title: QUESTION ÉCRITE E-1196/00 posée par William Newton Dunn (ELDR) à la Commission. Persécutions religieuses en Inde.

eurovoc_concepts:
Christian
India
common foreign and security policy
freedom of religious beliefs

formats: html pdf print

text: 13. 2. 2001 FR Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes C 46 E/143 (2001/C 46 E/164) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-1196/00 posØe par William Newton Dunn (ELDR) (cid:224) la Commission Objet: PersØcutions religieuses en Inde (12 avril 2000) Dans plusieurs Øtats indiens, des communautØs chrØtiennes seraient en butte (cid:224) des actes de violence qui prennent la forme de meurtres, de viols collectifs, de bastonnades, de menaces, ainsi que de destructions et de profanations d(cid:146)Øglises. Dans le mŒme temps, des initiatives lØgislatives visant (cid:224) restreindre la libertØ religieuse ont ØtØ engagØes dans un certain nombre d(cid:146)Øtats indiens. Dans l(cid:146)Øtat d(cid:146)Orissa par exemple, l(cid:146)exØcutif a promulguØ (cid:224) la fin de 1999 un arrŒtØ interdisant toute conversion sans l(cid:146)autorisation prØalable de la police locale et du magistrat du district. Dans l(cid:146)Øtat de Gujurat, un projet de loi sur la libertØ religieuse a ØtØ introduit au cours de cette mŒme annØe, qui sanctionne lourdement en tant que crime le fait de convertir des individus (cid:224) une autre religion. Bien que le projet ait ØtØ mis en sommeil en fØvrier de l(cid:146)annØe en cours, il est probable que des tentatives soient faites pour le relancer (cid:224) une date ultØrieure. Les chrØtiens de cet (cid:201)tat pensent que le projet donne lieu (cid:224) une interprØtation subjective et peut Œtre utilisØ pour interrompre leur action humanitaire parmi les pauvres et pour restreindre toute expression publique de leur foi. Compte tenu de ces ØvØnements, la Commission compte-t-elle Øvoquer la question de la tolØrance et de la libertØ religieuse lors du prochain sommet UE-Inde? RØponse donnØe par M. Patten au nom de la Commission (16 mai 2000) La Commission partage les prØoccupations exprimØes par l(cid:146)Honorable Parlementaire et souhaite souligner que la dØlØgation de la Commission (cid:224) New Delhi continue de suivre de prŁs la situation des minoritØs religieuses en Inde, y compris la CommunautØ chrØtienne, et de faire rapport (cid:224) ce sujet. Elle le fait en consultation Øtroite avec les missions de la CommunautØ (cid:224) New Delhi. Depuis la montØe en 1998 des actes de violence visant des familles et des locaux chrØtiens, ambassadeurs ont rØguliŁrement exprimØ leurs prØoccupations (cid:224) cet Øgard au gouvernement indien. les Le gouvernement de l(cid:146)Inde a, depuis, instituØ une Commission nationale des minoritØs. Cette Commission est chargØe en particulier de veiller (cid:224) la protection des minoritØs religieuses en Inde et d(cid:146)assurer le suivi des plaintes re(cid:231)ues. Bien qu(cid:146)elle n(cid:146)ait aucun pouvoir judiciaire, elle devrait continuer, espŁre-t-on, (cid:224) exercer une influence modØratrice sur les groupes extrØmistes et, partant, contribuer (cid:224) dØfendre le principe de la la(cid:239)citØ de l(cid:146)(cid:201)tat et de la libertØ de culte inscrit dans la constitution indienne. En ce qui concerne les initiatives lØgislatives qui auraient ØtØ prises par un certain nombre d(cid:146)(cid:201)tats indiens, la Commission compte demander (cid:224) sa dØlØgation de New Delhi d(cid:146)examiner, en coordination Øtroite avec ses collŁgues des missions des (cid:201)tats membres, le contexte factuel et les implications de l(cid:146)adoption de toute mesure lØgislative discriminatoire susceptible d(cid:146)affecter la libertØ de croyance des groupes chrØtiens et d(cid:146)autres groupes religieux en Inde. En se fondant sur leurs rØsultats, la Commission consultera ses partenaires et dØcidera du contenu et de la forme (cid:224) donner (cid:224) toute dØmarche Øventuelle auprŁs des autoritØs indiennes ainsi que du cadre appropriØ dans lequel elle pourra s(cid:146)inscrire. (2001/C 46 E/165) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-1203/00 posØe par Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) au Conseil (13 avril 2000) Objet: Utilisation d(cid:146)ogives d(cid:146)obus chimiques par l(cid:146)armØe turque RØpondant (cid:224) la question Øcrite E-2386/99 (1), le Conseil affirme que les sources citØes par le dØputØ n(cid:146)ont pas ØtØ portØes (cid:224) la connaissance du Conseil


title: Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion and transport"

eurovoc_concepts:
common transport policy
provision of services
regional policy
trans-European network
transport policy

