WRITTEN QUESTION E-1246/01 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. Support for town twinning projects.
Date: 2001-04-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, invitation to tender, town, twinning

C 350 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2001)

During the first and second readings of this budget line in Parliament, the Commission pointed out that
this initiative overlapped with actions already pursued under the existing line B5-802, covered by the
existing legal base of the Daphne programme. This programme was adopted under co-decision. The
financial framework thus constitutes, according to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999, the
primary reference for the budgetary authority during the annual budgetary procedure. The latter
undertakes not to depart from the amount for such actions (cid:145)unless new, objective long-term circumstances
arise for which explicit reasons are given, with account being taken of
the results obtained from
implementing the programme.(cid:146)

Consistent with this, the Commission has carefully examined how best to meet the objectives underlying
the budget line proposed while at the same time avoiding duplication and taking appropriate account of
the human resources available to it for this purpose. It has decided to raise the profile of this year(cid:146)s
Daphne call for proposals by including among the priorities the topics of paedophilia and child sexual
abuses and exploitation. This will allow the Commission to treat proposals received under these headings
in the same way and in parallel to the Daphne ones. By doing so, it will allow the Commission to use
money from that budget line before the end of 2001.

The ultimate date for receipt of proposals was 28 May 2001. The evaluation of the proposals takes place
during the summer and the accepted projects should be able to start around November-December 2001.

(2001/C 350 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1246/01

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Support for town twinning projects

In connection with the call for proposals DG EAC NO 00/75 (cid:129) Support for actions to promote town-
twinning 2001 (1) (2000/C/320/07) I have received a complaint on the treatment of project No 01/153,
first tranche 2001.

This project was not eligible for support as it did not meet the registration conditions set out in the call for
proposals. These registration conditions were changed on 1 January 2001. The applicants have assured
both myself and the Commission that they were not informed of this change.

1.
Does the Commission agree with me that, aside from the question of who was responsible for the
failure to inform the applicants, it is a principle of proper administration that persons submitting projects
should be given the opportunity of correcting errors before the final decision on the application is made?
If so, why did that not happen in this case?

How many project applications in connection with the above-mentioned call for proposals did not

2.
meet the registration conditions?

(1) OJ C 320, 9.11.2000, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The new conditions governing the award procedure to support town-twinning measures were adopted in
October 2000, following consultation of the national federations representing the twinning movement.
These conditions, which were inspired by the principles governing the award of subsidies for other
Community actions, were introduced to make the system more transparent and effective.

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/101

In order to ensure the information was disseminated as widely as possible, the Commission published the
text of the call for proposals in the Official Journal (1) and on the Education and Culture DG(cid:146)s Internet page
on the (cid:145)Europa(cid:146) server. The latter allows interested parties to directly download the electronic version of the
forms to be completed. The text of the call for proposals is also attached to all grant application forms sent
out to interested parties.

With regard to the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member:

1.

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, good management practice requires that the rules contained in the call for
proposals are applied uniformly and without exception to all applications submitted, particularly as
this leads to better and speedier administration, which benefits the recipients themselves.

The call for proposals includes a closing date for the submission of completed grant applications; this
date is the same for all interested parties. For reasons of equality, therefore, it is stated clearly in the
(cid:145)After the deadline for submission of the
last paragraph of the text of the call
application has elapsed the dossier may not be modified in any way(cid:146).

for proposals:

2. 187 of the applications submitted in the first tranche of the call did not fulfil the conditions of

eligibility.

(1) OJ C 320, 9.11.2000.

(2001/C 350 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1254/01

by Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE)
and Mar(cid:237)a Rodr(cid:237)guez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Use of dehydrated alfalfa for animal feed

Following the banning of meal of animal origin because of BSE disease, dehydrated alfalfa looks to be one
of the most viable alternatives for feeding to cattle. Increasing the cultivation of this kind of fodder, of
which five million tonnes are produced per year at present, could be the way of avoiding an increase in
imports of genetically modified soya from third countries.

According to the European Inter-Union Committee for Dehydrated Foodstuffs (CIDE) alfalfa is preferable to
soya for its nutritional qualities, financial viability, environmental properties and ease of traceability.

What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the use of dehydrated alfalfa as an alternative to meal of animal origin
for feeding to livestock?

Would the Commission be disposed to increase the volume of aid to this sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2001)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament on options to promote the cultivation of plant proteins in the EU (1) and the working
paper on which the latter is based (2). While dehydrated alfalfa clearly has merits from the agricultural
viewpoint and in terms of nutritional value in animal feed, the extra aid needed would generate additional
expenditure and the average opportunity costs per extra tonne soya oilcake-equivalent seem to be
relatively high.

(1) COM(2001) 148 final.
(2) SEC(2001) 431.