WRITTEN QUESTION E-2717/97 by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Substances depleting the ozone layer

In the context of the Montreal Protocol and the substances which deplete the ozone layer, why has the EU not taken any concrete action to ban CFCs in medical uses, more specifically in metered dose inhalers (MDI), and to halt new CFC approvals, as currently a Technical and Economically Feasible Alternative (TEFA) is available for such products? The Commission has recently launched a rolling plan on the transition to CFC-free MDIs. When is it going to put forward a phase-out policy for CFSs to the UNEP?

During the 15th Open-Ended Working Group Meeting of the United Nations in Nairobi, beginning of June, the Technological and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) showed scientific evidence that there were alternatives available for methyl bromide. What is the Commission strategy in this field and has it initiated a debate or does it plan to do so on how to phase-out methyl bromide? How expensive will it be to phase out methyl bromide in the EU by 50% in 2001 and by 100% in 2005?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

The use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is an agreed essential use under the Montreal Protocol and under Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 on substances that deplete the ozone layer ((OJ L 333, 22.12.1994. )). This means that CFCs may continue to be used in these medicinal products until technical and economically feasible alternatives are available to doctors and patients. At present, only a small number of non-CFC products are available on the European market. They are not yet approved in all Member States, nor do they represent alternatives for all the CFC products currently in use. It would therefore not be appropriate at this stage to ban CFCs in medical uses. A wider range of non-CFC alternatives is expected to become available over the next 12 - 18 months. The Commission is currently working with Member States, representatives of the European pharmaceutical industry and asthma patients to prepare a strategy to phase out CFCs in medicinal uses as alternatives become available without jeopardising patient health. The first draft of this strategy will be available in September 1997, and a copy will be made available to the ozone secretariat at the United Nations Environment programme (UNEP).

The Commission strategy for methyl bromide is to press for its earliest possible phaseout without jeopardising the agricultural enterprises and other fumigation activities which currently use the substance. This could be achieved by an early phaseout in those uses where alternatives are currently available, and a temporary exemption for other, critical uses where alternatives have yet to be identified. Within Europe, the greatest current dependency on methyl bromide is in the southern Member States. That is why the Commission, together with the Netherlands ministry of the Environment, the university of La Laguna and the Consejo superior de investigaciones cientificas co-funded a workshop in April 1997 to demonstrate and discuss alternatives to methyl bromide appropriate to southern Member States.

It is not possible to derive reliable figures of the cost across the Community of phasing out methyl bromide in any particular year. The cost will depend critically on the alternative chosen, and that depends on local circumstances. Typically, chemical alternatives such as metam sodium will be more expensive than methyl bromide, while the use of solarisation and integrated pest management is less expensive. Where methyl bromide has already been successfully phased out and agricultural management changed accordingly, it is common to find higher yields and consequently higher farm profitability. On this basis, and including the exemption for critical uses where necessary, the Commission believes that methyl bromide can be phased out quickly throughout the Community without significant damage to the productivity or profitability of farmers who currently use it.