formats: pdf print

text: C 226/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 2000 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion and transport’ (2000/C 226/09) THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion and transport (COM(1998) 806 final of 14 January 1999); having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and, in particular, Title XV (Trans- European networks) and Title XVII (Economic and social cohesion); having regard to the first official draft of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) presented at the informal meeting of EU ministers responsible for spatial planning held in Noordwijk on 9 and 10 June 1997; having regard to the European Parliament and Council Decision No. 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996 (1) on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, and the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision, currently under discussion, amending this decision (2); having regard to the Bureau decision of 2 June 1999 to draw up an opinion on this subject in accordance with the fifth paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and to direct Commission 1 for Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion and Cross-Border and Inter-Regional Cooperation to prepare this opinion; having regard to the contribution of the Commission for Trans-European Networks, Transport and Information Society (Commission 3) (rapporteur: Mr Tabakidis, mayor of Anargyron, GR/PSE), having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 390/99 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 1 on 1 December 1999 (rapporteur: Mr Valca´rcel Siso, president of the Autonomous Community of Murcia, ESP/PPE), adopted the following opinion at its 33rd plenary session of 12 and 13 April 2000 (meeting of 12 April). 1. Introduction consolidate and develop the synergies between cohesion and transport needs to be approached with the utmost rigour and caution. 1. 1. ‘Economic and social cohesion’ is enshrined in Article B of the Treaty on European Union as a key instrument for achieving ‘economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable’ within the EU. Furthermore, as is noted in the Communication on 1. 2. Cohesion and transport examined in the present opinion, it has long been acknowledged that there is a correlation between levels of economic and social development and availability of transport infrastructure and services. 1. 3. However, the relationship between transport and over- all development (and the basis for the latter, i. e. economic and social cohesion) is extremely complex both in theory and in practice. For this reason, any analysis or policy designed to Against such a backdrop, 1. 4. the Communication on Cohesion and transport, submitted by the European Com- mission to the Council, European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, should be unequivocally welcomed and favourably assessed. This is the case not only because the communication demon- strates the EU’s efforts to date in support of cohesion and transport, but also, and in particular, because it reveals a resolute will to make progress and overcome the limitations which currently remain. To provide very specific examples, the communication: (1) OJ L 228, 9. 9. 1996, p. 1. (2) COM(97) 681 final — OJ C 120, 18. 4. 1998, p. 14. — notes how sectoral policies liberalising transport services could result in disadvantages for certain population groups or regions; 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 226/23 — highlights how some disadvantages should be prevented and corrected by a transport policy which; — maintains certain services using public funding and — reduces disparities between regions regarding accessi- bility. On this basis, the Committee of the Regions wishes to 1. 5. address the following issues: — the instruments available for assessing results in the field of cohesion and transport; — the differentiation of modal and environmental policies in heartland and outlying EU regions; — remote and island regions, and the role which the EU’s ports are to play in dealing with these; — the effects of the abandonment and closure of secondary transport networks on the process of depopulation of disadvantaged inland mountain regions of Europe; — progress towards greater internalisation of costs by gradu- ally introducing infrastructure pricing systems; — the coordination of policies and instruments. 1. 6. In tackling some of these specific points, and in the final summary of conclusions, the COR stresses views and proposals already put forward in its opinion on the Trans- European transport network(1). the COR reiterates the line of argument and the views put forward in this earlier opinion. In all respects, There are major geographical, economic, demographic, 1. 7. cultural and social differences within the European Union. Regions with a high concentration of population and intense economic activity usually enjoy a high standard of living while at the same time there are regions which are lagging behind in their development and experiencing ever more severe depopulation. Island and remote regions also have their own specific 1. 8. features. These differences directly affect the rates of growth of each region and, ultimately, their ability to participate on an equal footing in the wider socio-economic construct which is the European Union. 1. 9. One of the most significant objectives of Community policy is cohesion, i. e. the creation of conditions enabling the various regions of Europe to have an equal stake in develop- ment. This is referred to explicitly in the new Treaty (Treaty of Amsterdam), specifically in Article 2 thereof. 1. 10. From as early as 1988, with the re-shaped Structural Funds, the Community put into practice its intention to promote social and economic cohesion politically and econ- omically. Later, in 1993, when the Cohesion Fund was integrated into the Structural Funds, Community policy took on even more specific objectives, namely investment in the trans-European networks. At the same time, the European Investment Bank has been working towards the same political goal by providing loans for regional development works as a matter of priority. 2. Transport and cohesion 2. 1. The role of transport, in terms of both infrastructure and the provision of services, is clearly crucial to the develop- ment of any region. 2. 2. The relationship between economic growth and devel- opment of the transport system is scientifically attested even though its exact form and variations have not been defined. 2. 3. It is nevertheless clear that a more comprehensive transport system, both in terms of infrastructure and services, is crucial to the development of the various regions, in both the short and long term. In the short term, the planning, construction, operation 2. 4. and maintenance of the transport system help to create jobs with direct implications for social integration and the economic prosperity of people living in the various regions. In the long term, the transport system has a direct influence on basic production parameters (the type of production, transport of raw materials, product distribution, storage arrangements etc. ). 2. 5. The overall stimulation of economic activity in both the manufacturing and service sectors (e. g. tourism) is one of the most important roles of transport. (1) Opinion based on the European Commission’s 1998 report on the implementation of the guidelines and priorities for the future (COM(98) 614 final), (CdR 60/99 fin — OJ C 293, 13. 10. 1999, p. 9). 2. 6. Transport is particularly important in areas of farming and fisheries owing to the perishable nature of fresh agricul- tural and fishery produce which needs to be transported faster than most manufactured goods. C 226/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 2000 2. 7. The important spatial dimension of transport is also evident. Each region has different needs as regards the transport in terms of both its technical system to be developed, characteristics and its economic dimension. In some regions the transport system has to be designed in such a way that it supports the production model (especially in industrial areas) whereas in other regions, the development of public transport is particularly crucial to promote the social integration of the population (especially in remote or disadvantaged areas) and to maintain the social and environmental balance (areas surrounding large urban centres, concentration of traffic in the EU core regions). The Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund should be used to support investment in public passenger transport systems which are environment-friendly and encour- age intermodality, in order to facilitate sustainable mobility in cities, with due regard also to the accessibility of and links with trans-European networks. 2. 8. It is important to emphasise that any inadequacies in the transport system have a direct impact on the cost of living since an inadequate system can function as a kind of informal taxation which increases the cost of products reaching the consumer. These higher costs primarily affect the economically weakest classes in society, and hence cohesion. In addition, this informal taxation which is associated with an inadequate transport system also affects exports of goods produced in such regions. In many cases, transport is associated with the concept 2. 9. of universal service and the public interest. 2. 10. Typical examples of this are transporting the sick from remote areas to medical centres in urban areas, taking children and young people to school, being able to respond quickly to natural disasters in remote areas and fostering social integration through contacts between different local cultures. Against this background, transport should not be 2. 11. judged on strictly economic criteria (economic viability), but considered in the context of a broader socio-economic and environmental analysis. In this respect, it is important to highlight that if lack of or inadequate basic services are not offset by an efficient transport network that diminishes the adverse effects of such deficiencies by providing access for the population of isolated or disadvantaged regions, this will serve to increase depopulation and reduce economic activity, thus hampering returns on transport investment. The result in these regions is a vicious circle in which the growing lack of supply generates a growing lack of demand and vice versa. 2. 12. The multiple effects of transport illustrate the import- ance of taking local specifics into account in the planning and infrastructure of transport in Europe. This is equally true within Member States. It is therefore important to emphasise the ever greater need to respect and implement the subsidiarity principle in the transport sector too. 3. Instruments for assessing results 3. 1. The direct relationship between Community transport policy and economic and social cohesion is clear from a joint analysis of Title XII (Trans-European networks) and Title XIV (Economic and social cohesion) of the EC Treaty. Both titles refer to the trans-European transport networks policy as an instrument expected to provide a direct contribution to strengthening economic and social cohesion. This task is defined as ‘reducing disparities between the levels of develop- ment of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including rural areas’ (the reference to islands was inserted by the Treaty of Amsterdam). 3. 2. Other more general approaches long advocated by the European Commission (White Paper on Growth, Competi- tiveness and Employment, the challenges and ways forward into the 21st century; 1993) and which have been duly included in the Communication on cohesion and transport, are those which tie in the establishment of transport infrastruc- ture with job-creation. 3. 3. In this respect, it is the temporary creation of jobs during the construction phases which first springs to mind. However, it is more worthwhile to focus on the creation of permanent jobs (tied in with new conditions of accessibility and costs) because the perspective is more long-term and because this type of new employment establishes an immediate and permanent functional link between the competitiveness of the productive machinery and economic and social cohesion. 3. 4. Lastly, one positive aspect of Community measures in the transport field must surely be greater generation and better distribution of income. This is the final outcome of reducing disparities and generating employment which serves to suc- cessfully complete the economic circle in furtherance of economic and social cohesion. However, the COR takes the view that 3. 5. tying in transport policy and economic and social cohesion will be no more than a generic principle or wishful thinking if there are no instruments to measure the specific impact of transport policy on economic and social cohesion. In short, and in very general terms, this means measuring the extent to which Community transport policy and each of its individual instru- ments contribute to achieving the following three key objec- tives: 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 226/25 — boosting the competitiveness of the European economy; 4. Different policies for heartland, outlying, island and landlocked areas — establishing the conditions for sustainable mobility; — and, of specific interest in this context, enhancing econ- omic and social cohesion within the EU. The lack of quantitative instruments (indicators and 3. 6. measuring variables, evaluation procedures, etc. ) is evident both in specific measures and at the wider level of infrastruc- ture networks and transport services. According to the Com- mittee’s information, the European Commission has in recent years been striving to improve matters, but even so: — for a specific infrastructure, service, measure or project, it is difficult to — ascertain ‘ex ante’ the level of Community interest in line with the cohesion policies, and — evaluate ‘ex post’ the extent to which the objectives have been achieved; and — for policies and overall infrastructure and service networks, it is difficult to — determine whether the effort is actually being chan- nelled in the right direction, and how accurately (or with which overall or specific exceptions), and — identify instruments for strengthening or correcting the effects obtained. 4. 1. On previous occasions, the Committee of the Regions has emphasised the need for Community transport policy to take account of the individual problems posed in the different types of region within the EU, in each case seeking specific solutions to specific problems: — ‘heartland areas’, where the key problems are more related to competitiveness and capacity and where the impact of external factors (particularly environmental ones) is crucial; — ‘outlying areas’, where problems relating to income and employment, accessibility, depopulation and economic and social cohesion, are unavoidable and where the impact of external factors may be relatively minor. 4. 2. It is equally important to take into account the so- called Northern dimension. The more Northern countries differ from other EU regions in terms of their climate, situation, economic geography and geopolitics. The sparse population and sheer size of Northern regions lend them specific features which need to be addressed by Community transport policy. There are also specific transport problems in many mountain- ous, landlocked and severely depopulated areas in the Southern hinterland which should be given individual treatment. 4. 3. The Communication on cohesion and transport states that the needs in outlying regions have been taken into account in designing the trans-European networks (1). However, the COR voices its concern that although the needs of peripheral, landlocked and island regions have obviously been taken into account, they have not been treated specifically or differently to those of heartland regions. Such individual treatment, if applied from the outset, would have been of considerable value in helping to provide clear and quantifiable objectives in terms of accessibility and economic and social cohesion. 3. 7. Consequently, the COR wishes to propose that the ‘horizontal’ R&D measures promoted under Community trans- port policy include a careful consideration of the design and preparation of quantitative indicators and appropriate methods so that the contribution of Community transport policies to the following areas may be continually assessed: — enhancing machinery; the competitiveness of the productive — achieving sustainable mobility and modal distribution; 4. 4. The COR feels that the self-same examples cited by the communication in support of its theory (networks of airports and ports) actually confirm the doubts expressed by the COR. It is all very well, from the point of view of accessibility that small airports in remote island regions (regional connecting points and accessibility points in the airport system) have been included in the trans-European networks. However, other selection criteria linked to traffic thresholds and an extremely loose definition of ‘landlocked area’ have meant that many small regional connecting points and accessibility points in the airport system have also been selected in heartland areas with excellent land connections and none of the problems of landlocked areas (in some cases, these points are less than 50 km apart). — improving at least two basic factors of economic and social cohesion, i. e. inter-regional accessibility and employment. (1) COM(98) 806 final — paragraph 26. C 226/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 2000 4. 5. The concern voiced regarding the consideration of outlying areas in designing the trans-European networks is reinforced by the conclusions of some studies requested by the European Commission. The following conclusions come as no surprise and clearly reveal how the process works (1): — medium-sized cities in centrally located regions and located on the TEN nodes or corridors tend to obtain the major accessibility gains; 5. 