ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2212/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Dangerous substance in bathing water

Why does Council Directive 76/160/EEC(1) concerning the quality of bathing water provide no mandatory requirements with regard to substances such as dissolved oxygen, floating materials, ammonia, kjeldahl nitrogen, pesticides, heavy metals, cyanides, nitrates and phosphates, unless those substances are believed to be present as a result of a pollution incident?

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2001)

Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water, is intended to protect citizens from risks most normally associated with bathing, where exposure is through ingestion of small quantities of water or through the skin. In these circumstances, the Commission does not believe that, in the context of bathing water, nitrate or heavy metal pollution poses a risk to human health. However, that does not mean that these other pollutants are not regulated.

Several of the parameters referred to in the question are dealt with in the context of other legislation such as the Nitrate Directive(1) or Directive 76/464/EEC(2). Whereas the Nitrates Directive is still in force, the directive on discharges of dangerous substances has been integrated in the new Water Framework Directive(3). In this context, the identification of pressures and impacts, the programme of measures and a comprehensive monitoring will be established with the objective of good chemical and biological status.

As the Council Directive 76/160/EEC dates from 1976 and therefore reflects the state of knowledge and experience of the early 1970s, the Commission has started work on a revision of the Bathing Water Directive. To this aim the Commission published in December 2000 a Communication on a New Bathing Water Policy(4). A new directive will introduce a better beach management, focus on bacteriological quality of bathing waters, and will use dissolved oxygen, pH and/or transparency as rapid indicators.

(1) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.

(2) Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.

(3) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(4) COM(2000) 860 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2404/01

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 August 2001)

Subject: Carbon sequestration

In order to abide by its international obligations, the EU now needs urgently to find ways of limiting atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, given the impossibility of any rapid switch to renewable energy and the reluctance of governments, whatever their environmental commitments, to cut back dramatically on industrial activities that contribute to carbon dioxide emissions. Given this, what efforts is the EU making to explore the potential for geological sequestration of carbon in voids created by oil and coal exploitation?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2404/01 and E-2405/01given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2001)

The successful outcome of the second part of the Sixth United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP 6bis) includes an agreement on carbon sinks. The Commission has started to develop Community policies on sinks including geological carbon sequestration. Whether or not the geological carbon sequestration can be a safe and cost-effective option of limiting the Carbondioxide (CO2) emissions needs further research and development in the first place. Directorates general (DG) Research and Transport and Energy (TREN) have a portfolio of projects under the Fifth Community Programme on Research and Technological Development addressing this question (DG Research is focussing on medium to long term activities and DG TREN on short term activities). A number of projects are underway and others are being considered for contract. A brief description is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2575/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 September 2001)

Subject: Coordination of the Sensus project

In its reply to question E-1065/01(1), the Commission states that the German secret agent Christoph Klonowski is still heading the Sensus project. However, on 20 December 2000 a Munich court found Mr Klonowski guilty of forgery. The Commission's action is particularly astonishing since Mr Klonowski's fraud was committed precisely in connection with the Sensus project.

I should therefore like the Commission to answer the following questions:

1. Is Stephan Bodenkamp, alias Christoph Klonowski, still the coordinator of the Commission's Sensus project?

(a) If so, what are the Commission's arguments for keeping him as the project coordinator in spite of his conviction for forging a contract with a German technology firm in connection with the Sensus project?

(b) If not, when was he relieved of his duties and who has been coordinating the Sensus project since?

2. Will the Commission be taking the coordination of the Sensus project out of the hands of Stephan Bodenkamp, alias Christoph Klonowski, in view of his conviction by a Munich court for forging a contract with a German technology firm in connection with the Sensus project? If not, why is the Commission still entrusting the coordination of the project to him?

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 39.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2001)

As is usually the case for research projects, the co-ordinator of the Sensus project is an organisation, not a person. The co-ordinator of the Sensus project is the Amt für Auslandsfragen (AfA), which has been represented for this purpose by the person to whom the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission expects that this person will no longer act as AfA's representative with regard to the signature of any future contractual documents relating to the Sensus project.

For additional information, the Commission refers to the answers to the written and oral questions by the Honourable Member concerning the Sensus project (H-0629/01, H-O438/01 E-1082/01, E-1065/01, E-1066/01, E-0891/01, E-0892/01, E-0893/01, E-0894/01, P-0009/01).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2654/01

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 September 2001)

Subject: Rice surpluses

The Management Committee for Cereals and Rice in Brussels has issued instructions whereby supplies of paddy rice from the 97 and 98 marketing years stored in the European Community are to be used as animal feed.

This concerns around 50 000 tonnes of paddy rice, equivalent to 30 000 tonnes of white rice, which would be enough to feed 2-3 million people for a whole year.

Will the Commission explain the reasons for this decision, given that it is likely to leave many baffled in view of the efforts being made to combat hunger in the world?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

At present the intervention stocks of rice are in the order of 620 000 tons of paddy corresponding to around 370 000 tons of milled rice. The oldest stocks dates back to the 1996 and 1997 harvests.

