ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1204/97 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: EIB loans

There are sizeable discrepancies, under the Commission proposal on EIB loans for the period 1997-99, in the amounts allocated to different beneficiaries.

The countries of central and eastern Europe are to receive 50.5%, the Mediterranean countries 30.7%, the countries of Latin America and Asia 13.1% and South Africa 5.4%, while 21.2% is earmarked for macrofinancial aid.

Can the Commission state what criteria it used, in particular with regard to Latin America?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

The Commission proposal on the renewal of the budget guarantee to the European investment bank (EIB) for lending outside the Community reflects the conclusions of recent European Councils which recognise the importance of the EIB as an instrument of the Community's cooperation policy with third countries. In particular, the Council in Essen defined the pre-accession strategy with the associated countries in Central and Eastern Europe and endorsed the Commission's recommendation of the establishment of a partnership with the Mediterranean countries. In Cannes, the Council agreed to strengthen substantially the Community's financial cooperation with the two neighbouring regions. In Madrid, it endorsed the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and invited the Bank to intensify its activities in Latin America.

The Council also indicated that the Community's financial commitments should be shared in a geographically equitable way, taking into account the evolution of Community priorities and the conclusions of the Edinburgh Council, which, in particular, fixed the annual amount to be written into the reserve for external operations and, indirectly, set a ceiling on loans and guarantee commitments.

Taking all the above elements into account as well as an estimated requirement of 450 MECU per year in macro-financial assistance (lower than the average since 1990), the Commission proposed an overall ceiling of 6 825 MECU for EIB lending for the period 1997-1999 in Central and Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean countries, Latin America and Asia and in the Republic of South Africa.

In terms of (nominal) increase relative to the previous pluriannual mandates the new regional ceilings proposed by the Commission represent increases of 15% for Central and Eastern Europe, 13% for the Mediterranean countries, 20% for Latin America and Asia but no change for South Africa.

On 14 April 1997, following Parliament's opinion, the Council adopted Decision No 97/256/EC ((OJ L 102, 19.4.1997. )) in which the overall loan ceiling was set at 7 105 MECU. The ceiling decided for Latin America and Asia remained as proposed by the Commission i.e. 900 MECU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1873/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: Fifth framework programme

With regard to the section of the fifth framework programme relating to the living world and the ecosystem, the Commission has announced its commitment to projects concerning 'the cell factory' and 'health and food'.

1. Will experiments on animals be scheduled or permitted for this purpose?

2. If so, will acceptance of projects be linked to compliance with the 50% reduction in the use of animals in experiments announced by the Commission in the fifth programme on the environment?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1997)

In its proposal for a Council Decision on the Fifth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration projects (1998-2002) ((Doc. COM(97) 142. )) put forward by the Commission it is stipulated that: as far as possible animal experiments and tests on animals shall be replaced by in-vitro or other alternative methods. Experiments on animals are not precluded. It shall be limited to cases where it is necessary and there are no alternatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2264/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: European cooperation in Mozambique

Will the Commission provide information on cooperation projects it has managed via NGOs or under the Structural Funds and the ESF and which have been implemented recently, are under way or are to be carried out in Mozambique?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (23 July 1997)

The Commission's programme in Mozambique is a very large one.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the annual report on cooperation with Mozambique which contains the details sought. The reports are available to Parliament and the most recent are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The Honourable Member will appreciate that the structural funds do not apply outside the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2345/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (30 June 1997)

Subject: European Green Forum

Why did the Commission not extend an invitation to Members of the European Parliament's Environment Committee to attend the inaugural meeting of the European Advisory Forum on the Environment and Sustainable Development (the European Green Forum) held on June 5 1997?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1997)

The Commission invited all the members (full and alternate) of Parliament's Environment Committee, along with its Secretariat, to attend the inaugural meeting of the European Advisory Forum on the Environment and Sustainable Development held on 5 June 1997 in Brussels. The invitations were delivered to the reception at Parliament's offices in the rue Belliard on Friday 16 May 1997. Twenty or so Members took up the invitation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1783/97 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Lower Community premiums for goats and sheep in Greece

There has been a substantial cutback this year in the level of Community premiums to producers of goat and sheepmeat in Greece for each eligible ewe (a reduction of over Drs 2000 for low-weight animals).

