Posėdžio stenograma

Trečiadienis, 2006 m. vasario 15 d. - Strasbūras

12. Klausimų valanda (klausimai Komisijai)

  Die Präsidentin. Als nächster Punkt folgt die Fragestunde (B6-0002/2006).

Wir behandeln die folgenden Anfragen an die Kommission.

Teil I

Anfrage Nr. 33 von Andreas Schwab, der von Richard Seeber vertreten wird (H-0005/06)

Betrifft: Vereinbarkeit der Pkw-Maut mit EU-Recht

Nach der Einführung der Lkw-Maut in Deutschland gibt es Überlegungen, bald auch eine Pkw-Maut einzuführen. Da dies zu einer stärkeren Belastung der deutschen Autofahrer führen würde, müsste die Einführung mit einer kompensatorischen Senkung der Kfz-Steuer einhergehen.

Ist die Kommission der Ansicht, dass die Einführung der Pkw-Maut in Deutschland – unter der Voraussetzung, dass gleichzeitig eine Senkung der Kfz-Steuer beschlossen wird – mit dem Diskriminierungsverbot gemäß Artikel 12 EGV vereinbar ist?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. I should like to inform the honourable Member of Parliament that currently, with the sole exception of heavy goods vehicles, there is no harmonisation in the field of vehicle taxes at Community level. While Directive 1999/62/EC established minimum annual vehicle tax rates for heavy goods vehicles, Member States are free to lay down national provisions for car taxation as they see fit. A similar situation exists in the field of tolls and charges for road vehicles, the imposition of which is often related to, and justified by, the costs incurred by national authorities for the construction and upkeep of the road infrastructure.

Directive 1999/62/EC provides the framework for levying tolls and charges for heavy goods vehicles in a non-discriminatory and proportionate manner. There is no such Community legislation for private vehicles. However, national provisions introducing car taxes, tolls or charges have to be in line with the general principle of the EC Treaty and, in particular, should not give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade between Member States and should respect the non-discrimination principle.

The Commission is of the opinion that, if the imposition of toll charges for road vehicles is not conditional on a decision to reduce car taxes simultaneously, and if these measures do not include any direct or indirect discrimination based on the nationality of the road vehicle, they are not contrary to Article 12 of the EC treaty.

I would like to recall that the Commission gave a similar reply to an oral question during Question Time at Parliament’s December 2005 part-session. According to the information available to the Commission, Germany is currently not pursuing the idea of introducing a toll for passenger cars. If Germany were to introduce a toll, as referred to in the oral question, the Commission would of course examine those provisions in depth.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte den Kommissar betreffend die Wegekostenrichtlinie fragen, was die Kommission zu tun gedenkt, um das Prinzip der Internalisierung der externen Kosten weiter voranzutreiben. Wir haben die Wegekostenrichtlinie zwar jetzt beschlossen, aber was gedenkt die Kommission insbesondere im Bereich von Studien und wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen zu unternehmen, um den Zusammenhang zwischen Umweltverschmutzung und dem schweren Güterverkehr klarer herauszuarbeiten und anhand dessen dann endgültig einen neuen Vorschlag für eine bessere, umweltgerechtere Eurovignettenrichtlinie vorzulegen?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. The White Paper on transport policy for 2010 concluded that one of the principal reasons for the imbalance in the transport system is that the modes of transport do not, in every case, pay the costs for which they are responsible.

The European Parliament confirmed the need for infrastructure charging when it adopted the report of the conclusions of the White Paper on 12 January 2003. Distance-based road tolls and charges based on the duration of the use of the road have historically been levied on motorways or other main roads to help finance the construction, operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. Increasingly, as technology advances, such instruments could also be used to manage traffic: congestion charges, emissions-related charges and so on.

Most Member States levy tolls or charges on at least part of their motorway network. The Commission policy on road charges and tolls is that they are an important instrument for financing investment in infrastructure, managing traffic and encouraging private-sector investment in infrastructure management. So Commission legislation is currently limited to heavy goods vehicles, as I have already mentioned, but it is a part of our policy.

Anfrage Nr. 34 von Robert Evans (H-0016/06)

Betrifft: Junk Food

Teilt die Kommission meine Sorge über die an Kinder gerichtete Werbung für so genanntes Junk Food im Fernsehen, im Internet und in den Medien? Hält die Kommission angesichts des internationalen Charakters des Marktes und der Angebotsketten sowie der offensichtlich schädlichen Auswirkungen dieser Produkte Maßnahmen auf EU-Ebene für angebracht?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mr President, the Commission attaches great importance to the effects that advertising might have on children’s behaviour. This is particularly the case with the advertising of food products, given the potential relationship with children’s diets and health. On the general basis, the European Union is equipped with a number of horizontal norms that touch upon this field and regulate those advertising activities that can influence children’s behaviour, and which also cover food products.

First, in respect of television advertising, since 1989 the Television Without Frontiers directive has provided that such advertising shall not cause moral or physical detriment to minors. In particular, television advertising shall not directly exhort minors to buy a product or service by exploiting their inexperience or credulity, directly encourage them to persuade their parents or others to purchase the goods or the services being advertised, or exploit the special trust that minors usually have in parents, teachers and in others close to them.

A proposal for an amendment to this directive, adopted by the Commission on 13 December 2005, would extend these provisions to other types of audio-visual content. In addition, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which was adopted in 2005, includes similar provisions. This will enhance the protection of vulnerable groups of consumers, banning directly exhortations to children to buy advertised products or persuade their parents or other adults to buy advertised products for them.

At this stage, the Commission does not intend to take any other legislative initiative. The Commission now expects self-regulation by the industry to step in and complement in an effective and precise way the provisions of law which are in place. It has initiated a far-reaching process to that end.

The European platform on diet, physical activity and health, for example, is meant to bring about non-regulatory measures and firm commitments by the industry. The Commission expects that these commitments will include a number that relate to advertising to children. In parallel, the Commission has also reinforced its dialogue with industry and others to assess how to further improve advertising self-regulatory measures.

In December 2005 the Commission adopted a Green Paper on the promotion of healthy diets and physical activity. One of the questions, for which the Green Paper specifically invites responses, is: ‘Are voluntary codes (“self-regulation”) an adequate tool for limiting the advertising and marketing of energy-dense and micronutrient-poor foods? What would be the alternatives to be considered if this self-regulation fails?’ The Commission hopes that this approach will produce meaningful commitments to the benefit of all actors concerned and to society at large. Should this not be the case – and this is important – the Commission will not hesitate to propose appropriate legislative measures.

  Robert Evans (PSE). – Thank you, Commissioner. Can I push you a bit further on that last point you made, because up until then I was a little disappointed with what you were saying in implying that the legislation was already there. I could give you any number of examples about which I am concerned, but I shall give you just one. Nestlé ‘Cheerios’ is a breakfast cereal which has 21% sugar and a great deal of salt. They produce their own colouring book and encourage children to eat more and more of this product according to how much they are colouring in.

The EU already legislates, as you outlined in your remarks, but you also implied that this legislation was the basis that could be used. If no new legislation is necessary, can I urge you to look again at the existing measures and self-regulation – which I am not at all certain is accurate – and see whether they are working or whether they need strengthening?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. It is quite obvious that the nutrition and health of young people is very important, and not only to the Commission. I think we can all agree on that. It is also quite clear that we do not want to see a situation where young people might become overweight, causing severe problems later in life, not only for their own health but also for society. Therefore we will look into how this works at present. That is why, if – and I stress, if – it does not seem to be working, the Commission will be ready to take further steps.

  Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – Unlike my colleague, I am delighted that you are not proposing any further legislation today. Your view is absolutely right.

