title: Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of Regions in the European Union"

eurovoc_concepts:
European Union
economic and social cohesion
economic development
regional policy
social development

text: C 226/30 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 2000 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of Regions in the European Union’ (2000/C 226/10) THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, having regard to the ‘Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of Regions in the European Union’ (SEC(1999) 66 final); having regard to the Commission’s decision of 1 September 1999 to consult the Committee on this subject, in accordance with Article 265 (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community; having regard to its Bureau’s decision of 2 June 1999 to assign the preparation of an opinion to Commission 1 for Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion, Cross-Border and Inter-Regional Cooperation; having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 388/99 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 1 on 1 December 1999 (rapporteur: Mr Bazin, regional councillor for Bourgogne, F/PPE), adopted the following opinion at its 33rd plenary session of 12 and 13 April 2000 (meeting of 12 April). 1. Introduction 1. 1. The Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of Regions in the European Union analyses and comments on the impact of regional policy within the European Union and the results of the cohesion process. It also focuses on development in 10 central and eastern European countries and Cyprus. The report was published by the European Commission 1. 2. on 23 July 1999 and is the last in a series of documents it publishes every three years. In accordance with Article 130b of the Maastricht Treaty (1), the Commission produces three- yearly reports on economic and social cohesion, incorporating analyses made in the periodic report. The first report on cohesion was presented and adopted in 1996. 1. 3. Access to accurate, detailed and regularly up-dated economic and social data covering the entire European Union is a must. This report marks a considerable step forward from its predecessors, since, as well as successfully updating the it offers new and interesting perspectives on information, economic globalisation, the development of the information society, the changeover to the euro, the enlargement of the Union towards eastern Europe, the regional economy and the labour market. 1. 4. This enables a relatively objective assessment to be made of the major regional trends of the last decade of the 20th century, in terms of the economy, the labour market, and demographic patterns. It is also a means of analysing regional capacity for competitiveness, and assessing changes in those regions assisted by the European Structural Funds and those not. Furthermore, it is a means of knowing and comparing the situation in ten countries of central and eastern Europe and Cyprus. 1. 5. On the whole, therefore, the Committee of the Regions welcomes the work done for the sixth periodic report on the situation and development of the regions in the European Union. The report is a landmark in the analysis of regional data and illustrates the progress made in the field since the publication of the fifth periodic report in 1995. There is still a lot to be done to complete the picture, but now the way ahead is clear, providing efforts to harmonise European statistics are continued and the research accompanying the work of the ESDP fulfils its promise. The competitiveness approach (second part of the report) is important and deserves applause as it touches the heart of the matter and opens up new horizons for understanding and resolving divergent regional develop- ment in Europe. 2. Suitability of the analytical framework (1) Article 159(2) of the Amsterdam Treaty. The basic unit of the report is the region. Although 2. 1. this appears to be the only analytical basis on which the data can be compiled and collated, there are clearly major disparities 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 226/31 between the regions concerned on a number of counts. Some are historic entities, others are recent groupings of smaller entities, established at completely different times, and with widely differing geographical dimensions. Their responsibilities and powers also vary, especially in economic terms. There are frequent problems involved in comparing entities that have very little in common with regard to their history, culture, administration, politics and economy. 2. 2. The limitations of the analysis are especially glaring in the light of the economic theory that distinguishes between polarised regions (those with an active centre draining activity from the surrounding area) and homogeneous regions (compo- sed of similar sub-regions). Some of the NUTS 2 regions, for instance, are of a polarised nature, whereas others are homogeneous. This distinction is not made in the report, except implicitly with reference to large urban service centres, industrial regions with medium-sized cities or rural regions. It is, however, difficult to compare polarised regions and homogeneous regions. Furthermore, the case of city-regions is atypical. 2. 3. An inevitable but somewhat distorting statistical effect can sometimes negate analyses of inequality between regions. The larger and more populous the region, the more likely it is that indicators will be based on averages that mask sharp contrasts. A region thought to be wealthy will often contain pockets of poverty. It is clearly the job of every Member State to establish its own standards of social equity, but the European Union cannot simply disregard these situations, which can often lead local people to question the ‘European idea’ and hold the European Union responsible. It should be noted that the NUTS 2 classification is based on the decisions of each Member State and cannot hope to meet the optimal criteria set by the European authorities in all circumstances. The Committee of the Regions hopes that the necessary resources will be deployed to gradually improve the quality of the statistics and provide a better picture of the inequalities within Europe’s regions; and it would be prepared to play a part in that process. 2. 4. The data on the ten central and eastern European countries and Cyprus are brief and occasionally insufficiently reliable, in spite of recent statistical progress. A partnership should possibly be established to improve the quality of this information, which will be essential for the enlargement of the European Union and the credibility of any future regional policy. 2. 5. The Committee of the Regions would recommend the use of more finely-tuned and reliable indicators to measure inequalities. In the report interregional they are assessed basically as a function of the ratio of GDP per head in a specific region to average GDP per head for all the regions. This is a somewhat simplistic method in the light of the more sophisti- cated tools economic science has to offer in this day and age. The relevance of criteria quantifiable largely in financial terms is questionable, as societies can develop differently and give priority to other values. The 21st century may witness the development of personal or social ‘demand’ focused more on spiritual aspirations, ideals of solidarity and ecological objectives, setting greater store by food quality and needs relating to physical health and quality of life, etc. Furthermore, the Committee of 2. 6. the Regions rec- ommends eliminating the effect of regional population changes in future. The advantage of GDP per capita is that it enables the situation in the regions to be evaluated from the viewpoint of individuals, but the disadvantage is that changes in the overall situation of a region are hidden by changes in the number of inhabitants. Thus a region that has grown wealthier while attracting more inhabitants in search of work may seem to have made less progress in terms of per capita GDP than in terms of regional GDP. The GDP per head ratio, therefore, tends to underestimate inequalities. The weakness of basing the analysis on GDP her head alone is offset, however, by the detailed study in the second part of the report of the factors that contribute to GDP formation and regional competitiveness. 3. Sustained high unemployment and the means of addressing it 3. 1. Unemployment and underemployment are the most serious concern of the Committee of the Regions. It therefore seems appropriate to examine this aspect of the report first. Although the situation is improving in places, the European Union still has a high unemployment level, which affects 16,5 million people and is at the root of major human difficulties and social ills, as well as economic imbalances in the geographical breakdown of the production of goods and services. The report underlines the fact that unemployment 3. 2. persists in the places it has taken root, and that any reductions do not make up for the increases. Pockets of geographically- localised unemployment are still necessarily at the top of the agenda. Unemployment is extremely unequally spread over the Union. A decade on, it is still the same 25 regions that are least affected by the problem. In the regions with least access to work and jobs, the unemployment rate has risen over the same period from 20 % to 24 %, in contrast to the 4 % rate in the more privileged areas. Long-term unemployment is on the increase, along with unemployment among young people looking for their first job. C 226/32 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 2000 3. 3. The report suggests that approximately half the unem- ployment can be put down to a structural situation caused by an imbalance in the structure of supply and demand for labour. The Committee agrees with this analysis, while feeling that the report could have drawn clearer conclusions in terms of: — the need to develop initial and continuing training, the key to adapting people to the requirements of the labour market and the major changes it is currently undergoing; — the dissemination of information on the labour market, to both companies and job seekers, especially in an EU-wide context; — measures to ensure labour market flexibility. 3. 4. The report is not very forthcoming on the subject of female employment. It notes that women, who often have children to take care of, should have access to part-time work and flexible hours. This makes it harder for women with jobs. The Committee of the children to secure high-level Regions believes that more definite progress is needed to achieve equality between men and women with regard to work and access to economic and social responsibilities. A debate is also needed on the adverse and beneficial effects on women of positive discrimination measures provided for under family policy in certain countries. The report, meanwhile, highlights the link between low unemployment and high female employ- ment. This is partly explained by women working part-time or special hours. The report points out that 80 % of women working under such arrangements choose to do so. Healthy economies need people to work part-time, special or flexible hours; as women are more interested in such arrangements than men, more of them are employed. On interregional inequalities, the report shows that 3. 5. certain regions have an unsatisfied demand for labour while others are in the opposite situation. The problem could be eased through measures to encourage spatial mobility (foreign language learning, more flexible labour market, teleworking, etc. ). The report could have shed more light on the Com- 3. 6. mission’s position on the relationship between the social protection provided for job seekers and the constituent factors of unemployment. It gives little attention to minimum salaries, unemployment benefits or, more generally, worker assistance and protection. However, there is currently no clear-cut answer to this question, either in practical or theoretical terms. 3. 7. Several times, the report states that regions with a high proportion of jobs in agriculture and connected activities often have an unemployment problem, and it recommends that those regions diversify towards industry and services. This view is not entirely accurate, however, as it is necessary to avoid any rejection of farming, any belittling of its economic and social importance, or the wider acceptance of an excess- ively production/productivity-based model. A move towards less intensive agriculture, paying greater attention to environ- mental standards and matching consumer demand for natural products, could save and create new jobs in Europe. Not all regions have the same predisposition to produce food prod- ucts, but, with the right help to make the necessary changes in production methods and prepare for the future, some could specialise to social and economic advantage. The report is right to state that the economic base of 3. 8. the least i. e. by favoured regions must be strengthened, developing outward-looking activities. While this concept is acceptable at a microeconomic level in a region, bearing in mind the shortcomings of the regional economic base model, the overall benefit to the European Union depends largely on exports outside the Community market. 4. Demographic trends reach crisis point 4. 1. There is no question that demographic trends are reaching crisis point. The report’s forecasts stretch up until 2020, and are based on current trends. It therefore appears probable that: — low birth rates will result in the ageing of the population, with all the social and economic consequences that entails; — the active population will also age, raising very serious questions as to the competitiveness and adaptability of human resources in Europe, faced with a changing world; — the labour supply and active population will start to shrink from 2005/2010 onwards; this will be an imbalanced process and will depend on the immigration policy chosen by Member States and the European Union. Very soon, cohesion will require a new vocabulary, centred on population, rejuvenation and the generation balance. 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 226/33 4. 2. The report points out the effects of an ageing active population on the lack of worker adaptability to new tech- nologies. If the work force is to remain dynamic, priority must be given to research into measures designed to promote continuing training, access to a wider range of technologies and the implementation of management techniques suited to a population at an advanced stage in its working life. 5. 3. The Committee of the Regions applauds the progress made by several of the less privileged European regions in recent years. The advances made between 1991 and 1996 appear to have been significant and rapid, though largely owing to growth in the new German Länder. Meanwhile, between 1986 and 1991, the apparent decline in growth was the result of the opposite phenomenon in the same region. Growth in the regions outside the new Länder in fact been more or less steady. 4. 3. Quite rightly, the report examines the ageing phenom- enon from the viewpoint of the dependency of the elderly, which is set to have a major impact on the social budgets of the Members of the European Union in the coming years. 4. 4. Without youth, a dynamic renewal of generations and a policy to boost birth rates, Europe will grow old and lose the staying power which can only come from the rejuvenation of its human resources. 5. Convergence is a reality but some areas are still lagging 5. 1. The report states that there has been genuine conver- gence, and notes that over the last 10-year period, GDP in the 10 regions where it was lowest has risen from 41 % of the EU average to 50 %. the It also mentions that 25 poorest regions is up from 52 % to 59 % of that average, while the GDP of the four ‘cohesion’ countries has shifted from 65 % to 76,5 % of the average (estimated at 78 % for 1999). It states in particular that trade between those four countries and the Member States of the Union doubled over the same period. the GDP of 5. 2. Some areas are still lagging, however, and it is clear that even in the cohesion countries, where the report’s findings argue for a new policy, towns and cities are more often than not still attracting GDP to the detriment of rural regions. This uneven distribution of GDP is a reality throughout Europe, it is a root of social tension and the Union has paid out considerable sums to try and reverse the process and will continue to do so. However, care must be taken to ensure that the free enterprise that is so precious to the EU does not generate excessive imbalances in the growth of Europe’s regions. The European Union’s regional policy must not just fight the imbalances that arise from the current climate of mergers, globalisation and relocation, but also contribute to preventing them in the first place. 5. 4. Overall, three main phenomena stand out: continued buoyant growth along the urban, industrial axis that crosses the European Union diagonally, further strengthening these growth poles; uneven progress made by the Objective 1 regions in catching up; and weak growth in several so-called peripheral regions that do not qualify for Objective 1. 5. 5. The Committee has doubts as to whether the average should be used for country convergence analyses. By grouping the four cohesion countries together to show convergence, table 1 in the statistical annex to the sixth report hides the fact that growth in Greece and Spain during the 1991-1996 period was lower than the European average (+1 % and + 1,3 % average annual growth respectively in contrast to the +1,5 % European average). Clearly, with strong Irish growth (+7,1 % annual average) brought into the equation, the four countries taken together show much higher average growth (+1,7 % as opposed to +1,5 %). The wisdom of using the average here is highly debatable. 6. Competitiveness 6. 1. The report opts to measure the competitiveness of the regions by the ratio of GDP/population to output per inhabi- tant, already used to assess regional development levels. This appears to be a far cry from the two definitions of competitiveness proposed by the same report, namely ‘the ability of companies, industries, regions, nations and supra- national regions to generate, while being exposed to inter- national competition, relatively high income and employment levels’ and above all ‘ability to produce goods and services which meet the test of international markets, while at the same time maintaining high and sustainable levels of income’. The choice of GDP per head does not really solve the problem. Being competitive means producing at prices lower than or equal the natural consequence. The report does not examine competitiveness so much as provide an explanatory breakdown of disparities per head. The analysis is interesting, but calls for a number of comments. to world prices, with employment C 226/34 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 2000 6. 