ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1752/97 by Josep Pons Grau (PSE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Financial support for conservation and community development programmes in Africa

The final sitting of the ACP/EU Joint Assembly in Brussels from 10 to 17 March 1997 adopted two resolutions on 'southern Africa' and 'the situation in southern Africa' which demonstrated the Assembly's unequivocal support for the new strategies developed by the region's countries on rural development and the conservation of wildlife and plant life. These strategies are based on decentralizing the legal powers underpinning the management of flora and fauna on local authority land and on sustainable use of these forest resources for the benefit of the rural communities which share their land with wildlife. A model programme in this connection is Zimbabwe's CAMPFIRE, successfully developed in recent years with the help of naturalists and rural development experts.

1. Is the Commission aware of these programmes? Does it share the opinion of the ACP-EU Joint Assembly as to the beneficial effects of these integrated programmes?

2. Is the Commission prepared to provide institutional and financial support for these integrated programmes for rural development, conservation and sustainable consumption and if so, how much support is it willing to provide?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (16 June 1997)

The Commission supports the rationale behind the concept of decentralised management, use and conservation of natural resources which is being developed in a number of countries in Eastern and Southern Africa and applied to forestry resources, parks and wildlife and communal land.

Particular assistance in terms of finance and institutional support is provided by the Commission in Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Botswana and Zimbabwe.

In Zimbabwe, the Commission has been at the forefront in supporting the launching of the Campfire programme with finance provided within the Kariba rural development programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1903/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Green Paper on Education - Training - Research: The obstacles to transnational mobility

With reference to the 'Green Paper on Education - Training - Research: The obstacles to transnational mobility' (COM(96) 0462 final), the validity and recognition of studies completed outside the state of origin must continue to be essential Community objectives. Will the Commission ensure that this principle can be extended to vocational training and to all subjects which are not regulated?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1900/97, E-1901/97, E-1902/97, E-1903/97 and E-1904/97 given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1970/97 by Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Allowing sex in prisons

The Italian Parliament is about to vote on a bill seeking to introduce four-hour 'sex periods' in prisons.

The precise details of the proposal, which was prompted by the case of a leading member of the Neapolitan criminal organization, the Camorra, sentenced to several life terms for brutal murders carried out either by him or at his bidding, are as yet unclear.

Would the Commission not agree that a study should be carried out by specialists such as sociologists, psycho-analysts and crime experts with a view to further exploring this matter which, despite the underlying humanitarian motives, nonetheless gives rise to disquiet, particularly when one considers that sex might become a privilege of criminals who, when they committed their crimes, showed no trace of sensitivity or human feelings?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1997)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1685/97 by Barbara Schmidbauer (PSE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: New layout for the Rond Point Schuman

Has the Commission taken the appropriate measures to ensure access for the disabled now that the Rond Point Schuman has been given a new layout?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (16 June 1997)

The Commission has no jurisdiction in respect of any reorganization of the Rond Point Schuman, which is a matter for the Belgian authorities.

The Commission would, however, inform the Honourable Member that the European institutions are involved in organizing and financing an international architectural competition on improving pedestrian facilities in the area around the European institutions.

At the instigation of the Commission, supported by the European Parliament, the Council and the Brussels regional authorities, it has been decided that the studies to be carried out should take particular account of the special needs of disabled people.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1488/97 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Europe against cancer and tobacco

Can the Commission say how European programmes to combat cancer and the subsidies granted to tobacco-growing in the Union can be considered compatible when statistics show that tobacco is the main cause of cancer deaths?

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

The Commission is fully aware of the social and economic importance of tobacco cultivation in Europe. This is why the Commission has proposed to continue for the present the common organisation of the tobacco market, while allowing for a movement to higher quality cultivation, and other improvements to the arrangements.

The Commission report of 18 December 1996 on the reorganisation of the common market in tobacco ((COM(96) 554. )) goes some way to addressing the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member. The objective of this reform is indeed to preserve the employment linked with the cultivation of tobacco in Europe whilst increasing the quality of the production. In addition, the Commission recognises the need to assist those who wish to leave this sector of production.