If, in accordance with the information given to producers, this reduction is due to an increase in the slaughter price for goat and sheepmeat at European level, can the Commission say on what data it based its conclusion that there had been a corresponding rise in the price of goat and sheepmeat in Greece of a nature to justify a substantial reduction in premiums? How was that data collected and from what sources?

Finally, in view of the great difficulties such a sudden decision creates for producers, will the Commission say whether there is a possibility of an exemption for areas where there has obviously been no rise in the slaughter price for goat and sheepmeat or, at all events, for areas which have problems in general, e.g. the islands, where distribution and general production costs are considerably higher?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 June 1997)

It is true that the amount of the Community premium received by producers of sheepmeat and goatmeat fell in the marketing year 1996 by 32% compared with the previous marketing year. However, contrary to the Honourable Member's information, this fall was not the result of any increase in the slaughter costs of sheep and goats at European level. It was in fact due to a sharp rise in the Community market price in 1996 over the previous marketing year, which automatically reduced the premium, in accordance with current Community legislation.

In this context, it appears therefore that the questions raised about slaughter costs in certain parts of the Community, and in particular Greece, have no link with the reduction in the premium. In any case, the Commission has no official information on the slaughter costs of sheep and goats in the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1730/97 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (23 May 1997)

Subject: Nordic cooperation programme and inclusion of the Barents Sea region in Baltic cooperation

Ever since Arctic cooperation began in the 1960s, the Nordic countries have tried to develop cooperation with the Barents Sea region. The countries have joined forces in seeking to improve the living conditions of residents of Europe's northernmost regions. The main priorities of cooperation between the Barents Sea region and the Nordic countries are the economy, trade, science and technology and environmental and infrastructure projects. In addition, the countries have intensified their mutual contacts by means of cultural events of various kinds and educational exchanges.

EU decision-making is very much focused on Mediterranean cooperation: attention has not been similarly devoted to the development of Nordic cooperation in the EU. Evidently, the opportunities for cooperation presented by the natural-resource-rich Barents Sea region are not yet sufficiently well-known in the EU.

1. What stage has the Commission's drafting of the Nordic cooperation programme reached?

2. What prospects does the Commission see for inclusion of the Barents Sea in Baltic cooperation?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1997)

1. The Commission attaches great importance to regional cooperation in the North of Europe. The Commission has been closely involved from the beginning in cooperation in both the Barents sea and Baltic and plays an active role in the Barents Euro-Arctic council (BEAC) and the council of Baltic sea states (CBSS). Community assistance, mainly through the Phare, Tacis and Interreg programmes, is being provided to both these regions, taking into account their specific needs and requirements.

It is the Commission's understanding that the Baltic and Barents regions have each their specific needs and concerns, which each require a specific, targeted approach. The BEAC and the CBSS have established contacts with other regional groupings in Europe, including among themselves. However, the idea of either a merger of BEAC and CBSS or of regular joint meetings has not been raised in either forum. To the extent that both regions face common issues, Commission representatives ensure that the necessary co-ordination takes place. In the event that BEAC and CBSS would put forward proposals for closer cooperation in particular areas where there would be significant added value, these will, of course, be examined by the Commission.

2. As far as work on the cooperation in the Northern regions of the European Union is concerned, following a report by the Committee of the regions on the Northern dimension in June 1996, the Commission organised together with the two Member States directly concerned a seminar which took place in Rovaniemi, Finland on 18 March 1997. The purpose of this seminar was to contribute to establishing more clearly the implications of the 'Northern dimension' for Union policies in general and for the revision of the structural funds in particular.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1875/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: Community laboratory (Decision 97/260/EC)

With reference to Decision 97/260/EC ((OJ L 104, 22.4.1997, p. 31.)) of 2 April 1997 on the Community reference laboratory for bivalve mollusc diseases, will the Commission say:

1. whether experiments on animals will be scheduled or permitted for this purpose?

