ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1749/96 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Decentralized, federally organized civil protection and disaster planning

There are still no uniform civil protection and disaster planning arrangements in the States of the European Union.

Disaster planning is becoming increasingly important, as modern society and settlement in risky areas combine to increase the risk of natural disasters.

Will the Commission state whether any initiatives are under way to develop plans for coping with disasters?

Does it not consider that such plans should be developed, through local authorities and provincial or regional administrations, in a decentralized and federal form?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (26 July 1996)

In 1985 an initial Ministerial meeting laid the foundations for Community cooperation on civil protection. Since then, six resolutions have been adopted, which constitute the basis for such cooperation.

Community cooperation is intended not only to support and back up the efforts made at national, regional and local level to prevent disasters, prepare those involved in civil protection and respond to disasters, but also to establish a framework for effective and rapid cooperation between Member States when needed.

This cooperation is clearly inspired by the principle of subsidiarity. Measures have been taken only where the Community dimension provides an obvious advantage and where action will be most effective at Community level.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1804/96 by Edouard des Places (EDN) to the Commission (26 June 1996)

Subject: Aid to the footwear sector in Italy

Italy has notified the Commission of a proposal concerning 'aid which Italy plans to grant to the footwear industry'. The text was published in OJ C 271 of 17 October 1995. This notice concerned planned aid to sectors experiencing a crisis. The corresponding implementing measures were to be agreed by employers' organizations and trade unions, but to date only the organizations in the footwear sector have succeeded in reaching such an agreement.

1. Is this plan still being implemented? If so, what stage has been reached?

2. Does the Commission not consider that such aid is in breach of the principle of fair competition within the single market?

3. Given that footwear firms in the regions concerned, like firms in other sectors, are already eligible for support under the Structural Funds, does the Commission not take the view that an accumulation of specific aid such as that referred to above distorts competition and affects intra-Community trade to an extent which exceeds the minimum thresholds?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

1. The type of aid to which the Honourable Member refers contravenes the principle of fair competition within the single market. For this reason, the Commission adopted on 30 April 1996 a final negative decision on the aid planned by the Italian authorities under the extraordinary assistance scheme for supporting production and employment in the footwear sector.

2. The Commission has taken the view that the aid in question is sectoral aid and concerns a sector in which Italian industry is the European leader and there is a substantial volume of trade. It is the footwear sector in the other Member States that may be penalized by the granting of such aid.

3. In connection with assistance provided by it under the Structural Funds, the Commission ensures that the maximum aid intensities allowed are complied with.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1563/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Council (25 June 1996)

Subject: Monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia

Does the Council intend to support, in the near future, the establishment of a monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia, as approved by the European Parliament at its sitting of 9 May 1996 (A4-0135/96)?

Does the Council believe that changes should be made to the Treaty to allow the adoption of practical measures at Community level to combat racist and xenophobic behaviour, which, unfortunately, is on the increase in some European countries and constitutes an intolerable violation of the basic rights of the individual?

Reply (14 October 1996)

1. The Council has taken note of the European Parliament's Resolution of 9 May 1996 on the Commission communication on racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism.

2. The Florence European Council of 21 and 22 June 1996 approved the principle underlying the establishment of a European Centre to monitor racism and xenophobia; it asked the Council to examine the legal and budgetary conditions of the future Monitoring Centre and the links between the Centre and the Council of Europe, and to mandate the consultative Commission on racism and xenophobia to continue its work until the Monitoring Centre is set up.

3. The Intergovernmental Conference provided for in Article N of the Treaty on European Union is examining a proposal for an amendment to the Treaty making specific provision for Community powers in the sphere of combating racism and xenophobia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1799/96 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Lower award of 'blue flags' for Balearic Islands beaches

The EU awards 'blue flags' to beaches and coastal leisure centres which have particularly high standards of water quality, environmental protection or user safety. This year, it has given awards to a total of 45 beaches and 18 coastal leisure centres in the Balearic Islands.

However, these figures mean that eight less 'blue flags' than last year have been awarded to Balearic Islands beaches, although the number of awards for coastal leisure centres has increased by one.