5. The European Commission honoured its commitment by submitting a Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision amending Decision No. 1692/96/EC (3). The proposal includes maps identifying specific ports of Community interest, and ports and ‘intermodal transhipment areas’ are incorporated into the trans-European combined transport network. However, honouring the commitment should be regarded as a purely formal exercise given that the Commission chose to identify all minor ports. — also, but to a lesser extent, the main metropolitan areas are also major beneficiaries from TEN implementation; — for outlying and remote regions to gain the maximum in from the TEN, complementary investment benefit secondary networks will be required. 5. The role of outlying ports 5. 6. From the point of view of outlying regions this conclusion cannot be looked on favourably, as the inclusion of a large number of small ports in heartland regions detracts from the special importance of ports for transport in outlying regions. Community resources are limited and if almost all ports have access to them the overall effectiveness of their implementation will be drastically reduced. The European Commission’s approach may also run counter to current trends in maritime transport, encouraging increasing specialis- ation and function-based ranking of port systems. 5. 1. Ports and maritime transport networks, as pillars of multimodality, are of particular interest to outlying regions, most of which have extensive coastlines and some of which are extremely remote island regions. For such regions, medium- sized and small ports could play a crucial role in providing economical transport capable of very successfully filling the gaps in land transport (both the physically unavoidable and the historically-based gaps). 5. 7. The COR considers that the best approach would be to combine restrictive selection criteria relating to volume of traffic or activity with open but well-defined criteria based on the region’s specific needs and accessibility. Such an approach, in theory applicable to any of the transport modes included in the trans-European networks, would help to best reconcile the objectives of competitiveness and of economic and social cohesion. 5. 2. Although mentioned previously under policies suited to outlying regions (see point 3: Different policies for outlying and heartland areas), the case of ports within Community transport policy merits specific comment in light of the special treatment of ports in the process of defining the trans- European transport infrastructure networks. 5. 3. At the outset, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers decided not to identify any specific ports and simply set the conditions for identifying ‘port projects of common interest’. To justify this approach (2), the Commission cited the special nature of port activity, which meant that free competition could be affected if some ports were included in the trans-European networks and other were not. Such reason- ing was plausible, but could largely be applied to other infrastructures for which the proposal did actually set out the relevant plans. 5. 4. During the process leading up to the adoption of European Parliament and Council Decision No. 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans- European transport network, the Parliament managed to secure the inclusion of a formal declaration committing the European Commission to submit a new proposal in 1997, so that maritime ports would be treated in the same way as airports (identification of specific ports on the basis of size and spatial criteria). 6. Infrastructure charges 6. 1. In 1998 the European Commission submitted a White Paper on Fair payment for infrastructure use: a phased infrastructure charging approach to a common transport framework in the EU (4) advocating the general application of the ‘marginal social cost’ charging principle (including a definite internalisation of external costs). As is well known, and with considerable differences remaining between EU Member States, charges for the use of infrastructures are currently levied only for roads (toll-paying motorways and some large infrastructure works) and partially or not at all for rail, ports, airports and inland waterways. 6. 2. The COR points out that building marginal costs into charges assumes some crucial factors in the structure of cost functions. This means that costs must rise with the volume of production, and need to be steady and attributable in all aspects, otherwise the concept of marginal costs is meaning- less. Unfortunately, the capacity of almost all basic infrastruc- ture and, in particular, the capacity of transport infrastructure cannot be altered gradually. Consequently, the COR considers that there are even shortcomings in the theory behind the pricing policies advocated by the Commission. (1) COM(98) 806 final — paragraph 27. (2) COM(94) 106 final — paragraph 76. (3) COM(97) 681 final — OJ C 120, 18. 4. 1998, pg. 14. (4) COM(98) 466 final. 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 226/27 6. 3. Another theoretically debatable argument put forward in the European Commission’s White Paper is the assumption that ‘marginal social costs’ will result in an optimum price ensuring the best allocation of resources. Such an assumption works in theory but ignores the fact that in order to obtain the optimum price the ‘marginal cost’ needs to match the ‘average cost’. As a result of this oversight, which attempts to circum- vent the problem of not being able to alter transport infrastruc- ture capacity gradually, the White Paper becomes tangled up in the problem of the capacity-price ratio without finding a satisfactory solution. 6. 4. If, however, the theoretical and practical problems posed by the possible inclusion of set-up capacity costs are resolved, infrastructure charges may provide an effective instrument for addressing capacity problems in large, con- gested infrastructures, problems of allocating resources within the transport economy, and wider economic competitiveness problems. 6. 5. Much more debatable is whether infrastructure charges constitute an effective instrument for or have an acceptable impact on addressing generic shortcomings related to accessi- bility and cohesion objectives. 6. 6. The Communication on cohesion and transport, refer- ring to the White Paper (1) itself, maintains that ‘. there is no reason to believe that, as a general rule, peripheral and less developed regions would be adversely affected by the application of a marginal cost charging scheme’. However, in a footnote still referring to the White Paper, the communi- cation then: — recognises that such charges should be differentiated so that regions with less congestion and pollution would be less affected and; — calls for flexible and gradual implementation of price reforms in those instances where there would be concern that higher transport user charges would impede the economic development of peripheral or less developed areas. The fact that the communication voices so many 6. 7. concerns, even opening the door to a possible subsidy or compensation scheme for this purpose, demonstrates that there are solid grounds for the COR’s caution. In short, the possible impact of general charges for the use of infrastructures on economic and social cohesion has not yet been adequately studied. Furthermore, when appropriate, the impact should be assessed in terms of transport costs and taxation. 6. 8. The COR considers that pricing could pose the problem that economically developed regions would be better placed to recoup costs through a future increase in economic activity (1) COM(98) 806 final — paragraph 37. and the resulting wealth. Less economically developed regions, on the other hand, would be less able to recover costs in that the potential benefits derived from pricing will be limited by the relatively weak capacity of their economic systems. 6. 9. In conclusion, the COR considers that the issue of charging for the use of infrastructure must be addressed with rigour and caution. 7. Coordination of policies and instruments 7. 1. The Committee of the Regions takes the view that the coordination of policies and instruments available in the transport field poses a very wide range of complex problems. The EU institutions have been examining these problems but every effort must be made to facilitate solutions. First of all, 7. 2. there is the theoretical and practical coordination between liberalisation policies (seeking wide- spread implementation of market practices in the sector) and policies more directly linked to economic and social cohesion objectives, including, in particular, public utilities and trans- European networks policies. Several paragraphs of the communication address this 7. 3. problem, with comments which are warmly welcomed by the COR both for their specific content and for the underlying concern they reveal. 7. 4. The COR welcomes the communication’s comments and proposals on transport policies and the activity of the European Commission. These should be further underscored by the idea that competitiveness and cohesion are two equally significant objectives to be jointly and equitably achieved. 7. 5. A second problematic aspect of coordination relates to financial policies and instruments for spatial planning and for transport infrastructure and services. 7. 6. The correlation between land occupation and use and the structure of transport networks is even more self-evident than the correlation between economic and social develop- ment levels and availability of transport infrastructure and services (paragraph 1. 2). The communication shows that most of the Community resources invested in transport infrastructure do not come from specific transport funds (the budget line for trans-European networks and the Cohesion Fund for trans-European networks), but rather from other Structural Funds with the direct objectives of regional develop- ment and spatial planning (ERDF, Regis, Interreg, etc. ). 7. 7. In future, and as is rightly stated in various parts of the communication, the problem of accessibility should be resolved by taking joint account of the main trans-European networks, the networks enabling access and distribution to and from these, and local networks. C 226/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 2000 7. 8. In this regard, the COR feels that it might now be appropriate to establish a complementary sectoral instrument similar to the current Community Support Frameworks (CSF). Such an instrument would provide an overall view of all transport networks and services and give an overall structure to the corresponding Community policies and instruments. 7. 9. The third and final aspect of coordination relates to the financing arrangements. Here the COR is particularly keen that formulas be sought to involve private funding in the development of infrastructure and public-private schemes. 7. 10. The COR assumes that the use of private resources to fund infrastructure will be an inevitable fact-of-life in the future. The COR also feels that the private sector’s involvement in infrastructure funding poses many more difficulties in less developed outlying, island and landlocked regions, where the volumes of traffic and transport mean that the financial return on investment provides little (or less) incentive. In this respect, the COR calls upon all 7. 11. the EU institutions and players concerned to employ the maximum creativity and effort in designing and fine-tuning joint schemes. Such schemes should either involve the public and private sector at once or combine entirely private intermediate funding (construction and running) with a final payment which is totally or partially public (shadow tolls, etc. ). 8. Transport and cohesion in the run-up to the accession 8. 1. The Commission communication makes specific refer- ence to Community policy towards the applicant countries. This policy is based on the same criteria and proportions as those so far applied within the Community. Particular importance is attached to the fact that the new Member States will have to be in a socio-economically cohesive relationship with the present Member States. Transport will play a major economic, environmental and social role in the enlarged Europe. 8. 2. From the beginning of 2000, a new Community fund (ISPA) will provide resources primarily to finance transport infrastructure in the applicant countries, with particular emphasis on extending the trans-European networks to these countries. The aim of this policy is to ensure that the new Member States have a level of services with a high socio- economic value. 9. Summary of conclusions to developing the most vulnerable regions and enhancing opportunities for the least favoured groups. 9. 2. From this point of view, the Committee considers that ensuring the different EU regions have an equal stake in economic and social prosperity constitutes the cornerstone of Community policy. In this respect, transport is an important means of implementing regional policy and should be regarded as such. The Committee reiterates the line of argument and the 9. 3. views put forward in its opinion of 3 June 1999 on the trans-European transport network(1), containing a detailed examination of subjects which are only briefly or indirectly considered in the present opinion. The Committee takes the view that Community trans- 9. 4. port policy, in particular trans-European network policy, should help to create a new ‘inter-regional accessibility map’ for the EU. This map should reduce disparities between regions and lay down minimum accessibility thresholds for travel to and from all parts of the EU. 9. 5. The Committee believes that rigorously measuring the impact of Community transport policy on the competitiveness of EU industry and EU economic and social cohesion, is vital for evaluating this policy and for devising and applying supportive or corrective measures; the problem of increasing environmental pollution in the core regions should be included here. 9. 6. The Committee urges the institutions, and the Euro- pean Commission in particular, to ensure that the immediate planning of Community transport policy includes provision for fleshing out the requisite indicators and methods, with a view to continual assessment of Community transport policy’s contribution to competitiveness and economic and social cohesion (accessibility and employment). 9. 7. The Committee considers that the problems to be addressed by Community transport policy vary somewhat throughout the different parts of the EU, as there are: — ‘heartland areas’, where the key problems relate to competi- tiveness, capacity and pollution problems and where the impact of external factors is crucial; — ‘outlying, island and landlocked areas’, where problems relating to income and employment, accessibility, depopu- lation and economic and social cohesion, are unavoidable and where the impact of external factors may be relatively minor. 9. 1. The Committee of the Regions broadly welcomes the concern and willingness demonstrated by the European Commission’s Communication on Cohesion and transport, with a view to boosting the contributions of these policies (1) 1998 report on the implementation of the guidelines and priorities for the future, COM(98) 614 final, (CdR 60/99 fin — OJ C 293, 13. 10. 1999, p. 9). 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 226/29 9. 8. The Committee believes that acknowledging the spec- ific nature of the problems faced by individual regions and the need to find appropriate solutions demonstrates how vital it is to implement the subsidiarity principle more effectively at local and regional level. 9. 9. The Committee takes the view that such circumstances should be taken into account by Community transport policy so that the most appropriate solutions are implemented in each region. The Committee stresses that under no circumstances 9. 10. should the quest for the most appropriate solution in each region be allowed to undermine equal opportunities for the least favoured EU populations and regions. 9. 11. The Committee asks the European Commission, in its transport policy reports, assessments and action, to be ever mindful of the need for a differentiated approach tailored to match the characteristics of each region. 9. 12. The Committee calls upon the institutions most directly involved — i. e. the European Parliament, Council of Ministers and European Commission — in the forthcoming review of the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network: — to adopt a more committed stance on — the overall planning of infrastructure and transport services, — the need to specialise and rank unimodal networks, Brussels, 12 April 2000. — the need to make best use of Community resources in keeping with criteria and objectives striking a balance between environmental repercussions, competitiveness and cohesion; — to introduce demanding selection criteria in relation to capacity and volume of traffic and transport; — to introduce more open but well-defined criteria regarding accessibility and spatial planning. 9. 13. The Committee urges the European Commission to press ahead with the analysis and propose specific solutions and measures for the theoretical and practical problems which may result from infrastructure pricing policies based on ‘marginal social costs’, particularly with regard to: — the repercussions on modal distribution and transport costs in heartland and outlying areas; — the creation of capacity and accessibility in less developed regions; — the tax-related repercussions and their presumably differ- ent impact on ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ regions. The Committee asks all parties concerned at Euro- 9. 14. level to ensure the pean, national and regional and local coordination of policies and financial instruments for regional development and spatial and transport planning. A useful basis for this could be a global overview of all transport networks and services. 9. 15. The Committee urges all European institutions and socio-economic players to give thought to appropriate specific formulas for involving private capital in the financing of infrastructure in outlying and less developed regions. The President of the Committee of the Regions Jos CHABERT