2. The report in actual fact considers that GDP/population = (GDP/employment) × (employment/ working-age popu- lation) × (working-age population/total population). The last element in the breakdown (working-age population/total population) goes by the board somewhat as it contributes little to overall change and is little influenced by policy. The report mentions earlier, however, that this ratio is decreasing over time. The report is practical and objective regarding foreign 6. 7. direct It can play an important role in the investment. development of all regions by helping to raise productive capacity and output. Through stable, favourable employment conditions and the provision of good in-house training, direct inward investment can also contribute to improving social conditions. However, any detrimental fall-out for the European economic or working culture must be addressed, should it arise. 6. 3. The report uses the two other elements to define competitiveness, the ratio (GDP/person employed), i. e. labour productivity, and the ratio (employment/working-age popu- lation), i. e. the employment rate. Part 3 of the report apparently adopts a differing standpoint, namely that the employment rate is not determined by external factors but rather dependent on productivity. It states that while competitiveness depends on productivity, improved productivity is a necessary con- labour pro- dition for increased employment. Therefore, ductivity is definitely a factor in competitiveness, as it stimu- lates growth in output and thus employment; at the same time, however, productivity gains lead to fewer workers being required for the same output. 6. 4. On the subject of productivity and the employment rate, it would appear that only labour productivity is at a satisfactory level. This is encouraging, but full employment, the aim of any society, remains elusive. The explanatory factors studied by the report include the structure of economic activity, degree of innovation, regional accessibility and the skills of the work force. While economic structure is slow to change, innovation levels could be improved more rapidly by EU measures such as an improved patents system or action to encourage the transformation of innovations into marketable products and services. 6. 5. The report highlights the inadequate dissemination of innovations within Europe, in contrast to the US in particular. The Committee of the Regions believes that the research, innovation and technological development necessary to all Europe’s regions must be stepped up. 6. 8. Transport and communication infrastructure will be vital for the enlarged continent-wide European Union. Both therefore be set. geographical and modal priorities must Interpersonal relations and trade in goods and services are as old as the history of European civilisation and it will be through their promotion that Europe is built. Geographically, the Union must encourage the estab- 6. 9. lishment of modern transport and communications links throughout its territory. They are indispensable between East and West as a signal of the cohesion that the Union intends to establish with the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The Union must also help to forge the missing links in the north-south axis in the West of the continent, not forgetting those regions situated on the extreme periphery, islands especially, which require appropriate means of trans- port and communications. 6. 10. In modal and intermodal terms, the European Union must undergo a transport and communications revolution like that of the 19th century, based on current advanced tech- nology. It must focus less on individual projects than on a European strategy, and projects should be backed only insofar as they fit in with that strategy. Roads, railways, shipping, especially coastal shipping waterways and aviation must all play their part within an intermodal whole, protecting the environment while remembering that transport and communi- cations contribute to quality of life and are of the essence of civilisation itself. Clearly, much more than in the past, a distinction must be drawn between passenger transport and goods transport. This is the challenge facing the European Union. The Committee of the Regions will lend its support. The report clearly shows that though small and 6. 6. medium-sized companies are said to play a key role in job creation, the exact scale of their contribution is difficult to assess, partly as a result of statistical confusion between In general, decision-making centres and production units. Europe is still lagging behind in the area of risk capital and financial support for high-tech SMEs. 6. 11. The report remains objective with regard to energy, which nonetheless is currently a highly sensitive issue. It ignores the issue of energy sources, with the exception of renewables. In particular, the thorny topic of nuclear power is conspicuous by its absence. One interesting idea is that of 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 226/35 energy intensity (energy consumption per unit of GDP), which is greater in the less favoured regions. This would suggest that moves to develop energy infrastructure and break energy dependency must be accompanied by energy saving measures. Although the less developed regions use less power per head and cause less pollution, they use more fossil fuels. The report suggests that they could rely on renewables. This would be realistic only for the sun-drenched regions of the south, for very windy areas or, at all events, areas with plenty of unused, non-agricultural land, as solar and wind power installations use a lot of space, especially when a major supply is required. Interesting information is provided on telecommuni- 6. 12. cations infrastructure (number of lines per inhabitant) and quality of service (rate of digitalisation). The mobile telephone phenomenon — via GSM or satellite — is not mentioned, however, although it constitutes an opportunity for the economic infrastructure of less-developed regions that are often not as well covered by specialist companies. The regions that are ill-served by the new communication technologies, the gateway to the modern world, are also the most neglected by the market and free enterprise. 6. 13. Water supply is another of the major challenges facing tomorrow’s Europe, and is a problem determined largely by geography. The report gives indications of reserves per inhabitant in each country. This shows that the most developed countries are in the most difficulty, and must invest the most financially. The report is right to point out that recycling household waste is certainly the best way forward in terms of environmental protection, although it is bound to be expensive. 6. 14. The report highlights national disparities in human capital, an area in which change is inevitably slow. It gives little information on the link between human capital and economic performance, although it is known that human capital can generate increasing returns, which can however hinder the convergence process, according to the endogenous growth theory. very few decisions are taken locally, with the exception of regionally-based SMEs. There is no proof that decentralisation is always the most effective system. In any case, this requires competition conditions (transparency, full information, inde- pendent operators) that are not always present. Public manage- ment by results is not such a new idea, and as the report mentions, it is not so far removed from centralised planning; it is not effective every time. The report is also positive when promoting private intervention in partnership with government as a more effective form of public management. However, this can often have negative effects, for instance, pressure groups, a tendency towards corruption, the fact that it is major companies rather than SMEs that have the most influence, with all the monopolistic tendencies that entails, not to mention pressures from the banking and finance sector. As the report points out, the horizontal management network model can become cumbersome: very often, this type of institution tends to favour compromise, i. e. zero change. All in all, the second part of the periodic report 6. 16. deserves recognition for its quality. It offers very good prospects for a genuine plan for the balanced development of Europe’s regions. The chapter entitled ‘Explaining competi- tiveness: common features of successful regions’ will doubtless prompt further research in the months ahead. Nonetheless, the outline of the four most important factors in the growth of GDP are convincing: a) The structure of economic activity is a major factor that demands a special political effort to redistribute Europe’s productive machinery and find ways of striking a better balance. b) The extent of innovative activity is also a key factor. Once again in political terms, it demands better coordination between research and development policies and economic, social and regional cohesion. This is underlined in the chapter on RTD. c) The Committee obviously welcomes the attention paid to the accessibility indicator. Its high correlation with GDP comes as no surprise, but needs confirmation nonetheless. It can only be hoped that the additional research in the pipeline will enable this critical factor to be taken rapidly into consideration in the implementation both of regional policies and of the trans-European networks (review of TEN-T) and all transport policies. 6. 15. With regard to institutions and social capital, the report strikes an optimistic note when it affirms that ‘European integration is a key force in this, since it exposes regions to institutional models and competition from all over the Union’. However, regions are dependent on the state for their public institutional structures, and often have only limited room for manoeuvre. The institutional structure of firms is such, that d) Lastly, the area of skills is also critical and requires better coordination between the relevant ERDF and ESF policies. The Commission has made this point on several occasions, but insufficient heed has been taken in the SPD and CSF. There is definitely room for innovation in this area. C 226/36 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 2000 To conclude, map 29 of the report gives a remarkable summary of the reality of the centre-periphery relationship as it stands in Europe. There are few more convincing arguments for using an indicator of this type in the structural policies. The development of these four key variables, in relation to that of GDP, will, furthermore, provide a sound basis for evaluating the development of the centre-periphery relationship in Europe. The impact assessments presented show that 7. 5. the Structural Funds have had a beneficial effect on the regions that have received assistance, reducing regional disparities. The Committee of the Regions welcomes this success. The convergence issue raises an important economic 7. 6. question, in terms of the balance between: — the search for maximum overall growth on the one hand, and 7. The effectiveness of cohesion policy — even growth or development of the regions on the other. 7. 1. This opinion could not cover the specific situation in each of the EU regions, unless each presented its comments, hopes and demands; this would not however match the Committee’s brief to issue a coherent opinion. The report does not conceal the fact that, in spite of 7. 2. major progress made in recent years, the impact of regional cohesion policy is still largely inadequate. There are sometimes significant disparities between the regions of a single country, and between all the regions. It must be said that the cohesion objective is very ambitious and the first of its kind in the history of the continent. Furthermore, its impact cannot be assessed properly over such a short period. The Structural Funds appear to have made a positive contribution to reducing inequalities within the European Union, benefiting Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain in particular, taking those countries as a whole. The report correctly points out the difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of the Structural Funds with regard to other factors that cannot easily be incorporated into the evaluations. In spite of the efforts made in the Objective 1 and 7. 3. Objective 6 regions, unemployment rates have remained disappointing overall, while GDP per inhabitant is tending to converge towards the average. The report highlights poor activity rates, linked to unemployment, but it limits itself to noting the situation without attempting to seek the real reasons for it. Certain regions have benefited greatly from development aid. As the report suggests, an objective assess- ment should be conducted of the effectiveness of this financial aid in giving every less-developed region the same oppor- tunities to advance. The search for equity aims to give as much as possible to the least favoured region while remaining effective, i. e. ensuring maximal overall development. However, equality is not always effective and it is not always by seeking equal development for regions that maximum overall development is attained. Interregional equality should not necessarily be sought above all else, as regional equality has consequences for overall performance. 7. 7. An evaluation of the cost of the Structural Funds in terms of overall growth would provide a useful indication of results. This is not to say that the Funds should be called into question, but rather that indication should obviously be available given that the Funds are aimed at more egalitarian growth. this type of 7. 8. Similarly, an evaluation of the multiplier effect of the sums injected would be useful (i. e. the relationship between the growth of a region’s GDP that can be imputed to the Structural Funds, and the total amount of Structural Fund money involved). This performance indicator, however simple its form, would be of great use in deciding the future direction of the Structural Funds, over and above the data on growth in GDP or reduced unemployment presented by the report. 7. 9. The aim of equal development between the regions is more difficult to achieve than the objective of equal growth rates, as the former implies convergence, with the less favoured regions having to grow more quickly than the more advanced regions. 8. Enlargement The situation in the Objective 2 regions seems to have 7. 4. improved overall, but these regions are still often vulnerable (closing down and relocation of production units). In the Objective 5b regions, an increase in the active population has hindered a fall in unemployment, although employment has increased. The cause for that increase is diversification of activities in an economy based mainly on agriculture. 8. 1. The report takes the overall view that the countries of central and eastern Europe and Cyprus are legitimate candi- dates for accession given their political choices, their move- ment towards a market economy and the progress they have made over the last decade. 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 226/37 The Committee of 8. 2. the Regions does not have a decision-making role here, but it would nevertheless remark that: — the countries in question are not the only countries likely to apply for membership of the European Union; economic criteria, and especially not on criteria for the harmonious development of those countries’ regions. The applicant countries still have a good deal of catching up to do: regional issues play second fiddle to national matters where EU accession is concerned, although harmonious regional development is obviously desirable. — it is impossible to disregard the myriad political, economic, social, cultural and ideological factors linked to the past, present and future of these countries, which are not reflected principally in regional GDP but in national objectives that are not easily defined; — the European Union must learn how to manage the hopes it arouses to ensure they are realistic; to do this it must evaluate the many implications these accessions will inevitably have for the Union’s internal and external policies, and assess the real capacity of the Union and of the countries concerned to form tomorrow’s Europe in a genuine spirit of solidarity; — the European Union must be able to continue developing its approach to these countries in a responsible way, without losing sight of the fact that the foundation stone — i. e. the European entity — is solely political and moral, based on a system of free societies with unity of purpose: for first and foremost Europe must provide an ideal community life, with a single destiny, only then will it succeed; — while definitely not sceptical about enlargement, the Committee is adamant that it must be a success; otherwise it may engender major difficulties in the European Union and the applicant countries. The preparation phase would benefit from the greater involvement of the Committee of the Regions, which, as the representative of local and regional authorities, is in a position to establish and nurture the grass roots cooperation needed for success. The fact that a country has applied must not lead to excessive pressure on its people in terms of economic adjustment and lifestyle, as that could provoke a backlash. 8. 3. According to the report, the disparities between the EU regions and the applicant regions are still great, with a few exceptions. Membership of the EU will not depend solely on Brussels, 12 April 2000. This brings us back to the growth versus equal 8. 4. development of regions debate, an issue that cannot be ignored. Should these countries develop as quickly as possible in order to reach the level necessary for accession to the Union? Or should they seek regionally balanced growth, which will necessarily be slower (in the knowledge, as the report states, that the shock of transition from the previous era is still far from having been totally absorbed, with GDP and GDP per inhabitant having plummeted)? 8. 5. The report suggests that the CEEC are benefiting from a major influx of foreign direct investment, but that these flows are focused on a few countries only and come from just a few Union Member States. This issue is and will remain a sensitive one, in the light of centuries of European history. 8. 6. The report assumes that these countries have already made decisive progress towards moulding their societies to the European Union model. The truth is, however, that the type of society they are developing is still on the drawing board. The Committee of the Regions believes it has a major role to play here as decentralisation and balanced mutual support are the twin pillars of the Europe it wishes to see created, based on a system of social values. 8. 7. The Committee of the Regions hopes that the countries in question will equip themselves with regional political and administrative structures, so that they can tackle the same issues within the same institutional framework. The Committee of the Regions can be a partner in implementing regional strategies in these countries. Cyprus is clearly a case apart. Its economic perform- 8. 8. ance would suggest it will be ready for accession to the Union. GDP is 75 % of the EU average. Employment is high and unemployment is low, but productivity is also low and this is where efforts must be concentrated. The President of the Committee of the Regions Jos CHABERT


