WRITTEN QUESTION P-1278/00 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Agriculture ‐ flax and hemp.
Date: 2000-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, Wales, eligibility criteria, flax

C 72 E/34

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

the use of the drainage channel for waste water, while Elnosa continued to discharge mercury, without
authorisation and in quantities over the legal limits. Spanish government departments such as the National
Institute of Toxicology claim that the waste water from ENCE can be classified as toxic, and may be
seriously affecting the environment, and departments of the University of Santiago believe that the
mercury levels in the estuary(cid:146)s shellfish are above the recommended limits of 0,1 ppm.

Given that the complex cannot, in any case, make any economic or industrial projections beyond the year
2018, when the administrative concession of the shoreline land which it occupies runs out, and bearing in
mind the much-suffering local population(cid:146)s opposition to the complex, does the Commission intend to
take the requisite steps, having ascertained the economic, social and environmental damage caused and
studied the problem in collaboration with the Galician and Spanish administrations, to have Elnosa
relocated immediately and to negotiate the relocation of the ENCE installations to a suitable site, according
to a strict timetable and in the near future?

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

(9 June 2000)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,
it is not the Commission(cid:146)s responsibility to relocate
companies. However, if it can be demonstrated that the installations in question have infringed Commun-
ity environmental law, the Commission could take the necessary steps to ensure compliance. This could
include initiation of the infringement proceedings provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the
EC Treaty.

it appears that Directive 96/61/EC of
From the information provided by the Honourable Member,
24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1) is not yet mandatorily
applicable to the two installations, since the deadline for application of the Directive is October 2007. The
case should therefore be studied with reference to the relevant Directives concerning discharges to water
and emissions to air.

It should be noted that
the Commission has already examined a complaint regarding the possible
infringement by the installations in question of several Community Directives concerning air and water
pollution. No evidence of infringement could be found and the case was closed at the end of 1999.

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(2001/C 72 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1278/00

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Agriculture (cid:129) flax and hemp

Is the Commission aware that, under its present proposals, between 60 and 80 % of the land on which flax
is grown in the UK will not be eligible for aid? This would kill off the UK industry immediately.

And does the Commission accept that innovative markets have recently been developed for short-fibre
crops, at a substantial
including Wales? If
farmers cannot expand their production to supply these new outlets, this investment in rural areas will
have been for nothing.

investment cost to the industry,

in several Member States,

And, lastly, does the Commission accept that there is a blurring of lines between the markets for short-
fibre and long-fibre crops, since long-fibre products also compete in the new products market, which
means that a differentiated aid rate offers a competitive advantage to long-fibre producers in the same
market?

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/35

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

The question of eligible land is a general requirement of the arable crops regime that was introduced for
environmental reasons as well as to keep production and budgetary expenses under control. As the flax
and hemp reform proposal (1) is now being discussed in the Council, as well as in the Parliament and
Economic and social committee, the final rules applicable for flax and hemp will depend on the outcome
of those discussions.

As far as short fibres are concerned, the proposal does indeed support the development of new markets
during a 5 year period through the straw processing aid. In fact, the Community finances do not allow for
high subsidies to new products that would only find their market at a very low price. Thus, the right sign
is given now to the sector: at the end of the transitional period, these productions will need to be
economically viable with the common level of support for arable crops.

Concerning the differentiated aid rate between long and short flax fibres, the proposal takes account of the
wide differences in product value and production costs between both products. Considering that long flax
fibres used in the textile industry can easily reach prices several times higher than those for short fibres
used for other outlets, it seems inappropriate to claim that both products compete in the same market.

(1) OJ C 56 E, 29.2.2000.

(2001/C 72 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1283/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Exporting waste to third countries/Basle Convention

Despite international conventions, there is an increase in exports of (toxic) waste to developing countries.
The Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/EEC (1) regulate these cross-border flows of waste. According
to UNEP, in 1989 the OECD countries exported one fifth of their waste. UN rapporteur Fatma-Zohra
Ksentini says the countries which export most are Australia, the US and EU Member States the Nether-
lands, Germany and Britain. She is particularly concerned at the growing tendency to ship toxic waste to
developing countries where it is simply dumped.

How does the European Union ensure compliance with the Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/

1.
EEC, in particular:

(a) what service, and

(b) how many officials are involved,

(c) how many checks are carried out every year, and

(d) where?

2.
How much category 1 waste have the fifteen EU Member States exported to third countries since the
Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/EEC entered into force (broken down by year, exporting Member
States and countries of destination)?

3.
How much category 2 waste have the fifteen EU Member States exported to third countries since the
Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/EEC entered into force (broken down by year, exporting Member
States and countries of destination)?