title: SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-1197/00 van Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) aan de Commissie. Raadgevende Groep voor Internationaal Landbouwonderzoek.

eurovoc_concepts:
EU financing
food safety
hunger
international organisation
research body
sustainable agriculture

text: 6. 3. 2001 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen C 72 E/27 opzetten van opleidingsprogramma(cid:146)s te creºren. Deze kunnen bijdragen tot het verbeteren van de vaardig- heden en bekwaamheden van de werknemers en hun succesvolle re(cid:239)ntegratie in het arbeidsproces vergemakkelijken. (1) PB L 193 van 31. 7. 1993. (2001/C 72 E/029) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-1197/00 van Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) aan de Commissie Betreft: Raadgevende Groep voor Internationaal Landbouwonderzoek (12 april 2000) De in 1971 opgerichte Raadgevende Groep voor Internationaal Landbouwonderzoek (CGIAR) is een informele vereniging van 58 openbare en particuliere sectorleden en steunt een netwerk van 16 inter- nationale landbouwonderzoekscentra. Het is de taak van de CGIAR bij te dragen tot de voedselveiligheid en de uitroeiing van de armoede in ontwikkelingslanden door middel van onderzoek, partnerschap, verbetering van de capaciteit en beleidssteun. De CGIAR bevordert duurzame landbouwontwikkeling gebaseerd op het milieuvriendelijke beheer van de natuurlijke hulpbronnen. De Commissie was een belangrijke verlener van financiºle steun op lange termijn aan de CGIAR, maar in 1999 werd deze steun opgeschort en momenteel is de Commissie bezig aan de herziening van haar toekomstige steun voor de CGIAR. Kan de Commissie mededelen: 1. of zij inziet welke waardevolle bijdragen de door de CGIAR gesteunde internationale onderzoekscentra hebben geleverd tot de bestrijding van de honger en verbetering van de levensomstandigheden op het platteland in minder ontwikkelde landen, 2. of zij op de hoogte is van een recente beoordeling van de CGIAR door een eminent internationaal panel onder voorzitterschap van de voorzitter van de Wereldraad Organisatie (ECO), Maurice Strong, waarin werd geconcludeerd dat de CGIAR de (cid:132)beste investering in ontwikkelingssteun zonder uitzondering was(cid:148), 3. of zij weet dat de CGIAR bezig is aan de herziening van haar programma(cid:146)s, teneinde zich meer rechtstreeks te concentreren op de behoeften van de allerarmsten aan onderzoek op het gebied van de landbouw en de natuurlijke hulpbronnen, 4. of zij zich ervan bewust is dat de aanwezigheid ter plaatse van wetenschappers van de CGIAR in ontwikkelingslanden, die met de plaatselijke wetenschappers samenwerken, de CGIAR de unieke mogelijkheid geven onderzoekssteun te verlenen aan nationale onderzoekssystemen en de boeren die daarvan afhangen, 5. of zij zich bewust is van de grotere inzet van de CGIAR bij de visserij, veehouderij, bosbouw en agrobosbouw, die allemaal belangrijke potentiºle voordelen kunnen bieden voor de armen en hun omgeving, en, zo ja, of zij bereid is: 6. de unieke en onschatbare rol van de CGIAR bij het richten van ontwikkelingssteunprioriteiten op vermindering van de armoede, betere voedselveiligheid en milieubescherming in ontwikkelingslanden volledig in te zien, 7. het Europees Parlement in te lichten over wanneer en hoe de steun aan de CGIAR-centra zal worden hervat, 8. de mogelijkheid na te gaan van verhoging van het niveau van deze steun en ervoor te zorgen dat verplichtingen op een meerjaarlijkse basis worden aangegaan? Antwoord van de heer Nielson namens de Commissie (3 juli 2000) De Commissie is reeds lang partner en donor van de Raadgevende Groep voor Internationaal Landbouw- onderzoek (CGIAR); zij is actief betrokken bij de ontwikkeling van het systeem. Het spreekt daarom vanzelf dat zij op de hoogte is van de bijdrage van de CGIAR aan landbouwkundig onderzoek alsook van de recente ontwikkelingen waar het geachte parlementslid naar verwijst. C 72 E/28 Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen NL 6. 3. 2001 Vanwege haar bijzondere bijdrage ter ondersteuning van de belangrijkste ontwikkelingsdoelstellingen (armoedebestrijding, voedselzekerheid en duurzaam beheer van de natuurlijke hulpbronnen), acht de Commissie de investeringen in de CGIAR uiterst rendabel. De Commissie erkent inderdaad de belangrijke bijdrage van het CGIAR-systeem bij de aanpak van de belangrijkste ontwikkelingsdoelstellingen, doch zou gaarne zien dat de CGIAR vooruitgang boekt bij de formulering van een brede visie voor het tijdvak 2005-2010 en het uitstippelen van structurele veranderingen en nieuwe partnerschappen ten behoeve van aanpassing aan een zich snel wijzigende omgeving. De Commissie buigt zich intussen over de omschrijving van een samenhangende strategie voor steun aan landbouwonderzoek, daarbij rekening houdend met een vergelijking van de sterke punten van de verschillende instellingen, waaronder ook de CGIAR. Een financieel voorstel voor een drie jaar lopend programma ten behoeve van het CGIAR wordt thans bekeken. Het bedrag voor het eerste jaar (2000) beloopt 20 miljoen. In deze fase is het niet de bedoeling het huidige financieringsniveau te verhogen. De Commissie wenst namelijk, gelet op het globale niveau, de huidige gerichtheid op het CGIAR-systeem op hetzelfde niveau te houden. Terzelfdertijd legt de Commissie grote nadruk op het regionaal en subregionaal vlak (waar zij aan de nationale stelsels van onderzoek en de regionale instanties bijstand zal blijven verlenen via programma(cid:146)s van regionaal in samenwerking plaatsvindend onderzoek). Deze tweede focus blijkt zeer effectief te zijn bij het sluiten van partnerschappen tussen de CGIAR en de betrokken regio(cid:146)s. (2001/C 72 E/030) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-1199/00 van Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) aan de Commissie Betreft: Toediening van geneesmiddelen aan kinderen (12 april 2000) Volgens gegevens van het gezaghebbende blad British Medical Journal krijgt 67 % van de kinderen die in het ziekenhuis worden opgenomen op de afdeling pediatrie ten minste ØØn geneesmiddel voorgeschreven dat alleen voor andere indicaties is toegestaan. In Italiº bedraagt dit percentage volgens het Instituut voor farmacologisch onderzoek (cid:132)Mario Negri(cid:148) zelfs 86 %. Kan de Commissie in dit verband mededelen welke maatregelen zij zal nemen of voorstellen om een oplossing te bieden voor dit ernstige probleem dat kinderen treft? Kan de Commissie tevens laten weten of er onderzoek gedaan zal worden om de wetenschappelijke kennis te verbeteren en werkzame en veilige geneesmiddelen te ontwikkelen die ook aan kinderen toegediend kunnen worden? Kan de Commissie tenslotte mededelen of het mogelijk is het recht van het kind op farmacologische bijstand met een bewezen werking (evidence based medicine) te bevorderen en te ondersteunen? Antwoord van de heer Liikanen namens de Commissie (29 juni 2000) De Commissie is zich bewust van het door het geachte parlementslid vermelde probleem. Deze situatie is inderdaad ernstig en betreft niet alleen kinderen maar de gehele bevolking. is juist dat in de meeste gevallen en op de meeste therapeutische gebieden, de aan kinderen Het toegediende geneesmiddelen niet beschikbaar zijn in een aangepaste farmaceutische vorm en niet het voorwerp zijn geweest van speciaal op die categorie patiºnten gerichte klinische studies. Bovendien wordt in de vergunningen voor het in de handel brengen niet specifiek melding gemaakt van het gebruik voor kinderen. Toch moeten de criteria doeltreffendheid en veiligheid van de geneesmiddelen alsmede het rationele gebruik ervan ook gelden voor geneesmiddelen die aan kinderen worden verstrekt. Wat de inspanningen op het gebied van het communautaire onderzoek betreft, moeten twee activiteiten van het specifieke onderzoekprogramma (cid:132)Kwaliteit van het bestaan en beheer van de biologische hulpbronnen(cid:148), uit het 5de kaderprogramma, een optimale benutting van het arsenaal geneesmiddelen in de gezondheidszorg garanderen


title: SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-1163/00 van Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) aan de Commissie. Witboek inzake Voedselveiligheid en de Europese Voedselautoriteit.

eurovoc_concepts:
division of powers
food safety
the EU's international role

text: C 46 E/136 Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen NL 13. 2. 2001 (2001/C 46 E/155) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-1163/00 van Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) aan de Commissie (12 april 2000) Betreft: Witboek inzake Voedselveiligheid en de Europese Voedselautoriteit In januari 2000 verscheen het Witboek inzake voedselveiligheid (COM(1999) 719). Hoofdstuk 4 behandelt de oprichting van een Europese Voedselautoriteit (EVA). Hoofdstuk 5 gaat in op de wetgeving inzake voedselveiligheid. De Commissie zal een actieplan uitwerken voor de ontwikkeling van een omvattend en coherent voedingsbeleid (onderdeel 106). In hoeverre streeft de Commissie ernaar dit actieplan te laten aansluiten bij nationale en internationale (FAO/WHO) beleidsplannen? (2001/C 46 E/156) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-1164/00 van Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) aan de Commissie (12 april 2000) Betreft: Witboek inzake Voedselveiligheid en de Europese Voedselautoriteit In januari 2000 verscheen het Witboek inzake voedselveiligheid (COM(1999) 719). Hoofdstuk 4 behandelt de oprichting van een Europese Voedselautoriteit (EVA). Hoofdstuk 5 gaat in op de wetgeving inzake voedselveiligheid. De Commissie wil informatie verzamelen over voedselopname, voedingssamenstelling en voedingsstatus (onderdeel 107). Daarnaast wordt gewerkt aan de bevordering van het voedingskundig onderzoek en aan efficiºnte en juiste consumenteninformatie. Deze activiteiten vinden reeds plaats op (deel)statelijk niveau. 1. Welke is volgens de Commissie de toegevoegde waarde van vergelijkbare activiteiten op EU-niveau? 2. Dreigt een dergelijke aanpak niet te leiden tot overlappingen en dubbel werk? Zo ja, is de Commissie dan bereid zich terzake te beperken tot een co(cid:246)rdinerende rol (spilfunctie)? Zo neen, welke waarborgen heeft de Commissie dat er geen sprake zal zijn van overlappingen en dubbel werk? Gecombineerd Antwoord van de heer Byrne namens de Commissie op de schritftelijke vragen E-1163/00 en E-1164/00 (23 juni 2000) Bij de uitwerking van een voedselbeleid zal de Commissie gebruik maken van de resultaten van twee lopende projecten die door het programma (cid:132)gezondheidsbevordering(cid:148) worden gefinancierd. Deze projecten mobiliseren elk van de talrijke deskundigen van de lidstaten, die betrokken zijn bij het nationale beleid, alsook vertegenwoordigers van de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie (WHO) en de Voedsel- en landbouw- organisatie (FAO). Het eerste project beoogt de opstelling van Europese aanbevelingen inzake voedsel en het tweede zal dienen als basisdocument voor het Franse voorzitterschap dat voornemens is de gezondheid van het voedsel tijdens zijn voorzitterschap te bevorderen. Wat de gezondheidsmonitoring betreft, hebben de meeste lidstaten effectief een monitoringsysteem opgezet, maar dit omvat zelden een monitoring van de staat van het voedsel. Er worden weliswaar enquŒtes naar de voedselconsumptie uitgevoerd, maat deze vormen slechts de eerste fase van de evaluatie van de staat van het voedsel. De zeldzame beschikbare gegevens over voedsel in de verschillende lidstaten zijn niet alle van dezelfde kwaliteit en hun vergelijkbaarheid laat te wensen over


title: SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-1197/00 af Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) til Kommissionen. Den Rådgivende Gruppe for International Landbrugsforskning.