I thank you also for reminding us that this is an issue about diet, physical activity and health. It is very easy to carry on bashing the food industry, but would you not agree that it is time for people to recognise that individuals have responsibility for their own lives and that exercise plays a huge part in what is clearly an important issue?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. As I said previously, we all have a responsibility to try to ensure that youngsters do not find themselves in a situation where they are more likely to fall ill later on in their lives. Clearly, society cannot take responsibility for everybody. Therefore, parents and other adults who are around young people during the day have a responsibility in this area.

We need to have a discussion in the Member States about how much exercise young people do throughout the week at school. There is a clear link between exercise and health, in terms of the diseases you might get if you do not move properly. Now, I am old enough to say that, when I was young, we did not have all these video games that exist today – we did not just sit in front of computer screens and enjoy ourselves like that – so we need to encourage young people to get out and get some exercise in order to try to prevent a situation from arising later on in life that none of us would want.

Anfrage Nr. 35 von Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (H-0052/06)

Betrifft: Finanzierung der Transeuropäischen Verkehrsnetze

Die auf der Tagung des Europäischen Rates vom Dezember 2005 erreichte Einigung zur Finanziellen Vorausschau 2007-2013 hat die ursprünglich von der Kommission vorgeschlagenen 20 Mrd. Euro für die Finanzierung der Transeuropäischen Verkehrsnetze auf 7 Mrd. Euro gekürzt.

Glaubt die Kommission angesichts der Bedeutung der Transeuropäischen Netze für die Lissabon-Strategie und das Funktionieren des Binnenmarkts, dass mit dem Betrag von 7 Mrd. Euro die 30 prioritären Vorhaben, die für die nahe Zukunft geplant sind, verwirklicht werden können? Teilt sie die Auffassung, dass sich diese starke Kürzung um zwei Drittel der ursprünglichen Mittelansätze hemmend auf den Verkehrssektor im weiteren Sinn auswirken wird, vor allem da einige dieser Vorhaben ohnehin Probleme bei der Durchführung aufweisen? Wie gedenkt sie dieses Thema anzugehen? Liegen ihr Schätzungen zur Abwicklung der prioritären Vorhaben vor und teilt sie die Auffassung, dass wegen der Kürzung der Mittelansätze einige prioritäre Programme überprüft und/oder verschoben werden sollten?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. In July 2004 the Commission presented a proposal to amend the regulation concerning trans-European networks – TENs – under the 2007-2013 financial perspective, which, among other things, provided for a higher rate of support up to 50% for a cross-border section of priority projects. The total allocation amounts to EUR 20.35 billion for these TENs transport projects.

The agreement on the 2007-2013 perspective reached at the December 2005 European Council implies a significant reduction of around 40% of the overall amount of appropriations allocated to Heading 1a which, in addition to the transport sector, covers areas such as research, education, competitiveness and new technologies. The breakdown of appropriations between the various components of Heading 1a has not yet been decided.

The Commission is therefore unable to give a precise reply to the honourable Member regarding the consequences of the reduction of the amounts contained in its original proposal for a financial perspective until the figures have been finally decided upon by interinstitutional agreements. Those discussions are ongoing.

  Ρόδη Κράτσα-Τσαγκαροπούλου (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, σας ευχαριστώ για την απάντηση και την ειλικρίνειά σας, αλλά δεν με πείσατε ότι η Επιτροπή αντιμετωπίζει το θέμα με τη σοβαρότητα που οφείλει για έναν τομέα που είναι τόσο σημαντικός για την ολοκλήρωση της εσωτερικής αγοράς και την ανταγωνιστικότητα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Φαίνεται καθαρά ότι από την πρόταση της Επιτροπής θα έχουμε μείωση, και μάλιστα σημαντική. Οι λύσεις σε αυτόν τον τομέα θέλουν χρόνο. Ο σχεδιασμός θέλει χρόνο και πόρους. Ήδη δεν κάνατε κάποιες σκέψεις για καλύτερες συμπράξεις με τον ιδιωτικό τομέα, για μεγαλύτερο μερίδιο από την πλευρά των κρατών μελών, για μεγαλύτερη εμπλοκή της Ευρωπαϊκής Τράπεζας Επενδύσεων; Εκπλήσσομαι για το ότι δεν προετοιμάζεστε προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Of course it is not unimportant for me to underline that the Commission is not underestimating the importance of these trans-European networks. However, I am really not in a position today to give any signals at all on the ongoing discussions on the financial perspectives for the period up to 2013. As I said in my initial response, it is a discussion that is going to take place in the interinstitutional areas that are always in these negotiations at this crucial time.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – Aš norėčiau paklausti, kaip lėšų „Transeuropean Network“ projektams sumažinimas atsilieps naujosioms Europos Sąjungos šalims, kurių transporto struktūra, ir ypač geležinkelis, smarkiai atsilieka nuo senųjų Europos šalių lygio. Kaip konkrečiai, ar bus vykdomas gyvybiškai svarbus Baltijos šalims „Rail Baltica“ projektas, jungiantis Baltijos šalių sostines su Varšuva ir Berlynu?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. I did not hear a question, I heard only a statement.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte festhalten, dass meine erste Frage von der Kommission inhaltlich nicht beantwortet wurde. Ich möchte in diesem Zusammenhang jetzt noch einmal nachfragen. Es ist verständlich, dass uns heute die Kommission nicht sagen kann, wie sie ein Budget, das noch nicht beschlossen ist, aufteilen will. Aber die Kommission sollte meiner Ansicht nach sehr wohl Überlegungen anstellen, wie man diese notwendige Finanzierung der transeuropäischen Netze trotzdem bewerkstelligen kann.

Ich möchte in dem Zusammenhang noch einmal nachhaken: Wir alle wissen, dass die verschiedenen Verkehrsträger durchaus bereit sind, Gebühren zu bezahlen. Durch die neue Wegekostenrichtlinie ist ein sehr enger Plafond dieser Gebührenerhebung eingezogen worden. Könnte man hier nicht einen Vorschlag machen, um das auszudehnen und eine Querfinanzierung zu ermöglichen?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I am sorry but I am not in a position to give any specific answers. Even if I wanted to, it is simply not in my hands at this stage. It is in the hands of the European Parliament, amongst others, and I ask for your understanding of the situation.

There are many important areas in these negotiations that certain Members of Parliament want to support, which is understandable, but at this stage it is impossible. I am sorry.

Teil II

Anfragen an Herrn Potočnik

Anfrage Nr. 36 von Justas Vincas Paleckis (H-0054/06)

Betrifft: Siebtes Rahmenprogramm zur Finanzierung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung für den Zeitraum 2007-2013

In diesem Jahr wird das 7. Rahmenprogramm zur Finanzierung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung für den Zeitraum 2007-2013 angenommen. Im Etat sind über 72 Milliarden Euro vorgesehen, und es ist geplant, die Zahl der an den Projekten teilnehmenden Wissenschaftler zu verdoppeln, Arbeitsplätze für Wissenschaftler zu schaffen und die Bedingungen für die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Wissenschaft und Unternehmen zu verbessern.

Die Statistik der Teilnahme am 6. Rahmenprogramm zeigt, dass kleine und mittlere Unternehmen im Vergleich zu Universitäten und anderen wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen und Instituten in den meisten Staaten der Europäischen Union, darunter auch Litauen, selten Finanzmittel erhalten. Die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Wissenschaftlern und privaten Wirtschaftsunternehmen ist in den Ländern der Europäischen Union, insbesondere den neuen Mitgliedstaaten, nur schwach ausgeprägt. Dies verringert die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Europäischen Union auch im weltweiten Maßstab.

