WRITTEN QUESTION E-2852/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Problems for EU fruit and vegetable growers arising from the continued use of methyl bromide in the developing countries

The use of methyl bromide, a broad-spectrum soil disinfectant, is to be discontinued in the developed countries by 2005, whereas the developing countries have a ten-year grace period and will receive funding to cover the cost of replacing that substance (Montreal Protocol). Because of this difference in treatment, fruit and vegetable growers in Greece and the other Mediterranean Member States, who have to replace methyl bromide with other methods without financial assistance and with higher production costs as a result will be placed at a disadvantage and have their produce supplanted by produce from third countries which not only use methyl bromide but also receive funding to replace it.

1. What measures will the Commission take to protect fruit and vegetable growers in Greece and the other Member States from the fierce competition they will face from corresponding produce grown in North Africa and Asia using methyl bromide?

2. What stringent measures will it use to control the movement within the EU of fruit and vegetables from countries which will continue to use methyl bromide beyond 2005, in order to protect consumers' health?

3. Is the EU monitoring whether the countries with which it has preferential agreements (Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, etc.) are phasing out the use of methyl bromide? Does the Commission have any information concerning the finance those countries have received from the multilateral fund which covers the added cost of restricting ozone-depleting substances?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

1. As developing countries generally have a lower level of technical expertise and limited financial resources compared to developed countries, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed a freeze in consumption of methyl bromide (MB) in 2002, a 20 % reduction in 2005 and a total phase out by 1 January 2015. The Parties agreed to review this phase out schedule in 2003 with a view to eliminating MB as soon as it is no longer required. On the other hand, the Parties also agreed to farmers from developed countries implementing alternatives to MB by 2005. The Commission cannot change these agreements made by the Parties but it will, however, continue to take steps to promote the adoption of alternatives in all countries as soon as possible.

Since 1994, the Commission has allocated EUR 40,8 million to promote the adoption of alternatives to MB in the Community including research and development projects, demonstration projects and grower training. These projects have been conducted in Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. This expenditure excludes commercially-funded projects and those funded nationally. Projects conducted in Europe and other countries have shown that some alternatives to MB not only increase yield but are also sometimes more cost-effective than MB.

The Commission and the government of Spain jointly sponsored a four-day Conference on alternatives to MB in Sevilla in March 2002 that was attended by about 300 researchers, extension workers, farmers, industry and government representatives from 18 developing and 22 developed countries. This conference was co-sponsored by the Commission pursuant to its obligations under Article 4(2)(i)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer(1) that requires it to encourage the development and the use of alternatives to MB.

2. The use of MB is not a health issue for consumers but rather an issue of eliminating MB globally in order to accelerate the recovery of the ozone layer. Maximum residue levels (MRLs) of MB in food are laid down in Council Directives 86/362/EEC(2) and 93/58/EC(3). In addition, a full evaluation of MB will shortly be carried out under Council Directive 91/414/EEC(4) and on the basis of that evaluation it may be decided whether the MRLs need to be reviewed. Any review of the MRLs shall also take into account those established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

3. To assist in the identification and adoption of alternatives the Protocol's Multilateral Fund (MLF) has provided funds of about USD 49 million for 208 projects in more than 55 developing countries. It should be noted that Member State contributions to the MLF for the phase out of all ozone depleting substances including MB in developing countries account for more than 40 % of the total for the past three funding trienniums. The Member States recognise the value of implementing alternatives as soon as possible and in this way promote a level playing field for all countries.

Some developing countries have unilaterally accelerated their phase out schedule to avoid further dependency on MB and potential consumer boycotts in developed countries of MB-treated commodities. As examples, Morocco has several projects that will introduce alternatives for major crops, and plans to reduce MB imports/consumption from 1 600 tonnes in 1998 to 275 tonnes in 2006. Turkey will introduce alternatives for tomato, cucumber, cut flowers and dried fruit, and plans to reduce MB imports/consumption from 840 tonnes in 1997 to 34 tonnes in 2006.

(1) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.

(2) Council Directive 86/362/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on cereals, OJ L 221, 7.8.1986.

(3) Council Directive 93/58/EEC of 29 June 1993 amending Annex II to Directive 76/895/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables and the Annex to Directive 90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables, and providing for the establishment of a first list of maximum levels, OJ L 211, 23.8.1993.

(4) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.