text: 6. 3. 2001 DA De Europ(cid:230)iske F(cid:230)llesskabers Tidende C 72 E/27 uddannelsesordninger. Disse kunne bidrage til at forbedre arbejdstageres kvalifikationer og f(cid:230)rdigheder og dermed lette deres tilbagevenden til arbejdsmarkedet. (1) EFT L 193 af 31. 7. 1993. (2001/C 72 E/029) SKRIFTLIG FORESP(cid:216)RGSEL E-1197/00 af Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) til Kommissionen (12. april 2000) Om: Den R(cid:229)dgivende Gruppe for International Landbrugsforskning Den R(cid:229)dgivende Gruppe for International Landbrugsforskning (CGIAR), som blev nedsat i 1971, er en uformel sammenslutning af otteoghalvtreds medlemmer inden for den offentlige og den private sektor, der stłtter et netv(cid:230)rk af seksten internationale landbrugsforskningscentre. CGIAR(cid:146)s opgave er at bidrage til fłdevareforsyningssikkerhed og udryddelse af fattigdom i udviklingslandene gennem forskning, partner- skab, kapacitetsudvikling og stłtte med hensyn til den politik, der skal fłres. CGIAR fremmer b(cid:230)redygtig landbrugsudvikling baseret p(cid:229) en miljłvenlig forvaltning af naturressourcerne. Kommissionen har v(cid:230)ret en v(cid:230)sentlig leverandłr af finansiel stłtte til CGIAR, men denne stłtte blev indstillet i 1999, og Kommis- sionen er i łjeblikket ved at foretage en gennemgang af sin fremtidige finansielle stłtte til CGIAR. Under hensyn til denne gennemgang vil Kommissionen da oplyse: 1. om den erkender de v(cid:230)rdifulde bidrag, som de internationale forskningscentre, der stłttes af Den R(cid:229)dgivende Gruppe for International Landbrugsforskning, har ydet til at forhindre sult og forbedre udkommet i mindre udviklede lande? 2. om den er klar over, at der for nylig blev foretaget en undersłgelse af CGIAR af et meget anerkendt internationalt panel, hvis formand var pr(cid:230)sidenten for Earth Council, Maurice Strong, og som konkluderede, at CGIAR repr(cid:230)senterede den »bedste investering i udviklingsbistand overhovedet«? 3. om den er klar over, at CGIAR er ved at omstrukturere sine programmer, s(cid:229)ledes at de mere direkte kommer til at fokusere p(cid:229) de landbrugsm(cid:230)ssige og naturressourcem(cid:230)ssige behov hos de fattigste af de fattige? 4. om den er klar over, at tilstedev(cid:230)relsen i marken af CGIAR-forskere i udviklingslandene, som arbejder i partnerskab med lokale forskere, giver CGIAR en enest(cid:229)ende evne til at yde forskningsstłtte til de nationale forskningssystemer og de landm(cid:230)nd, som er afh(cid:230)ngige af dem? 5. om den er klar over CGIAR(cid:146)s łgede forpligtelse til at besk(cid:230)ftige sig med fiskeri, kv(cid:230)g, skovbrug og agroskovbrug, som alle er omr(cid:229)der med store potentielle fordele for fattige mennesker og deres miljł? S(cid:229)fremt Kommissionen er klar over alle disse kendsgerninger, er den da villig til: 6. 7. 8. fuldt ud at anerkende CGIAR(cid:146)s enest(cid:229)ende og uvurderlige rolle med hensyn til at tackle EU-udvik- lingsbistandsprioriteter som mindskelse af fattigdom, łget fłdevareforsyningssikkerhed og miljłbe- skyttelse i udviklingslandene? at underrette Europa-Parlamentet om, hvorn(cid:229)r og med hvilke midler finansieringen af CGIAR-centre vil blive genoptaget? at undersłge muligheden af at łge omfanget af denne stłtte og sikre, at forpligtelser indg(cid:229)s p(cid:229) et fler(cid:229)rigt grundlag? Svar afgivet p(cid:229) Kommissionens vegne af Poul Nielson (3. juli 2000) Kommissionen har l(cid:230)nge v(cid:230)ret i partnerskab med og donor til CGIAR (Den R(cid:229)dgivende Gruppe for International Landbrugsforskning) og er for indev(cid:230)rende involveret i omorganiseringen af organisationen. Kommissionen er derfor i sagens natur vidende om b(cid:229)de CGIAR(cid:146)s bidrag til forskningen p(cid:229) landbrugs- omr(cid:229)det og den nylige udvikling i situationen, som det (cid:230)rede medlem henviser til. C 72 E/28 De Europ(cid:230)iske F(cid:230)llesskabers Tidende DA 6. 3. 2001 Kommissionen betragter investeringer i CGIAR som yderst givtige p(cid:229) grund af organisationens uvurderlige bidrag inden for grundl(cid:230)ggende udviklingsm(cid:229)ls(cid:230)tninger (fattigdomsbek(cid:230)mpelse, fłdevaresikkerhed og b(cid:230)redygtig udnyttelse af naturressourcerne). Skłnt Kommissionen anerkender CGIAR(cid:146)s vigtige bidrag i forbindelse med m(cid:229)ls(cid:230)tninger inden for freml(cid:230)gger nłgleudviklingsomr(cid:229)der, ser den ikke desto mindre gerne, at organisationen mere klart organisationens bredere visioner for perioden 2005-2010 og p(cid:229)begynder de strukturelle (cid:230)ndringer og indg(cid:229)r de nye partnerskaber, der er nłdvendige for at kunne tilpasse sig de hurtigt skiftende omst(cid:230)ndighe- der. Kommissionen er i łjeblikket i f(cid:230)rd med at fastl(cid:230)gge en sammenh(cid:230)ngende strategi til stłtte for forskning p(cid:229) landbrugsomr(cid:229)det, herunder bedłmmelse af de forskellige aktłrers (herunder CGIAR) fordele. Et finansieringsforslag for et tre(cid:229)rigt stłtteprogram til CGIAR er i łjeblikket til bedłmmelse. Belłbs- rammen for det fłrste (cid:229)r (2000) er p(cid:229) 20 mio. EUR. Der er for indev(cid:230)rende ingen planer om at łge finansieringsniveauet. Kommissionen har derimod til hensigt globalt set at opretholde det nuv(cid:230)rende engagement i CGIAR. Samtidig l(cid:230)gger Kommissionen stor v(cid:230)gt p(cid:229) det regionale og subregionale niveau (den vil i den forbindelse fortsat stłtte nationale forsknings- systemer og deres regionale organer gennem regionale forskningssamarbejdsprogrammer). Denne metode har vist sig at v(cid:230)re yderst brugbar til indg(cid:229)else af partnerskaber mellem CGIAR og regioner. (2001/C 72 E/030) SKRIFTLIG FORESP(cid:216)RGSEL E-1199/00 af Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) til Kommissionen (12. april 2000) Om: L(cid:230)gemidler, der indgives til błrn Statistikken i det ansete British Medical Journal understreger, at 67 % af de błrn, som indl(cid:230)gges p(cid:229) hospitalernes almindelige błrneafdelinger, f(cid:229)r mindst en recept p(cid:229) l(cid:230)gemidler, som ikke opfylder de kriterier, som ligger til grund for tilladelsen til at anvende l(cid:230)gemidlet. I betragtning af, at denne procentsats i Italien ifłlge l(cid:230)gemiddelforskningsinstituttet »Mario Negri« kan v(cid:230)re helt op til 86 %, vil Kommissionen da oplyse, hvilke skridt den planl(cid:230)gger eller forudser med henblik p(cid:229) at tackle dette alvorlige problem, som rammer błrn? Vil Kommissionen endvidere oplyse, om der er planlagt forskning med henblik p(cid:229) at forbedre den videnskabelige viden for at sikre effektivitet og sikkerhed og en mere rationel anvendelse af l(cid:230)gemidler, der indgives til błrn? Vil Kommissionen endelig oplyse, om det er muligt at fremme og stłtte błrns ret til at blive behandlet med l(cid:230)gemidler p(cid:229) grundlag af princippet »bevis for effektivitet« (evidence based medicine)? Svar afgivet p(cid:229) Kommissionens vegne af Erkki Liikanen (29. juni 2000) Kommissionen er bekendt med de problemer, det (cid:230)rede medlem omtaler. Denne situation er alvorlig og berłrer ikke blot błrnene, men hele befolkningen. Det er rigtigt, at błrn i langt de fleste tilf(cid:230)lde og p(cid:229) de fleste behandlingsomr(cid:229)der bliver behandlet med l(cid:230)gemidler, der ikke har den rette l(cid:230)gemiddelform til błrn, og som ikke har gennemg(cid:229)et kliniske undersłgelser rettet specielt mod denne patientgruppe. I markedsfłringsgodkendelserne tages der endvidere ikke specifikt hensyn til l(cid:230)gemidlernes anvendelse til błrn, selv om kriterierne med hensyn til effektivitet og sikkerhed samt rationel anvendelse ogs(cid:229) błr ligge til grund for vurderingen af l(cid:230)gemidler, der gives błrn. Hvad EF-forskningen p(cid:229) dette omr(cid:229)de ang(cid:229)r, omfatter s(cid:230)rprogrammet »Livskvalitet og forvaltning af de levende ressourcer« under det 5. rammeprogram to aktiviteter, der tager sigte p(cid:229), at de forskellige behandlingsformer udnyttes bedst muligt i sygeplejen


title: PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-1166/00 de Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) a la Comisión. Libro Blanco sobre seguridad alimentaria y Organismo alimentario europeo.