On the same occasion, the Commission also adopted a communication on smoking prevention ((COM(96) 609. )). This seeks to promote a wide-ranging debate on the policy to be followed in reducing smoking. It contains a series of policy options which could be taken at Community and Member State level to prevent smoking.

The Commission has proposed increasing from 1% to 2% the levy constituting the tobacco research and information fund. This fund is devoted to public information projects about the harmful effects and dangers of smoking, particularly addressed to the young. It also finances research into less dangerous varieties of tobacco plant.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0523/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (20 February 1997)

Subject: GMO plants

What consideration has the Commission given to the fact that pollen from GMO plants could be blown on the wind and pollinate non-GMO species, thus negating any attempt to label the produce of GMO crops?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

Under Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )), Member States ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment which might arise from the placing on the market of genetically modified organisms.

Directive 90/220/EEC requires that genetically modified organisms are only given consent to be placed on the market in the Community following assessment of any risks to human health or the environment.

In this context an applicant notifying for placing on the market of a product containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms has to supply all information necessary for evaluating the foreseeable risks of the product to human health or the environment. In this context safety issues associated with pollen spreading from genetically modified crop plants to other sexually compatible plants has to be addressed.

The Commission recognises the importance of labelling to consumers. The novel foods Regulation (EC) No 258/97 ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. )), which has just been adopted by the Council and the Parliament provides for specific rules for the labelling of food and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or derived from genetically modified organisms.

The Commission also intends to deal with the issue of labelling in the context of a proposal for amendment of Directive 90/220/EEC on the placing on the market of genetically modified organisms, to be adopted by the Commission in the course of 1997. As part of this, the Commission adopted on 2 April 1997, a proposal for a Commission Directive which aims at amending Annex III of Directive 90/220/EEC in order to include, amongst others, further labelling requirements for products containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms. Currently under this Directive, no specific labelling requirement stating that the product contains or consists of genetically modified organisms can be required in the absence of safety reasons.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1359/97 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Full Cost Rate system ('kostendeckende Vergütung') for renewable energy

On 4 July 1996 the European Parliament called on the Commission to analyse experience with the Full Cost Rate system for renewable energy and to propose Member States' rules.

The Japanese Government is planning to instal 400 MW of photovoltaic energy capacity by 2000, rising to 4600 MW by 2010.

1. What findings has the Commission made about the Full Cost Rate system?

2. How does it evaluate those findings?

3. Will they be incorporated into the White Paper on renewable energy?

4. What strategy will the Commission adopt in reaction to the Japanese and industrial challenge, so as to maintain photovoltaic production in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1997)

1. The Commission recently adopted a green paper entitled 'Energy for the future; renewable sources of energy, green paper for a Community strategy' ((COM(96) 576 final. )). The main objective of this paper is to provide a sound basis for a wide debate on the future role of renewable sources of energy in the Community. On the basis of the conclusions which can be drawn from the debate the Commission intends to present a white paper and an action plan later in 1997.

With the green paper the Commission provided an analysis of the various obstacles faced by renewable sources of energy in the Community, including the obstacles related to the cost of renewable sources of energy compared to conventional sources.

2. The Commission is aware that grid-connection of renewable sources of energy is a complex issue that needs careful consideration. The complexity, in particular, arises from the fact that the various renewable energy technologies are characterised by varying technological and competitive maturity as well as the fact that local conditions (geographical, climatic and economic) vary considerably throughout the various regions of the Community.

3. In the framework of the white paper and the action plan the Commission intends to present a comprehensive strategy for the promotion of renewable sources of energy addressing all major obstacles which need dismantling to promote a more wide-spread use of renewable sources of energy.

4. A recent study undertaken for the Commission in the framework of the Altener programme shows that there is scope for a considerable increase in installed photovoltaic (PV) capacity in Europe, although it would be difficult for Europe, even under very strict policy assumptions, to reach a target matching that set by the Japanese government.