title: PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-1178/00 de Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) a la Comisión. Ampliación UE y regiones.

eurovoc_concepts:
European Committee of the Regions
administration of the Institutions
division of powers
enlargement of the Union

formats: html pdf print

text: 13. 2. 2001 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas C 46 E/139 (2001/C 46 E/159) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-1177/00 de Gorka Kn(cid:246)rr Borr(cid:224)s (Verts/ALE) al Consejo (13 de abril de 2000) Asunto: Ampliaci(cid:243)n UE y regiones Estamos asistiendo a un momento hist(cid:243)rico y crucial en la historia no s(cid:243)lo de la Uni(cid:243)n sino del propio continente europeo. Al margen de Turqu(cid:237)a, los otros doce Estados candidatos a la adhesi(cid:243)n suman mÆs de cien millones de habitantes, es decir, la UE aumentar(cid:237)a un 27 % su poblaci(cid:243)n, mientras que es sabido que el Parlamento Europeo previsiblemente va a superar los 700 escaæos, es decir, tan s(cid:243)lo un 11 % mÆs que su actual composici(cid:243)n. Teniendo en cuenta que no se propone modificar el papel y las competencias de las instituciones europeas, ¿no cree el Consejo que la representatividad de las regiones se va a ver seriamente mermada? ¿No ha previsto el Consejo ningœn otro medio para que regiones como el Pa(cid:237)s Vasco (3 millones de habitantes) o los Pa(cid:237)ses Catalanes (12 millones de habitantes) puedan ostentar representaci(cid:243)n proporcional a futuros Estados como Malta o Chipre? ¿No ha previsto el Consejo ninguna reforma profunda del ComitØ de las Regiones para que sea realmente un (cid:243)rgano de representaci(cid:243)n territorial? Respuesta (10 de julio de 2000) Las cuestiones planteadas por Su Seæor(cid:237)a acerca de la composici(cid:243)n del ComitØ de las Regiones y el reparto de escaæos en dicho ComitØ estÆn siendo estudiadas en la actualidad en la Conferencia Intergubernamental para la reforma de las Instituciones. El Consejo estÆ, por supuesto, al corriente de las sugerencias que han presentado al respecto tanto el Parlamento Europeo como la Comisi(cid:243)n, en forma de contribuciones al trabajo de la Conferencia. En ninguna de ellas se aborda el tema del desglose de escaæos en el ComitØ de las Regiones por Estado miembro. El Consejo desea recordar que el actual Tratado determina el nœmero de miembros para cada Estado miembro; corresponde a este œltimo la determinaci(cid:243)n de los criterios utilizados para el reparto, de forma interna, de dichos escaæos. Dado que el Consejo no representa formalmente papel alguno en la propia Conferencia, que reœne a los Gobiernos de los 15 Estados miembros, resultar(cid:237)a por completo inadecuado que el Consejo especulara con el resultado posible del trabajo de la Conferencia. Por otra parte, el Parlamento estÆ (cid:237)ntimamente asociado al trabajo de la Conferencia e involucrado en Øl. Dos observadores del Parlamento Europeo asisten a las reuniones del Grupo preparatorio de la CIG y cada sesi(cid:243)n de la Conferencia a escala ministerial estÆ precedida por un cambio de impresiones con el Presidente del Parlamento Europeo, al que asisten dos representantes del PE. (2001/C 46 E/160) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-1178/00 de Gorka Kn(cid:246)rr Borr(cid:224)s (Verts/ALE) a la Comisi(cid:243)n (12 de abril de 2000) Asunto: Ampliaci(cid:243)n UE y regiones Estamos asistiendo a un momento hist(cid:243)rico y crucial en la historia no s(cid:243)lo de la Uni(cid:243)n sino del propio continente europeo. Al margen de Turqu(cid:237)a, los otros doce Estados candidatos a la adhesi(cid:243)n suman mÆs de cien millones de habitantes, es decir, la UE aumentar(cid:237)a un 27 % su poblaci(cid:243)n, mientras que es sabido que el Parlamento Europeo previsiblemente va a superar los 700 escaæos, es decir, tan s(cid:243)lo un 11 % mÆs que su actual composici(cid:243)n. Teniendo en cuenta que no se propone modificar el papel y las competencias de las instituciones europeas, ¿no cree la Comisi(cid:243)n que la representatividad de las regiones se va a ver seriamente mermada? ¿No ha previsto la Comisi(cid:243)n ningœn otro medio para que regiones como el Pa(cid:237)s Vasco (3 millones de habitantes) o los Pa(cid:237)ses Catalanes (12 millones de habitantes) puedan ostentar representaci(cid:243)n proporcional a futuros Estados como Malta o Chipre? ¿No ha previsto la Comisi(cid:243)n ninguna reforma profunda del ComitØ de las Regiones para que sea realmente un (cid:243)rgano de representaci(cid:243)n territorial? C 46 E/140 Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas ES 13. 2. 2001 Respuesta del Sr. Prodi en nombre de la Comisi(cid:243)n (22 de junio de 2000) la Comisi(cid:243)n recuerda su Por lo que se refiere a la representaci(cid:243)n de las regiones en el Parlamento, respuesta a la pregunta oral H-666/99 de la Sra. Evans en el turno de preguntas de la semana de noviembre de 1999 (1) del Parlamento. la Comisi(cid:243)n propuso en su dictamen de 26 de enero de 2000 En cuanto al ComitØ de las Regiones, relativo a la Conferencia Intergubernamental la aplicaci(cid:243)n entre los Estados miembros de una clave de distribuci(cid:243)n geogrÆfica idØntica a la del Parlamento. Para el conjunto del ComitØ de las Regiones, la Comisi(cid:243)n propuso que no se sobrepasara un determinado umbral, que estim(cid:243) en un tercio del nœmero de diputados (233 miembros), a fin de garantizar la eficacia de esta instituci(cid:243)n. Por lo que respecta al futuro papel del ComitØ, la Comisi(cid:243)n considera que, en una Uni(cid:243)n ampliada, la cooperaci(cid:243)n entre las regiones tendrÆ una importancia aœn mayor, as(cid:237) como la evaluaci(cid:243)n del efecto a nivel regional de las legislaciones propuestas. Por tanto, debe mantenerse la funci(cid:243)n consultiva del ComitØ de las Regiones a fin de que pueda cumplir su misi(cid:243)n, que consiste en expresar a nivel europeo los intereses de las colectividades regionales y locales. (1) Debates del Parlamento europeo (noviembre de 1999). (2001/C 46 E/161) PREGUNTA ESCRITA P-1192/00 de Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) a la Comisi(cid:243)n (10 de abril de 2000) Asunto: Cierre de SGL Carbon en Ascoli Piceno En pleno centro de la ciudad de Ascoli Piceno (Italia), en un lugar habitado por decenas de miles de personas que, de conformidad con la normativa local, deber(cid:237)a ser una zona verde, se encuentra SGL Carbon, fÆbrica destinada a la producci(cid:243)n de electrodos de grafito. Dicha fÆbrica arroja cada aæo a la atm(cid:243)sfera mÆs de 10 000 toneladas de sustancias altamente contami- nantes denominadas HPA (hidrocarburos polic(cid:237)clicos aromÆticos), que tienen consecuencias grav(cid:237)simas para la salud de las miles de personas que viven en los barrios que han surgido a su alrededor. De hecho, el porcentaje de tumores de Ascoli Piceno es de los mÆs altos de Italia. Considerando que el convenio por el que se autoriza la instalaci(cid:243)n de la fÆbrica, estipulado hace casi 25 aæos entre el ayuntamiento de la ciudad y dicha empresa, finalizarÆ en 2004, ¿puede obligar la Comisi(cid:243)n a la administraci(cid:243)n local italiana a realizar un estudio de impacto ambiental de conformidad con la Directiva 85/337/CEE (1), modificada por la Directiva 97/11/CEE (2), para anticipar el eventual cierre o traslado de SGL Carbon o, en cualquier caso, antes de otorgar una nueva autorizaci(cid:243)n en 2004? ¿No considera la Comisi(cid:243)n que la Directiva 84/360/CEE (3) relativa a la lucha contra la contaminaci(cid:243)n atmosfØrica procedente de las instalaciones industriales y la Directiva 96/61/CE (4) relativa a la prevenci(cid:243)n y al control integrados de la contaminaci(cid:243)n son de aplicaci(cid:243)n en el caso de que se trata? Finalmente, ¿puede seæalar la Comisi(cid:243)n si es posible y, en ese caso, de quØ manera, reconvertir dicha fÆbrica para permitir una eventual recolocaci(cid:243)n de los trabajadores de SGL Carbon? (1) DO L 175 de 5. 7. 1985, p. 40. (2) DO L 73 de 14. 3. 1997, p. 5. (3) DO L 188 de 16. 7. 1984, p. 20. (4) DO L 257 de 10. 10. 1996, p. 26