2. if so, whether acceptance of projects will be linked to compliance with the 50% reduction in the use of animals in experiments announced by the Commission in the fifth programme on the environment?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1997)

The functions and duties of the Community reference laboratory for diseases of bivalve molluscs are described in Annex B to Council Directive 95/70/EC introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain fish diseases affecting bivalve molluscs ((OJ L 332, 30.12.1995. )). These functions and duties are related to the diagnosis of diseases affecting bivalve molluscs. These are based on histopathology and do not involve experiments with animals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1613/97 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (7 May 1997)

Subject: Olive oil imports from Israel

How much olive oil has been imported from Israel in the last five years?

What is the position of olive oil imports in the cooperation agreements?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1997)

The import figures for olive oil from Israel during the last five years are as follows (including inward processing operations):

1992: 0 tonnes 1993: 1 tonne 1994: 2 tonnes 1995: 2 tonnes 1996: 7 tonnes

Olive oil is not included in the cooperation agreements with Israel.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1784/97 by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Eurostat

The black economy clearly represents a challenge from a statistical point of view. The difficulties involved in its assessment are mirrored by those of the economic, fiscal and labour authorities charged with its control, which are unable to put an end to such activities, despite constant inspections.

Is Eurostat engaged in assessing the EU's black economy?

If so, what method is it using to do so?

How reliable are its estimates?

Are the statistical data produced directly by the countries concerned taken into account?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1997)

The underground economy is indeed very difficult to measure and to control. In order to address the issue of the measurement and coverage of underground activity in the statistical data, the Member States make many explicit and implicit corrections to their calculations of gross national product (GNP), the precise nature of which varies from one Member State to another.

Eurostat itself is not engaged in measuring directly the size of the underground economy in the Member States. However, the Commission has required that the Member States complete the coverage of the underground economy by carrying out a number of procedures to verify and to improve estimates of GNP ((Commission Decision 94/168/EC, Euratom. )). A description of this work can be found in a report to the Council and the Parliament ((COM(96) 124 final. )) which describes the responses made to the requirements of the GNP Directive (89/130/EEC, Euratom) ((OJ L 49, 21.2.1989. )), and in particular to Article 7, which calls for special attention to be given to the verification and improvement of the exhaustiveness of the estimates of gross domestic product (GDP) and GNP, and to the coverage of the underground economy.

The results from this programme will be transmitted by the Member States to Eurostat towards the end of 1998, at which point Eurostat will verify the work completed. It is not expected that reliability or variability indicators will be attached to the results.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2495/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (9 July 1997)

Subject: Dumping of radioactive waste in Beaufort's Dyke, between Scotland and Northern Ireland

In late June 1997 the British Government admitted that radioactive waste was dumped in the Beaufort's Dyke between Scotland and Northern Ireland in the 1950s and 1960s. It is believed that up to two tonnes of radioactive waste may have been involved.

In 1995, newspaper reports suggesting that radioactive waste had been dumped at that site were rebutted by the British authorities. I sought to file a complaint with the Commission about this matter but was told by Commission officials that no radioactive waste had been dumped in Beaufort's Dyke.

Given the revelations that the information provided to the Commission by the British authorities was false, will the Commission now conduct an investigation on this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1997)

In early 1996, following representations from several sources, the Commission investigated media allegations that the United Kingdom had dumped radioactive waste in 1981 in the area of the Irish Sea known as Beaufort's Dyke. A formal statement, received from the United Kingdom at that time, confirmed that no such dumping had taken place, although, for the purposes of testing a new shipboard disposal apparatus, dummy containers, which did not contain radioactive waste, were consigned to Beaufort's Dyke in that year. The United Kingdom authorities further stated that radioactive waste had never been dumped in Beaufort's Dyke at any time but, although supplied in good faith, this latter statement has since been found to be incorrect.