eurovoc_concepts:
extra-EU trade
food safety

text: C 89 E/12 Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas ES 20. 3. 2001 (2001/C 89 E/010) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-1111/00 de Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL) a la Comisi(cid:243)n (11 de abril de 2000) Asunto: Promoci(cid:243)n publicitaria de las naranjas espaæolas Sobre la base de investigaciones publicadas por la organizaci(cid:243)n danesa «Grłn Information» de las que se desprende que las naranjas espaæolas presentan un contenido alarmante de restos de insecticida, ¿puede la Comisi(cid:243)n informar de la raz(cid:243)n por la que ha decidido conceder crØditos de la UE para promocionar las naranjas en cuesti(cid:243)n e indicar si piensa retirar su ayuda a la promoci(cid:243)n publicitaria si se confirman las informaciones publicadas por «Grłn Information»? Respuesta del Sr. Fischler en nombre de la Comisi(cid:243)n (16 de junio de 2000) La Comisi(cid:243)n recuerda a Su Seæor(cid:237)a que la campaæa de promoci(cid:243)n de los c(cid:237)tricos de origen comunitario se rige por el Reglamento (CEE) no 1201/90 del Consejo, de 7 de mayo de 1990, relativo a medidas destinadas a aumentar el consumo de c(cid:237)tricos (1), que considera que la fruta y las verduras son productos sanos cuyo consumo debe fomentarse en aras de una alimentaci(cid:243)n sana y equilibrada. El art(cid:237)culo 2 de ese Reglamento seæala que las medidas de promoci(cid:243)n no deben hacer referencia a Estados miembro concretos. Por consiguiente, la campaæa citada estÆ destinada a fomentar el consumo de c(cid:237)tricos cosechados en la Comunidad. La Comisi(cid:243)n no es sabedora de investigaciones que pongan de manifiesto que las naranjas procedentes de una de sus regiones tienen un contenido elevado de insecticidas, por lo que ruega a Su Seæor(cid:237)a que le remita toda la informaci(cid:243)n fiable que tenga al respecto. Las naranjas comercializadas en la Comunidad deben cumplir la normativa comunitaria en materia de residuos de insecticidas. Las autoridades danesas deben cerciorarse de la observancia de esta normativa en el territorio danØs. El sistema comunitario de alerta rÆpida sobre cuestiones alimentarias permite un intercambio rÆpido de informaci(cid:243)n entre la Comisi(cid:243)n y los Estados miembros cuando se detectan contenidos elevados de insecticidas u otros contaminantes en alimentos. En los œltimos seis meses, la Comisi(cid:243)n no ha recibido ninguna notificaci(cid:243)n danesa en relaci(cid:243)n con la presencia de insecticidas en las naranjas espaæolas. (1) DO L 119 de 11. 5. 1990. (2001/C 89 E/011) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-1166/00 de Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) a la Comisi(cid:243)n (12 de abril de 2000) Asunto: Libro Blanco sobre seguridad alimentaria y Organismo alimentario europeo En enero de 2000 se public(cid:243) el Libro Blanco sobre seguridad alimentaria (COM(1999) 719 final). El cap(cid:237)tulo 4 del mismo trata de la creaci(cid:243)n de un Organismo alimentario europeo (OAE), y el cap(cid:237)tulo 5, de la legislaci(cid:243)n relativa a la seguridad alimentaria. Las exigencias de la UE en materia de seguridad alimentaria son asimismo aplicables a los productos exportados a terceros pa(cid:237)ses (apartado 109). La Comisi(cid:243)n debe investigar si resultan necesarias reglas para la certificaci(cid:243)n de exportaci(cid:243)n. ¿Va a contemplar la Comisi(cid:243)n este enfoque en la legislaci(cid:243)n global de la UE sobre los productos alimenticios? En caso negativo, ¿por quØ no, vistas las grandes repercusiones que tiene sobre la producci(cid:243)n y la exportaci(cid:243)n de productos alimenticios? En caso afirmativo, ¿en quØ medida se debe incluir tambiØn la obligaci(cid:243)n de reciprocidad e imponerse en relaci(cid:243)n con terceros pa(cid:237)ses? 20. 3. 2001 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas C 89 E/13 Respuesta del Sr. Byrne en nombre de la Comisi(cid:243)n (15 de junio de 2000) La Comunidad, como principal importador y exportador mundial de alimentos que es, no debe considerar la seguridad alimentaria como un aspecto de pol(cid:237)tica interna sino como una cuesti(cid:243)n de mayor alcance. Al igual que espera y exige que los productos procedentes de terceros pa(cid:237)ses cumplan los requisitos sanitarios que establece, es preciso que dØ garant(cid:237)as sanitarias apropiadas a los productos exportados, como indica el Libro blanco sobre seguridad alimentaria. Aunque, en este contexto, no debe olvidarse que son los importadores quienes establecen las condiciones de importaci(cid:243)n, los exportadores pueden fijar unas condiciones m(cid:237)nimas que se obliguen a respetar. la Comunidad no ha fijado requisitos de exportaci(cid:243)n en materia de seguridad Hasta el momento, alimentaria diferentes de los aplicados en el mercado interior. Los posibles beneficios que supondr(cid:237)a la fijaci(cid:243)n de normas espec(cid:237)ficas de seguridad alimentaria y de sanidad y fitosanidad para las exportaciones comunitarias se examinarÆ en el contexto de la legislaci(cid:243)n alimentaria comunitaria. Actualmente, los productores comunitarios han de cumplir las disposiciones de la Directiva 93/43/CE del Consejo, de 14 de junio de 1993, relativa a la higiene de los productos alimenticios (1). AdemÆs, el art(cid:237)culo 3 de la Directiva 89/397/CE del Consejo, de 14 de junio de 1989, relativa al control oficial de los productos alimenticios (2), dispone que los Estados miembros no pueden excluir del control adecuado un determinado producto por el hecho de estar destinado a la exportaci(cid:243)n fuera de la Comunidad. Si se establecen requisitos sanitarios para las exportaciones de alimentos, deberÆn respetarse las obligacio- nes internacionales de la Comunidad y, principalmente, las disposiciones del Acuerdo sobre medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias de la Organizaci(cid:243)n Mundial del Comercio (OMC) por las que se rigen el establecimiento de condiciones de importaci(cid:243)n y el concepto de «nivel adecuado de protecci(cid:243)n». La Comunidad estÆ trabajando activamente en la OMC para garantizar el derecho de los Estados miembros a establecer y mantener normas elevadas de salud pœblica en aras de la seguridad alimentaria. El principio de reconocimiento mutuo de los requisitos sanitarios se aplica mediante acuerdos bilaterales de equivalencia veterinaria, de los que la Comunidad ha firmado tres hasta el momento. (1) DO L 175 de 19. 7. 1993. (2) DO L 186 de 30. 6. 1989. (2001/C 89 E/012) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-1187/00 de Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) a la Comisi(cid:243)n (12 de abril de 2000) Asunto: Enclave arqueol(cid:243)gico de Tuvixeddu (Cagliari, Italia) El 25 de agosto de 1998, el ayuntamiento de Cagliari public(cid:243) la licitaci(cid:243)n para iniciar los trabajos de realizaci(cid:243)n de itinerarios culturales interregionales fenicios en la necr(cid:243)polis de Tuvixeddu, en el marco del programa comunitario hom(cid:243)nimo, que forma parte, a su vez, del programa operativo Desarrollo y valorizaci(cid:243)n del turismo sostenible en las regiones del Objetivo 1, medida nœmero 3, para los aæos 1994-1999, relativo a la construcci(cid:243)n del primer nœcleo (6,8 hectÆreas) del parque arqueol(cid:243)gico de Tuvixeddu, por un importe total de 7 000 millones de liras entre fondos comunitarios y municipales (Decr. de 30 de abril de 1998). Al parecer, dicha licitaci(cid:243)n se concedi(cid:243) hace tiempo, pero los trabajos todav(cid:237)a no han comenzado. Tuvixeddu es el cementerio arqueol(cid:243)gico pœnico-romano y altomedieval mÆs importante del MediterrÆneo (mÆs de 1 110 tumbas), protegido por su valor arqueol(cid:243)gico y paisaj(cid:237)stico en virtud del decreto legislativo no 490/1999. Pero s(cid:243)lo tras aæos de insistencia y acciones jur(cid:237)dicas por parte de las asociaciones culturales y ecologistas locales (fundamentalmente Amigos de la Tierra y el Grupo de Intervenci(cid:243)n Jur(cid:237)dica), las autoridades italianas han comenzado a considerar la posibilidad de construir un parque arqueol(cid:243)gico. De hecho, la zona es, casi en su totalidad, propiedad privada y la compaæ(cid:237)a inmobiliaria Iniziativa Coimpresa tiene la intenci(cid:243)n de construir un nuevo barrio (viviendas particulares,


title: KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS E-1179/00 esittäjä(t): Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) komissiolle. Baskin kieli Navarran autonomisella alueella.

eurovoc_concepts:
European social policy
Navarre
infringement of EU law
regional language

