WRITTEN QUESTION E-3741/98

by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Methyl bromide (a substance that depletes the ozone layer) and agriculture

The Commission proposal for a Council regulation on substances that deplete the ozone layer brings forward the deadline for the phasing out of methyl bromide from the year 2005 (as provided for in the Montreal Protocol) to 1 January 2001.

1. Has the Commission taken account of the economic impact this decision will have on farmers, with specific reference to fruit and vegetable producers?

2. Does it intend to compensate such producers for the losses incurred as a result of the decision?

3. Is it funding research into alternatives to methyl bromide and is it according such research the priority it requires in the light of the new deadline which it has itself proposed?

4. If it is providing such funding, when does it expect the research work to come up with alternatives to methyl bromide which are guaranteed to be harmless?

5. How does it intend to control the entry into the EU of horticultural products from third countries in which the ban is not set to come into force until 2005?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 1999)

In making its proposal to phase out methyl bromide in 2001(1), the Commission has taken full account of environmental, technical and economic factors. The Commission is aware that technically and economically viable alternatives are already available for the majority of current uses of methyl bromide in the Community. Uses unable to benefit from these alternatives at the time of phase out would be able to apply for a critical use exemption. It follows that the Commission does not anticipate any major economic difficulties from the phase out of methyl bromide or any need for compensation.

The Commission is aware of a number of research projects in the Community concerning alternatives to methyl bromide. There are also important projects designed to demonstrate to farmers how to use the alternatives which are already available. Such projects could be eligible for Commission funding under several programmes, such as the Fair, Meda and Life programmes. The Commission has co-funded two workshops to review the availability of alternatives to methyl bromide for southern Member States (Tenerife in April 1997, Rome in May 1998) which provided details of a wide variety of alternatives suitable to Mediterranean farming. These included both chemical and non-chemical alternatives, among which several might be considered "harmless" and most would be more in line with the objective of sustainable agriculture than the continued use of the highly toxic substance methyl bromide.

The Commission has no plans to control the entry into the Community of horticultural products from third countries where methyl bromide might be used for a longer period. As should be clear from the above, the Commission does not accept that such products will benefit from any advantage simply because they are grown using methyl bromide. On the contrary, some supermarkets in the major markets of northern Europe have already decided to avoid buying fruit and vegetables produced using methyl bromide. It is products produced using methyl bromide which risk being at an economic disadvantage and subject to potential consumer resistance. Quality products grown without methyl bromide can remain competitive, as is demonstrated by those farmers in the Community and elsewhere who have successful horticulture businesses which do not use methyl bromide.

(1) OJ C 286, 15.9.1998.