Can the Commission explain the reasons for the withdrawal of these awards, with specific details for each of the eight cases?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that the Blue Flag scheme is run by a non-governmental organization entitled the 'Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe' (FEEE) with headquarters in Denmark. This organization coordinates a network of national operators responsible for the scheme in their particular Member State. Blue Flags are awarded by the European jury - in which the Commission is represented - to beaches which satisfy the requirements standards laid down by the scheme. Only those beaches proposed by the national jury of each Member State are considered to be candidates.

With regard to the beaches of the Balearic Islands, and compared with last year, 14 beaches forfeited their Blue Flag while 6 new ones were awarded it, resulting in an overall loss of eight flags. The reasons why some beaches were not proposed by the Spanish jury this year may be requested from the Spanish organization 'Asociación de Educacion Ambiental' (ADEAC) responsible for the scheme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2139/96 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (3 August 1996)

Subject: Specialized training courses for doctors and surgeons in Italy (implementation of Directive 82/76/EEC)

Italy's implementation of the Community directives on medical specialists has given rise to reservations and disagreement, particularly as to whether Italian law complies with Community Directives 75/362/EEC ((OJ L 167 of 30 June 1975, p. 1. )), 75/363/EEC ((OJ L 167 of 30 June 1975, p. 14. )) and 82/76/EEC ((OJ L 43 of 15 February 1982, p. 21. )).

In particular, many people have pointed out that, whereas in those directives doctors training as specialists are regarded as workers following special training courses, in Italian law they are regarded as 'students', and although they are subject to the usual obligations contained in employment contracts, they do not enjoy the accompanying rights.

Does the Commission consider that the relevant Italian legislation complies with Community law and, if not, does it intend to take any specific action on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (11 September 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions E-2821/94 and E-3105/95 by Mr Burtone ((OJ C 139, 5.6.1995. )) and Mrs Gyldenkilde ((OJ C 79, 18.3.1996. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1959/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Smuggling of wild boar meat contaminated with swine fever

1. Is the Commission aware that wild boar meat contaminated with swine fever has been smuggled into the EU, perhaps on a wide scale?

2. Is it aware that the Lindau customs investigation department is already conducting inquiries?

3. What does the Commission intend to do?

4. What was the volume of wild boar meat disguised as venison imported into the EU from eastern Europe last year?

5. Are these imports from eastern Europe entering the EU through Austria at the Lindau frontier crossing point?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

1. The Commission is aware that wild boar meat was illegally imported from Poland into Germany.

2. The Commission has been informed by the German authorities that customs inquiries on this subject are continuing.

3. The Commission has informed the Polish customs authorities which are carrying out on the spot investigations. The German customs authorities had already informed Member States which could be concerned by this traffic.

4. The quantity of illegally imported wild boar meat is not yet known. At the beginning of the investigation about 6 tonnes were seized.

5. The imports were made through different border posts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1306/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (31 May 1996)

Subject: Regulation on organic farming and the marketing of genetically modified seed

1. How does the Commission view the problem that, increasingly, EU-wide marketing applications are granted for genetically modified seed not indicated as such which put at risk the transposition and implementation of Regulation EEC 2092/91 ((OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p.1. ))?

2. When genetically modified seed is not indicated as such, how can the organic farms in the EU be certain that they are not using it unintentionally? How does the Commission intend to solve this problem?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1996)

1. Article 6(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1935/95 ((OJ L 186, 5.8.1995. )) establishes the principle that the seeds used in organic production must have been obtained from mother plants which have been grown for one generation in accordance with the organic production rules (as outlined in Article 6(1) (a) and (b) and the related annexes in Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91). As however such material is currently only very scarcely available, the Regulation provides also for a broad derogation permitting, until 2001, use of conventional seed under certain conditions.

The current rules in Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 do not exclude the use of seed originating from a variety obtained by genetic manipulation, to the extent that such variety has been authorised for marketing in general agriculture in accordance with the Community legislation in force. At the time of adoption of Regulation (EEC) No 1935/95, the Council and the Commission agreed however that the question of the use of genetically modified organisms in organic farming needed to be further explored and would be the subject of a report to be developed by the Commission. The preparatory work for this report is under way in the Commission.