text: C 53 E/92 Euroopan yhteis(cid:246)jen virallinen lehti FI 20. 2. 2001 Uuden s(cid:228)(cid:228)nn(cid:246)ksen mukaisesti tulliviranomaiset voivat antaa yhteis(cid:246)n tullialueelle sijoittautuneelle luonnol- liselle henkil(cid:246)lle luvan k(cid:228)ytt(cid:228)(cid:228) yhteis(cid:246)n tullialueella ajoneuvoa, joka on vuokrattu kirjallisen sopimuksen nojalla kyseisen alueen ulkopuolella. T(cid:228)m(cid:228)n luvan edellytyksen(cid:228) on se, ett(cid:228) maat, joissa ajoneuvot on vuokrattu ja rekister(cid:246)ity, hyv(cid:228)ksyv(cid:228)t yhteis(cid:246)n tullialueella vuokrattujen ja rekister(cid:246)ityjen ajoneuvojen tilap(cid:228)isen maahantuonnin vastaavissa olosuhteissa. Ajoneuvo on j(cid:228)lleenviet(cid:228)v(cid:228) tai j(cid:228)tett(cid:228)v(cid:228) yhteis(cid:246)n tulli- alueelle sijoittautuneeseen vuokrausyritykseen my(cid:246)hemmin toteutettavaa j(cid:228)lleenvienti(cid:228) varten kahdeksan p(cid:228)iv(cid:228)n kuluessa sopimuksen voimaantulosta. (1) EYVL L 197, 29. 7. 1999. (2) Keskusteltavat aiheet Euroopan parlamentissa n:o 4-531 (tammikuu 1999). (2001/C 53 E/122) KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS E-1179/00 esitt(cid:228)j(cid:228)(t): Gorka Kn(cid:246)rr Borr(cid:224)s (Verts/ALE) komissiolle (12. huhtikuuta 2000) Aihe: Baskin kieli Navarran autonomisella alueella Baskin kielen juridisesta asemasta s(cid:228)(cid:228)det(cid:228)(cid:228)n 15. joulukuuta 1986 annetussa Navarran autonomian laissa 18/1986. T(cid:228)ss(cid:228) laissa Navarran alue jaetaan kolmeen kielialueeseen, jotka ovat baskinkielinen alue (jonka viralliset kielet ovat baski ja espanja), ns. seka-alue ja espanjankielinen alue, jonka ainoa virallinen kieli on espanja. Navarran autonomisen hallituksen mukaan baskinkielisell(cid:228) alueella asuvasta v(cid:228)est(cid:246)st(cid:228) 70 prosent- tia puhuu baskia, seka-alueen v(cid:228)est(cid:246)st(cid:228) sit(cid:228) puhuu 21 prosenttia ja espanjankielisen alueen v(cid:228)est(cid:246)st(cid:228) 7 prosenttia. Koska baskinkielisell(cid:228) alueella baski on toinen virallisista kielist(cid:228), opetus on kaksikielist(cid:228). Samoin viran- omaisten kanssa voi asioida molemmilla kielill(cid:228). Seka-alueella baskin kielell(cid:228) ei ole virallista asemaa, ja sen k(cid:228)ytt(cid:246) perustuu vapaaehtoisuuteen. Espanjankielisell(cid:228) alueella nykyiset oikeudet ovat olemattomat. Kou- luissa baskia voidaan opiskella ainoastaan yhten(cid:228) oppiaineena, eik(cid:228) baskinkielist(cid:228) opetusta ole mahdollista saada kysynn(cid:228)st(cid:228) huolimatta. Alueen viranomaisilla ei ole velvollisuutta eik(cid:228) mahdollisuuksia palvella kansalaisia t(cid:228)ll(cid:228) kielell(cid:228). Toisaalta on mainittava, ett(cid:228) t(cid:228)m(cid:228)n autonomisen alueen ainoassa ei-yksityisess(cid:228) yliopistossa ei ole my(cid:246)sk(cid:228)(cid:228)n mahdollisuutta opiskella baskiksi, koska baski on (cid:228)skett(cid:228)in rinnastettu ulkomaalaisten kielten, kuten englannin tai ranskan, opiskeluun. Baskin kielt(cid:228) koskevassa laissa 13/1986 baskin kieli katsotaan Navarran omaksi kieleksi. Lis(cid:228)ksi Euroopan parlamentti on hyv(cid:228)ksynyt lukuisia p(cid:228)(cid:228)t(cid:246)slauselmia, joista voidaan mainita 30. lokakuuta 1987 hyv(cid:228)ksytty p(cid:228)(cid:228)t(cid:246)slauselma, jossa suositetaan j(cid:228)senvaltioita antamaan virallinen ulottuvuus alueellisten kielten ja v(cid:228)hemmist(cid:246)kielten opetukselle ja kohottamaan ne samalle tasalle kansallisten kielten opetuksen kanssa. My(cid:246)s 9. helmikuuta 1994, 17. joulukuuta 1998 ja 16. maaliskuuta 2000 hyv(cid:228)ksytyt p(cid:228)(cid:228)t(cid:246)slauselmat ovat samansuuntaisia. Eik(cid:246) komissio katso, ett(cid:228) espanjankielisen alueen nykyinen tilanne on selv(cid:228)sti n(cid:228)iden p(cid:228)(cid:228)t(cid:246)slauselmien vastainen? Eik(cid:246) komissio kieli(cid:228) koskevan eurooppalaisen teemavuoden kynnyksell(cid:228) katso, ett(cid:228) Navarran kaltaisten tapausten tulisi olla yksityiskohtaisen seurannan kohteena? Aikooko komissio laatia selonteon, joka koskee perussopimuksen 151 artiklan periaatteiden mukaista j(cid:228)senvaltioiden kulttuurien monimuo- toisuuden kunnioittamista? Viviane Redingin komission puolesta antama vastaus (14. kes(cid:228)kuuta 2000) Kielellisen ja kulttuurisen monimuotoisuuden kunnioittaminen on yksi Euroopan unionin perusteista. Komissio ottaa huomioon arvoisan parlamentin j(cid:228)senen antamat tiedot baskin kielen asemasta Navarran autonomisella alueella (Communidad Foral de Navarra). Komissio on toteuttanut toimivaltansa rajoissa toimia esim. laatimalla raportin unionin alue- ja v(cid:228)hemmis- t(cid:246)kielten tilanteesta (Euromosaic-tutkimus) sek(cid:228) antamalla taloudellista tukea turvatakseen ja edist(cid:228)(cid:228)kseen alue- ja v(cid:228)hemmist(cid:246)kieli(cid:228) sek(cid:228) tukeakseen Euroopan v(cid:228)hemmist(cid:246)kielten toimistoa ja Mercator-hanketta. Komissio on my(cid:246)s rahoittanut soveltuvin osin alue- ja v(cid:228)hemmist(cid:246)kieliin liittyvi(cid:228) aloitteita muiden yhteis(cid:246)n ohjelmien puitteissa. 20. 2. 2001 FI Euroopan yhteis(cid:246)jen virallinen lehti C 53 E/93 Euroopan kielten teemavuoden p(cid:228)(cid:228)tarkoitus on parantaa tietoisuutta kielten opiskelun t(cid:228)rkeydest(cid:228). Kaikille j(cid:228)senmaiden Euroopan kielten teemavuotta varten ehdottamille kielille, riippumatta niiden asemasta, annetaan yht(cid:228)l(cid:228)inen p(cid:228)(cid:228)sy ohjelmaan. Komissio aikoo osana alue- ja v(cid:228)hemmist(cid:246)kielten turvaamis- ja edist(cid:228)mistoimenpiteit(cid:228) toteuttaa tutkimuk- sen yhteis(cid:246)n nykyisist(cid:228) alue- ja v(cid:228)hemmist(cid:246)kieliyhteis(cid:246)ist(cid:228). T(cid:228)m(cid:228) hanke perustuu Euromosaic-tutkimuksen tuloksiin, ja sen tarkoituksena on muun muassa anta ajantasaista tietoa t(cid:228)llaisten kielten asemasta oikeus-, hallinto- ja koulutusj(cid:228)rjestelmiss(cid:228) kansallisella, alueellisella ja paikallisella tasolla. (2001/C 53 E/123) KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS E-1180/00 esitt(cid:228)j(cid:228)(t): Marjo Matikainen-Kallstr(cid:246)m (PPE-DE) komissiolle (12. huhtikuuta 2000) Aihe: Lapset lentokoneessa Lentoyhti(cid:246)ill(cid:228) on k(cid:228)yt(cid:246)ss(cid:228)(cid:228)n erilaisia turvak(cid:228)yt(cid:228)nt(cid:246)j(cid:228) sellaisille lapsimatkustajille, joilla ei ole omaa paikkaa. Joillakin lentoyhti(cid:246)ill(cid:228) s(cid:228)(cid:228)nn(cid:246)t kielt(cid:228)v(cid:228)t lasten kuljettamisen penkkiin turvav(cid:246)in kiinnitett(cid:228)v(cid:228)ss(cid:228) turvaistui- messa. T(cid:228)ll(cid:246)in lasta on nousujen ja laskujen aikana pidett(cid:228)v(cid:228) syliss(cid:228). Jotkut lentoyhti(cid:246)t vaativat, ett(cid:228) lapsi kiinnitet(cid:228)(cid:228)n erillisvy(cid:246)ll(cid:228) aikuisen istuinvy(cid:246)h(cid:246)n. Toiset lentoyhti(cid:246)t taas eiv(cid:228)t salli t(cid:228)t(cid:228) k(cid:228)yt(cid:228)nt(cid:246)(cid:228). Yll(cid:228) mainittuun viitaten kysyn komissiolta, mit(cid:228) keinoja sill(cid:228) on k(cid:228)yt(cid:246)ss(cid:228)(cid:228)n pienten lentomatkustajien turvallisuuden parantamiseksi matkustettaessa unionin alueella toimivien lentoyhti(cid:246)iden koneilla. Mihin toimiin se aikoo ryhty(cid:228) selvitt(cid:228)(cid:228)kseen, mill(cid:228) tavoin pienten lasten lentomatkustamista voidaan helpottaa esim. istuinj(cid:228)rjestelyill(cid:228). Loyola de Palacion komission puolesta antama vastaus (15. kes(cid:228)kuuta 2000) S(cid:228)(cid:228)nn(cid:246)sten antaminen matkustajien turvallisuudesta siviililentokoneissa, joita liikenn(cid:246)iv(cid:228)t yhteis(cid:246)(cid:246)n aset- tautuneet toimijat kaupallisessa lentoliikenteess(cid:228), kuuluu toistaiseksi kunkin j(cid:228)senvaltion toimivaltaan, mik(cid:228) selitt(cid:228)(cid:228) parlamentin j(cid:228)senen mainitsemat erilaiset k(cid:228)yt(cid:228)nn(cid:246)t. Tiettyjen siviili-ilmailun turvallisuuteen liittyvien teknisten vaatimusten ja hallinnollisten menettelyjen yhdenmukaistamisesta s(cid:228)(cid:228)det(cid:228)(cid:228)n 16. joulukuuta 1991 annetussa neuvoston asetuksessa (ETY) N:o 3922/91 (1). Komissio on vastik(cid:228)(cid:228)n antanut neuvostolle ja Euroopan parlamentille ehdotuksen (2) mainitun asetuksen muuttamisesta. Ehdotuksen tarkoituksena on laajentaa asetuksen soveltamisalaa koskemaan my(cid:246)s kaupallisten lentokoneiden liikenn(cid:246)inniss(cid:228) sovellettavia yhteisi(cid:228) vaatimuksia. Asiasta tehd(cid:228)(cid:228)n parhaillaan lis(cid:228)selvityksi(cid:228). Lasten ja istuinv(cid:246)iden k(cid:228)yt(cid:246)n osalta ehdotuksen vaatimuksissa m(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)t(cid:228)(cid:228)n, ett(cid:228) kaksi henkil(cid:246)(cid:228) voi olla samalla istuimella ainoastaan, jos toinen heist(cid:228) on sylilapsi, joka on asianmukaisesti kiinnitetty ylim(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)i- sell(cid:228) turvavy(cid:246)lenkill(cid:228) tai muulla kiinnityslaitteella. T(cid:228)m(cid:228)n perusteella lapset pit(cid:228)isi muissa tapauksissa rinnastaa muihin matkustajiin ja heid(cid:228)n pit(cid:228)isi matkustaa omalla istuimella, jolla on oma istuinvy(cid:246). Mit(cid:228)(cid:228)n erityiss(cid:228)(cid:228)nn(cid:246)ksi(cid:228) ei kuitenkaan ole annettu lapsen turvaistuimen kiinnitt(cid:228)misest(cid:228) lentokoneen istuimeen. Mainitun muutosasetuksen antaminen johtaa siihen, ett(cid:228) yhteis(cid:246)ss(cid:228) on yhdenmukaiset, oikeudellisesti sitovat turvallisuusvaatimukset lentoliikenteen alalla. (1) EYVL L 373, 31. 12. 1991. (2) KOM(2000) 121


title: INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA P-1282/00 di Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) alla Commissione. Corridoio di trasporto Dublino/Sligo.

