¤tt som den tidigare gjort, att inom ramen fo¤r den bilaterala dialogen med Kina om de ma¤nskliga ra¤ttigheterna rikta uppma¤rksamheten p(cid:229) varje brott mot de ma¤nskliga ra¤ttigheterna och ma¤nniskova¤rdigheten. (98/C 196/59) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-3967/97 fr(cid:229)n Reimer Bo¤ge (PPE) till kommissionen (12 december 1997) A¤mne: Behovet av ett samlat direktiv om djurfoder Delar kommissionen (cid:229)sikten att det med tanke p(cid:229) de m(cid:229)nga direktiv som finns fo¤religger ett behov av att ta fram ett samlat direktiv om djurfoder, fo¤r att p(cid:229) sa¤tt skapa en klart definierad och o¤versk(cid:229)dlig ram fo¤r EU:s lagstiftning om djurfoder? Om ja, vilka a¤r de huvudsakliga m(cid:229)l och principer som enligt kommissionens (cid:229)sikt bo¤r prioriteras i ett s(cid:229)dant direktiv? Svar fr(cid:229)n Franz Fischler p(cid:229) kommissionens va¤gnar (3 februari 1998) Kommissionen delar parlamentsledamotens synpunkt att det vore la¤mpligt, med tanke p(cid:229) det stora antalet direktiv om djurfoder som finns, att inom o¤versk(cid:229)dlig framtid sammanfo¤ra dessa till en samlad ra¤ttsakt. Arbetet har p(cid:229)bo¤rjats, men har tyva¤rr blivit avbrutet fo¤r att man skulle kunna ta itu med andra fr(cid:229)gor som ans(cid:229)gs ha sto¤rre prioritet. Kommissionen anser att en omarbetning av nuvarande lagstiftning i fo¤rsta hand skall syfta till att (cid:229)stadkomma en fo¤renkling utan att fo¤r den delen avvika fr(cid:229)n de m(cid:229)l som har legat till grund fo¤r nuvarande besta¤mmelser, dvs. ha¤lsoskydd fo¤r b(cid:229)de ma¤nniskor och djur, miljo¤skydd, foderkvalitet och information till uppfo¤daren. Fo¤renkling- en bo¤r leda till att de nya besta¤mmelser som antas blir mer o¤versk(cid:229)dliga och da¤rfo¤r la¤ttare att tilla¤mpa fo¤r de olika akto¤rerna, sa¤rskilt inom na¤ringslivet. (98/C 196/60) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-3968/97 fr(cid:229)n Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) till kommissionen (12 december 1997) A¤mne: Problemet (cid:229)r 2000 London-tidningen Times skrev so¤ndagen den 23 november om att en expertgrupp har lagt fram en rapport fo¤r president Clinton med framha¤vande av att tidpunkten fo¤r intra¤det i EMU sammanfaller med behovet av att programmera om datorer i medlemsstaterna info¤r o¤verg(cid:229)ngen till (cid:229)rtalet 2000 ((cid:148)the year 2000 problem(cid:148)), vilket skapar sv(cid:229)ra tekniska och ekonomiska problem fo¤r Europa