WRITTEN QUESTION P-1871/99

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Assessment of the environmental consequences of the war in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and measures to protect public health and the environment and to repair the damage

In view of the fact that:

A. The military operations over the last few months in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and in Kosovo in particular, have caused significant damage to the environment owing to the release of large amounts of exceptionally toxic and radioactive substances resulting from the use of ammunition containing depleted uranium. These substances now pose a direct threat to the public health of the inhabitants of the region and neighbouring countries;

B. No comprehensive assessment of the public health risks and the environmental consequences has been made as regards Greece, Austria, Italy and other neighbouring countries;

C. The European Union's Balkans strategy has so far failed to take into account the need to protect the public health of the refugees to be repatriated and the population of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the environmental aspects of the destruction caused by the war, as can be seen from the omission of any specific reference to the funding of such actions in the proposal amending Regulation 1628/96(1) (the Obnova Regulation);

Will the Commission say:

1. What is the initial assessment of the environmental destruction in the region, and when will a comprehensive assessment of the environmental damage and public health risks arising from the spread of pollution for inhabitants of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Greece, Austria, Italy and other neighbouring countries be available?

2. Have the European Environmental Agency in Copenhagen and the ISPRA research centre which have the necessary know-how and infrastructures to carry out research and evaluation projects been asked to contribute, and if not, why not?

3. To what extent and in which regions was ammunition with depleted uranium used, and what measures have been taken, more generally, to protect public health and to avoid further environmental pollution?

4. How does the Commission intend to rectify its omission as regards the adoption of specific actions to fund measures to repair environmental damage and protect public health on the basis of the proposal for an amendment to the Obnova Regulation and how does it intend to include environmental aspects in the funding of measures under the Stability Pact, the agency for the reconstruction of the Balkans and the stability and association agreements currently being drawn up with certain Balkan States?

5. Which countries have called for compensation or financial aid to address the environmental damage, and is it possible for compensation or special aid to be requested for Community undertakings which have been affected?

(1) OJ L 204, 14.8.1996, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1716/99, P-1840/99 and P-1871/99 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to the reply given to Written Question E-1481/99 by Mr Manisco(1) and the reply given to Oral Question H-429/99 by Mr Alavanos during question time at Parliament's September 1999 part-session(2).

The Commission would like to add that the Regional environment centre (REC) for Central and Eastern Europe was chosen to perform the preliminary assessment of the environmental consequences of the conflict because of its ability to produce a rapid first assessment through its offices located in the countries concerned.

The political situation in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia continues to restrict access for the institutions of the Union. Therefore the Commission has been closely associated with the assessment of the environmental consequences of the war performed by the United Nations environment programme (UNEP) Balkan task force. Their final report has just been issued and concludes that the Kosovo conflict has not caused an environmental catastrophe affecting the Balkan region as a whole. The Commission is now studying the detailed aspects of this report. Looking to the future, the Commission tabled a number of proposals for potential regional environmental projects at the meeting of the stability pact working table on economic reconstruction, development and reconstruction held in Bari on 9 October 1999.

Community funding of the stability pact is still to be determined but will be directed by the guidelines for Community participation in the activities of the stability pact and its bodies adopted by the Council in September 1999. Commission funding for projects submitted to the stability pact is still to be determined, but will be directed by the guidelines for Community participation in the activities of the stability pact and its bodies adopted by the Council in September 1999 as well as the conditions which apply, under the regional approach stabilisation and association process to the use of Community funds in the countries of the region.

The Commission has not omitted environmental issues from any of the measures mentioned. Council Regulation (EC) No 851/98 of 20 April 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 relating to aid for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(3) (Obnova), clearly covers environmental issues linked to reconstruction, economic recovery and development. This has not been changed by the current proposal to amend this Regulation(4), which is designed to establish a reconstruction agency for Kosovo, nor will any future proposal to amend the regulation change the current situation as regards environmental issues. The stabilisation and association agreements will cover all issues of concern in Community relations with the country in question and therefore will also cover environmental aspects. Environmental damage in Kosovo is specifically mentioned in the Commission's communication(5) on this subject. The stability pact will also cover issues such as the environment, which is regional by nature.

The Commission is unaware of any claims for compensation from Community undertakings. As NATO undertook the action, rather than the Union, compensation claims against the Union or the Commission would be difficult to imagine. In the absence of new instructions from the Council, special aid is governed through the existing framework of Community instruments.

(1) OJ C 203, 18.7.2000, p. 2.

(2) Debates of the European Parliament (September 1999).

(3) OJ L 122, 24.4.1998.

(4) COM(1999) 312 final.

(5) COM(1999) 235 final.