eurovoc_concepts:
Connacht
Ireland
Leinster
road network
trans-European network
transport network

text: 20. 2. 2001 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:224) europee C 53 E/121 Alla luce di questi fatti nuovi, pu(cid:242) la Commissione far sapere quando presenter(cid:224) una proposta volta a stabilire la base giuridica per la protezione civile in caso di calamit(cid:224) naturali? Risposta data dalla sig. ra Wallstr(cid:246)m a nome della Commissione (20 giugno 2000) La Commissione ringrazia l(cid:146)onorevole parlamentare per il costante interesse manifestato nei confronti dell(cid:146)introduzione di un meccanismo giuridico di protezione civile in caso di calamit(cid:224) naturali nell(cid:146)Unione europea. L(cid:146)onorevole parlamentare ha citato in proposito la risoluzione sugli orientamenti per la procedura di bilancio 2001 (cid:129) sezione III (cid:129) Commissione (A5-0070/2000 (cid:129) relazione Haug) che, nel paragrafo 34 ribadisce che Ł necessario ristabilire la linea B4-3400 (aiuti urgenti per le vittime di catastrofi naturali o tecnologiche nell(cid:146)Unione europea). La Commissione prende atto del messaggio politico inviato dal Parlamento ma non Ł ancora in grado di prendere in considerazione la proposta di una base giuridica per il versamento di aiuti urgenti in caso di catastrofi naturali o tecnologiche in seno alla Comunit(cid:224). La riforma attualmente in corso intende infatti identificare le priorit(cid:224) politiche da prendere in considera- zione per le azioni della Comunit(cid:224) per gli anni futuri e valutare i mezzi per attuarle. La presentazione di una tale proposta Ł pertanto prematura. (2001/C 53 E/154) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA P-1282/00 di Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) alla Commissione (12 aprile 2000) Oggetto: Corridoio di trasporto Dublino/Sligo La regione dell(cid:146)Irlanda nord-occidentale rientrante nell(cid:146)Obiettivo 1 Ł una regione periferica il cui potenziale non Ł stato ancora pienamente realizzato in gran parte a causa delle gravi carenze dei suoi collegamenti infrastrutturali. Nel Piano nazionale di sviluppo recentemente pubblicato dall(cid:146)Irlanda, il governo irlandese non prevede di migliorare, trasformandolo in strada a doppia carreggiata/autostrada, il principale corridoio fra Dublino e Sligo, che Ł anche il piø importante collegamento stradale per l(cid:146)intera regione nord-occidentale. Solo un breve tratto (37 miglia) fra Dublino e Kinnegad e alcune circonvallazioni urbane diventeranno autostrada/ strada a doppia carreggiata. Questa decisione Ł stata presa perchØ il governo ritiene che gli attuali flussi di traffico non giustifichino un investimento. Alla luce di tale dichiarazione, si chiede alla Commissione quanto segue: nell(cid:146)interesse della politica regionale e dei trasporti si dovrebbe attribuire a questo collegamento stradale una priorit(cid:224) maggiore di quella di cui gode attualmente. Pu(cid:242) la Commissione chiarire la sua posizione su questo punto? A quanto valuta il volume dei trasporti in quest(cid:146)area? Dispone di statistiche dettagliate sulla strada in questione e, in caso affermativo, ritiene che il suo volume di traffico ne giustifichi il miglioramento? Ritiene la Commissione che un miglioramento del sistema stradale contribuirebbe allo sviluppo econo- mico, sociale e industriale di questa regione? Nella sua proposta rivista sulle Reti di trasporto transeuropee, la Commissione si impegna a prendere in considerazione il miglioramento di questo collegamento stradale? C 53 E/122 Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:224) europee IT 20. 2. 2001 Risposta data dalla sig. ra de Palacio a nome della Commissione (10 maggio 2000) La strada N4 fa parte dei progetti inclusi nell(cid:146)allegato I degli orientamenti comunitari per lo sviluppo delle la reti transeuropee dei trasporti (TEN-T), adottati dal Parlamento e dal Consiglio nel 1996 (1), di cui Comunit(cid:224) riconosce l(cid:146)importanza strategica per il buon funzionamento del mercato unico e il rafforza- mento della coesione economica e sociale. In merito ai collegamenti stradali, l(cid:146)articolo 9 di detti orientamenti recita: «la rete stradale transeuropea si compone di autostrade e strade di qualit(cid:224) elevata(cid:133) [e] garantisce agli utenti un livello di servizi, comodit(cid:224) e sicurezza elevato, omogeneo e avente carattere di continuit(cid:224)». Inoltre, tutti i progetti di interesse comune finalizzati allo sviluppo della rete devono avere una potenziale validit(cid:224) economica, in base alle analisi dei costi e dei benefici socioeconomici. trasporti prevede una serie di Il piano di sviluppo nazionale irlandese nel settore dei «migliorie significative» per il tratto della N4 compreso tra Kinnegad e Sligo, da realizzarsi nell(cid:146)ambito di un programma inteso ad assicurare un(cid:146)elevata qualit(cid:224) del servizio. La Commissione e le autorit(cid:224) irlandesi sono infatti giunte ad un accordo sul quadro di sostegno comunitario che, nel caso delle regioni di confine, centrale e occidentale, prevede tra l(cid:146)altro il finanziamento dei collegamenti stradali verso le regioni occidentale e nordoccidentale. In particolare, sono previsti lavori di ristrutturazione della N4: la scelta dei singoli progetti Ł tuttavia lasciata alle autorit(cid:224) nazionali conformemente al principio di sussidiariet(cid:224). Nell(cid:146)ambito del programma operativo in materia di trasporti 1994-1999, la Commissione cionondimeno ha cofinanziato uno studio sulla base del quale saranno selezionati i vari progetti, compreso il potenzia- mento della N4 e di altri collegamenti stradali verso ovest. Ai fini dello sviluppo socioeconomico della regione nordoccidentale Ł opportuno basare il potenziamento sulle conclusioni di tale studio e sul recente monitoraggio del traffico. Va inoltre sottolineato che i progetti di infrastruttura di dimensioni considerevoli sono oggetto di un(cid:146)analisi costi-benefici e di una valutazione dell(cid:146)impatto ambientale. La rigorosa applicazione di queste tecniche garantisce che il potenziamento dei collegamenti stradali sia deciso in base a criteri oggettivi. La Commissione sta valutando se e come rivedere gli orientamenti per le TEN-T in modo da tenere conto dei cambiamenti tecnologici ed economici intervenuti nel frattempo. A tale scopo prepara una relazione sulle mappe delle reti dell(cid:146)allegato I che presenter(cid:224) a Parlamento e Consiglio questa estate. (1) Decisione 1692/96/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio del 23 luglio 1996 sugli orientamenti comunitari per lo sviluppo della rete transeuropea dei trasporti (GU L 228 del 9. 9. 1996). (2001/C 53 E/155) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-1294/00 di Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) alla Commissione (19 aprile 2000) Oggetto: Sostegno europeo ai malati di sclerosi multipla Potrebbe la Commissione indicare quali possibilit(cid:224) di aiuto e/o sostegno siano disponibili in una regione depressa rientrante nell(cid:146)obiettivo n. 1, quale Ł il Galles, al fine di assistere i malati di sclerosi multipla? Risposta data dal sig. Barnier in nome della Commissione (25 maggio 2000) La regione West Wales and the Valleys Ł stata inclusa tra le regioni dell(cid:146)obiettivo 1 per il periodo di programmazione 2000-2006. Nell(cid:146)elaborare il piano di spesa relativo al documento unico di programma- zione, il partenariato regionale di West Wales and the Valleys ha previsto una serie di misure (ad esempio un(cid:146)azione della comunit(cid:224) locale per l(cid:146)inserimento sociale) nel cui ambito le organizzazioni locali potreb- bero ottenere finanziamenti a favore di associazioni come quella dei malati di sclerosi a placche. Occorre tuttavia sottolineare che il finanziamento non pu(cid:242) essere concesso per la cura della sclerosi a placche ma soltanto per la formazione, la riabilitazione e la prevenzione di discriminazioni sul posto di lavoro


title: PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-1172/00 apresentada por Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) à Comissão. Discriminação etária no sector da saúde.

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

text: C 46 E/138 Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias PT 13. 2. 2001 (2001/C 46 E/158) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-1172/00 apresentada por Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) (cid:224) Comissªo (12 de Abril de 2000) Objecto: Discrimina(cid:231)ªo etÆria no sector da saœde Foi pela primeira vez consagrada no Tratado de Amesterdªo a proibi(cid:231)ªo da discrimina(cid:231)ªo com base na idade (artigo 13o do Tratado CE). Todavia, em alguns Estados-membros, determinados tratamentos mØdicos ou interven(cid:231)ıes(cid:141) geralmente onerosos (cid:129) nªo sªo reembolsados (cid:224)s pessoas de uma determinada idade. DisporÆ a Comissªo de dados precisos sobre os procedimentos concretos em vigor nos diferentes Estados- -membros relativamente (cid:224)s discrimina(cid:231)ıes etÆrias no sector da saœde? EstarÆ a Comissªo disposta a transmitir esses dados ao Parlamento Europeu? EntenderÆ a Comissªo que os Estado-membros devem garantir a todas as pessoas, independentemente da idade, toda e qualquer assistŒncia mØdica e que os custos incorridos sejam cobertos pelas respectivas seguran(cid:231)as sociais? Em caso afirmativo, que medidas tenciona promover a Comissªo a fim de evitar uma discrimina(cid:231)ªo etÆria no sector da saœde e de que forma deverªo as mesmas ser aplicadas ao n(cid:237)vel dos Estados-membros? Resposta dada por Anna. Diamantopoulou em nome da Comissªo (8 de Junho de 2000) Cabe a cada Estado-membro a organiza(cid:231)ªo do seu pr(cid:243)prio sistema de seguran(cid:231)a social, incluindo os sistemas de saœde e o estabelecimento das condi(cid:231)ıes de aquisi(cid:231)ªo do direito (cid:224)s presta(cid:231)ıes no (cid:226)mbito dos regimes criados. A Comissªo prop(cid:244)s uma estratØgia concertada para modernizar a protec(cid:231)ªo social (1) que tem por base quatro objectivos fundamentais, sendo um deles a garantia de um n(cid:237)vel elevado e duradouro de protec(cid:231)ªo da saœde; tendo esta estratØgia sido aprovada pelo Conselho (2). No que diz respeito aos dados, a Comissªo remete o Sr. Deputado para o relat(cid:243)rio que publicou sobre a protec(cid:231)ªo social na Europa em 1999, que apresenta um resumo dos œltimos desenvolvimentos nos sistemas de cuidados de saœde nos Estados-membros (3), bem como para o sistema de informa(cid:231)ªo mœtua sobre a protec(cid:231)ªo social nos Estados-membros (MISSOC) (4). A Comissªo nªo possui dados mais precisos sobre as presta(cid:231)ıes ou tratamentos dispensados (cid:224)s pessoas idosas ou a outras grupos espec(cid:237)ficos nos sistemas de cuidados de saœde dos Estados-membros. No entanto, na sua comunica(cid:231)ªo «Uma Europa para todas as idades (cid:129) Promover a prosperidade e a solidariedade entre as gera(cid:231)ıes» (5), a Comissªo sublinha a necessidade de melhorar o acesso aos tratamentos para todas as idades e para as pessoas idosas, bem como a necessidade de garantir cuidados de qualidade (cid:224)s pessoas muito idosas e muito frÆgeis. AlØm disso, na Proposta de Decisªo do Conselho que estabelece um programa de ac(cid:231)ªo comunitÆrio de combate (cid:224) discrimina(cid:231)ªo (2001-2006) (6), a Comissªo salientou a questªo da discrimina(cid:231)ªo no acesso aos servi(cid:231)os pœblicos. (1) COM(1999) 347 final. (2) JO C 8 de 12. 1. 2000. (3) COM(2000) 163 final. (4) S(cid:237)tio internet: http://europa. eu. int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/missoc98/english/f_main. htm. (5) COM(1999) 221 final. (6) COM(1999) 567 final