2. The official acceptance of seed of genetically modified varieties and issues related to the marketing of seed are currently under discussion in Council on the basis of the Commission proposal ((OJ C 29, 31.1.1994. )) for amendment of the various Council directives concerning the marketing of seed. On this proposal the opinion of Parliament is still awaited. The Commission is convinced that with the implementation of the measures proposed the risk of unintentional use of seed of genetically modified varieties will be considerably reduced.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1833/96 by Antonio Graziani (PPE) to the Commission (28 June 1996)

Subject: Storm in the Italian province of Lucca

What action within its powers does the Commission intend to take in the light of the severe storm which hit the Versilia and Garfagnana areas, in the Italian province of Lucca, on 19 June 1996?

A whole geographical area has become unrecognizable.

The damage, which it is difficult to assess as yet, is estimated at approximately several hundred billion Lire.

The death-toll so far is nine, although this figure is unfortunately provisional.

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1833/96 and P-1898/96 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)

The Commission wishes to express its full sympathy to the families of the victims and to the Italian people severely hit by the storm which devastated the province of Lucca on 19 June 1996.

With regard to the sources of Community financing which might be utilized in this case, the specific aim of the Community action 'emergency aid to disaster victims in the Community' is the provision of such aid for European citizens most seriously affected by such exceptionally large scale and serious events. However, the Commission regrets that there are no appropriations at the relevant budget heading (B4-3400) this year as only a token entry was made when Parliament adopted the 1996 budget. Recently the Commission proposed to the budgetary authority that ECU 1 million be transferred by way of exception. Parliament's Committee on Budgets preferred to reduce the amount to ECU 300 000.

With regard to possible Structural Fund assistance for Objective 5b regions, it should be noted that Community resources have been allocated definitively for the period 1994-99. The single programming document (SDP) for the objective 5b areas in the Tuscany region, which have been allocated ECU 133 million for the period 1994-99, can only receive additional resources resulting from the index-linking of Community resources, which at present amount to ECU 2.8 million. In order to repair the damage caused to 5b areas in the province of Lucca, the Commission is prepared in the partnership context, and notably in the SPD monitoring committee, to consider the proposals put forward by the Italian authorities to finance the renewal of the damaged agricultural and forestry resources, the protection of the environment and the improvement of the rural infrastructure by allocating all or part of the resources resulting from index-linking or by amending the SDP so as to transfer resources from the amount allocated to existing measures.

Where the damage occurred in objective 2 areas eligible for the Structural Funds (municipalities of Carrara, Massa and Montignoso), the Commission would be willing, in partnership with the Italian authorities, to consider providing assistance as part of the programmes in question, depending on the funds available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0932/96 by Shaun Spiers (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Animal feed products

What are the EU regulations regarding the feeding of animal and poultry by-products to:

1. ruminant farm animals

2. other farm animals

3. poultry

4. farmed fish?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the commission (3 June 1996)

Intracommunity trade in animal feedingstuffs is subject to strict rules concerning labelling, use of additives and raw materials, the presence of contaminants and the approval and inspection of establishments producing feedingstuffs. These rules are applicable to all feedingstuffs produced for species destined for human consumption.

With regard to animal and public health, the requirements for the production of feedingstuffs of animal origin are set out in various Community provisions:

- Council Directive 90/667/EEC ((OJ L 363, 27.12.1990. Directive as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.)) laying down veterinary rules concerning the processing of animal waste for its placing on the market and for the prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin. This Directive establishes detailed hygiene requirements for the collection and transport of animal waste, hygiene requirements for animal-waste processing plants and microbiological requirements concerning the products after processing;

- Commission Decision 92/562/EEC ((OJ L 359, 9.12.1992. Directive as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.)) on the approval of alternative heat treatment systems for processing high-risk material;

- Commission Decision 94/382/EEC ((OJ L 172, 7.7.1994.)) (as last amended by Commission Decision 95/29/EC ((OJ L 38, 18.2.1995.))), on the approval of alternative heat treatment systems for processing animal waste of ruminant origin, with a view to the inactivation of spongiform encephalopathy agents. In particular this Decision prohibits the use of one rendering system (the continuous vacuum added fat system) and sets new time and temperature parameters for all the other systems approved according to the Decision 92/562/EEC for the processing of ruminant material;