On 1st July 1997, the authorities informed the Commission that, regretfully, a renewed search of old files had now revealed that a small quantity of laboratory waste and luminous materials was dumped in Beaufort's Dyke in the 1950s. The wastes fall within the definition of low and intermediate radioactive waste and, including packaging, amounted to only a few tonnes of material. The quantity of radioactivity involved has been stated to be low and regular monitoring since the 1960s has not revealed any measurable effect on radioactivity in the area concerned.

Nevertheless, and although the United Kingdom was not a Member State at the time of the dumping, the Commission has asked for more precise information in order to consider what further steps may be appropriate, if any, in order to guard against any future consequences.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2233/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Damage in the area of Hadrian's Aqueduct

The municipality of Nea Ionia in the region of Attica, Greece, carried out a makeshift study, which was approved by the Central Archaeological Council on 30 April 1996, before starting work on creating an artificial lake, which will come into contact with the central foundations of Hadrian's Aqueduct, as well as on the construction of an open-air car park, an open-air amphitheatre, etc.

The makeshift nature of the study became evident when the work got under way and it was necessary to carry out improvements that had not been planned, such as the removal of back-fill to reveal the monument (when in fact the approved study had envisaged greater backfilling), and alteration of the position and size of the lake, the construction of which entails enormous risks for the monument and at the same time completely changes the original appearance of the natural landscape.

Twice in succession, on 14 June 1996 and 4 February 1997, the Directorate for the Restoration of Monuments asked for work in the area to be suspended pending the submission of a fresh, amended study and detailed plans, while at the same time great concern was expressed by scientific bodies about the dangers which the building of the lake involved for the monument.

The above study has been amended slightly (but insists on construction of the lake) and is being resubmitted to the Central Archaeological Council for approval. Bearing in mind that there are breaches of the international treaties for the protection of monuments and the world cultural heritage, which provide for a 500 metre protection zone around monuments, what steps will the Commission take to ensure that no works will be carried out in the general area of Hadrian's Aqueduct that will damage the monuments and that, on the contrary, stabilization, anti-flood and restoration work will be carried out immediately on the monuments and the natural landscape of the region?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (4 August 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1976/97 by Mr Alavanos ((See page 134. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1828/97 by Alfonso Novo Belenguer (ARE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: Rice imports - cumulative recovery system

By Council Decision 95/591/EC ((OJ L 334, 30.12.1995, p. 25. )) the European Union concluded an agreement in the form of an exchange of letters with the United States of America on cereals and rice. Under that agreement, a cumulative recovery system (CRS) was introduced for husked rice on a trial basis for a one-year period. Commission Regulation (EC) No 703/97 ((OJ L 104, 22.4.1997, p. 12. )) introducing the cumulative recovery system has recently been published.

Bearing in mind that the application of the CRS will involve taking account of each import, each consignment and each invoice, that the price on which calculations are to be based will be that on each invoice and that systematic fraud in the handling of invoices might be expected, how will the Commission be able to detect fraudulent acts on the basis of invoices?

What measures will the Commission apply in order to prevent possible abuse and fraudulent acts?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1997)

The cumulative recovery system (CRS) for husked rice established by Regulation (EC) No 703/97 includes provision, at the end of the trial period, for an assessment of the operation of the import arrangements based on reference import prices.

To achieve this objective and to ensure that the system applied is reliable, effective and fraudproof, the CRS includes a number of specific features of organization, procedure and checking and provides the national authorities with adequate powers of assessment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2129/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Reporting

1. Will new or unmodified products which do not have to be authorized, pursuant to the novel food regulation ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )), be subject to a reporting obligation?

2. If not, how will national and EU authorities be informed of the market launch of such products?

3. How can these authorities test whether there is an obligation to label such products pursuant to the novel food regulation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2189/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 2587)7 - Submission of proof by applicants

Will it continue to be a requirement that manufacturers are obliged to forward to the monitoring authorities their demonstration systems, including samples, antibodies required for demonstration purposes, gene probes and extraction records etc.?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.