Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-19-Speech-4-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021219.5.4-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament is right to be taking an interest in mountain regions. As you know, the Commission is also paying great attention to these issues, as demonstrated by the conference organised in October at the initiative of my colleagues Michel Barnier and Franz Fischler on the subject of ‘Community policies and the mountains’. My colleagues Mrs Wallström and Mr Barnier – the latter of whom is in Brussels at a meeting of the Presidium of the Convention – have asked me to update you on some of the work being undertaken and on some issues still outstanding as regards the Commission's work on the European Union's mountain regions.
Furthermore, the Commission attaches great importance to services of general interest, as demonstrated by its communication of January 2001. However, as you know, maintaining and developing services of general interest is solely a matter for the individual Member States. The Commission can only offer encouragement in this field. In its communication, the Commission states that the aim of services of general interest is to ensure universal basic provision, that is to say access to essential services, including those in remote or inaccessible areas. In addition, the new Article 16 of this Treaty specifically recognises the important role played by services of general economic interest in promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion. The importance of these provisions was also emphasised by the Heads of State and Government at the Lisbon Summit in March 2000.
The final point that I would like to mention is the Alpine Convention. Although this convention only directly affects four Member States, the Commission was involved in launching this initiative. It was not until summer 2002 that a sufficient number of signatories to the convention had ratified the various protocols so that it could come into operation. For its part, the Commission is investigating the various options available to it for more active involvement in the context of the Convention. The Commission has already presented its proposal for signing the transport protocol to the Council. However, I have to report that this proposal has so far not made much further progress within the Council. Furthermore, it needs to be made very clear that these protocols also have to be supported by the Member States at Council level, as the Council is responsible for signing and ratifying them on behalf of the Community. As you know, several states participating in the Alpine Convention have not yet ratified the protocols. However, we hope that things will move forward positively in the coming months, reflecting the effort made by some Member States at the end of the summer to breath new life into the Alpine Convention.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission will continue to pay close attention to issues concerning mountain regions. Present and planned work, in particular the Directorate-General for Regional Policy's study, the results of the mid-term review of existing programmes and the conclusions of the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion will give us a more accurate picture of the situation and options for further action.
The EC Treaty does not refer to the concept of mountain regions as such. Article 158, which provides the legal basis here, states, in connection with the policy of economic and social cohesion, that the Community shall aim in particular to reduce disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including rural areas. It could be argued that specifically incorporating the concept of mountain regions into the Treaty would better reflect stakeholders' concerns. For example, 95% of mountain regions come under Objective 1 or Objective 2 of Europe's structural policy. Compensatory payments for less favoured regions made under the common agricultural policy also benefit mountain regions in many cases.
The Commission has commissioned a study in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of mountain regions more effectively. This study has three objectives: to define the mountain regions of the enlarged EU, to create a database of these regions and to carry out an objective analysis of the situation in mountain regions and of existing Community and national policies, and to evaluate those policies.
In line with the first of these objectives, a definition of mountain regions is to be created for the 27 current Member States or candidate countries covered by the study. This definition is being drawn up on the basis of topographical criteria, and in some cases climatic criteria are also taken into consideration. At the beginning of December 2002, the contractor carrying out the study presented the Commission with 16 possible definitions, and these are at present being examined in detail. A decision will be taken at the end of December as to which definition can be used.
On the basis of this process of defining regions, a start can now be made on collecting statistical data. We expect that the process of collecting and analysing data and the presentation of the final report will be completed by September 2003.
As regards regional policy and the common agricultural policy taking account of mountain regions in future, I have already explained that regional policy and agricultural and rural development policy are indeed two policies that directly take account of mountain regions. In the case of regional policy this is done through regional programmes for Objective 1 and Objective 2 areas, and also under the Community initiative known as Interreg, particularly through the Alpine region programme. Under the CAP, mountain regions are chiefly supported by means of compensatory payments for less favoured regions.
Consideration is at present being given to the future of these policies. The Commission's proposals on the future of the regional policy are to be presented at the end of 2003 as part of the Third Cohesion Report. It would therefore be premature to prescribe at this early stage how mountain regions are to be taken into account in the forthcoming 2007-2013 planning period for regional policy.
Under the current mid-term review of the common agricultural policy, the Commission's proposal places particular emphasis on strengthening agri-environmental measures, which often benefit mountain regions.
As regards measures in favour of mountain regions under other Community policies, I would like to say a little more about competition policy and about general interest services. As you know, EU policy on grants of state aid is based on Article 87(1) of the Treaty, which stipulates that grants of aid by the state are fundamentally incompatible with the common market. However, this article also specifies cases in which grants of state aid may be approved. These exceptions include aid of a regional nature, or to be precise aid ‘to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment’, in other words areas whose per capita gross national product is less than 75% of the Community average. Certain other areas may also be covered by this exemption."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples