WRITTEN QUESTION P-1107/04 by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission. Administrative work involved in preparing a subsidy application.
Date: 2004-04-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, European Commission, action programme, administrative formalities, audiovisual communications policy, overheads, project management

C 84 E/946

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

The Scientific Committee was consulted, safety checks were carried out on the vaccines used, and the
option of vaccinating with the only vaccines available on the market, which are produced by South Africa,
was taken only after in-depth discussions in close collaboration with the national authorities concerned.

The vaccines were specially produced by the Onderstepoort laboratory in South Africa, taking account of
the Italian situation, and they contained only the serotypes present in the regions affected.

With regard to the results of this strategy, it would be unfair not to acknowledge the undisputed success
achieved in some of the regions affected and not to bear in mind the hundreds of thousands of animals
which were lost, particularly in Sardinia, before the introduction of vaccination led to a drastic reduction
in the number of outbreaks and in the losses resulting from the disease on the farms.

As a result of this improvement in the situation, the rules have been gradually adapted and restrictions on
the movement of live animals have been eased.

However, the Commission is aware that the situation has become increasingly complex because of the
increase in the number of serotypes in circulation and the difficulty in adapting the vaccination strategy to
these constant changes in the epidemiological situation.

At this stage the Italian authorities have not informed the Commission of any significant negative effects
which could be directly attributed to vaccination, and the considerable damage reported here does not
correspond to the information which the Commission has available.

The Commission therefore intends to draw up a list with the Italian authorities of measures which have
been taken thus far and to consider, in the light of the conclusions drawn, what changes may prove
necessary to the strategy to tackle bluetongue.

(2004/C 84 E/1045)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1107/04

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Administrative work involved in preparing a subsidy application

It is said that if an organisation wishes to submit a project under the Media Programme TAO (cid:1)
it has to spend around EUR 4 000 on preparing its subsidy application. If the
Audiovisual Festivals,
application is accepted, the organisation receives barely EUR 10 000.

Is it not regrettable that the cost of submitting a project application amounts to 40 % of the sum which an
organisation ultimately receives?

Is there not an urgent need to simplify the preparation of subsidy applications, and ought not the costs to
applicants and the administrative costs to the Commission to be reduced in this way?

Has the Commission already taken any steps to achieve this?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

Each Programme managed and implemented by the Commission is subject to the Financial Regulation
applicable to the general budget of
the European Communities. The procedures laid down by the
Regulation are aimed at ensuring sound financial management of Community resources. These provisions
may impose burdens on beneficiaries in terms of procedures and ultimately in terms of
the cost
effectiveness of Community support. The mid term evaluation of the MEDIA programmes and the public
consultation on the new generation of programmes have confirmed the need to simplify procedures for

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/947

implementation of the programmes. This will be taken into account in the preparation of the new
programme for Community action for the audiovisual industry.

The contributions for festivals are relatively small in order to reach the largest number of beneficiaries
the
possible and the largest audience for European works. The Commission does not accept
application costs would be EUR 4 000 to receive EUR 10 000 or 40 % of the subsidy received, as the
Honourable Member states in his question.

that

It should be noted that a minimum of 40 % of the cost of a project should be funded by sources other
the
than Community support. The co-financing clause does not have any impact on the costs of
application, but
is a requirement established by the financial regulations in the implementation of
Community programmes.

(2004/C 84 E/1046)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1108/04

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Drilling for gas in the Waddenzee

On 15 March 2004, the newspaper NRC Handelsblad reported that the Advisory Group on Policy on the
Waddenzee had advised the Netherlands Government to permit the extraction of 40 billion m3 of natural
gas from the Waddenzee because there were no ecological grounds for a fresh moratorium on extraction.
If any subsidence were to occur as a result, the Advisory Group argues, the drilling could be halted. In the
answer to my question to the Commission in 1999 (P-2297/99 (1)) the Commission stressed that naturally
the precautionary principle applied. In case of doubt, nothing should be done unless a reason existed based
on the overriding public interest. If it could be demonstrated that the extraction would have a significant
adverse impact, compensatory measures should be taken to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura
2000 was protected. The Commission also mentioned that the term ‘significant effect’ in Article 6 of the
Habitats Directive had a broader meaning than ‘irreversible effect’.

Does the Commission agree that there is a genuine risk of subsidence and that the precautionary

1.
principle must apply?

In relation to the anticipated subsidence, is it possible to take compensatory measures in advance? Is
2.
interference with the sand and sediment deposits an acceptable disruption of the natural environment in
the Waddenzee?

In the interests of nature conservation, the Waddenzee ought to be left in peace as a unique natural
3.
area. In the light of the Green Paper on the security of energy supply, the EU’s growing dependence on gas
imports (up to 70 % in 20 or 30 years’ time) and rising gas prices, can the Commission confirm or deny
that in fact there is an overriding public interest in postponing the extraction of 40 billion m3 of natural
gas for at least 20 years and reassessing in 2025 whether gas extraction in the Waddenzee is in the public
interest?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 91.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

1.
The Wadden Sea is an area that has to be protected as a special protection area in the sense of
Council Directive 79/409/EECof 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and as a special area of
conservation in the sense of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2).