title: Reglamento (CE) n° 759/2000 de la Comisión, de 12 de abril de 2000, por el que se fijan las restituciones a la exportación del aceite de oliva

eurovoc_concepts:
export refund
olive oil

formats: pdf print

text: L 92/16 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 13. 4. 2000 REGLAMENTO (CE) No 759/2000 DE LA COMISIÓN de 12 de abril de 2000 por el que se fijan las restituciones a la exportación del aceite de oliva LA COMISIÓN DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS, Visto el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Europea, Visto el Reglamento no 136/66/CEE del Consejo, de 22 de septiembre de 1966, por el que se establece una organización común de mercados en el sector de las materias grasas (1), cuya última modificación la constituye el Reglamento (CE) no 2702/ 1999 (2), y, en particular, el apartado 3 de su artículo 3, Considerando lo siguiente: (1) (2) (3) (4) En virtud de lo dispuesto en el artículo 3 del Reglamento no 136/66/CEE, cuando el precio en la Comunidad sea superior a las cotizaciones mundiales, la diferencia entre dichos precios puede cubrirse mediante una restitución a la exportación de aceite de oliva a los terceros países. Por el Reglamento (CEE) no 616/72 de la Comisión (3), cuya última modificación la constituye el Reglamento (CEE) no 2962/77 (4), se han adoptado las modalidades relativas a la fijación y a la concesión de la restitución a la exportación de aceite de oliva. En virtud de lo dispuesto en el apartado 3 del artículo 3 del Reglamento no 136/66/CEE, la restitución debe ser la misma para toda la Comunidad. Con arreglo a lo dispuesto en el apartado 4 del artículo 3 del Reglamento no 136/66/CEE, la restitución para el aceite de oliva debe fijarse tomando en consideración la situación y las perspectivas de evolución, en el mercado de la Comunidad, de los precios del aceite de oliva y de las disponibilidades, así como de los precios del aceite de oliva en el marco mundial. No obstante, en el caso en que la situación del mercado mundial no permita deter- minar las cotizaciones más favorables del aceite de oliva, se podrá tener en cuenta el precio en el mercado de los principales aceites vegetales que compiten con el aceite de oliva y de la diferencia registrada a lo largo de un período representativo entre dicho precio y el del aceite de oliva. El importe de la restitución no podrá ser supe- rior a la diferencia existente entre el precio del aceite de oliva en la Comunidad y aquél en el mercado mundial, ajustado, en su caso, para tomar en consideración los (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) gastos de exportación de los productos en este último mercado. Con arreglo a lo dispuesto en la letra b) del párrafo tercero del apartado 3 del artículo 3 del Reglamento no 136/66/CEE, se podrá decidir que la restitución sea fijada mediante adjudicación. La adjudicación se referirá al importe de la restitución y se podrá limitar a determi- nados países de destino, determinadas cantidades, cali- dades y presentaciones. Con arreglo a lo dispuesto en el párrafo segundo del apartado 3 del artículo 3 del Reglamento no 136/ 66/CEE, las restituciones para el aceite de oliva pueden fijarse a distintos niveles según el destino cuando la situación del mercado mundial o las exigencias especí- ficas de determinados mercados lo hagan necesario. Las restituciones deben fijarse por lo menos una vez por mes; que, en caso necesario, pueden modificarse entre tanto. La aplicación de dichas modalidades a la situación actual de los mercados en el sector del aceite de oliva y, en particular, al precio de dicho producto en la Comunidad y en los mercados de los terceros países conduce a fijar la restitución en los importes consignados en el anexo. El Comité de gestión de las materias grasas no ha emitido dictamen alguno en el plazo establecido por su presidente. HA ADOPTADO EL PRESENTE REGLAMENTO: Artículo 1 Se fijan en los importes consignados en el anexo las restitu- ciones a la exportación de los productos contemplados en la letra c) del apartado 2 del artículo 1 del Reglamento no 136/ 66/CEE. El presente Reglamento entrará en vigor el 13 de abril de 2000. Artículo 2 El presente Reglamento será obligatorio en todos sus elementos y directamente aplicable en cada Estado miembro. Hecho en Bruselas, el 12 de abril de 2000. Por la Comisión Franz FISCHLER Miembro de la Comisión (1) DO 172 de 30. 9. 1966, p. 3025/66. (2) DO L 327 de 21. 12. 1999, p. 7. (3) DO L 78 de 31. 3. 1972, p. 1. (4) DO L 348 de 30. 12. 1977, p. 53. 13. 4. 2000 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas L 92/17 del Reglamento de la Comisión, de 12 de abril de 2000, por el que se fijan las restituciones a la exportación del aceite de oliva ANEXO Código del producto 1509 10 90 9100 1509 10 90 9900 1509 90 00 9100 1509 90 00 9900 1510 00 90 9100 1510 00 90 9900 (en EUR/100 kg) Importe de la restitución (1) 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 (1) Para los destinos a los que se refiere el artículo 34 del Reglamento (CEE) no 3665/87 de la Comisión (DO L 351 de 14. 12. 1987, p. 1), modificado así como para las exportaciones a países terceros. NB: Los códigos de productos, incluidas las notas a pie de página, se definen en el Reglamento (CEE) no 3846/87 de la Comisión, modificado


title: Regionsudvalgets udtalelse om "Mod en europæisk strategi for integreret kystzoneforvaltning (IKZF) Almindelige principper og politiske muligheder"

eurovoc_concepts:
coastal region
cooperation policy
development policy
regional policy
town and country planning

