WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2074/96 by Caroline JACKSON , Ilona GRAENITZ , Lone DYBKJÆR , Eryl McNALLY , Bernd LANGE , Carlos PIMENTA to the Commission. Political consequences of a visit organized by the European Commission to prove to 15 journalists from Slovenia the absence of danger from the nuclear industry
Date: 1996-07-26
Institutions: DYBKJAER, European Parliament, GRAENITZ, JACKSON CAROLINE, LANGE, MCNALLY, PIMENTA
Subjects: EU financing, communications profession, democratisation, exchange of information, interference, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, referendum, travel













EUR-Lex - 91996E2074 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2074

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2074/96 by Caroline JACKSON , Ilona GRAENITZ , Lone DYBKJÆR , Eryl McNALLY , Bernd LANGE , Carlos PIMENTA to the Commission. Political consequences of a visit organized by the European Commission to prove to 15 journalists from Slovenia the absence of danger from the nuclear industry  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0076 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2074/96 by Caroline Jackson (PPE), Ilona Graenitz (PSE), Lone Dybkjær (ELDR), Eryl McNally (PSE), Bernd Lange (PSE) and Carlos Pimenta (ELDR) to the Commission (26 July 1996)Subject: Political consequences of a visit organized by the European Commission to prove to 15 journalists from Slovenia the absence of danger from the nuclear industryCan the Commission explain why the visit was organized on the date in question, which corresponded with a campaign in Slovenia to collect signatures with a view to holding a referendum on whether or not the country should abandon or continue with its nuclear programme? Did the Commission not consider the danger of interfering in a democratic process of a sovereign state?Joint answer to Written Questions E-2047/96, E-2074/96, E-2075/96, E-2076/96, E-2077/96, E-2078/96, E-2079/96 and E-2113/96 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1996)The Commission's Phare programme is a demand driven programme. This means that project proposals emanate primarily from the partner countries themselves. Co-operation between the Commission and the Slovene state secretary for energy started in 1993. Over the last three years more than 7.3 MECU has been spent for the promotion of energy efficiency. Nuclear energy is currently part of the Slovene energy strategy even if the country's long-term aim is to abandon nuclear energy altogether. In order to ensure that rehabilitation measures for the Krsko nuclear power plant would be in line with nuclear safety policy within the Community, the ministry requested that part of the overall energy budget be used for a study tour (45,000 ECU).The Slovene authorities established the list of participants which in addition to the 11 journalists, included representatives from the nuclear safety administration, the nuclear research centre, the Slovenian electricity utility and the environmental movement. The journalists were included since the Slovenian nuclear sector is not large enough to provide sufficient participants. Due to the fact that the request had been submitted following the usual procedures and that it falls within the criteria and objectives of the Phare programme, the Commission agreed to organise the visit. Furthermore, since this small amount was the first project out of the total 7.3 MECU available to be used for nuclear safety, the request was deemed reasonable.The Commission contacted Foratom (European association of nuclear procedures) in order to facilitate the three on-site visits. Foratom's assistance was limited to providing access to the three Community installations that were visited.Previously, the Slovenian environmental movement had started a campaign in January 1996 to collect signatures in order to hold a referendum on the abandonment of nuclear power. Forty thousand signatures were needed by 27 May, 1996. At the time of the study tour (15-19 April, 1996) only 2,800 signatures had been collected. The Commission finds it unlikely that the seven articles in the Slovenian press which resulted from the tour, of which only three appeared to support nuclear energy, would have prevented the collection of the outstanding signatures.The Commission, therefore, does not feel that it interfered with the democratic process of a sovereign state and does not feel the visit had any impact on the question of the referendum. The objective of the study tour was not to promote the nuclear industry but rather to exchange information on best practices with regard to nuclear safety. Therefore, there were no meetings with representatives of a critical review on nuclear development, since this fell outside the requested objectives of the trip.This is the only study tour concerning nuclear safety which has been organised by the Commission. In 1995 the Phare programme funded other study tours on clean coal technologies and energy saving. Furthermore new initiatives on renewable energy and energy efficiency are planned for the coming years. The Commission is thus prepared to organise and pay for visits by journalists from central and east European countries to inform them about renewable energy and energy efficiency where this is requested by those countries and where this is in line with the priorities set by those countries.