In general there is a risk that rice may deteriorate after three years in storage, in which case it would loose value.

In order to avoid such deterioration of the old stocks it is planned to sell 50 000 tons of the oldest paddy rice for animal feed. The rice will not be sold on the normal rice market in order to avoid that it replaces rice from the market, which would then be pushed into intervention storage.

The Commission has so far not identified possibilities for using substantial quantities of rice as food aid. Such aid must respect the principles concerning food aid deliveries.

The main principles are:

- it should be given in response to an official request from the potential beneficiaries;

- it should be targeted to the needs of the recipients and carefully distributed with due attention to the local habits and nutritional needs for the beneficiaries;

- triangular transactions and local purchase should be promoted; and

- it should respect the principles for surplus disposal.

However, if possibilities for using substantial quantities of rice as food aid are identified, the Community will still have very important quantities of rice available in intervention stocks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2302/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Foot-and-mouth disease recovery plan

Have any formal or informal approaches been made to the Commission by the UK Government aiming to establish a recovery plan in areas affected by foot-and-mouth disease in either the agricultural sector or the non-agricultural sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2001)

On 3 April 2001, the Commission has approved the outgoers mark 2 scheme. This scheme, with an envisaged budget of £ 5 million, helps pig producers hit by foot-and-mouth disease who wish to leave pig farming permanently to do so. This scheme also includes a restructuring element.

On 6 June 2001, the Commission has approved the livestock welfare disposal scheme, with an estimated budget of £ 6 million per week. This scheme is designed to address the animal welfare problems arising from the movement restrictions put in place to control foot-and-mouth disease. The scheme includes payments towards the costs of transporting, slaugther, rendering, incinerating, disposal of carcasses, veterinary costs, as well as compensation to producers for the animals disposed of.

In addition to that, the Commission is currently examining other state aid schemes, including amendments to the farm business advice scheme and the agriculture development scheme 2001, as well as the Scottish Red Meat Campaign. All contain measures destined to help farmers cope with the problems created by foot-and-mouth disease.

As far as the non-agricultural sector is concerned, the British government may be giving support falling under the definition of de minimis aid as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid(1). Such aid would not have to be notified to the Commission.

(1) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1875/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Greece)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Greece have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Greece have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01,E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01,E-1882/01, E-1883/01 annd E-1884/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) was used as a source to determine the number of holdings with an area of less than 50 hectares and of 50 hectares or more under cereals, oilseeds and protein plants (COP). Though that database is weighted by the results of the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), it is generally acknowledged that large holdings are over-represented. The figures given below should accordingly be regarded as upper limits. The year used is 1997, the last year for which data for all Member States are available in the FADN database.

Columns A and C of the table below give the percentages per Member State of holdings with an area under COP of, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more.

Columns B and D of the table below give the percentages per Member State of the area under COP of holdings with, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more under COP.

Column F gives the percentages per Member State of the area under COP that would be excluded if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied.

Lastly, Column I gives the savings in millions of euro per Member State if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied. The yields used are the reference yields supplied by the Member States. The total reduction in cost to the Community would amount to EUR 4 billion.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2082/01

by Simon Murphy (PSE), Werner Langen (PPE-DE),Emilia Müller (PPE-DE), Dirk Sterckx (ELDR), James Fitzsimons (UEN)and Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Draft Risk Assessment Report Zinc and Zinc Chemicals

Is the Commission aware of the widespread concerns felt by the European General Galvanisers Association at the timescale for the completion of the Risk Assessment Report (RAR) by the European Chemicals Bureau into Zinc and Zinc Chemicals?

Does the Commission share our view that the RAR must take into account the findings of a substantial Europe-wide zinc research programme, due for completion by the end of 2002?

Further, is the Commission concerned that failure to take that research programme into account would result in itself, Parliament and Council receiving incomplete information about zinc and might lead to flawed and damaging legislation?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2082/01, E-2127/01, E-2348/01 and P-2681/01given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

The six zinc compounds undergoing risk assessment following Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances, were prioritised on 27 September 1995. The first draft risk assessment reports (RAR) were submitted by the Dutch authorities, acting as Member State Rapporteur, to the Community Technical Meeting in December 1999. Over the last decade, extensive discussions between the Dutch Institute Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM) acting as Rapporteur and zinc industry have taken place, and the output has been considered in the reports.

In comparison with other priority substances assessed under the Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances, the procedure for completing the risk assessment for the six zinc compounds is not in anyway accelerated and there has never been the intention to close the discussions without taking into account ongoing research that could affect the conclusions.