text: C 226/38 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende 8. 8. 2000 Regionsudvalgets udtalelse om »Mod en europæisk strategi for integreret kystzoneforvaltning (IKZF) Almindelige principper og politiske muligheder« (2000/C 226/11) REGIONSUDVALGET har — under henvisning til Kommissionens oplæg »Mod en europæisk strategi for integreret kystzoneforvaltning (IKZF) — Almindelige principper og politiske muligheder« og det ledsagende dokument »Lessons from the European Commission’s Demonstration Programme on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)«, som er udarbejdet af demonstrationsprogrammets emneeksperter, under henvisning til præsidiets beslutning af 15. september 1999 om i henhold til artikel 265, stk. 5, at henvise det forberedende arbejde til Underudvalg 4 »Fysisk Planlægning, Bypolitik, Energi, Miljø«, under henvisning til Regionsudvalgets udtalelse om Kommissionens meddelelse om integreret kystzone- forvaltning (CdR 114/96) (1), under henvisning til forslag til udtalelse (CdR 359/99 rev. 1), vedtaget af Underudvalg 4 den 2. december 1999 med Annette McNamara (IRL, AE) som ordfører — på den 33. plenarforsamling den 12. -13. april 2000 (mødet den 12. april) vedtaget følgende udtalelse. 1. Indledning 1. 1. Kystzonen er et areal bestående af land- og havområder, hvis størrelse er bestemt af forvaltningsmæssige behov. Kystzo- nen varierer meget, hvad angår område, geomorfologi, hydro- logi, biodiversitet, arealanvendelse, administrative, kulturelle og socio-økonomiske systemer. Kystzonens dynamik og fysi- ske diversitet er yderligere vanskeliggjort af det faktum, at området sjældent overholder eller er sammenfaldende med eksisterende administrative grænser. 1. 2. Kystzonens store geografiske udbredelse og mængden af dens ressourcer bevirker, at den er udsat for et utroligt stort udviklingspres og en række konkurrerende anvendelser, der ofte ikke er forenelige. Integreret kystzoneforvaltning (IKZF) sigter derfor mod at forvalte ressourcerne og arealanvendelsen, således at der åbnes mulighed for så mange konkurrerende anvendelser som muligt, men sigter samtidig mod at beskytte de naturlige økosystemer og processer, der er afgørende for kystzonen, mod uoprettelig skade. IKZF er en fortløbende proces, der gennem en mere 1. 3. effektiv og helhedsorienteret forvaltning søger at: — iværksætte og opretholde en bæredygtig anvendelse og udvikling af kystzonens ressourcer med det formål at forbedre livskvaliteten hos de befolkningsgrupper, der er afhængige af disse ressourcer, og (1) EFT C 182 af 24. 6. 1996, s. 12. — at bevare den biologiske diversitet og produktivitet i kystområdernes økosystemer og at forbedre kvaliteten af kystmiljøet. 1. 4. IKZF er en koordinerings- og samarbejdsproces mellem alle de ansvarlige territoriale forvaltningsniveauer, inklusive staten, og brugerne af kystzoneressourcerne. For at IKZF kan fungere effektivt, kræves visse forudsætninger derfor opfyldt. Disse forudsætninger omfatter bl. a. forståelse for kystzonefor- valtningens tværregionale karakter, anerkendelse af dens værdi, et program med relevante aktioner og foranstaltninger, en ramme for IKZF-arbejdet, en omfattende database, den fornød- ne ekspertise og tilstrækkelige midler. 2. Resumé af Kommissionens oplæg 2. 1. Kommissionens oplæg har to erklærede formål: — at samle og videreformidle de overordnede politikerfarin- ger, der kan uddrages af Kommissionens demonstrations- program for integreret kystzoneplanlægning. — at fremme debatten og skabe konsensus om en europæisk strategi for integreret kystzoneforvaltning, der kan modvir- ke den tendens til ubæredygtig udvikling, der for øjeblikket præger kystområder over hele Europa. 8. 8. 2000 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende C 226/39 2. 2. Demonstrationsprogrammet har banet vejen for en evaluering af kystzoneforvaltningen over hele Europa og har vist, at god forvaltning kan antage mange forskellige skikkelser. Oplægget opremser syv overordnede principper for alle fremti- dige IKZF-initiativer. En europæisk strategi for integreret kystzoneforvaltning er karakteriseret som en metode, der omfatter disse syv principper, og som samtidig fremmer bæredygtig udvikling af kystområdet. Oplægget berører endvi- dere forskellige politikvalg vedrørende en europæisk IKZF- strategi, herunder EU’s rolle, tværsektoriel koordinering og lovgivningsgrundlag. 3. Generelle bemærkninger Regionsudvalget hilser oplægget velkomment som en 3. 1. lejlighed til at bidrage til udviklingen af en europæisk IKZF- strategi. 3. 2. Demonstrationsprogrammet har fremhævet, at selv om kystzoneproblemerne er de samme i hele Europa, er løsningerne generelt områdespecifikke. Regionsudvalget un- derstreger derfor, at de lokale og regionale myndigheder er en afgørende faktor i IKZF. De lokale og regionale myndigheder har de bedste forudsætninger for at håndtere implementeringen af IKZF-strategier. 3. 3. Regionsudvalget slår til lyd for, at de erfaringer, man har indhøstet gennem demonstrationsprojekterne, anvendes bredt. Regionsudvalget mener, at fortløbende udvikling af en europæisk IKZF-strategi er afgørende for at kunne fremme en god kystzoneforvaltning, især i betragtning af kystzonens tværregionale karakter. Regionsudvalget understreger, at det er vigtigt at have en europæisk IKZF-strategi bestående af en række sammenhængende principper, foranstaltninger og ini- tiativer samt et støtteprogram, der kan vejlede de lokale og regionale myndigheder ved iværksættelsen af IKZF-praksis. 4. Vigtigheden af en lokal og regional dimension 4. 2. Erfaringen har vist, at forvaltningsniveauet skal passe til det pågældende kystområdes størrelse. Regionsudvalget understreger derfor, at en overordnet ramme for IKZF vil skulle omfatte et sæt vejledende principper på tværnationalt niveau, udarbejdelse af en strategi på tværregionalt niveau samt øget fokusering på udarbejdelse og iværksættelse af strategier (inklusive detaljerede planer eller strategier) på regionalt og lokalt plan. Regionsudvalget understreger, at de lokale og regionale 4. 3. myndigheder har de bedste forudsætninger for at iværksætte IKZF, da de oftest er tættest på kystproblemerne og har erfaring i at håndtere emner og politikker, der forudsætter en multisektoriel tilgang. Lokale og regionale myndigheder er ideelt placerede til at skabe større bevidsthed om IKZF- spørgsmål, og deres nøgleposition inden for fysisk planlægning vil vise sig at være uvurderlig i udviklingen af IKZF-planer. 4. 4. Regionsudvalget understreger endvidere, at de lokale og regionale myndigheder kan varetage lokale behov ved at udarbejde lokale løsninger på generelt områdespecifikke problemer. Kystområdernes forskelligartethed bevirker, at generelle strategier ikke vil være effektive. Lokale og regionale myndigheder har de bedste forudsætninger for at udarbejde lokale IKZF-strategier. Regionsudvalget slår til 4. 5. lyd for, at der oprettes et europæisk samarbejdsnetværk mellem lokale og regionale myndigheder i kystområder. Man bør overveje et netværk i stil med Netværket af Bæredygtige Byer, der kan gøre det muligt at diskutere fælles problemer og videreformidle løsningsmulig- heder. 5. Værdien af en EU-dimension 5. 1. Regionsudvalget understreger, at det er vigtigt at give IKZF-processen en EU-dimension, da det vil skabe visse fordele, når der skal udarbejdes fælles IKZF-strategier i medlemsstaterne og regionerne. Imidlertid er der en række spørgsmål, som skal tages op, hvis en europæisk IKZF-strategi skal blive en succes. 4. 1. Regionsudvalget mener, at det næste skridt i udvik- lingen af en europæisk IKZF-strategi er at etablere en ramme for den konkrete iværksættelse af IKZF. Som demonstrations- projekterne har vist, er der en række forskellige rammer, der er hensigtsmæssige og anvendelige på specifikke områder. Den enkelte ramme skal tilpasses den pågældende kystzones behov, og derfor kan det forekomme, at en strategi, der virker godt i én medlemsstat eller en speciel region, ikke er brugbar andre steder. Regionsudvalget tror, at EU’s rolle vil være at give 5. 2. vejledning på det overordnede plan. Der findes ikke nogen standardformel for integreret kystzoneforvaltning, og følgelig bør forvaltningsniveauet afspejle den pågældende kystzones størrelse. På europæisk plan er der behov for en overordnet strategi, medens egentlige kystzoneforvaltningsplaner kun er nødvendige på regionalt og lokalt plan. C 226/40 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende 8. 8. 2000 5. 3. Regionsudvalget mener, at EU bør spille en proaktiv rolle ved at fremme udviklingen af kystzoneforvaltningsproce- durer i hele Europa, herunder eventuelt også formuleringen af overordnede politikprincipper. EU-tiltag er nødvendige for at støtte de regionale og lokale myndigheder med at iværksætte IKZF. Til dette formål foreslår Regionsudvalget, at man overve- jer at iværksætte et støtteprogram i stil med INTERREG II C tværregionale med henblik på at samarbejdsområder og netværk omkring f. eks. Nordsøen, Østersøen, Atlantbuen og Middelhavet. fremme etableringen af 5. 4. Efter Regionsudvalgets opfattelse spiller EU en fremtræ- dende rolle for udviklingen og bevarelsen af grænseoverskri- dende samarbejde vedrørende IKZF mellem medlemsstaterne og med tredjelande. Korrekt forvaltning af kystzoner kræver tværnationale aftaler og samarbejdsnetværk. Regionsudvalget mener, at EU har de bedste forudsætninger for at befordre den slags aftaler. 5. 5. Regionsudvalget understreger, at der er behov for en gennemgribende revision af alle EU-politikker, der vedrører kystzonen, inklusive eventuelle initiativer med en EU-dimen- sion. Der tænkes her på fysisk planlægning, jf. Det Europæiske Fysiske og Funktionelle Udviklingsperspektiv, socioøkonomi- ske politikker som f. eks. den fælles landbrugspolitik og fiskeri- politikken, på støtteprogrammer vedrørende turistkomplekser ved kysterne, på miljøpolitikker, bl. a. forurenings- og naturbe- varingsprogrammer, samt på alle strukturfondstiltag, der påvir- ker udviklingen af kystområdet. Regionsudvalget foreslår, at man gennemgår og vurderer alle politikkerne for at sikre, at de ikke påvirker kystzonen i negativ retning. Desuden slår Regionsudvalget til lyd for, at IKZF-principperne og -strategier- ne efter demonstrationsprojekternes afslutning i behørigt omfang indarbejdes i alle EU’s politikker. 5. 6. Med henblik på sammenhæng i fremtidige IKZF- strategier foreslår Regionsudvalget, at der nedsættes en tværfag- lig gruppe med repræsentanter for de forskellige politikinteres- ser i de berørte generaldirektorater, og med det mest berørte generaldirektorat i spidsen (f. eks. generaldirektoratet for miljø). Gruppen skulle bl. a. have til opgave fortløbende at videreudvik- le EU’s IKZF-strategi og sørge for, at IKZF-principperne inddrages i de relevante politikområder. Regionsudvalget understreger EU’s støttefunktion i 5. 7. forhold til IKZF, hvilket betyder, at EU bl. a. skal: — befordre iværksættelsen af IKZF ved at udarbejde et støtteprogram, der sigter mod at fremme oprettelsen af tværregionale samarbejdsområder og netværk, — fortsætte og støtte IKZF-relateret forskning og uddannelse, herunder f. eks. fortsat udvikling af demonstrationsmetoder og -rammer, — yde teknisk assistance og bistå med ekspertviden samt fremme tværregionale rammer, tværnationalt samarbejde og erfaringsudveksling, — skabe større bevidsthed om såvel fordelene ved som behovet for integreret kystzoneforvaltning. 6. Behov for engagement i forhold til integreret kystzo- neforvaltning Regionsudvalget understreger, at der er behov for at 6. 1. skabe større generel forståelse for kystzonens værdi og navnlig for vigtigheden af, at den forvaltes korrekt. For at nå dertil mener Regionsudvalget, at alle nuværende forvaltningsorganer på internationalt, nationalt, regionalt og lokalt plan bør engagere sig i processen omkring integreret kystzoneforvalt- ning. Der er behov for aktiv, fortsat deltagelse, og ikke blot passiv støtte. Behovet for IKZF bør anerkendes, og der bør allokeres ressourcer dertil. Regionsudvalget mener, at de lokale og regionale myndigheder bør fremhjælpe dette engagement og påtage sig en del af ansvaret for det. Regionsudvalget er klar over, at IKZF er en kompliceret 6. 2. procedure, der kræver inddragelse af alle forvaltningsorganer og brugere, herunder nationale regeringer, statsorganer, regio- nale og lokale myndigheder, ngo’er, relevante erhvervssektorer og offentligheden. En betingelse for korrekt forvaltning af kystzonen er imidlertid, at alle forvaltningsorganer og brugere engagerer sig i processen omkring den integrerede kystzonefor- valtning. Til dette formål slår Regionsudvalget til lyd for, at der iværksættes de nødvendige mekanismer i de lokale og regionale myndigheders regi med henblik på at skabe synergier og gøre det muligt at inddrage alle relevante sektorer og enkeltpersoner. 7. Behovet for at fastlægge kystzonens omfang 7. 1. Regionsudvalget slår til lyd for, at kystzonens fysiske omfang om nødvendigt fastlægges på lokalt plan med henblik på at afdække forvaltningsbehovet. Dette vil kræve indsamling og bearbejdning af al tilgængelig information om kystområdet, dets fysiske udbredelse, dets forvaltning og dets brugere. Regionsudvalget ser en række fordele i at fastlægge kystzonens fysiske omfang, da det vil bane vej for følgende: — bistå med at tilvejebringe ressourcer, navnlig for at hjælpe regionale og lokale forvaltninger med at løse kystrelaterede problemer, — påvisning -mangler, af nuværende forvaltningsproblemer og 8. 8. 2000 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende C 226/41 — identificering af nuværende forvaltningsorganer og eksiste- rende administrative systemer med ansvar for kystzonen, re bør gøres mere opmærksomme på fordelene ved og behovet for kystzoneforvaltning, og at de desuden bør undervises i at implementere IKZF-praksis. — etablering af et tættere samarbejde mellem nuværende kystforvaltningsorganer og myndigheder, — etablering af en ramme for IKZF inklusive nye skrædder- syede forvaltningsstrukturer til de enkelte kystområder. 7. 2. Selv om Regionsudvalget anerkender, at kystzonernes grænser er bestemt af naturlige processer og systemer, kan disse ikke være eneafgørende ved fastlæggelsen af grænserne. Regionsudvalget foreslår derfor, at man i afgrænsningen af kystzonen tilstræber en balance mellem de naturlige processer og de eksisterende forvaltningssystemer. Da man f. eks. forbe- redte et udkast til en IKZF-strategi i Irland, blev det slået fast, at der fandtes 9 kystceller i landet, der var dannet af naturlige kystprocesser. Disse celler blev efterfølgende inddelt i 13 kyst- celler som et resultat af en undersøgelse af de gældende administrative grænser, og fordi det var relativt let at udarbejde strategiplaner for 13 i stedet for 9 celler. Regionsudvalget slår til lyd for, at fastlæggelsen af kystzonerne bør ske på lokalt/regionalt plan, da de lokale og regionale myndigheder formodentlig bedst ved, hvor grænserne bør gå. 8. Behovet for ressourcer 8. 1. Regionsudvalget gentager, at IKZF kræver ressourcer for at kunne blive implementeret ordentligt. Der er især behov for ressourcer til udvikling og støtte til tilvejebringelse af IKZF-mekanismer, indsamling og bearbejdning af data og til undervisning. Regionsudvalget bemærker, at dataindsamling og 8. 2. -bearbejdning vil spille en væsentlig rolle for etableringen af rammer for IKZF. Indsamling og bearbejdning af oplysninger, så de fremstår i et brugbart og tilgængeligt format, kan være en krævende opgave såvel penge- som tidsmæssigt. Mange af oplysningerne findes allerede, men er enten ikke tilgængelige eller ikke kendte. Regionsudvalget foreslår derfor at holde omkostningerne nede ved først at undersøge, hvilke oplys- ninger der allerede findes, derefter slå fast, hvad der mangler, og endelig indsamle de nødvendige oplysninger. Behovet for forskning og information skal afdækkes gennem et direkte samarbejde mellem forskningsinstitutioner og kystforvalt- ninger. 9. Konklusioner Regionsudvalget 9. 1. hilser oplægget velkomment, og mener, at en fortlø- bende udvikling af IKZF-principper er afgørende for udarbej- delsen af en europæisk strategi for integreret kystzoneforvalt- ning, der sigter mod at beskytte kystzonen, fremme bæredygtig udvikling af kystzonen og udvikle systemer, der fremhjælper tværregionalt samarbejde; 9. 2. understreger, at de lokale og regionale myndigheder spiller en vigtig rolle i forbindelse med iværksættelsen af IKZF i kraft af deres erfaring med at håndtere multisektorielle problemer og det faktum, at kystzoneproblemer og -løsninger generelt er områdespecifikke. Kystzonernes forskelligartethed bevirker, at de lokale og regionale myndigheder har de bedste forudsætninger for at skabe lokale løsninger på lokale lyd for etablering af samarbejdsnet problemer. Der slås til mellem lokale og regionale myndigheder i kystzonerne, der således kan diskutere fælles problemer og videreformidle løsningsmuligheder; de forskellige interesse- eller brugergrup- per og lokalbefolkningen bør også inddrages; 9. 3. fremhæver værdien af en EU-dimension i udviklingen af en europæisk IKZF-strategi, og foreslår, at EU skal yde vejledning og støtte på det overordnede plan. I denne rolle vil EU kunne fremme etableringen af tværregionale samarbejds- områder og netværk mellem medlemsstater og med tredjelan- de. EU har de bedste forudsætninger for at skabe grænseover- skridende samarbejde omkring udarbejdelsen af en IKZF- strategi i betragtning af de nye muligheder, det nye INTER- REG III B vil skabe; understreger, at der er behov for en gennemgribende 9. 4. revision af alle EU-politikker, der vedrører kystzonen, inklusive eventuelle andre initiativer med en EU-dimension. Heri indgår Det Europæiske Fysiske og Funktionelle Udviklingsperspektiv, den fælles landbrugspolitik og fiskeripolitikken, støttepro- grammer vedrørende turistkomplekser ved kysterne, miljøpoli- tikker, bl. a. forurenings- og naturbevaringsprogrammer, samt alle strukturfondstiltag, der påvirker udviklingen af kystom- rådet; 8. 3. Regionsudvalget mener, at tilførsel af ressourcer ligele- des vil være afgørende for uddannelse og for at skabe større bevidsthed om integreret kystzoneforvaltning, især blandt de nuværende kystzoneforvaltere. Disse vil sandsynligvis spille en vigtig rolle i forbindelse med fremtidige kystzoneforvaltnings- procedurer. Regionsudvalget mener, at de nuværende forvalte- 9. 5. slår til lyd for, at der nedsættes en tværfaglig gruppe med repræsentanter for de relevante generaldirektoraters poli- tikinteresser. Gruppen skulle bl. a. have til opgave fortløbende at videreudvikle EU’s IKZF-strategi og sørge for, at IKZF- principperne inddrages i de relevante politikområder; C 226/42 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende 8. 8. 2000 9. 6. understreger, at der er behov for, at alle forvaltningsor- ganer og brugere engagerer sig i IKZF-processen. Der skal skabes de fornødne mekanismer i de lokale, regionale og nationale myndigheders regi, således at der kan skabes syner- gier, og således at det bliver muligt at inddrage alle relevante sektorer og enkeltpersoner; ningen af kystzonen tages ligeligt hensyn til de naturlige processer og den nuværende forvaltningsstruktur. Afgrænsnin- gen af kystzonen bør ske på lokalt/regionalt plan, da de lokale og regionale myndigheder formodentlig ved mest om passende grænsedragning, forvaltere, myndigheder og eksisterende pro- blemer; slår til lyd for, at kystzonernes fysiske omfang om 9. 7. nødvendigt fastlægges på lokalt plan med henblik på at afdække deres forvaltningsbehov og foreslår, at der i afgræns- gentager, at der er behov for tilstrækkelige ressourcer, 9. 8. hvis IKZF skal kunne gennemføres, herunder især tiludvikling og støtte til tilvejebringelse af IKZF-mekanismer, indsamling og bearbejdning af data og til uddannelse. Bruxelles, den 12. april 2000. Jos CHABERT Formand for Regionsudvalget


