WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/00 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Waste wood in chipboard.
Date: 2000-01-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, bonded wood, consumer protection, export of waste, hazardous waste, health risk, product safety, regulation (EU), waste recycling, wood residue

C 330 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The Commission is aware of management problems affecting Community agricultural aids in certain
regions such as Andalusia. The main reason for the payment delays is deficiency of
the financial
administration arrangements of the organisation responsible for the actual payment to aid recipients.

Under the decentralised system in place for financial management of the common agricultural policy,
paying agencies accredited by the Member States administer payments and guarantee compliance with the
Community rules (including payment dates).
In Spain the Autonomous Province of Andalusia is an
accredited paying agency for Community agricultural aids.

To secure compliance with the time limits set in the agricultural legislation for aid payments to farmers,
the Commission has for several years been applying the penalty system specified in Article 4 of Regulation
(EC) No 296/96 (1) to non-compliant Member States. Penalties are imposed only on the paying agencies,
i.e. farmers remain entitled to receive in full the aid applied for.

By way of example, and disregarding any further decisions that may be taken as part of the accounts
clearance exercise, in the 1999 EAGGF financial year corrections of PTA 521 million (€ 3,3 million) were
imposed on Spain for delays in paying olive oil sector aids.

It must be remembered in connection with aid applications for which payment is said to be outstanding
that the Community rules set payment periods and it is only once the period is over that the Commission
can consider payments as delayed and apply the financial penalties mentioned above.

The Honourable Member refers in this case to olive-oil production aid applications for the 1998/99
marketing year. The relevant payment period began on 16 October 1999 and ends on the ninetieth day
following publication of the Regulation determining actual olive oil production for 1998/99. This must be
adopted by the Commission at the latest eight months after the end of the marketing year. Consequently it
is only around 16 October 2000 that the Commission will be able to consider the expenditure in question
as delayed and apply penalties on the basis of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 296/96.

In the case of payments relating to previous marketing years, the Commission can already detect delays
when the EAGGF monthly expenditure statements are made and where appropriate apply the regulatory
penalties.

it must be remembered that this same check will be made as part of the accounts clearance
Lastly,
exercises. This is a further constraint on Member States to meet their regulatory obligations on the dates of
payments to farmers.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 of 16 February 1996 on data to be transmitted by Member States and the
monthly booking of expenditure financed under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and laying down certain detailed rules of application for Council Regulation (EC)
No 1259/1999. OJ L 39, 17.2.1996; OJ L 331, 23.12.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/00

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Waste wood in chipboard

A letter from Department DGM/A/GA of the Directorate-General for Conservation of the Netherlands
Ministry of Public Health, Regional planning and the Environment (cid:129) ref No NL 94141 (cid:129) clearly states

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/77

that 1 500 tonnes of waste wood have been delivered by the Netherlands firm Van der Galiºn to the
Belgian firm Unilin N.V. for the manufacture of chipboard. (The original text states: (cid:145)the order concerns the
export from the Netherlands of 1 500 000 kg of shredded treated wood to Unilin N.V. in Belgium with a
view to using this waste in chipboard production(cid:146)).

The Netherlands Ministry registered this waste, pursuant to the requirements and criteria laid down in
Regulation 259/93 (1) on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
European Community, as non-hazardous waste ((cid:145)was not considered to be hazardous waste within the
meaning of the Decision on hazardous waste(cid:146)). In doing so, the Ministry refers to a study which the firm
Galiºn asked the laboratory Kock Bodemtechniek Eurolab in Deventer to carry out on its behalf. This
study, which consisted of two tests on one kilogram of waste wood, did not test for substances such as
cadmium, barium, chrome, copper, cobalt or nickel. Furthermore, the test also found excessive levels of
PACs (polycyclical aromatic hydrocarbons), i.e. 72 and 146 mg/kg (limit value: 40 mg/kg) and penta-
impregnated
chlorophenol, 0,73 mg/kg (limit value: 0,002 mg/kg), which indicate the presence of
(preserved) wood (= special category waste) in the waste.