- Commission Decision 94/381/EC ((OJ L 172, 7.7.1994.)) concerning certain protection measures with regard to bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the feeding of mammalian derived protein. This Decision prohibits the feeding of protein derived from mammalian tissues to ruminant species;

- Commission Decision 91/516/EEC ((OJ L 281, 9.10.1991.)) establishing a list of ingredients the use of which is prohibited in compound feedingstuffs. This list includes materials like faeces and urine, leather and leather waste.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1063/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Disasters and consistency

According to a brief news item probably originating with the Commission (the Spanish edition of Europe, No 3673 of 26.1.1996, page 11) the Commission intended to contact the authorities of the European Parliament to remedy the alleged contradictory behaviour on the part of the latter in that it requested emergency aid for natural disasters after abolishing the relevant budgetary item.

Did these contacts take place and, if so, what was the outcome?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (28 June 1996)

In December 1995, the Parliament, at second reading, voted to give budget Item B4-3400 (Emergency aid to disaster victims in the Community) only a token entry for 1996. Since the beginning of 1996, Parliament has passed several resolutions requesting the Commission to grant emergency aid to victims of disastrous floods in several Member States.

Against this background the Commission was indeed in contact with Parliament in order to clarify its wishes with regard to emergency aid. Following these contacts the Commission proposed to the budgetary authority an exceptional transfer of ECU 1 million to Item B4-3400 so that it can respond to a very small number of exceptionally serious and extensive disasters in 1996. The Commission is now waiting for the Council and Parliament to approve this transfer. Parliament's Committee on Budgets has already stated that it wishes to reduce the amount of the transfer to ECU 300 000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0592/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Cadmium recycling

According to the Council of Europe pamphlet 'Cadmium in Food', only around 5% of cadmium is recycled in Europe as opposed to 15-20% in the United States.

Why is this rate so low and can the Commission suggest any way to encourage improved recycling of cadmium?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (24 May 1996)

As far back as its communication to the Council in 1987 ((COM(87) 165 final. )) the Commission said that the exposure of human beings and the environment to cadmium had increased and even reached worrying levels in certain regions, and that cadmium pollution would have to be controlled and reduced.

The Commission has no detailed information in its possession on cadmium recycling.

The Commission is not convinced that a policy of encouraging cadmium recycling would be an effective means of protecting the environment. There do not seem to be any scientifically reliable methods of distinguishing recycled from new cadmium, so the provisions of Community law that are intended to restrict the cadmium content of products can be circumvented by an illicit use of new cadmium. Recycling of the cadmium contained in products is acceptable only if these products are circulating in a closed circuit on the market. It should be noted here that in the case of batteries cadmium recycling is carried out under Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. )).

The Commission does not, therefore, have a general policy of encouraging cadmium recycling. However, within the framework of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. )) it is going to look into harmonisation of the national provisions concerning the recycling of various packagings such as beer crates which contain cadmium, and in 1998 it will be examining the possibilities of recycling certain cadmium-containing products the use of which is restricted by Council Directive 91/338/EEC ((OJ L 186, 12.7.1991, amending Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (OJ L 262, 27.9.1976). )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1201/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Redundant Jetty, Occidental oil site, Canvey, Essex

What action could the Commission take to remove the one-mile long oil jetty at the Occidental oil site in Canvay, Essex, which cost £9 m. to build, yet has never been used since it was built twenty years ago? Does the Commission agree that this eyesore is a visual symbol of the industrial decline of South Essex and that its removal is a prerequisite to restoring investors' confidence and to assisting economic development? Will the Commission further investigate this question and determine specific measures in response?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1996)

As far as the European regional development fund (ERDF) is concerned, no action can be taken by the Commission with respect to the oil jetty at the Occidental site in Canvey to which the Honourable Member refers.

The area concerned is not eligible under objective 2 of the structural funds. Moreover, in the United Kingdom objective 2 regions, the reclamation of former industrial sites is supported by ERDF only if it can be directly linked to the generation of new economic activities and employment.

The Commission has not had the occasion to study the site in detail and therefore cannot comment on its local impact.