title: INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-1172/00 di Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) alla Commissione. Discriminazione in base all'età nel settore della salute.

eurovoc_concepts:
European social policy
age discrimination
competence of the Member States
right to health

text: C 46 E/138 Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:224) europee IT 13. 2. 2001 (2001/C 46 E/158) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-1172/00 di Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) alla Commissione Oggetto: Discriminazione in base all(cid:146)et(cid:224) nel settore della salute (12 aprile 2000) Nel trattato di Amsterdam Ł stato fissato per la prima volta un divieto di discriminazione in base all(cid:146)et(cid:224) (articolo 13 del trattato CE). Tuttavia, in alcuni Stati membri, determinati trattamenti medici o operazione (cid:129) in genere costosi (cid:129) non sono piø rimborsati per le persone che abbiano superato una certa et(cid:224). La Commissione dispone di dati precisi sulle pratiche concretamente in uso nei singoli Stati membri per quanto riguarda una discriminazione in base all(cid:146)et(cid:224) nel settore della salute? La Commissione Ł disposta a trasmettere tali dati al Parlamento europeo? La Commissione ritiene che in tutti gli Stati membri debba essere garantita ogni forma di assistenza medica alle persone, indipendentemente dalla loro et(cid:224), e che i costi debbano essere sostenuti dalle rispettive previdenze sociali? In caso affermativo, quali iniziative intende prendere la Commissione per impedire una discriminazione inbase all(cid:146)et(cid:224) nel settore della salute, e come dovrebbero essere applicate in concreto negli Stati membri? Risposta del Commissario Diamantopoulou a nome della Commissione (8 giugno 2000) Ciascuno Stato membro ha il compito di organizzare il proprio regime di previdenza sociale, compresi i sistemi sanitari, e di stabilire le condizioni che danno diritto alle prestazioni previste da tali sistemi. La Commissione ha proposto una strategia concertata per modernizzare la protezione sociale (1), basata su quattro obiettivi chiave approvati dal Consiglio (2), uno dei quali Ł quello di garantire un(cid:146)assistenza sanitaria sostenibile e di alta qualit(cid:224). Per quanto riguarda i dati, la Commissione rimanda l(cid:146)onorevole deputato alla sua relazione sulla protezione sociale in Europa (cid:129) 1999, che fornisce un aggiornamento sulla recente evoluzione dei sistemi di assistenza sanitaria (3), e al sistema di reciproca informazione sulla protezione sociale negli Stati membri (MISSOC) (4). La Commissione non dispone tuttavia di dati piø precisi sulle prestazioni o cure fornite agli anziani o ad altri gruppi specifici nell(cid:146)ambito dei sistemi di assistenza sanitaria degli Stati membri. Nella sua comunicazione «Verso un(cid:146)Europa di tutte le et(cid:224) (cid:129) promuovere la prosperit(cid:224) e la solidariet(cid:224) fra le generazioni», (5) la Commissione sottolinea la necessit(cid:224) di migliorare l(cid:146)accesso all(cid:146)assistenza sanitaria per le persone di tutte le et(cid:224) e per gli anziani, nonchØ di fornire un(cid:146)adeguata assistenza sanitaria di qualit(cid:224) alle persone molto anziane e deboli. La Commissione ha inoltre messo in evidenza il problema della discriminazione nell(cid:146)accesso ai servizi pubblici, ivi compresa l(cid:146)assistenza sanitaria, nella sua proposta che istituisce un programma d(cid:146)azione per combattere la discriminazione fondata sulla razza o l(cid:146)origine etnica, la religione o le convinzioni personali, gli handicap, l(cid:146)et(cid:224) o le tendenze sessuali (6). (1) COM(1999) 347 def. (2) GU C 8 del 12. 1. 2000. (3) COM(2000) 163 def. (4) Website: http://europa. eu. int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/missoc98/english/f_main. htm. (5) COM(1999) 221 def. (6) COM(1999) 567 def