Can the Commission assure any buyers of chipboard produced with this waste that

1.
there is
absolutely no health hazard involved within the meaning of Regulation 259/93 (through the ingestion of
carcinogenic wood preservatives in the waste)?

If the Commission is unable to give that assurance, will it carry out comprehensive tests to dispel any

2.
misgivings that consumers may have?

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 regulates the supervision and control of
shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community. The procedure applicable to shipments of
wastes for recovery within the Community is determined by the classification of the wastes according to
Annexes II (cid:129) IV to the Regulation. Untreated wood waste falls under entry GL 010 of Annex II to
Regulation 259/93. Treated wood waste is classified as entry AC 170 in Annex III to the Regulation.
According to a common understanding among the experts in the framework of the correspondents(cid:146) group
established pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation 259/93, wood waste is to be considered as treated if the
wood has undergone any treatment other than a purely mechanical treatment. Conversely, wood waste is
to be considered as untreated only to the extent that the wood has not been treated at all, with the
exception of purely mechanical treatments.

The Commission understands from the information provided by the Honourable Member that the wood
wastes in question were indeed wastes of treated wood. According to Regulation 259/93, their shipment is
subject to a notification procedure. This procedure allows for the shipment of the wastes in question for
recovery within the Community, subject to the prior consent of the authorities of dispatch, destination and
transit.

Regulation 259/93 sets out
the regime applicable for the control and supervision of cross-border
shipments of wastes. Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended, sets out
the principles for waste management in the Community. Article 4 of that Directive sets the obligation for
Member States to ensure that wastes are recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and
without using processes or methods which could harm the environment.

However, neither Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 nor Directive 75/442/EEC establish standards for the
products derived from a waste recovery operation. Recycled products need to comply with the general
standards in place for the type of product in question. In the absence of specific standards at Community
level for chipboards, Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (2) would
apply.

C 330 E/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not in a position
to determine whether or not chipboards produced with the waste in question would involve a health
hazard. Nor is it in a position to determine whether or not the requirements of Directive 92/59 are met in
the case in question.

The Honourable Member is welcome to submit further information.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(2) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(2000/C 330 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0076/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Possible exclusion of the municipalities of Barberino, Tavernelle and S. Casciano from the areas

eligible for funding under the Leader+ project

In October the eight municipalities of the Chianti area around Florence and Siena opened a (cid:145)planning
conference for the development of Chianti(cid:146), with a view to forming a (cid:145)rural district(cid:146) whose main purpose
would be to attract Community funding available under the Leader+ project, with the help of the
Eurochianti local action group, with which cooperation was established several years ago.

Despite an enthusiastic response on the part of economic operators and trade associations in the area, the
policy pursued by the Tuscany Regional Council may well lead to the exclusion of the municipalities of
Barberino, Tavernelle and S. Casciano from the area eligible for funding under the Leader+ project.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the above municipalities are not excluded for political
reasons?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Under the draft guidelines for the Community Initiative for Rural Development (Leader+) approved by the
Commission on 13 October 1999 all rural areas are eligible for consideration or inclusion. However, only
a limited number of areas will in fact benefit from Community support, following a transparent, objective
and rigorous selection procedure designed to concentrate many Community resources on the most
promising pilot proposals and derive maximum lever effect from them.

It will be up to the Member States(cid:146) authorities (cid:129) in the case of Italy and the regions (cid:129) to propose the
most appropriate procedures and criteria for defining classification requirements for interested local
groups. The draft Commission guidelines set out minimum criteria? to be supplemented by more specific
ones due to the particular needs of the region and the objectives to be obtained. These criteria will be an
integral part of the programme and subject to Commission approval. Member States will be able to restrict
the application of Leader+ to particular rural areas if this can be justified using criteria based on their rural
development policy objectives.

The Commission will on approving Leader+ programmes verify that the abovementioned requirements are
strictly complied with.