6.6.

2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (14 December 2001)

C 134 E/193

The Commission has no data on the costs incurred in putting the Schengen Implementing Convention into practice in the Union. The responsibility lies with the Member States, particularly in the area of visa policy and checks at external borders, to set up their administrative and inspection organisations with adequate material and human resources in line with the national regulations, while at the same time complying with Community/Union legislation and taking account of the interests of all the Member States participating in the establishment of an area in which there are no checks on persons at internal borders. This is also applicable with regard to creating or networking national files such as the national components of the Schengen Information System (SIS), SIRENE and VISION. It must, however, be pointed out that removing internal borders, gradually standardising visa procedures and external border checks, and closer cooperation in police and legal matters should, in principle, lead to economies of scale in terms of costs. In addition, some forms of expenditure, such as expenses relating to the development of SIS II, are already covered by the Community budget.

(2002/C 134 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3085/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (13 November 2001)

Subject: Progress with implementation of the CSF programmes and Cohesion Fund projects Will the Commission produce a detailed comparative table showing the progress made to date in implementing (commitments, payments) the programmes under the CSF and the Cohesion Fund in the four beneficiary countries? Is the Commission satisfied with the progress of the programmes?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (11 January 2002) The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat the table of commitments and payments under the Structural Funds during the 1994-1999 programming period for the four Member States eligible under the Cohesion Fund. That table gives figures for the Cohesion Fund, but for 1993-2001. The actual rate of implementation of commitments, which represents the part of Community assistance actually paid, can be regarded as an approximate, but not definitive, indicator of the state of progress in implementing the programmes. This rate is indirectly linked to the actual rate of implementation of assistance on the ground. For the Member States eligible under the Cohesion Fund, the rate of implementation of commitments under the Structural Funds programmes, and therefore the actual rate of implementation of these programmes on the ground, is above the Community average. The implementation rate under the Cohesion Fund is lower than that of the Structural Funds programmes. However, these rates are not comparable because the period under consideration is different. Assistance under the Cohesion Fund is project-based throughout the programming period; a significant share of the payments made in 2000 and 2001 consists of either the balances of the previous projects or advances on new decisions; it therefore results in a fall in this rate. In addition, the rules concerning payments under that Fund are more directly connected with the actual implementation of assistance on the ground. The overall implementation rate under the Cohesion Fund is, however, satisfactory, with the rate in Ireland and Portugal being higher than in Greece and Spain.

C 134 E/194

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

If a level of implementation of commitments of under 80 % is regarded as indicating delay, the number of programmes concerned, under the various Community Support Frameworks, would be as follows: 13 programmes out of 53 in Greece, 12 programmes out of 98 in Spain, 4 programmes out of 33 in Portugal and no delay for the 18 programmes in Ireland.

(2002/C 134 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3086/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 2001)

Subject: Trips by the Director-General for Fisheries Senior figures in the Commission, both Commissioners and Directors-General, know how important it is to travel to the Community regions in which the sectors linked to their sphere of competence are based. Such trips help make the people concerned and public opinion in the Member States aware of Community initiatives and actions designed to support them, as well as enabling the Commission to size up sectoral problems and problems facing the regions on the spot. With this in mind, how many working trips has the current Director-General for Fisheries made to each of the Member States since his appointment? Is there any geographical criterion within the Fisheries DG on the grounds of which the Director-General travels to northern countries and some other official to southern countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (19 December 2001) The Commission certainly agrees, that visits not only by Members of the Commission but also by civil servants of the Commission to various regions and sectors in Europe can help citizens become better aware of Community initiatives and actions that can help solve local and regional problems. Such visits can be initiated in different ways. As far as the Directorate General for Fisheries is concerned visits organised for officials at the highest level have lately very much been dominated by the ongoing debate on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and the organisation of meetings and conferences on different themes of the reform in different places in Europe. For each of the officials at the highest level in the Directorate General for Fisheries their trips during 2000 and 2001 have, therefore, very much been dominated by invitations they have received for participation and contributions to these meetings and conferences.

(2002/C 134 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3087/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 November 2001)

Subject: Plans to build 109 wind turbines on the route taken by migratory birds along the Dutch section of the Wadden Sea and early notification of incompatibility with directives 1. Is the Commission aware that on 18 October 2001 the Dutch government decided to build 109 wind turbines ranging from 60 to 75 million in height along the southern shore of the Wadden Sea. The wind turbines will stand in the water on either side of the Afsluitdijk dam built in 1932 between the shallow, saltwater and eutrophic Wadden Sea which leads into the North Sea and the Ijsselmeer, which is cut off from the sea and now filled with fresh river water?

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful