You are on page 1of 2

C 310/64 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 10.


The EAGGF contribution represents 75% of expenditure, as Ireland is an objective 1 area. The Community
contribution is limited to 50% in other regions.

As a proportion of total EAGGF expenditure on agri-environment programmes, the amount spent on REPS
represented 4% in 1995, 3% in 1996 and over 6% in 1997. For purposes of comparison, Ireland accounts for 3.3%
of the utilized agricultural area (UAA) of the Community.

Concerning the breakdown by type of measure, the Commission has not yet received a report from Ireland on the
implementation of the programme and the data supplied relates only to overall figures.

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the Commission’s report (2) on
the application of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, submitted to the Parliament on 4 December 1997.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(2) COM(97) 620 final.

(98/C 310/83) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0445/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission
(27 February 1998)

Subject: Decentralization of the Interreg II programme

The aim of the Interreg II programme is to implement effective mechanisms to facilitate cooperation between
frontier regions.

Some countries have chosen to decentralize the office responsible for managing this programme to the region
concerned, such as France, which has established an office in Toulouse for the Midi-Pyrénées region.

Does the Commission not consider that all Member States should be asked to decentralize the offices responsible
for the management of this programme to bring them into closer contact with the situation in the region
concerned and with the beneficiaries of the programme, while at the same time improving management

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 1998)

In the guidelines for the Interreg II operational programmes (1), the Commission stresses the importance it
attaches to the establishment or development, in cooperation with the regional or local authorities concerned, of
shared institutional or administrative structures in border areas competent to implement projects. The Member
States have been encouraged to take this into account as far as possible.

(1) OJ C 180, 1.7.1994.

(98/C 310/84) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0447/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission
(27 February 1998)

Subject: Current situation in the onion sector

The reform of the COM in fruit and vegetables did not take into account the proposal submitted by the European
Parliament calling for onions to be included in Annex II to the relevant regulation to enable it to benefit from
withdrawal premiums.
9. 10. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 310/65

Given the importance of the onion sector, its specific features, strong regional impact and the seasonal nature of
production, which has a considerable influence on producers’ incomes, does the Commission not consider that
the possibility of extending Annex II should be examined, in order to prevent discrimination vis-à-vis other types
of vegetables?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1998)

The common organisation of the fruit and vegetable markets covers more than one hundred products, most of
which are seasonal and of great regional importance.

Under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in fruit
and vegetables (1), some products were covered by an intervention scheme, but many did not qualify for support.
The reform adopted by Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of
the market in fruit and vegetables (2) provides for a reduction in the use of intervention by limiting the quantities
which can be withdrawn from the market, and for a reduction in the intervention price.

Financial assistance is now also available through the operational funds and enables producer organisations to
pay withdrawal compensation for products not listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2200/96.

The operational funds can also be used in the context of operational programmes to improve the marketing of
products or to concentrate market supply, among other things.

Onion producer organisations can thus qualify for withdrawal compensation, which they could not do before the
reform of the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables.

The Commission does not therefore plan to widen Annex II and considers that a solution to most of the problems
in the sector can be found in the new instruments set up under the reform.

(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972.

(2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(98/C 310/85) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0449/98

by Carlo Ripa di Meana (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(27 February 1998)

Subject: Urban waste in the Lombardy region

In winter 1996 the city of Milan stopped dumping solid urban waste at the Cerro dump. Since then a percentage
of the urban waste has been dumped outside the province and the region.

Milan city council has frequently said it did not dump waste outside the region and that more than 30% of the
waste collected was sorted.

The special commissioner for the waste emergency has authorized the former Maserati site as a final solution to
the Milan waste emergency. According to press reports the disposal of waste outside the region, which began two
years ago, is still going on.

Is it true that the collection of sorted waste, and not just the sorting of portions of waste has reached the
percentage indicated?

Do means exist for identifying the compostable proportion that demonstrate actual disposal at composting sites?