WRITTEN QUESTION P-2695/03 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Implementation of the Promise programme.
Date: 2003-09-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, Italy, budget, data protection, exchange of information, information technology, management, project evaluation, project management

C 78 E/154

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Luxembourg raised essentially the same issues as Austria concerning the antibiotic resistance gene,
possible resistance development
in target organisms and the need for a mandatory resistance
management programme. Luxembourg stressed that genetically modified organisms should only
contain the minimum of transgenes needed for their desired functioning.

Germany raised essentially the same issues as Austria concerning enhanced antibiotic resistance
development, potential
impact on non-target organisms, possible resistance development in target
organisms and accumulation of Bt-toxin in soils.

(cid:1) Concerning herbicide (glufosinate) tolerant oilseed rape Topas 19/2 (C/UK/95/M5/1),

Greece claimed that seeds would be lost, even if cultivation is not intended; spreading would be
facilitated because of the mild climate in Greece which allows for overwintering; outcrossing into
weedy wild variants and relatives, which are used as food, with unpredictable health effects; at a later
stage risk of multiresistant weeds; loss of effectiveness of herbicides; spreading into natural habitats
with unpredictable consequences; lack of risk assessment of progeny resulting from crosses between
Topas 19/2 and non-GM (genetically modified) oilseed rape.

France raised the same issues as for oilseed rape MS1, RF1 (C/UK/94/M1/1).

(cid:1) Concerning insect (Bt-toxin) resistant maize Mon 810 (C/F/95/12-02),

Austria put
forward potential unintended effects on non-target organisms; possible resistance
development in target insects; lacking proof of the resistance management’s effectiveness; insufficient
scope of the monitoring plan.

(cid:1) Concerning herbicide (glufosinate) tolerant Maize T25 (C/F/95/12-07)

Austria stressed the lack of a monitoring plan; lack of protection of ecological sensitive areas; lack of
evaluation of herbicide application under realistic conditions; outcrossing into surrounding non-GM
maize fields.

United Kingdom claimed the possibility to grow organically pure maize as well as to protect the
integrity of other non-GM maize crops in Wales.

The opinions of the Scientific Committees are publicly available on line at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/oldcomm7/out02_en.html).
fs/sc/scp/outcome_gmo_en.html and at
The national safeguard measures can be found in the Official Journals of the above mentioned Member
States.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2004/C 78 E/0158)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2695/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Implementation of the Promise programme

The Promise programme, which ended in 2002, provided funds totalling EUR 25 million for projects
involving the exchange of information, technology and good practice with a view to improving the
security of telecommunications networks. What projects have been funded under this programme, with
particular reference to Italy? Would the Commission list in full the companies, undertakings and public
bodies that submitted projects under the programme, and the companies whose applications were
successful? Was the successful completion of the projects monitored, and were their results assessed?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/155

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The total spending amount of Promise, as foreseen by its legal basis was EUR 25 million, for five years.
The total amount committed was EUR 21 847 032 covering all the period of the programme. An overall
information on the spending in 1998 and 1999 and the indication for expenditure with reference to Italy
is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

In 2000, after the mid-term review evaluation made by a group of external experts,
the Promise
programme was redirected towards the eEurope Action plan and in particular the associated benchmarking
exercise and exchange of best practices. In this context, the budget of Promise was devoted to call for
tenders for studies or surveys launched by the Commission and committed according to public
procurement rules. The budget breakdown for 2000, 2001 and 2002 is sent direct to the Honourable
Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. This includes the names of the contractor and the Member State,
where its seat is established. In the case of the Eurobarometer surveys, the indicated contractor is a Belgian
company which carried out the contract together with its subsidiaries in each Member State.

During the last two years Promise financed three best practices projects in collaboration with presidency
countries; Two ‘e-government’ conferences in Belgium (2001) and Italy (2003) and the ‘eHealth’ Conference
(Greece 2003). Furthermore, one work-shop on eEurope 2005 has been organised in Spain, during the
Spanish Presidency.

The Commission has issued payments for the services received on the basis of invoices and after analysis
and acceptance of the technical reports submitted by the contractors according to standard procedures.

A group of external independent experts are currently in charge of the final evaluation of the programme.
They work on the basis of the terms of reference agreed in the Promise management committee and will
submit their report in November 2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2702/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Illegally-sourced timber

The Commission will be aware that the world’s rainforests are rapidly diminishing, especially in the
Amazon Basin and Indonesia. Much of the timber from these illegal operations finds its way into Europe.

What steps has the Commission taken to outlaw illegally-sourced timber in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern at the rate of deforestation of the world’s
rainforests. According to research conducted by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre, the highest rates
of deforestation are in South-east Asia (0,91 % per annum). Because it has a larger area, the deforestation
rate for the Amazon Basin is less in percentage terms, but similar in absolute terms to that of South-east
Asia, at about 2,5 million hectares (ha) per annum.