The Commission accepts that there is a big challenge for European industry to maintain and if possible improve its position in the world PV market. In the Commissions view, this challenge can only be successfully taken up by creating a growing home market and by continuing and strengthening the efforts undertaken in the framework of both european and national research and technological development (RTD) programmes. This issue will be fully addressed in the forthcoming white paper and action plan.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1774/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Producers ineligible for compensation

The Greek Ministries of Agriculture and Finance have decided to interpret EU Regulation 2328/91 ((OJ L 218, 6.8.1991, p. 1. )) as excluding from the programme for compensation for damage caused by heavy rain and floods between September and December 1996 'any person, and members of their family, who have been convicted or are awaiting prosecution for offences under public criminal law, before their release of before final judgment is passed.'

As the compensation is awarded following the Commission's approval and given that such a decision excludes certain producers and is also problematic in procedural terms, will the Commission say whether it has approved the particular interpretative text excluding producers from the compensation programme? Does it consider the above text to be a valid interpretation of EU Regulation 2328/91?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1997)

The Commission has begun to examine the national aid scheme notified by Greece for repairing the damage caused by heavy rain and floods between September and December 1996 to ensure that it is compatible with Articles 92 to 94 of the EC Treaty governing aids granted by the Member States.

However, since the national decision defining the recipients of this aid referred to by the Honourable Member was not notified to the Commission, it is requesting further information from the Greek authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1339/97 by André Fourçans (PPE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Non-discrimination rule

The Commission appears to take the view that the non-discrimination rule does not guarantee competition between the various means of payment.

Does the Commission have any data showing that such competition is not exercised sufficiently at present by the possibility for consumers to choose to obtain one means of payment rather than another from their bank depending on the services offered and their cost, and by the choice available to shopkeepers to join one payment system rather than another, depending on the advantages and cost of the various systems?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1338/97, E-1339/97, E-1340/97, E-1341/97, E-1342/97, E-1343/97 and E-1344/97 given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

The Commission is unable at this juncture to reply in detail to the questions put by the Honourable Member. It is currently examining in the light of Community competition law a number of card payment systems notified under Article 4 of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 ((OJ C 13, 21.2.1962. )). They include, for example, national systems such as the 'CB' system in France as well as international systems such as those operated by Visa International and Europay Interntional. Some of these systems have a so-called non-discrimination rule to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission is assessing the validity of that rule in the light of the Community rules on competition and has entered into discussions with the parties concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1745/97 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (23 May 1997)

Subject: Collecting and recycling batteries

With regard to the action programme to combat pollution from cadmium, on the basis of the Council's resolution of 25 January 1988, can the Commission tell me:

1. How it evaluates the application of Directives 91/157/EEC ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 38.)) and 93/86/EEC ((OJ L 264, 23.10.1993, p. 51.)) by Member State? Have all Member States transposed the directives into national law?

2. The percentage of batteries recycled, by Member State?

3. What new measures it intends to introduce?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1997)

Community Directive 91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators limits the presence of mercury in batteries. It also contains a number of provisions for certain types of batteries, namely those containing a certain level of mercury, cadmium and lead. Member States are required to establish systems with a view to their separate collection. Furthermore, Directive 93/86/EEC establishes the detailed arrangements for the marking system envisaged by the first Directive.

1. Practically all Member States have adopted implementing measures concerning both Directives. However, measures concerning collection, marking and economic instruments are particularly divergent among Member States. Currently some twenty infringement cases have been opened against Member States for failure to implement or incorrect implementation of both Directives. In practice the fragmented implementation of both Directives by Member States has given rise to a number of obstacles and barriers to trade resulting in distortions of the internal market rules.

2. The Commission does not have the necessary data in order to answer fully the Honourable Member. However, on the basis of the available information, it may be said that in general, large and automotive batteries are to a large extent collected and recycled - up to 90% in some Member States. As far as consumer batteries are concerned, the collection and recycling rates are much lower. Although some Member States have achieved collection rates of around 50% for this category of batteries - Netherlands, Austria, Germany - most Member States appear to be far from that figure. The situation seems to be particularly disappointing for portable nickel cadmium (NiCd) batteries the collection rates of which vary in Member States between 10% and 35%.