Wäre es nicht zweckmäßig, einen gewissen Teil der Mittel des 7. Rahmenprogramms (15% - 20%) für die Finanzierung von Anträgen kleiner und mittlerer Unternehmen vorzusehen? Dadurch würden nach Ansicht des Fragestellers Anreize für private Unternehmen geschaffen, enger mit wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen und einzelnen Wissenschaftlern zusammenzuarbeiten und neue Technologien und Innovationen für die breite Anwendung zu entwickeln.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. The Commission would like to give the following reply to the honourable Member’s question. First, regarding the total budget for the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, the Commission proposal will need to be revised in the light of the developments in the financial perspective for 2007-2013.

Secondly, regarding cooperation between research organisations and enterprises, in particular SMEs, the Commission agrees that this is of crucial importance. Participation by SMEs is, and will remain, one of the key objectives of the framework programmes.

In Framework Programme 6, a variety of measures has been taken in order to promote SME participation in the thematic areas where they collaborate with other firms and research organisations. These measures include: support to networks of intermediaries in specific sectors of technological fields to help SMEs with proposals, preparations, partner searches etc.; targeted calls in areas of particular interest for SMEs, as well as funding schemes dedicated to SME support, the outsourcing of research by SMEs and SME associations. Given their success, we propose that they should continue in Framework Programme 7. The framework programmes are thus already promoting participation by SMEs and their cooperation with research organisations very actively.

With specific reference to the honourable Member’s suggestion to set a quantified target for SME participation, the Commission takes note of the fact that the Council has introduced a target of 15% SME participation as part of the partial general agreement on FP7. Such a target already exists in FP6, but the Commission has doubts about maintaining such an overall minimum budgetary target for SME participation for the following reasons.

Firstly, potential participation by SMEs varies very much from one thematic area to another, from approximately 5% to 20%. It is therefore practically impossible to define a realistic overall target a priori and it could even be misleading.

Secondly, targets for SMEs may be perceived as compromising the objective of supporting only research of the highest quality and would go against the principles of equal access and excellence that are fundamental to the Framework Programme.

Thirdly, support to SMEs should focus on real measures that make FP7 genuinely attractive and beneficial for SMEs, through the identification of research topics, simplification of administrative aspects and so on.

So the Commission believes that SME involvement is best achieved by removing barriers to SME participation and that is what we want to do. It is also achieved by simplification and improvement of administrative and financial procedures, shorter time to contract, reduced reporting requirements and increased flexibility for SMEs to promote projects of a scope and size that best fit their needs. More account must also be taken of SME needs and potential in developing the content of the theme in the specific programme and especially in the work programme.

In addition, it is very important to underline that for SMEs the Community financial contribution may reach 75% of the eligible costs instead of the usual rate of 50%. This is the proposal which was included in the Rules for Participation.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – Thank you very much, Commissioner, for a convincing answer. In any case, very considerable amounts of money will be allocated under the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development. How does the Commission intend to distribute these funds between the Member States? Preference will probably be given to large and significant projects. Could it also happen that the bulk of financial assistance will be allocated to countries that are already advanced in the field of research and that those which are not will get only crumbs?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. Madam President, the Framework Programme is only one of the tools being used at the European Union level; it is approximately 4% or 5% of the European Union budget. I agree with the honourable Member that it is a large sum of money, because there are important challenges which are ahead of us if we are to deal with questions such as how to sustain our quality of life and remain globally competitive. That is the major question which is included in the Lisbon Agenda and the Partnership for Growth and Jobs which is a follow-up to that.

I believe it is crucial that, on the one hand, we try to stimulate the potential of Member States which are less developed, smaller and maybe do not have the potential to compete on an equal basis today. There are a number of action centres; specific action is proposed in Framework Programme 7 to boost that ability to compete. On the other hand, we have to be aware that the European Union should be aiming for the top. We should stimulate excellence and the possibility that we can truly compete with the changing and challenging world of today.

So we care very much about what you have said, but we also believe that the various types of sources should be combined to address both questions which I underlined, one being the question of aiming for the top, of having the best for Europe; and the second, the question of how to deal with the others which may not be in the best position today.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). – Hr. Formand! Det har været nævnt fra flere landes side, at Den Europæiske Investeringsbank skulle kunne udlåne beløb op til 10 mia. EUR til forskningsformål eller forskning og innovation. Hvilke overvejelser har Kommissionen gjort sig om udvikling af nye finansieringsinstrumenter hos Den Europæiske Investeringsbank til støtte af innovation?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. Thank you for the question. You are right to say that it was mentioned in the debate. However, even before it was mentioned in the debate, the Commission, in its original proposal and together with the European Investment Bank, tried to develop an instrument called a ‘risk-sharing facility’. One of the major problems we have to deal with at European Union level is that we do not all have the same ways of addressing risk. It varies from culture to culture. That is why it is crucial that we create instruments to address that problem. It is not allowing us to be totally in line with the major competitors, especially when we talk about the percentage of GDP invested in research and development. It is crucial that that we stimulate that.

That was the idea behind introducing the risk-sharing facility with the EIB. It would increase potential, because with each unit of the grant which we would somehow give to the EIB, we would get something like four to five units of credit back. It would also give us the opportunity to address some of the more risky businesses which the EIB – in line with banking logic – is not addressing. I am sure that this is not a magical answer which will solve our problems, but I sincerely hope that it will be followed by some other financial institutions across Europe.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte den Kommissar fragen, wie er sich konkret den Bürokratieabbau vorstellt, weil von KMU immer wieder die Klage kommt, dass die Bürokratie im Vergleich zu nationalen Forschungsförderungsprogrammen überbordend ist. Und zweitens, wie stellt er den Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen sicher?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. You have touched on one of the most difficult issues with which we are dealing. As you rightly stated, probably the best way of stimulating SME participation is to cut down on red tape. Bigger companies do not have to expend the same proportion of their energy on this as smaller companies, and the same is true of the proportion of finances. We are trying to approach this question in a consistent manner: from the financial regulation, to the rules of participation, to the next steps of how we will deal with that in-house, we are trying to cut red tape. It is one of the most difficult exercises we are conducting. However, I am firmly convinced that, with goodwill, we can take a major step towards at least reversing the negative trend.

On the same day as we adopted the framework programme, we also adopted the special paper dealing with questions of simplification. In addition, we established a kind of simplification board, consisting of a number of small actors who have been advising us on the preparation of the rules of participation and who will continue to advise us on further in-house simplification processes.

I see simplification as a process that we need to address in all phases and which has to be consistently applied throughout the entire period. I hope that, in this major endeavour, I will also obtain the support of the European Parliament and the Council, because it is to a certain extent a problem we all share.

Anfrage Nr. 37 von Seán Ó Neachtain (H-0076/06)

Betrifft: Finanzierung der Forschung in den europäischen Regionen

Kann die Kommission genau erläutern, welche gezielten Maßnahmen sie zu ergreifen beabsichtigt, um in Verbindung mit dem anstehenden Rahmenprogramm Forschung und technologische Entwicklung die Rolle der Regionen in Europa zu stärken?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. The proposal for the seventh Framework Programme includes an extended regional dimension under the capacity-specific programme, with a number of new initiatives that provide European regions with new opportunities for involvement in research and technological development.

First of all, a new scheme on regions of knowledge provides support to research-and-development-intensive regional clusters. This follows on from two rounds of experimental activities that have created a lot of interest among our regional stakeholders. Members will recall that the first was actually stimulated by the European Parliament. The proposal for the seventh Framework Programme recognises the role of regional actors in developing the research capacity of their region and supports projects focused on regional research-driven clusters.

