WRITTEN QUESTION E-3465/02 by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Poseima — Environment.
Date: 2002-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EU programme, Structural Funds, co-financing, environmental protection, peripheral region

C 161 E/92

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

The Stockholm European Council has asked the Commission to examine measures required to utilise the
full potential of biotechnology while ensuring that those developments occur in a manner which is healthy
and safe for consumers and the environment and in full compliance with the existing legislative
framework.

Both Commission and Member States have safety regulations in place, or are adopting such regulations as
the technology develops, in order to ensure that biotechnologies are applied in a manner that is safe for
the consumer and to the environment. Examples of these are Directive Directive 2001/18/EC of the
Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of
genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EC (1).

The Commission’s Communication on Life Sciences and Biotechnology (cid:1) A strategy for Europe (2)
highlights the need to ensure that Life Sciences and Biotechnology are developed in harmony with ethical
values and societal goals. It is among others suggested to develop ethical guidelines/standards or best
practice for stem cell research, xenotransplantation, etc. Such guidelines could, when appropriated, take the
form of self-regulatory initiatives in the scientific community and industry. In order to ensure that ethical
issues are taken into account in relation to Community funded research in Biotechnology, an ethical
framework has been defined in the decisions adopting the 6th Framework Programme and the specific
programmes. Furthermore, the Commission has taken initiative to ensure that the analyses of the ethical,
legal and social aspects become an integrated activity within Community funded research under Priority 1
‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology’ and Priority 5 ‘Food quality and safety’.

The Commission is very attentive to the safety and ethical aspects of biotechnology research and its
potential application. The Commission is constantly examining the need for initiatives, when appropriate,
to regulate the use of new technologies. It is the Commission’s view that in an area of research, which is
constantly evolving, it is more appropriate to regulate the use of biotechnology than regulating the users
of biotechnology and research actors.

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.
(2) COM(2002) 27 final.

(2003/C 161 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3465/02

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Poseima (cid:1) Environment

In 1993, at the European Parliament’s initiative, a budget heading was created in order to provide funding,
under the POSEI programmes, for activities relating to environmental protection and nature conservation
in the outermost regions. The activities funded in Madeira were concerned in particular with protecting the
soil, increasing surveillance in nature reserves, safeguarding the visual aspect of landscapes, training the
local people to protect their environment and increasing their environmental awareness.

The added value which those activities brought to Madeira in terms of the local inhabitants’ improved
quality of life and greater interaction between the environment and the various aspects of socio-economic
development is indicative of the need to maintain Community involvement in areas such as waste
management, the management of water resources, nature and landscape conservation, environmental
education, and so on.

Such involvement has on a number of occasions been requested from the Commission, in particular by
means of the 1999 Memoranda and, more recently, in the form of a resolution adopted in Lanzarote at the
Seventh Conference of Leaders of the Outermost Regions and forwarded to the Community institutions,
concerning the problems of waste management in those regions, with particular reference to waste
management.

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/93

In its report on the measures intended to implement Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty the Commission
acknowledged that one of the main objectives of Community involvement in the outermost regions was
protecting the environment and improving the local people’s quality of life. However, it has yet to adopt
any specific measures in that area.

1. When is the Commission intending to submit a proposal for a relaunch of the environment Poseima?

2.

How is the Commission planning to finance the new programme?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

The various environmental protection measures to which the Honourable Member refers are among the
measures eligible for part-financing by the Strucutural Funds (ERDF and EAGGF) and the Cohesion Fund.

Thus during the period 1994-99 environmental measures were a priority, not only for the Poseima
programme, but also for all the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. The total investment effort made
throughout
the EU under the Structural Funds in the environmental sphere comprised more than
EUR 9 billion, or approximately 9 % of the Funds’ total for Objective 1.

In the cohesion countries, a key role was played by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in
developing water infrastructure, resulting in marked improvements in water supply and distribution
capacity, as well as expansion of treatment plant networks and capacity. In Portugal, the proportion of the
population connected to drinking water networks increased from 61 % in 1989 to 95 % in 1999, and
those connected to waste-water treatment plants from 55 % in 1990 to 90 % in 1999. Improvements were
also made in the treatment of urban solid waste, the designation and management of protected natural
sites, the introduction of specific instruments to combat air pollution and the deterioration of river water
due to intensification of agricultural activity.

More specifically, in the cohesion countries the costs of implementing environmental protection legislation
are financed to a large extent by the Cohesion Fund, which may part-finance up to 85 % of eligible costs.
As regards the allocation of resources from the Fund, it should be emphasised that slightly more was spent
on the environment than on transport in the period 1993-1999. For Portugal, resources committed for the
period 1993-1999 totalled EUR 3 005 billion, comprising 48 % for transport and 51 % for the environ-
ment.

The Cohesion Fund is financing two large-scale projects in Madeira. The first relates to waste management
(ETRSU da Meia Serra) and the second comprises the initial phase of a set of measures aimed at optimising
water management. The investment involved is substantial and structural in nature (respectively around
EUR 114 million and EUR 40 million), and its financial scale exceeds the amounts which could be
mobilised under measures of the Poseima type.

The Commission considers that the Structural Funds should contribute, as a priority, to compliance with
the environmental
in the
Member States eligible for the Cohesion Fund, coordination between assistance from the Fund and that
from the ERDF should be as extensive as possible.

laid down in the relevant Community Directives. Similarly,

standards

For the reasons stated above, the Commission does not plan to renew the Poseima programme.

The Commission is nevertheless willing to examine any environmental protection project which takes into
account
the
Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund.

regions and which is eligible under

the specific characteristics of

the outermost