You are on page 1of 2

C 304/126 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2. 10.

98

(98/C 304/190) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0524/98
by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission
(2 March 1998)

Subject: The promotion of certain foodstuffs

Current dietary advice urges us to reduce our meat, milk, fat and sugar consumption and increase our fruit and
vegetable consumption. In view of this, recent press reports in the UK have raised concern that a portion of the
CAP budget is used to promote the consumption of meat and dairy products, and yet not to promote the
consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables. These reports argue therefore that the CAP fails to promote the
consumption of a balanced diet. Are these press reports accurate, and if so, what measures will the Commission
be taking to encourage the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables in the future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(12 March 1998)

The Commission would like to point out to the Honourable Member that the Community budget for promoting
agricultural products is used in particular to encourage consumption of certain fruit and vegetables. Promotion
schemes have been adopted by the Council for apples, citrus fruit, dried grapes and nuts, covered respectively by
Regulations (EEC) No 1195/90 (1), (EEC) No 1201/90 (2), (EC) No 399/94 (3) and (EC) No 2200/96 (Article
54) (4). In addition, since the reform of the fruit and vegetable sector in Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, the
Commission has been granting financial aid for operational programmes run by producer organisations, which
may include promotion schemes.

A considerable share of the Community budget devoted to promoting agricultural products is thus spent on fruit
and vegetables. These promotion campaigns normally consist of stressing the health benefits related to
consumption. The same applies to promotion of the consumption of olive oil, which revolves around the
nutritional advantages of a Mediterranean-style diet, in which both olive oil and fruit and vegetables play an
important part.

(1) OJ L 119, 11.5.1990.
(2) OJ L 119, 11.5.1990.
(3) OJ L 54, 25.2.1994.
(4) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(98/C 304/191) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0531/98
by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission
(2 March 1998)

Subject: Raphael Programme

The Commission has selected 92 of the 841 projects submitted under the Raphael Programme for the protection
of the cultural heritage and a total budget of ECU 9.2 million has been allocated. These 92 projects have been
divided into five separate actions. Will the Commission say which projects have been approved by each Member
State under each of these actions, which organizations have been granted the aid, what sums are involved and
what is the purpose of the projects concerned?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission
(14 April 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the implementation of the Raphael programme for
1997 concerned the selection of 92 projects for all its five actions. The number of projects and the budgetary
allocation per action is as follows:
− Action 1 − Events and dissemination initiatives of a European dimension in favour of the preservation and
increased awareness of European cultural heritage: 43 projects selected out of 511 submissions with a
budgetary allocation of 1.80 MECU;
− Action 2 − Co-operation in developing thematic networks between European museums: 13 projects selected
out of 103 submissions with a budgetary allocation of 2.55 MECU;
2. 10. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 304/127

− Action 3 − Further training and mobility of professionals in the field of cultural heritage preservation; 14
projects selected out of 92 submissions with a budgetary allocation of 742.000 ECU;
− Action 4 − Study, preservation and enhancement of decorated facades in Europe; 10 projects selected out of
65 submissions with a budgetary allocation of 1.74 MECU;
− Action 5 − Study, preservation and enhancement of the European pre-industrial heritage: 12 projects
selected out of 70 submissions with a budgetary allocation of 2.66 MECU.

The Community financial support for the selected projects is shared between all the partners involved in the
implementation of each project through the coordinator or leader of the project, who receives the Community
grant. In this context, and as the European dimension is evident, the projects do not really come under nationality
headings.

As to the financial contribution allocated per project, the Commission is sending a comprehensive list to the
Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat which indicates the partners involved in each project
(the first being the coordinator), the objectives to be attained and the amounts granted.

(98/C 304/192) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0533/98
by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission
(2 March 1998)

Subject: Aid to the Mexican Government to investigate the Acteal massacre

On 22 December 1997 a massacre was committed in the village of Acteal, in the province of Chiapas, Mexico,
which shocked the whole world. To find the perpetrators of this act and ascertain the reasons for it, the Mexican
Government has launched large-scale investigations throughout the country. Efforts have also been made to
organize aid for the inhabitants of Acteal.

In view of the above, what measures has the Commission taken to organize humanitarian aid to those suffering as
a result of the disaster and to offer expert aid to the Mexican Government to clear up the crime?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission
(31 March 1998)

After the tragic events of Acteal in December 1997 and in line with the resolution adopted by the Parliament on
this subject in January 1998, the Commission examined the possibility of providing humanitarian aid for the
population uprooted as a result of the massacre. On 19 February 1998, the Commission approved an
humanitarian aid package totalling 1.45 MECU.

The aid will be channelled through the German and Spanish Red Cross and the non governmental organisation
(NGO) Medicos del Mundo, in collaboration with local NGOs (Mexican Red Cross and Caritas Mexico).
Activities envisaged under this decision include food and medical aid as well as provisional shelter for the
affected population.

(98/C 304/193) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0534/98
by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission
(2 March 1998)

Subject: Uniform pricing of postal services (continued)

Commissioner Bangemann has replied to my question on this topic (E-3942/97) (1), stating that the practice of the
Finnish post office is not in conflict with the proposal for a directive on common rules for the development of the
internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, on the grounds that the
amount charged is in proportion to the additional costs incurred.