Another important new initiative under the capacities-specific programme is the one on unlocking research potential, which aims to develop the research potential in the EU’s convergence regions by supporting secondments of research staff, the acquisition of equipment or the organisation of conferences for technology transfer.

Activities will also be undertaken on the coherent development of policies, part of the capacity-specific programme that will enable the exchange of experience between policy-makers at regional level. Activities are provided for under the strand of research infrastructure that would have important implications for some regions in Europe, and, last but not least, the Eranet and the Eranet+ activities that will also involve research players at regional level.

Regions have always been partners to the framework programme. The fact that this is now taking one step further, including schemes targeted specifically at regions, must not allow us to forget that the framework programme has contributed to research and development in the regions in many more ways and will continue to do so.

Framework programme projects help fight regional insularity and technological preventionism. Through European research projects, innovative companies in convergence regions will continue to link the major technology networks and to regenerate their profile and capacity, and remote universities will continue to have access to innovative ways of adopting their research models and become, in some cases, real development drivers for the region.

SME networks participating in the framework programme will continue to improve their technological competence. Marie Curie fellowships will maintain support for research and development human resources, with a direct impact on regional research capacities. New features in the framework programme enhance its commitment to improving synergies with European regional policy so as to reinforce the support of the structural funds for research in the regions.

Through our actions in the framework programme, the Commission will try to provide useful models that will enable European regions to become more efficient in designing and implementing research policy and thus be more able to support their research players. In addition, they will become more efficient in using structural funds resources for research investment.

This presents a real opportunity to make progress towards the Barcelona objective of 3% of GDP investment in research and development in the context of the Lisbon strategy. It is obvious that we must address the issue of catching up at European, national and regional levels, and that is clearly acknowledged in the proposal for the framework programme.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). – Madam President, I thank the Commissioner for his comprehensive reply. I would like to ask him what monitoring system has the Commission in mind to ensure that there is a balance and an equal share-out of the funding across the regions? As the Commissioner knows, there are regions which are not capable of taking down this funding, and obviously that imbalance will create uneven European development. Can the Commissioner tell me what the Commission intends to do about that?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. The honourable Member rightly pointed to a question which also concerns us. The intention of the framework programme in the first place is not balance but excellence. Being aware that we have to develop the potential of the regions, the Commission’s approach in the proposal is and always has been synergetic. It is crucial that one reads carefully the cohesion guidelines prepared by the Commission, which try to give a clear message that the Member States, in addressing their problems in the regions, need to take into account the structural and cohesion funds which are important in this respect for catching up with the Lisbon goals.

As I said before, we also try to do that through our programmes. However, even if we have specific programmes – such as the one concerning the potential of the cohesion regions – we have to go on with an open course of proposals where we choose the most stimulating ones. It is crucial to have incentives to give those that are not on top today a lift upwards.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). – Fru formand! Tak til kommissæren for at gøre opmærksom på, at man kan støtte forskning via strukturfondsmidlerne. Jeg er meget interesseret i at vide, hvordan man styrer det og sikrer sammenhængen mellem indsatsen på strukturfondsmidlerne, den nationale forskningsindsats og den forskningsindsats, der gøres i EU generelt. Hvordan kan man styre det, så det bliver fornuftige projekter? Et andet spørgsmål er: Hvilke beløb kan man forestille sig, at der er afsat til forskning under strukturfondene set i relation til de beløb, der er til rådighed under det syvende rammeprogram? Rådet taler om, at 60 % af strukturfondsmidlerne skal gå til Lissabon-mål.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. If I may start at the end, that was also the Commission’s proposal in the letter which President Barroso sent to Parliament and the Council.

It is important that we recognise the need for the right balance between physical infrastructure on the one hand and intellectual infrastructure and other steps on the other, to stimulate innovation in regions which are today cohesion regions and less developed than the average in the European Union. That is crucial.

I recently attended a conference in Poland with my colleague Mrs Hübner. It was a good conference, in which we were both able to explain to the audience how important it is to approach matters from both sides. At the end of the day, we have to be aware that if these recommendations are taken on board, it is in the hands of the Member States. We have to understand how crucial it is that we balance this kind of support in practice.

I am also fully aware that, in terms of differing levels of development, countries’ needs are not identical. So it is crucially important that this aspect is seriously taken into account and that this shift in attention is also taken into account.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! In der regionalen Politik ist es wichtig, auch immer wieder Vorbilder vor den Vorhang zu stellen. Deshalb meine Frage: Wir haben ja sehr viele Best-Practice-Methoden, wir haben das Innovation Scoreboard. Wäre es nicht möglich, sich gemeinsam mit den Kollegen Hübner, Potočnik und Wallström zu überlegen, wie man diese bewährten Praktiken auch dem europäischen Bürger näher bringen kann, damit Anreize geschaffen werden, diese Zusammenarbeit in Zukunft zu verstärken.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. I can only say that I fully agree with the honourable Member’s remarks. It is crucial in all areas that we simply understand that we are working towards the same goal and only by pooling all financial resources together in a practical way can we truly achieve the changes.

Anfrage Nr. 38 von Teresa Riera Madurell (H-0084/06)

Betrifft: Gemeinschaftshaushalt und 7. Rahmenprogramm für Forschung und Entwicklung

Kommissar Potočnik hat am 26. Januar 2006 vor dem Europäischen Parlament eingeräumt, dass die vorgesehene Kürzung der Finanziellen Vorausschau erhebliche Probleme für die Verfolgung der Ziele des 7. Rahmenprogramms aufwerfen wird. Allerdings muss erst noch das Ende der Verhandlungen über den endgültigen Gemeinschaftshaushalt abgewartet werden, bevor die genaue Höhe der Kürzung feststeht.

Kann die Kommission darlegen, welche Hauptüberlegungen sie anstellt, um das Rahmenprogramm an die geringere Mittelausstattung anzupassen? Beabsichtigt die Kommission, bei der Mittelzuweisung die Anteile der verschiedenen Programme beizubehalten? Vertritt die Kommission nicht die Auffassung, dass gerade die Stärkung der Unterstützung von Forschern einen der Aspekte darstellt, die nicht ernsthaft in Frage gestellt werden sollten, um den gegenwärtigen Prozess der „Abwanderung des Wissens“ zu stoppen?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. Regarding the revision of the Seventh European Union Research and Development Framework Programme, it is the Commission’s intention to maintain the structure and essential philosophy of the initial proposal following the broad consensus that has already emerged in the discussions in Parliament and the Council.

The principles in the approach to the revision were outlined at a meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on 26 January 2006. Smaller activity actions cannot be reduced as much as bigger ones, otherwise they lose their raison d’être. Some lines have a budget that depends, for instance, on international commitments entered into by the European Union or some other bodies. Prioritisation within the themes and a high level of flexibility are also necessary.

The cooperation part should remain the core of the programme. Alongside the cooperation part, many other activities, such as infrastructure, SMEs and the mobility of researchers will be given due consideration in the revised proposal.

In the context of the reduced budget, not only the breakdown but also the timing for the introduction of new initiatives may have to be considered. The framework programme aims to make European research more attractive and to create more mobility for researchers. That is to be boosted by the People Programme, dedicated to structuring the mobility, training and career development of researchers throughout Europe. This is essential to help create a single labour market of researchers, but it is not the only programme to create an attractive European research area.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (PSE). – Señor Comisario, le agradezco sus explicaciones. El motivo de mi pregunta era transmitirle las inquietudes de nuestra comunidad científica ante los recortes que se prevén en la financiación de la ciencia y la tecnología europeas.

