WRITTEN QUESTION E-2165/03 by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Contractual rules of the fifth scientific and technological research programme.
Date: 2003-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, applied research, contract terms, financing method, research project, scientific research

C 51 E/214

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Is the Commission proposing to tighten the cadmium limits in the EU as a whole so as to make them at
least as strict as in the Nordic countries and Austria? Can it provide any form of encouragement to ensure
that the phosphates to be used in the EU would come from the EU area, since this would create new jobs
and new economic activity in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The Commission is aware that cadmium is harmful to human health and to the environment, and that
cadmium contained in phosphate fertilisers now represents one of the main inputs of cadmium to the
environment.

The Commission is therefore preparing a proposal for a Regulation on cadmium in fertilisers that will
address this problem by setting upper limits for the cadmium content of phosphate fertilisers, thereby
ensuring the free circulation of phosphate fertilisers in the Internal Market. The upper limits for cadmium
in the proposal will be set at a level sufficient to prevent further accumulation of cadmium in agricultural
soil and to ensure that possible uptake into foods would not compromise food safety standards.

It is planned to present the proposal for adoption by the Commission before the end of 2003. The
proposal will set standards based on science, and, in accordance with World Trade Organisation (WTO)
rules, will permit the use of phosphate which can meet these standards, whatever the country of origin.

(2004/C 51 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2165/03

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Contractual rules of the fifth scientific and technological research programme

The fifth scientific and technological research programme is based on a number of contractual rules which
at times are couched in excessively general terms and in some cases are so vague as regards their substance
that they fail to provide legal certainty or protect contracting parties, which are often vulnerable to
mistreatment and complete latitude of interpretation on the part of the Commission. The Commission is
thus behaving improperly towards other contracting parties.

In particular, for the purposes of administering payments for the CRAFT projects, the Commission refers
to Article 3 of Annex II to the contract, the substance of which is very vague. The article in question
stipulates that, whenever a periodic payment is made, an amount corresponding to a portion of the
advance will be recovered, the total of which is calculated on the basis of the relationship between eligible
costs and expenditure for the period in question.

That being the case, can the Commission therefore say why, without laying down specific criteria or
notifying them to the other contracting party (which is not allowed to alter the text of the article), at the
time of an intermediate payment, it automatically recovers, ‘according to its practice,’ 40 % of the advance
granted to a consortium when a contract was concluded, causing particular inconvenience to public
research institutes, which cannot use their own resources in anticipation of the money that they should
receive under a contract from the Commission?

Can it also say what steps it will take to ensure that such improper behaviour does not continue under the
sixth framework programme and to protect parties with which it enters into contracts?

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/215

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

The Fifth Framework Programme and the model contract established for research and technological
development (RTD) actions under that programme provide for a maximum advance fund of 40 % of the
total Community financial contribution, whether the indirect action is a cooperative research project
(CRAFT) or a traditional research project. The actual amount of the advance fund provided depends on the
length of the project, the nature of the project and the expected expenditure over the first period and any
financial security that may be imposed by the Commission.

The model contract requires that this advance fund be recuperated in part, over the life of the project, at
the time of each subsequent payment for costs incurred. Specifically the contract states that ‘On each
periodic payment, an amount corresponding to a part of the initial advance shall be recovered, which
amount is calculated on the basis of the relation between the eligible costs approved by the Commission
and the forecast expenses for the period considered.’ Therefore, generally speaking either where actual
costs incurred or approved are low or where forecast expenses are low, a greater proportion of the
advance fund will be recuperated. In certain exceptional cases, it might be that the entire advance fund
would be recuperated at a periodic payment, particularly in short-term projects such as CRAFT projects.

For the Sixth Framework Programme a different approach is foreseen. Generally speaking, the advance
fund (pre-financing) will be up to a maximum of 85 % of the first 18 months of the project. This amount
will be settled at the end of the first periodic payment and a new pre-financing for the next 18 months
will be granted (again up to 85 % of the costs expected to be incurred during that period). In this way the
advance funds will keep tandem with the actual costs incurred. For projects lasting one year or less, the
maximum pre-financing possible is 80 % of the total Community financial contribution unless the contract
is governed by collective responsibility of the contractors (1),
in which case 85 % of the total can be
provided.

(1) Or where the contractors are public bodies.

(2004/C 51 E/236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2169/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Further data for urgent action to protect the SPA ‘Valloni e Steppe pedegarganiche’

in Apulia

(Italy)

In its answer to question E-0406/03 (1), the Commission stated that a file had been opened on the case of
the protection of the SPA ‘Valloni e Steppe pedegarganiche’ in Apulia (Italy).

It now appears necessary to point out that, pending concrete action by the Commission, this site is still in
jeopardy from circumstances which are causing severe and often irreversible damage to species and
habitats protected under the Community directives, namely:

(cid:1) construction work is continuing within the SPA, with no compensatory measures;

(cid:1) the technical panel set up by the Ministry of the Environment has only met three times, and not at all

since 10 April 2001;

(cid:1) the municipality of Manfredonia has submitted additional plans which will cause further damage to
the SPA, yet these plans have been funded by the Apulia Region with Community monies (PEP Apulia
‘Natural resources’ (cid:1) EAGGF, Measure 1.4, Action B (cid:1) Agricultural
2000-2006 (cid:1) priority area I,
planning and extensive hydraulic forest projects for soil protection);

(cid:1) the ANAS (the Italian national roads authority) and the municipality of San Giovanni Rotondo have
submitted a scheme for expanding the municipal highway to four lanes, which would severely damage
the rocky sections of the SPA;