3. The Commission is looking into the need for a general review of Directive 91/157/EEC, which may result in a proposal to the Parliament and the Council during this year. During the review, the Commission will look into the need to extend the scope of the Directive, further to restrict the marketing of environmentally hazardous batteries as well as to improve the collection, recycling and marking requirements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1527/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (5 May 1997)

Subject: Safety guarantees for genetically modified products

As its reply to my Written Question No E-2835/96 ((OJ C 138, 5.5.1997, p. 14.)) was unsatisfactory, I call on the Council, with reference to Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.)) and as the marketing of genetically modified products (e.g. soya, rapeseed and chicory) has been permitted subject to certain special conditions, to give specific answers to the following questions:

1. How can the Council guarantee that imported soya is not used for cultivation or breeding in the EU in contravention of the terms of the marketing authorization?

2. How are the other restrictions to be controlled and by whom?

3. If control is to be exercised by the Member States, how will it be carried out, and who will ensure compliance with the monitoring rules?

4. Will there be reports on compliance with the rules?

5. If so, will they be published?

6. If there is no national or European control system, for what measures has the Council provided?

7. Will the Council support a moratorium on the release of such products on to the market until adequate guarantees of compliance with the rules have been introduced?

8. How can the Council's position on permitting the import of genetically modified products without health checks or environmental impact assessment in the country of origin be reconciled with its negotiating position on the contents of the proposed protocol on biological safety?

Answer (6 August 1997)

In addition to the reply to Question No 2835/96, it should be pointed out that:

- as regards questions 1 to 6 and as the Honourable Member is aware, it is for the Commission to check that Community legislation is implemented;

- to date the Council has not received any proposal to introduce a moratorium on releasing genetically modified organisms (GMO) onto the market;

- as the Community is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Council evidently supports Decision 11/5 of the Conference of the Parties whereby the negotiations with a view to a Protocol on biosafety were started and which stipulates that this Protocol, which focuses specifically on transboundary movements of GMOs resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the preservation and use of biological diversity, must contribute towards ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of biosafety. Directive 90/220 provides that Member States must take appropriate measures to avoid adverse effects on the environment or on human health which might result from releasing GMOs onto the market and is thus aimed at attaining the same objective as the Protocol.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1897/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Residues of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs

In the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin' (COM(96) 0584 final - 90/0279 CNS) ((OJ C 381, 17.12.1996, p. 9. )),

the deadline for reviewing substances already in use needs to be altered.

Given the rate at which substances already in use are being examined and the fact that there are still over 200 substances to examined, the Committee can only approve the extension provided for in Article 14 (1) and (2).

Given the length of time needed for detailed examinations, which are vital for consumer protection and animal health, and in order ensure that the practice of extending deadlines is not continued indefinitely, does the Commission not consider two years to be sufficient, on the basis of the information gathered by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, and will it set 1 January 2000 as the final deadline?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1997)

The Commission's proposal for a Council regulation amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin ((OJ C 381, 17.12.1996. )) has been split into two parts: the extension of the deadline mentioned in Article 14 (1,2) and the rest of the proposal.

Through Council Regulation (EC) No 34/97 of 3 March 1997 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin ((OJ L 67, 7.3.1997. )) the deadline has been extended for pyrasolidon, nitroimidazoles, arsenic acid and phenylbutazone to 1 January 1998 and to 1 January 2000 for all other substances which were on the market before 1 January 1992 in one or more Member States and for which a dossier has been submitted to the Commission or the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products (EMEA) before 1 January 1996. These substances have been listed in the communication of the EMEA for the evaluation of medicines according to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 434/97 of 3 March 1997 ((OJ C 165, 31.5.1997. )). The Commission's proposal had foreseen an extension of the deadline until 1999. However it was modified by Council to the above mentioned dates.