Aunque es cierto que tenemos que esperar al final de las negociaciones, en la práctica, es fundamental conocer cuanto antes las ideas que usted está manejando para adaptar el Programa Marco a la menor dotación de recursos y, por ello, le agradecemos sus explicaciones. Es fundamental tanto para continuar con nuestro trabajo parlamentario como para poder informar a nuestros investigadores, que quieren salir de esta situación de incertidumbre, ya demasiado larga, sobre el futuro de sus proyectos de investigación.

He querido también preguntarle, especialmente, si va a seguir siendo una prioridad conseguir que la Unión Europea sea realmente un espacio atractivo para los investigadores. Es un tema que nos preocupa enormemente y quería preguntarle si puede decirnos algo más sobre esta cuestión.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. We are all trying to attain one of the goals which the Member States agreed in Barcelona in 2002, i.e. to provide 3% of GDP for investment in research and development. Pulling the strands together practically is crucial. It is obvious that cooperation at EU level could show the best ways of using and investing the money. That is happening with or without our investment. This is the trend that is going on, because this is the only way in which we can truly deal with the challenges ahead of us. By stimulating that at European Union level, however, we help this process go faster. That is why I agree with you totally that our common endeavours are very important for Europe to benefit.

Today, approximately 5% of public money is spent through the Framework Programme at European Union level. The rest is invested from the budgets of the Member States. Private funding is even more important than public funding. In the European Union, approximately 55% of private money is invested, compared to 45% of public money. It is crucial that we try to stimulate not only the public but also the private sector. It is crucial that companies work and invest in Europe. That is why it is crucially important that these companies are stimulated via the creation of proper conditions, i.e. that tax incentives are there, state aid is supporting that, intellectual property rights are in place, public procurement goes in this direction, risk venture capital is provided, and we stimulate brain circulation and so on. All these things matter.

Three per cent is a kind of indicator of whether we are doing things correctly. Our horizontal policies which we are using across all our sectors are consistent and are those which are truly up to the challenges which we have to face today.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommiss, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Jean-Claude Juncker wird heute in der Zeitung zitiert, dass die Finanzielle Vorausschau, das Angebot des Rates nicht das letzte Wort sein soll. Er stellt in den Raum, dass ca. 875 Milliarden Euro vorstellbar wären.

Glauben Sie, dass es noch eine Chance gibt, das Siebte Rahmenforschungsprogramm aufzustocken?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. It should not be seen as the final word. We have the interinstitutional talks going on and we all know the position of Parliament, which was quite definite. I always welcomed the support from Parliament in our joint endeavours to stimulate education, research and development and innovation, the whole ‘knowledge triangle’.

This is something which would need to be decided in the next stage of the process. I can simply say that investing at European Union level in areas connected with research and development has paid off and it really matters. I very much appreciate your support.

  Margarita Starkevičiūtė (ALDE). – Gerbiamas Komisijos nary, mokslo tyrimo darbų programų sėkmei labai svarbu, kad juose dalyvautų verslas, tiek panaudodamas mokslo tiriamuosius išradimus, tiek finansuodamas juos. Vakar Ekonomikos komitete G. Verheugen, kitos srities Komisijos narys, mums pristatė savo programas kaip inovacijų skatinimo programas. Mano klausimas būtų toks: ar jūs kooperuojatės ir bendrai koordinuojate veiklą tarp dviejų Komisijos narių ir dviejų krypčių programų?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. ‘Yes, we do’ – that would be the shortest answer. Under the competitiveness and innovation framework programme, one phase addresses the issue at hand, and the other phases are addressed through the framework programme. From the very beginning, we have coordinated our activities, which are having a similar effect on innovation as the structural funds have on the regions.

Furthermore, when we talk about involving business in the work we are doing, it is crucial to underline that we have a new tool that did not exist in the past: I refer to the technology platforms, which were established at the beginning of this century and which are developing very fast. The whole idea of technology platforms – I believe we currently have 28 of them – is that they are bottom-up initiatives, starting with the business’s point of view. In these platforms, the points of view of practically all stakeholders are taken on board. So, while these platforms stem from a business initiative, they also include researchers, politicians, NGOs, financial institutions, regulatory authorities and the others on board. They create what are known as ‘strategic research agendas’ for the next 20 years – or more, depending on various factors.

This is the first time that this kind of tool and this kind of logic have been developed at European Union level. I meet daily with industrialists and with others, who are clearly very enthusiastic about what is going on. Even if we were now to remove the incentives, which were, at the outset – if we are frank – financed through the framework programme, this is now a process with its own story. It will definitely make a change at European Union level.

I believe that we are part of a process that will produce hugely important benefits. On the basis of their views for the long-term future, where you have an idea of what research should be undertaken, to the final product and the business sector’s ideas on how to evaluate it in their work, we take this input on board when we create our cooperation activities. In practice, that is in the major part of our programmes.

Moreover, in some areas, where we believe that this long-term, strong partnership exists, and where there is strong commitment from the companies and other actors, such as Member States, for instance, we are ready to develop what are known as ‘joint technological initiatives’, which are a new long-term tool with clear cofinancing, as a new tool, from the European Commission.

We have never had such a clear overview of the intentions, strategies and points of view of the business sector as we have today when we create the framework programme, and, of course, in the final phase, the specific work programmes.

Anfragen an Frau Wallström, vertreten durch Herrn Potočnik

Anfrage Nr. 39 von Hélène Goudin (H-0013/06)

Betrifft: Vorschlag der Kommission in Bezug auf "europäische Botschafter des guten Willens"

In ihrer Antwort auf meine Schriftliche Anfrage zum Plan D (E-4200/05) führte die Kommission aus, sie werde sich die Standpunkte zu eigen machen, die ihr von den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern mitgeteilt werden. Die Kommission betont ferner, dass sie nicht beabsichtige, im Voraus festlegen zu wollen, welche Personen in Frage kommen, um als sogenannte "europäische Botschafter des guten Willens" aufzutreten. Über diese Informationen hinaus wird um konkrete Antwort auf folgende Fragen gebeten:

Wird die Kommission sich, falls die Bürger überwiegend Standpunkte vorbringen, in denen gefordert wird, dass die EU-Zusammenarbeit begrenzt werden soll und dass eine verstärkte EU-Integration nicht wünschenswert erscheint, an diesen Wünschen ausrichten und damit eine verstärkte zwischenstaatliche Zusammenarbeit empfehlen?

Wie werden die Personen, die als "Botschafter des guten Willens" tätig werden sollen, ausgewählt? Sollen vernünftigerweise Einzelpersonen oder Organisationen geeignete "Botschafter des guten Willens" vorschlagen können oder kann jede beliebige bekannte Persönlichkeit unabhängig von ihrer politischen Ausrichtung offiziell in dieser Rolle tätig werden?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. Mrs Wallström is in bed with the flu. That is the reason.

As a complement to the Commission’s reply to Written Question E-4200/05, asked previously by the honourable Member, on the issue of the goodwill ambassadors, the Commission can reassure the honourable Member that its intention during the period of reflection is to listen to citizens’ views on a range of EU issues and to draw conclusions from the debates held at all levels. The issues discussed will be very varied and they may or may not include recommendations on the desirable level of integration at EU level, but the role of the Union will certainly be tackled and in any case the content of the database of debates will be reflected in the feedback process.

This process will start with an initial synthesis report that will be presented by the Commission to the European Council under the Austrian Presidency in order to prepare the stocktaking exercise at the June 2006 European Council. The Commission would like to take this opportunity to remind the honourable Member that the declaration calling for a period of reflection was adopted by the Heads of State and Government themselves, therefore it is for the Council to take stock of the exercise as well.