At the Technical Meeting in September 2001, after an extensive discussion on the new draft reports, Member States experts agreed that especially on the issue of the emissions from zinc to soil and the bioavailability of this released zinc in the soil, specific information needs could be identified that might affect some of the conclusions regarding the risks of this substance. Therefore, in line with the usual procedure under this Regulation, the meeting agreed on a conclusion (i) there is a need for further information and/or testing, and agreed on a deadline of 18 months from September 2001 to obtain this information. After this deadline the Member State Rapporteur will incorporate the new results in the final RAR. These results and the final part of the report will then be discussed and concluded upon by the Technical Meeting.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2328/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Monitoring radiation pollution in Scandinavia and Northern Russia

Will the Commission make a statement on the agreement to monitor radiation pollution in Scandinavia and Northern Russia?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

In June 2001, the Nordic and Baltic Sea region countries (Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland and Russia) signed an Agreement on the Exchange of Radiation Monitoring Data. The Commission presumes that this agreement is the subject of the question by the Honourable Member.

Before signing, the Agreement was submitted to the Commission for approval by the Government of Sweden, in accordance with Article 103 of the Euratom Treaty. The Commission verified the Agreement against the relevant provisions of the Euratom Treaty and communicated its approval to the Governments of Denmark, Germany, Finland and Sweden (Decision of the Commission of 29 June 2001, ref. PE/1186/2001).

The Euratom Community is not a party to the Agreement, although there is an ongoing Community programme with similar activity (Eurdep European Union Radiological Data Exchange Platform).

Exchanging environmental radiation monitoring data internationally is in line with the ongoing Community nuclear safety and emergency preparedness activities, and the Commission wishes to further promote this kind of exchange at the European level.

The Commission is especially pleased with the high number of participants in the Baltic Sea States Agreement. Additionally, the Baltic Sea States system for exchanging data is technically advanced and should be used as a reference for developing similar arrangements elsewhere.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Burma

Given the growing HIV/AIDS catastrophe in Burma, does the Commission have any plans to provide additional funds to alleviate this crisis?

Is the Commission aware that there would be widespread dismay and consternation if any decision was taken to channel EC funds through the line ministries of the military junta in Rangoon?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission recently funded an experts' mission to Burma/Myanmar to assess, in co-operation with the United Nations/World health organisation (UN/WHO) AIDS programme, the human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) infection profile in the country. Once the final report of the mission has been received, the Commission will be in a position to consider how, and to what extent, it can contribute funding to alleviate the crisis.

The Commission is well aware of the political aspects which may affect the way in which such funds are channelled. This matter will be discussed in the framework of the Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy and any funding decision will be taken in full compliance with the terms of the Union's Common Position on Burma/Myanmar(1).

(1) No. 96/635/CFSP, OJ L 287, 8.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1879/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (the Netherlands)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in the Netherlands have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in the Netherlands have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01,E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01,E-1882/01, E-1883/01 annd E-1884/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) was used as a source to determine the number of holdings with an area of less than 50 hectares and of 50 hectares or more under cereals, oilseeds and protein plants (COP). Though that database is weighted by the results of the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), it is generally acknowledged that large holdings are over-represented. The figures given below should accordingly be regarded as upper limits. The year used is 1997, the last year for which data for all Member States are available in the FADN database.

Columns A and C of the table below give the percentages per Member State of holdings with an area under COP of, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more.

Columns B and D of the table below give the percentages per Member State of the area under COP of holdings with, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more under COP.

Column F gives the percentages per Member State of the area under COP that would be excluded if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied.

Lastly, Column I gives the savings in millions of euro per Member State if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied. The yields used are the reference yields supplied by the Member States. The total reduction in cost to the Community would amount to EUR 4 billion.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3113/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Health spending

1. Could the Commission please supply, as a proportion of GDP, figures for expenditure on health-care in each EU Member State by:

(a) governments,

(b) individuals?

2. Could the Commission please state the average EU expenditure on health-care as a proportion of GDP, using the most recent figures available?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

Eurostat does not yet collect data on health expenditures on a routine basis. Eurostat is aware, however, of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Health Policy Unit collecting and disseminating data relating to health expenditures on a routine basis for a considerable time period. This collection also includes data for Member States.

It has to be mentioned that countries provide OECD with national data referring to health expenditures as defined in the national context. A common framework concept and the application of common definitions have always been aimed for, but could not yet be achieved to a satisfactory degree. Users of the OECD data dissemination system are therefore advised to use these data with caution. It is strongly suggested to refrain from comparisons across countries, as a remarkable share of the inter-country differences presented may originate from the boundaries of the health care system in one country being defined in a wider sense, whereas in another a more narrow definition may apply.

It should be mentioned, that the existing lack of data comparability across countries has initiated a joint OECD/Eurostat initiative to introduce the framework concept of System of Health Accounts (SHA) in 1997. With the application of this SHA framework concept in the Member States the data quality, availability and comparability will raise substantially.

As to now, SHA prototype data exist for health expenditures in roughly 50 % of the Member States. The Member States promised to have routine SHA data available by the end of 2002.

A table of OECD is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat despite the serious methodological concerns mentioned above, as they are the only data currently available.