title: Regolamento (CE) n. 760/2000 della Commissione, del 12 aprile 2000, che stabilisce in quale misura può essere dato seguito alle domande di diritti di importazione presentate nel mese di aprile 2000 per le carni bovine congelate destinate alla trasformazione

eurovoc_concepts:
CCT duties
beef
food processing
frozen product
import
meat processing industry

text: L 92/18 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee 13. 4. 2000 REGOLAMENTO (CE) N. 760/2000 DELLA COMMISSIONE del 12 aprile 2000 che stabilisce in quale misura può essere dato seguito alle domande di diritti di importazione presentate nel mese di aprile 2000 per le carni bovine congelate destinate alla trasformazione LA COMMISSIONE DELLE COMUNITÀ EUROPEE, (3) visto il trattato che istituisce la Comunità europea, visto il regolamento (CE) n. 1054/1999 della Commissione, del 21 maggio 1999, recante apertura e modalità di gestione di un contingente tariffario di importazione per carni bovine conge- late destinate alla trasformazione (1o luglio 1999-30 giugno 2000) (1), in particolare l'articolo 3, paragrafo 3, secondo comma, considerando quanto segue: (1) (2) L'articolo 6, paragrafo 1, del regolamento (CE) n. 1054/ 1999 prevede un'eventuale nuova attribuzione dei quan- titativi per i quali non siano state presentate domande di titoli di importazione entro il 25 febbraio 2000. L'articolo 1 del regolamento (CE) n. 511/2000 della Commissione, del 9 marzo 2000, relativo alla ridistribu- zione dei diritti di importazione in virtù del regolamento (CE) n. 1054/1999 recante apertura e modalità di gestione di un contingente tariffario di importazione per carni bovine congelate destinate alla trasformazione (2), ha stabilito le quantità di carni bovine congelate desti- nate alla trasformazione che possono essere importate a condizioni speciali entro il 30 giugno 2000. L'articolo 3, paragrafo 3, del regolamento (CE) n. 1054/ 1999 prevede la possibilità di ridurre i quantitativi richiesti. Le domande presentate vertono su un quantita- tivo globale superiore alle quantità disponibili. Stando così le cose e nell'intento di garantire un'equa riparti- zione dei quantitativi disponibili, è opportuno ridurre proporzionalmente i quantitativi richiesti, HA ADOTTATO IL PRESENTE REGOLAMENTO: Articolo 1 Ciascuna domanda di diritti di importazione presentata in conformità dell'articolo 6 del regolamento (CE) n. 1054/1999 è soddisfatta entro i limiti seguenti, espressi in carni con osso: — 0,5987 % delle quantità richieste per le carni destinate alla fabbricazione delle conserve di cui all'articolo 7, lettera a) del regolamento (CE) n. 1054/1999. — 3,1218 % delle quantità richieste per le carni destinate alla fabbricazione di prodotti di cui all'articolo 7, lettera b), del regolamento (CE) n. 1054/1999. Il presente regolamento entra in vigore il 13 aprile 2000. Articolo 2 Il presente regolamento è obbligatorio in tutti i suoi elementi e direttamente applicabile in ciascuno degli Stati membri. Fatto a Bruxelles, il 12 aprile 2000. Per la Commissione Franz FISCHLER Membro della Commissione (1) GU L 129 del 22. 5. 1999, pag. 8. (2) GU L 63 del 10. 3. 2000, pag. 13


title: QUESTION ÉCRITE E-1173/00 posée par Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) à la Commission. Financement de la société de l'information dans le secteur automobile.

eurovoc_concepts:
EU financing
East Midlands
information technology
job creation
skilled worker

text: C 72 E/24 Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes FR 6. 3. 2001 RØponse donnØe par Mme de Palacio au nom de la Commission (15 juin 2000) Comme elle l(cid:146)a dØj(cid:224) prØcisØ dans sa rØponse (cid:224) la question Øcrite E-2635/99 (1) de l(cid:146)Honorable Parlementaire, la Commission est en mesure de fournir (cid:224) l(cid:146)Honorable Parlementaire les informations demandØes pour la pØriode 1990-1999. ConformØment (cid:224) ce qui est demandØ, celles-ci sont dØsormais ventilØes par annØes et prØsentØes ci-dessous en format tableau. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 (millions d(cid:146)euros) JOULE I (Ønergie non nuclØaire) (1) JOULE II (Ønergie non nuclØaire) (1) Actions de promotion (RES) (1) 4e Programme-cadre PRG (Ønergie non nuclØaire) (1) 5e Programme-cadre PRG (Ønergie non nuclØaire) (1) Altener I B4-1030 Altener II B4-1030 89,8 26,7 6,6 (cid:129) 136,4 94,6 26,5 24,9 313,3 163,5 266,5 260,1 5,0 10,0 13,0 10,2 8,6 211,6 (2) 11,0 15,4 Thermie B6-7151 (3) 6,6 35,7 35,0 35,2 46,6 DØmonstration (Ønergie) (3) 2e Programme-cadre PRG (sßretØ nuclØaire/fusion) 3e Programme-cadre PRG (fission/fusion) 4e Programme-cadre PRG (fission/fusion) 5e Programme-cadre PRG (fission/fusion) Transport de matiŁres radioactives B4-1020 (4) Formation (contr(cid:244)le de sØcuritØ) 30,1 37,4 57,1 30,2 66,9 242,2 156,8 46,0 3,8 3,3 134,8 222,9 222,3 340,1 258,6 197,8 206,4 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,2 0,3 (cid:129) (cid:129) 0,7 0,9 2,0 1,3 0,7 1,8 (cid:129) 0,1 237,8 0,5 1,1 (1) (2) (3) Les dØpenses en faveur des Ønergies renouvelables font partie intØgrante de la ligne budgØtaire correspondant au programme de RDT sur les Ønergies non-nuclØaires, c. (cid:224). d. pas exclusivement renouvelables. Seul en 1994, le Budget «Recherche» disposait d(cid:146)une ligne distincte (cid:129) non liØe (cid:224) un programme (cid:129) pour les Ønergies renouvelables; pour la pØriode 1995-1998 et pour 1999, les chiffres mentionnØs comprennent la partie dØmonstration gØrØe par la DG (cid:201)nergie. ExØcution des crØdits. Les chiffres indiquØs concernent uniquement les sources d(cid:146)Ønergie renouvelables (biomasse, geothermique, hydroØlectrique, solaire, Øolienne, les Ønergies renouvelables dans la construction et l(cid:146)intØgration des Ønergies renouvelables) et uniquement des projets de dØmonstration; certaines activitØs dans le domaine de la diffusion et, parmi elles, celles du rØseau OPET ayant trait aux Ønergies renouvelables, ne font pas partie des chiffres ci-dessus vu qu(cid:146)elles ne sont pas classØes par source d(cid:146)Ønergie. (4) Dont le programme SURE (1999). (1) JO C 225 E du 8. 8. 2000, p. 187. (2001/C 72 E/027) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-1173/00 posØe par Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) (cid:224) la Commission (12 avril 2000) Objet: Financement de la sociØtØ de l(cid:146)information dans le secteur automobile Face (cid:224) la restructuration qui a lieu dans l(cid:146)industrie automobile des West Midlands (cid:224) la suite de la dissolution du groupe Rover par BMW, la Commission pourrait-elle examiner la possibilitØ d(cid:146)octroyer un 6. 3. 2001 FR Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes C 72 E/25 financement spØcial pour des projets de la sociØtØ de l(cid:146)information dans la rØgion des West Midlands, centrØ sur des activitØs crØatrices d(cid:146)emplois pour la main-d(cid:146)(cid:156)uvre qualifiØe actuellement confrontØe aux problŁmes du ch(cid:244)mage? RØponse donnØe par M. Barnier au nom de la Commission (8 juin 2000) L(cid:146)aide accordØe aux programmes de dØveloppement Øconomique au titre des Fonds structurels europØens sera importante dans la rØgion des West Midlands au cours de la pØriode 2000-2006. Dans le contexte de l(cid:146)initiative eEurope lancØe au Conseil europØen de Lisbonne, le dØveloppement de la sociØtØ de l(cid:146)informa- tion est l(cid:146)une des prioritØs de la Commission et marque de son empreinte beaucoup d(cid:146)initiatives europØennes de financement. La Commission s(cid:146)efforcera de veiller (cid:224) ce que le dØveloppement de la sociØtØ de l(cid:146)information soit intØgrØ comme il se doit dans la prochaine gØnØration de programmes des Fonds structurels pour la rØgion, conformØment (cid:224) l(cid:146)initiative eEurope. En premier lieu, une grande partie de la rØgion des West Midlands peut bØnØficier des aides des Fonds structurels au titre de l(cid:146)objectif 2 et (cid:224) un soutien transitoire dØgressif au titre de cet objectif («phasing-out» objectif 2). Avec un montant de plus de 850 millions d(cid:146)euros, le programme des West Midlands sera le plus important au Royaume-Uni, au titre de l(cid:146)objectif 2, au cours de la pØriode 2000-2006. Le plan de dØveloppement des West Midlands dans le cadre de l(cid:146)objectif 2 qui a ØtØ soumis rØcemment par les autoritØs de l(cid:146)(cid:201)tat membre (cid:224) la Commission contient les quatre prioritØs suivantes: 1) dØveloppement d(cid:146)une base Øconomique diversifiØe et dynamique; 2) crØation d(cid:146)une rØgion caractØrisØe par l(cid:146)apprentissage et les compØtences; 3) mise en place de l(cid:146)infrastructure et des conditions nØcessaires (cid:224) la croissance; 4) revitalisation des communautØs. Les aides (cid:224) l(cid:146)innovation et au dØveloppement de la sociØtØ de l(cid:146)information constitueront l(cid:146)un des thŁmes rØcurrents du programme. Dans le cadre de ces prioritØs, les activitØs suivantes peuvent Œtre envisagØes: aide (cid:224) la formation pour l(cid:146)utilisation et la promotion de la technologie de l(cid:146)information et des communications, aide aux PME dans le secteur de la haute technologie et notamment aux entreprises spØcialisØes et capital de dØmarrage par l(cid:146)intermØdiaire de subventions, de prŒts ou de prises de participation. Le projet de plan souligne la nØcessitØ de crØer des emplois et Øvalue chacune des prioritØs susmentionnØes en termes de crØation de nouveaux emplois. En deuxiŁme lieu, les West Midlands recevront une part du programme de l(cid:146)objectif 3, qui reprØsente au total 4 500 millions d(cid:146)euros au Royaume-Uni. Avec celui de l(cid:146)objectif 2, ce financement peut servir (cid:224) promouvoir le redØploiement du personnel qualifiØ employØ auparavant dans l(cid:146)industrie automobile. En plus de ces montants, les West Midlands pourraient Øgalement bØnØficier d(cid:146)aides en faveur de projets novateurs, en particulier dans le domaine de la sociØtØ de l(cid:146)information. La Commission Ølabore actuellement une sØrie de lignes directrices relatives (cid:224) ces actions. (2001/C 72 E/028) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-1174/00 posØe par Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) (cid:224) la Commission Objet: Recherche dans le secteur automobile (12 avril 2000) Face (cid:224) la restructuration qui a lieu dans l(cid:146)industrie automobile des West Midlands (cid:224) la suite de la dissolution du groupe Rover par BMW, la Commission pourrait-elle indiquer: 1. Quel est l(cid:146)Øtat des projets actuels de recherche dans les nouvelles technologies automobiles? 2. Quelles sont les possibilitØs de promouvoir de nouvelles technologies au moyen d(cid:146)un programme spØcial de financement de premier Øtablissement pour de nouvelles entreprises Øtablies dans la rØgion des West Midlands? 3. Si elle peut affecter une enveloppe financiŁre spØciale, en considØration du grave problŁme de ch(cid:244)mage parmi les techniciens qualifiØs de l(cid:146)automobile (cid:224) la suite de la dissolution du groupe Rover?