Moreover, in the organisation of national debates the European institutions have an important role to play, but the primary responsibility rests with the Member States. What the Commission has recommended in Plan D is that the national debates need to be structured to ensure that the feedback can have a direct impact on the policy agenda of the European Union.

Concerning the second part of the honourable Member’s question, the Commission would like to stress that the different initiatives suggested by Plan D at European level are part of a long-term plan and are being implemented at a different pace in the 25 Member States. The European goodwill ambassador plan is one of the measures that need to be further developed in most of the countries of the EU and in cooperation with the Member States, depending on the creativity and the proposals identified by those involved in the process.

There is no single model for every country, just as there is no standard model for the organisation of the debates in the Member States. In any case, the Commission thinks that it is important to reiterate that the ambassadors would always act on a volunteer basis and the views that they would convey would be their own views. The Commission has no intention of imposing a particular line on them.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM). – Jag skulle vilja veta om inte kommissionsledamot Potočnik tycker att projektet med ”goodwillambassadörer” kan verka löjeväckande. Borde det inte vara förtroendevalda parlamentariker som är ambassadörer för EU?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. There is no doubt that we have confidence that Members of Parliament will act as ambassadors for the European Union. It is up to all of us to do that. I believe that Europe is simply too big and there are so many misunderstandings in Europe today that none of us, even if we tried wholeheartedly, can address them properly. I believe that any action we can take to raise awareness of what the European Union really is might bring us better results.

I agree with the honourable Member that it is up to all of us, Members of Parliament and the Commission, but the action we are proposing is also important.

Anfrage Nr. 40 von Richard Corbett (H-0021/06)

Betrifft: Mittel für die Debatte über die Zukunft Europas

Welche Mittel sollen den Gruppierungen der Zivilgesellschaft zur Verfügung gestellt werden, um die Debatte über die Zukunft Europas anzuregen? Wann soll eine entsprechende Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen veröffentlicht werden?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. The Commission wishes to inform the honourable Member that EUR 7.6 million will be allocated to the Prince budget line for the 2006 budget, which is intended to finance actions as foreseen under Plan D to highlight the debate during the period of reflection decided by the June 2005 European Council.

This budget will be managed as follows: a call for a proposal of EUR 2 million will be launched in the following weeks to give support to pan-European projects aimed at creating the conditions for citizens’ debates on EU issues. It will be aimed at supporting EU citizens’ networking and participation in the debate on Europe. It will be aimed at collecting citizens’ opinions, especially through qualitative means and extensive scale and it will be aimed at providing analyses of citizens’ contributions as feedback for decision-makers. In addition, EUR 850 000 will be allocated for setting up specific information products.

On a complementary basis, in order to stimulate the implementation of Plan D at a local level, EUR 4.5 million will be decentralised to the Commission’s representations in order to develop debates at regional and local levels and to improve synergy and coordination between national, regional and EU levels for the implementation of Plan D. This EUR 4.5 million will be executed either by calls for proposals or by procurement.

Finally, EUR 250 000 will be requested to develop a website especially devoted to the debate about Europe. On a broader scale, the Commission has already expressed its disappointment about the recent agreement of the European Council to cut the global appropriations of the next Financial Perspective, Heading 3, in a situation where the debate on Europe is becoming truly crucial.

  Richard Corbett (PSE). – I welcome the Commission’s answer. I am glad that the focus of this is towards civil society and NGOs and towards listening to their views, rather than just listening to tabloid newspapers and other protagonists of the debate. May I also say that while the focus has up to now in this period of reflection been more on the context rather than on the text of the Constitution, does the Commission accept that we will in due course have to bring the debate forward to discuss what we are actually going to do about this text, maybe not this year, but certainly next year?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. Of course I think that attention should also be paid to the substance and questions which you underlined. As you said, maybe not this year, maybe next year, but attention should be given to that also.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Commissioner, given the Commission’s desire to control its own propaganda – as evidenced by Commissioner Wallström’s announcement recently of her proposal for a politically-controlled European news outlet, the EBS – what confidence can exist that any attempt will be made at striking a balance in terms of the distribution of funding between organisations and individuals promoting a pro-Constitution stance and those who promote an anti-Constitution stance?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. It should be an open debate and that was always the idea. It should be a debate in which both sides, pro- and anti-, should be heard. It was done through the whole constitutional debate process and it was organised in a broad consultative manner. That is the intention for the future.

Anfrage Nr. 41 von Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0030/06)

Betrifft: Maßnahmen zur Effizienzsteigerung bei den Europäischen Informationsnetzen

Wie beurteilt die Kommission die bisherige Tätigkeit der Europäischen Informationsnetze?

Beabsichtigt sie eine Neukonzeption, um die Information der europäischen Bürger effizienter zu gestalten, und wenn ja, welche Finanzierungsmechanismen gedenkt sie einzusetzen?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. On 1 May 2005 the Commission launched a new network of Europe Direct information relays. Implanted locally all over the enlarged European Union, 393 new relays have taken over from former Info-Points Europe and Rural Information and Promotion Carrefours which targeted the public in urban and rural areas respectively. The objectives of the new network have been streamlined in order to better meet the information needs of the public.

As regards the financial mechanisms put in place to support the network, they need to comply with the EC financial regulation. The new relays were therefore selected on the basis of a call for proposals, following the decision from the Commission, C/2004/2869. Each Europe Direct information relay benefits from an operating grant of a maximum of EUR 24 000 while the maximum grant for former IPEs and Carrefours was EUR 20 000. Furthermore, Digicom is planning to launch a complementary call for proposals at the beginning of 2007 in order to open new relays in geographical areas insufficiently covered by the current network and taking into account future enlargement to Romania and Bulgaria.

Concerning the assessment of the impact of the networks, an internal assessment of the former information relays in 2003 revealed the real value of the relays as partners in the communication policy, especially at the local and regional level. As for the new relays, starting from the second semester of 2006, an online monitoring system will be implemented in order to assess the activities of the information relays.

Finally, in the framework of the action plan on communicating Europe published in July 2005, the Commission intends to carry a feasibility study – action 6 of the action plan – to assess the desirability of progressively streamlining the Commission’s various information sources. As stated in action 42 of the same action plan, an impact study on the communication of the relays’ activities is also scheduled to start at the end of 2006.

  Μαρία Παναγιωτοπούλου-Κασσιώτου (PPE-DE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, έχοντας ακούσει την απάντησή σας στην προηγούμενη ερώτηση, θα ήθελα να ρωτήσω πόσο αναλογική είναι η δαπάνη γι' αυτή τη μόνιμη πληροφόρηση για το παρόν της Ευρώπης σε σχέση με τη δαπάνη για το σχέδιο Δ που αναφέρατε.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. There is no money for the relation. There is no link between the previous issue and this one.

Anfrage Nr. 42 von Margarita Starkeviciute (H-0072/06)

Betrifft: Sendungen von Euronews in Litauen

Der Nachrichtensender Euronews, der täglich über aktuelle europäische Themen berichtet, wird teilweise aus dem EU-Haushalt finanziert. Da die Bürger Litauens keinen Zugang zu solchen Programmen haben, sind sie gegenüber den Bürgern anderer Mitgliedstaaten benachteiligt, insbesondere weil die örtlichen Medien es sich nicht leisten können, Reporter in der Europäischen Union unter Vertrag zu nehmen.

Sieht die Kommission eine Möglichkeit, wie den Bürgern Litauens der Zugang zu täglichen Sendungen von Euronews von einer halben Stunde über den nationalen staatlichen Sender eröffnet werden kann?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. In 2005 the Commission signed a service contract with EuroNews to cover EU affairs in its news and magazines, under a strict editorial independence charter. The contract covers the production and distribution costs of the EU programmes. It was signed on the basis of the existing seven languages – German, English, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Russian – and state of distribution. It does not contain any obligation for the channel to increase its geographical coverage or the number of languages. Nevertheless, the contract provides that however much the coverage or the languages increased during the life of the contract, the EU programmes would be included.

One of the selection criteria was the capacity and the will of EuroNews to develop its geographical and language coverage. Since the contract was signed, a window has been opened in Romania and in the Romanian language; agreements have been signed in India, China and elsewhere.

EuroNews is also diversifying the various distribution technologies through which it can be received: cable, DTT, mobile phones, etc. However, distribution is a commercial matter over which only EuroNews has full command. Obviously, the Commission is encouraging EuroNews to increase by all the means under its control its geographical distribution technologies and language coverage.

As far as Lithuania is concerned, at present only 49 000 households out of 1.33 million are able to receive EuroNews via cable or satellite. EuroNews is a candidate to be distributed via digital terrestrial television, Lietuvos Telekomas, and hoping for a positive answer. Moreover, negotiations are on course with the public channel, LRT, which would permit LRT to broadcast EuroNews programmes on their Hertzian base frequencies as often as they like. A Lithuanian window, similar to the Romanian one, is also currently under discussion.

  Margarita Starkevičiūtė (ALDE). – Aš tik norėčiau pasakyti, kad labai dėkoju už atsakymą, ir tikiuosi, kad Komisija ateityje skirs dėmesį tam, kad visos tos „Euro News“ galimybės būtų visose šalyse, kuriose jos nėra transliuojamos, ir, sakykime, kaimyninėse šalyse, nes televizija vis dėlto yra populiariausias informacijos kanalas ir informacijos kanalas apie Europą.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. We are trying to do the best we can, taking into account the contracts and the independence of EuroNews.

Anfragen an Frau Fischer Boel

Anfrage Nr. 43 von Henrik Dam Kristensen (H-0007/06)

Betrifft: Zuckerübereinkommen und Renationalisierung der gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik

In dem Übereinkommen über eine Reform des Zuckermarktes wird die Möglichkeit geschaffen, dass einige der Mitgliedstaaten staatliche Beihilfen für die Zuckerrübenproduzenten zahlen können. Welche Haltung nimmt die Kommission davon ausgehend prinzipiell gegenüber staatlichen Beihilfen als Regulierungsinstrument in der gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik jetzt ein? Ist zu erwarten, dass die Kommission dieses Instrument im Rahmen künftiger Vorschläge handhaben wird, oder wird es ausnahmsweise im Zusammenhang mit der Reform des Zuckermarktes angewandt? Wie sieht die Kommission die Perspektiven für eine Beseitigung der Beihilfen für die landwirtschaftliche Erzeugung in der EU im Falle einer völligen oder teilweisen Renationalisierung der Agrarbeihilfen?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, medlem af Kommissionen. Fru formand! Ærede medlem! Hvad angår anvendelsen af den fælles europæiske landbrugspolitik, har det lige fra begyndelsen været et fuldstændig anerkendt princip, at der skulle tages hensyn til landbrugets særlige karakter og til de strukturbetingede forskelle mellem de forskellige områder i EU - fra Finland i nord til den sydligste spids af Italien. Og det kunne eventuelt ske ved hjælp af statsstøtte.

Det er i dag tilladt at yde statsstøtte til produktion og forarbejdning af forskellige landbrugsprodukter, der er nævnt i bilag I til EF-traktaten, hvis tre forskellige kriterier er opfyldt. Dels må man ikke forskyde konkurrencevilkårene. Støtten skal hænge sammen med den øvrige fælles landbrugspolitik, og derudover skal den selvfølgelig være forenelig med de internationale forpligtelser, som vi har indgået. I denne sammenhæng kunne jeg nævne vores WTO-aftale om landbrug.

På rådsmødet i november måned fastlagde landbrugsministrene den politiske linje for reformen af den fælles EU-politik på sukkerområdet. Ifølge denne aftale bliver det muligt at yde en begrænset specifik statsstøtte på højst 350 euro pr. hektar til sukkerroeproducenterne i Finland, og højst 90 mio. om året er specifikt målrettet til EU's "fjernområder". Det blev endvidere besluttet, at de medlemslande, der reducerer deres sukkerkvote med mere end 50 %, får mulighed for at modtaget midlertidig støtte i en overgangsperiode på fem år fra det produktionsår, hvor man begynder at reducere, eller hvor man reducerer kvoten ned under 50 %. For Italiens vedkommende har det allerede været muligt at yde en sådan overgangsstøtte, der svarer til ca. 11 euro pr. ton sukkerroer pr. produktionsår. Det har primært været målrettet til transport af roer.

Reformen af den fælles landbrugspolitik (CAP-reformen), der blev vedtaget i 2003 i overensstemmelse med de beslutninger, som tidligere var truffet på landbrugsområdet både i Berlin, Göteborg og Bruxelles, er nu ved at blive gennemført. I de nye medlemslande ligger reformen klart inden for budgetrammen for det udvidede EU, der blev fastlagt i Bruxelles i 2002. I forbindelse med vedtagelsen af CAP-reformen har der ikke været noget som helst ønske om at renationalisere den europæiske landbrugspolitik.

  Henrik Dam Kristensen (PSE). – Fru formand! Mange tak til kommissæren for svaret. Først vil jeg gerne sige, at det var godt, at vi fik en sukkerreform. Og så er jeg ikke et øjeblik i tvivl om, at kommissæren er på lovlig grund. Jeg sætter ikke spørgsmålstegn ved den måde, reformen er udformet på.

Jeg er nok mere er ude efter et politisk svar, en politisk tilkendegivelse. Jeg tror, at vi skal have flere reformer inden for landbrugsområdet i de kommende år. Derfor vil jeg gerne vide, hvordan kommissæren forholder sig til, at man bruger renationalisering som et instrument, når man laver en reform. Har kommissæren ingen betænkeligheder ved at gå ad den vej? Som jeg ser det, vil det betyde, at vi forlader den fælles landbrugspolitik. Jeg efterlyser med andre ord kommissærens principielle holdning til begrebet renationalisering i landbrugspolitikken fremover.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, medlem af Kommissionen. Fru formand! Jeg tror ikke, at det ærede medlem er i tvivl om holdningen til renationalisering, når vi snakker om den fælles europæiske landbrugspolitik. Der har på intet tidspunkt været lagt op til en renationalisering - tværtimod!

Og hvis jeg må bruge et relativt dagsaktuelt eksempel, så er det klart, at der fra min side har været kæmpet med alle til rådighed stående legale midler mod det forslag, som det britiske formandskab lancerede i forbindelse med forhandlingerne om det næste finansielle overslag for 2007-2013, om en frivillig modulering på op til 20 %.

Sådan et forslag vil efter min opfattelse betyde, at man tager det første skridt mod en renationalisering af den fælles europæiske landbrugspolitik. Det vil betyde, at vi i stedet for at konkurrere på samme grundlag vil komme i en situation, hvor landbrugspolitikken kommer til at dreje sig om en konkurrence mellem de forskellige statskasser og mellem de forskellige finansministre i EU's 25 medlemslande.

Anfrage Nr. 44 von Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuzmiuk (H-0011/06)

Betrifft: Reform des Zuckermarktes

Die von der Kommission und vom Rat beschlossene Reform des Zuckermarktes sieht für Zuckererzeuger unter anderem Ausgleichszahlungen für die Reduktion der Produktionsquoten in Höhe von 730 Euro pro Tonne vor. In Polen, wo die Produktionsquoten für Zuckererzeuger und nicht für Zuckerrübenerzeuger gelten, könnte dies zu einer Verringerung der Zuckerproduktion führen und infolgedessen die Zuckerrübenerzeuger zwingen, den Zuckerrübenanbau aufzugeben.