title: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 753/2000 av den 12 april 2000 om fastställande av det maximala exportbidraget för vitsocker med avseende på den trettiofemte delanbudsinfordran som utfärdas inom ramen för den stående anbudsinfordran som föreskrivs i förordning (EG) nr 1489/1999

eurovoc_concepts:
award of contract
export refund
white sugar

text: 13. 4. 2000 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 92/3 KOMMISSIONENS FÖRORDNING (EG) nr 753/2000 av den 12 april 2000 om fastställande av det maximala exportbidraget för vitsocker med avseende på den trettiofemte delanbudsinfordran som utfärdas inom ramen för den stående anbudsinfordran som föreskrivs i förordning (EG) nr 1489/1999 EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION HAR ANTAGIT DENNA FÖRORDNING med beaktande av Fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, med beaktande av rådets förordning (EEG) nr 2038/1999 av den 13 september 1999 om den gemensamma organisationen av marknaden för socker (1), särskilt artikel 18. 5 andra stycket i denna, och utvecklingen i gemenskapen och på världsmarknaden i fråga om socker. (3) (4) Efter en granskning av de anbud som har lämnats in till följd av den trettiofemte delanbudsinfordran bör de bestämmelser som anges i artikel 1 fastställas. De åtgärder som föreskrivs i denna förordning är fören- liga med yttrandet från Förvaltningskommittén för socker. av följande skäl: (1) (2) I kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1489/1999 av den 7 juli 1999 om en stående anbudsinfordran för att för fastställa vitsocker (2), skall utfärdas för export av detta socker. importavgifter och/eller att delanbudsinfordringar exportbidrag krävs I enlighet med artikel 9. 1 i förordning (EG) nr 1489/ 1999 skall ett maximalt exportbidrag fastställas för den aktuella delanbudsinfordran i förekommande fall, med till situationen och den förutsebara hänsyn särskilt HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE. Artikel 1 Med avseende på den trettiofemte delanbudsinfordran för vitsocker som utfärdas i enlighet med förordning (EG) nr 1489/ 1999 skall det maximala beloppet för exportbidrag fastställas till 50,798 EUR/100 kg. Denna förordning träder i kraft den 13 april 2000. Artikel 2 Denna förordning är till alla delar bindande och direkt tillämplig i alla medlemsstater. Utfärdad i Bryssel den 12 april 2000. På kommissionens vägnar Franz FISCHLER Ledamot av kommissionen (1) EGT L 252, 25. 9. 1999, s. 1. (2) EGT L 172, 8. 7. 1999, s. 27


title: WRITTEN QUESTION E-1175/00 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission. Use of hired cars from third countries.

eurovoc_concepts:
common commercial policy
motor car
third country
transport authorisation
vehicle rental

text: 20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/91 One example is the Lisbon-Brussels route: (cid:129) the route is now operated exclusively by the Qualiflyer group (TAP and Sabena), (cid:129) night flights are being ended from the start of the summer period, (cid:129) fares have risen steeply and conditions for bookings and advance payments have been tightened, (cid:129) only one counter is available (Qualiflyer), leading to a substantial increase in congestion and a lack of personal service. In this light, will the Commission monitor developments in relation to the consequences of liberalisation in detail, and will it intervene in cases such as that described above to preserve the principles on which the liberalisation of air transport in the EU was based? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (3 May 2000) The Commission is continuously monitoring the air transport sector to ensure that the liberalisation in force since 1 January 1993, are properly measures constituting the third and final In its implemented and that the competition rules provided for in the EC Treaty are fully applied. communication of 20 May 1999 entitled (cid:145)The European airline industry: from single market to world- wide challenges(cid:146) (1), it presented the results of ten years of liberalisation of civil aviation. While these may appear to be positive overall, the communication mentions the disappointing fare increases and stresses that there are still large differences in fares per kilometre across the Community. (cid:145)air package(cid:146), With regard to the Lisbon-Brussels route, the Commission shares the Honourable Member(cid:146)s concern that the route is now operated exclusively by the Qualiflyer group. It is taking a detailed look at the compatibility of the Qualiflyer group agreements with the provisions of Article 81 (ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty. (1) COM(1999) 182 final. (2001/C 53 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1175/00 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission (12 April 2000) Subject: Use of hired cars from third countries In its reply to question H-1190/98 (1) the Commission stated its intention (cid:145)to settle this matter during the first half of this year(cid:146) (i. e. 1999). Was it successful? (1) Debates of the European Parliament No 4-531 (January 1999). Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (19 June 2000) The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1662/1999 of 28 July 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of the Community Customs Code (1) which came into force on 5 August 1999, provided a solution to the problem raised by Question H-1190/98 during the January 1999 part-session question time (2). C 53 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 In line with the new provision, the customs authorities may authorise natural persons established in the customs territory of the Community to use in that territory a vehicle hired under a written contract outside it. This authorisation is subject to the condition that countries where the vehicles are hired and registered authorise temporary importation under comparable circumstances for vehicles hired and registered in the customs territory of the Community. The vehicle shall be re-exported or returned to a car-hire company established in the customs territory of the Community for subsequent re-exportation within eight days of the entry into force of the contract. (1) OJ L 197, 29. 7. 1999. (2) Debates of the European Parliament No 4-531 (January 1999. ). (2001/C 53 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1179/00 by Gorka Kn(cid:246)rr Borr(cid:224)s (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (12 April 2000) Subject: The Basque language in Navarre The legal regime governing the use of Basque in Navarre is at present laid down by regional law No 18/1986 of 15 December 1986 (on the Basque language). This law divides the territory of Navarre in which Basque and Spanish have joint into three language zones, namely: a Basque-speaking zone, official status; a (cid:145)mixed(cid:146) zone(cid:146); and a non-Basque-speaking zone (in the latter two, the sole official language is Spanish). According to data supplied by the regional government of Navarre, Basque is spoken by 70 % of the population in the Basque-speaking zone, 21 % in the mixed zone and 7 % in the non-Basque- speaking zone. In the Basque-speaking zone, given the co-official status of Basque, education and administration are conducted on a bilingual basis. In the mixed zone, Basque is not official and its use is voluntary. In the non-Basque-speaking zone, language rights do not exist as such: Basque exists only as a school subject, and Basque-medium education is not offered, even though there is certainly demand. The administration in this zone is under no obligation to deal with the public in Basque, nor does it have the resources to do so. Furthermore, Basque-medium education is not offered in the sole state university of the region of Navarre, as Basque has recently been given a status similar to that of (cid:145)foreign(cid:146) languages such as English or French. Given that the regional law No 18/1986 on the Basque language defines Basque as a specifically Navarran language, and in view of the numerous resolutions adopted by the European Parliament such as that of 30 October 1987 in which it is recommended that Member States should give an official dimension to the teaching of regional and minority languages and give such teaching the same status as that accorded to the teaching of national languages, and, similarly, the resolutions of 9 February 1994, 17 December 1998 and 16 March 2000, is the Commission aware of this situation? Does the Commission not believe that the present state of affairs in the non-Basque-speaking zone runs counter to the principles of those resolutions? On the eve of the European Year of Languages, does the Commission not believe that cases such as that of Basque in Navarre need to be closely monitored? Does the Commission intend to draw up a progress report on respect for the cultural diversity of the Member States, in line with the principles arising from Article 151 of the Treaty? Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (14 June 2000) Respect for linguistic and cultural diversity is one of the foundation stones of the Union. The Commission takes note of the information provided by the Honourable Member on the situation of the Basque language in the Communidad Foral de Navarra. Tit should be pointed out that a Parliamentary resolution is not legally binding on the Member States. For its part, he Commission has taken action within its field of competence e. g. by drafting a report on the situation of regional and minority languages in the Union (the (cid:145)Euromosaic(cid:146) study) and providing financial of the said resolutions support for safeguarding and promoting regional and minority languages, as well as supporting the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages and the Mercator information network. The Commission has alsoopening up Community programmes, where applicable, financed initiatives involving regional and minority languages within other Community programmes