Welche Unterstützung ist für polnische Zuckerrübenerzeuger vorgesehen, die den Anbau von Zuckerrüben aufgeben müssen?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. The sugar quota is in principle fixed per country by Community legislation. Under the current sugar market organisation, the quotas are allocated by the Member States to the sugar manufacturing undertakings and are actually not allocated directly to the beet growers. This principle will remain unchanged after the reform and Poland is no exception to this rule.

The restructuring fund will be set up in order to facilitate the necessary restructuring measures that should lead to lower sugar production in the less competitive regions within the European Union.

Undertakings which renounce their sugar quota will be eligible for restructuring aid over a transitional period of four years. However, this payment will be linked to a series of conditions, including obligatory consultation with the beet growers and the submission of a restructuring plan to be agreed between the government and the industry. Member States will have significant flexibility to lay down detailed rules for the implementation of the restructuring aid, as long as they comply with the general rules of future Community legislation. Therefore – and this is very important and I underline it at every opportunity – the restructuring money cannot be pocketed by the industry. This is very important and it is the whole idea behind this restructuring fund.

Besides the undertakings, beet growers and machinery contractors will also be able to benefit from this restructuring fund. An amount of at least 10% of the restructuring fund, amounting to EUR 730 per tonne, should be reserved for the farmers, to compensate in particular for investment in the specialised machinery needed to produce sugar beet. It is quite clear, with this wording of ‘at least 10%’, that Member States can decide that a higher percentage should be allocated to the sugar beet producers, the farmers.

It should also be emphasised that, independently of the restructuring fund that we have just talked about, sugar beet growers will receive direct aid as compensation for their loss of revenue due to the reduction in prices. They will receive this direct aid even if they stop producing sugar beet. This is very important.

For the new Member States specifically, there will clearly be no phasing-in of the direct payment for the sugar beet compensation. The sugar beet producers in the new Member States will receive exactly the same amount per hectare in compensation as the EU-15, which means that there is no phasing-in as there is for cereals. The compensation will be 100% right from when the new sugar reform is first implemented.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Chciałbym zadać jeszcze dodatkowe pytanie. Czy Komisja dysponuje instrumentami, które pozwolą ograniczyć możliwość przenoszenia kwot produkcyjnych cukru pomiędzy krajami, np. z Polski do innych krajów? Czy są takie instrumenty i czy będą one skuteczne?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. It has not been part of this agreement in the Council that it is possible to transfer quotas between Member States. It is possible within a Member State. For example, within Poland or any other country it is possible to take a quota from one factory to another, but there is no cross-border quota transfer in the reform proposal.

Anfrage Nr. 45 von Glenys Kinnock (H-0089/06)

Betrifft: Raffinationsbeihilfe

Wie der Kommission bekannt ist, erhalten die AKP-Länder, die das Zuckerprotokoll unterzeichnet hatten, einen Garantiepreis für ihren Rohzucker, der dem unteren Interventionspreis der EU entspricht. Dieser Preis schließt derzeit eine Anpassungsgrundbeihilfe für traditionelle Raffinerien ein – die 5,1 % des Garantiepreises beträgt. Diese Beihilfe beläuft sich auf rund 35 Millionen Euro. Nach der vorgeschlagenen Reform der Zuckerregelung der EU soll diese Raffinationsbeihilfe jedoch nicht mehr aus dem EU-Haushalt gezahlt werden, sondern in Form einer 5,1 %igen Preissenkung an die AKP-Länder weitergegeben werden – wodurch sich für die AKP-Länder Mindereinnahmen von 35 Millionen Euro ergeben.

Kann die Kommission bestätigen, dass sie die Möglichkeit einer leichten Anpassung des Kompromisspakets über die GMO, über das am 20. Februar im Rat beraten wird, prüfen und es ermöglichen wird, dass die Anpassungsbeihilfe für die Raffinationsindustrie weiterhin aus dem EU-Haushalt gezahlt wird?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. To guarantee the price for Sugar Protocol countries, prices have always moved completely in line with EU institutional sugar prices, so there has never been a guarantee for a fixed price for the Sugar Protocol countries. However, these Sugar Protocol countries will benefit from a lower cut in the prices until the 2008-2009 production year. This will give these countries a period of three years to adapt to the new price support arrangements within the European Union.

During 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, the reference price for raw sugar will decrease by only 5%, while the producers of sugar beet in the European Union will see a decrease of 20% the first year, and 27.5% the following year. The reason for this decrease of only 5% is due to the fact that refiners and therefore the ACP suppliers will be exempted from the restructuring levy. They do not have to pay the levy at all. However, refiners will lose the benefit of the refining aid which will be abolished in the context of the reform.

It is quite clear that the different conditions for the ACP countries after the introduction of a reform within the European Union has been discussed at length before finalising the political agreement in the Council. It is quite clear and it has been from the very beginning that it was important to secure the period of the last six months of 2006, which is outside the next financial period. Therefore the decision was taken to allocate EUR 40 million specifically for the period from 1 July until the end of this year.

For the period within the next financial perspective it has been quite clear that the Commission’s wish to allocate a significantly higher budget than the aforementioned EUR 40 million will be dependent on the ongoing discussions on the financial perspective for the next period. But it is a significantly higher amount than that mentioned. I can only say that within the Commission proposal, a budget of EUR 190 million a year was in the budget and I therefore hope that there will be an understanding also in this Parliament of the need to help these ACP countries, specifically in a transitional period.

  Glenys Kinnock (PSE). – Thank you, Commissioner. I am talking about the fact that the collateral damage from the effects of the reform of the sugar regime has been felt by the 18 protocol countries. You say that they had EUR 40 million between 18 countries. Three commissioners – you, Mr Mandelson and the President of the Commission – pledged EUR 190 million to the ACP countries. I am now following that very closely. We can see no place in the budget for that money; we can see no likelihood of anything like the amount you promised to them being included in the budget. However hard this Parliament tries, it is very difficult in terms of the budgetary allocation that we have to make sure that we ring-fence the kind of money that we need.

Will you, Commissioner, urge the Council to agree that we should ring-fence the money in any unallocated money that we may find under Heading IV? Will you make it your business to protect the ACP sugar-producing countries at this time, when they are feeling so vulnerable?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mrs Kinnock, I am quite sure that, as you are so well informed about this issue and it is not the first time that we have discussed it, you will know that we have been in very close contact with the sugar producing ACP countries. Not all of those countries produce sugar. It has been very important for us to try to help them, perhaps not to continue to produce sugar if they could not be competitive, but then to try to do something else. Therefore, I was very happy that at the Commission meeting last week it was possible to get through a communication on bioethanol. Afterwards, Mr Michel, who is responsible for the development money, took part in a press conference with me on this because bioethanol might be an alternative for those countries that want to stop producing sugar.

On the figures, this is an ongoing discussion. But it has been important for the Commission to send a clear signal that we care about the possibilities for these sugar-producing ACP countries. I am quite sure that when you are in contact with them, they will also recognise that we have had numerous meetings with these countries. For example, we have been able to have direct contact during Council meetings on two occasions. It has been acknowledged that this is really an issue that is on our minds.

  Die Präsidentin. Die Anfragen, die aus Zeitgründen nicht behandelt wurden, werden schriftlich beantwortet (siehe Anlage).

Die Fragestunde ist geschlossen.

(Die Sitzung wird um 19.20 Uhr unterbrochen und um 21.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

PRESIDÊNCIA: MANUEL ANTÓNIO DOS SANTOS
Vice-Presidente