WRITTEN QUESTION E-1579/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. European Museum project.
Date: 2000-05-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Parliament, cultural pluralism, museum, promotion of the European idea, use of languages

C 72 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

control measures additional to those proscribed in existing legislation (i.e. benefits additional to those
associated with the (cid:145)Reference(cid:146) scenario). These benefits result from emissions reductions beyond the
reference scenario for the four pollutants comprising nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) sulphur dioxide (SO2) and ammonia. The monetised benefits calculated for Greece are based upon
a reduced level of premature mortality (70 cases) related to short-term exposure to ozone and secondary
particulate matter, and a decrease of approximately 1700 in life years lost.

2.
The analysis starts with quantification of the change in exposure of the population and sensitive
groups which results from the emission reduction of the Commission proposal. In order to quantify the
change in incidence of the effects of air pollution, exposure response functions are applied for various
types of illnesses and diseases. Several types of health impact on morbidity were considered including acute
effects such as bronchidolator usage in asthmatics, cough in asthmatics, lower respiratory symptoms in
asthmatics, asthma attacks, respiratory hospital admissions, congestive heart
failure, cerebrovascular
hospital admissions, restrictive activity days and chronic effects such as incidence of bronchitis, cough.
Benefits are quantified using information on willingness to pay to avoid these illnesses, combined with the
costs for medical treatment, etc.

3.
The monetised values that are attached to chronic and acute mortality impacts are difficult to assess
and the subject of much debate. To indicate the range of results that can be derived from different
assumptions, the Commission(cid:146)s study employs two different approaches:
it considers the value of a
statistical life (VOSL) and the value of a lost life year (VOLY).

The VOSL technique assesses the willingness-to-pay of individuals to reduce the risk of mortality. The
result is an indicator of the importance that people attach to risk, and not an assessment of how valuable
life is per se. The approach taken here used relatively conservative estimates of € 2,2 million as the VOSL
for acute mortality effects and € 1,1 million for the VOSL for chronic mortality effects. There has been
some debate about the appropriateness of using the VOSL for cases where the reduction in life expectancy
attributable to exposure is small. An alternative approach is to attach a value to each life year lost (VOLY)
as a result of premature mortality, thereby adjusting for the short life expectancy of those affected. The
Commission(cid:146)s study uses a value of € 110 000 a life year lost for acute mortality and € 67 000 for chronic
mortality.

However, it can also be argued that the VOLY approach is inconsistent with the empirical evidence on the
relation between age and willingness to pay to avoid risk. Rather than address the debate between VOSL
and VOLY directly, the benefit assessment uses both approaches to indicate the sensitivity of the benefits
analysis to this issue. Therefore, for both chronic and acute health effects there are two measures of the
benefits, of which the lower estimates reflect the use of the VOLY approach and the higher estimates the
VOSL approach.

(2001/C 72 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1579/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(24 May 2000)

Subject:

(cid:145)European Museum(cid:146) project

The Treaty lays down that the Community (cid:145)shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member
States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common
cultural heritage to the fore(cid:146). In its answer to Written Question E-2461/99, the Council said nothing about
applying this Community objective to the (cid:145)European Museum(cid:146) project.

Given the project(cid:146)s progress and the possible involvement of EU institutions, I should be grateful if the
Council would answer the following questions:

1.

Is the possible selection of the (cid:145)Empire of Charlemagne(cid:146) as the historical starting point of the
(cid:145)European Museum(cid:146) in compliance with the treaty provision referred to above?

(a)

If so, what arguments can the Council advance to reconcile it with the treaty provision that the
Community (cid:145)shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, (cid:133) and at the
same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore(cid:146)?

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/81

(b)

If not, what concept does the Council deem appropriate to reconcile the (cid:145)European Museum(cid:146) with
the treaty provision that the Community (cid:145)shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the
Member States, (cid:133) and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore(cid:146)?

2. Does the Council

feel that the promoters should apply the language legislation of the Belgian
Federation fully and correctly in the (cid:145)European Museum(cid:146) in order to act in accordance with the treaty
provision referred to above?

(a)

(b)

If so, will the Council, in due course, ask the promoters to apply the language legislation of the
Belgian Federation fully and correctly in the (cid:145)European Museum(cid:146) in order to act in accordance
with the treaty provision which states that the Community (cid:145)shall contribute to the flowering of
the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity(cid:133)(cid:146)?

If not, why not, since non-application of the language legislation will breach the treaty provision
that the Community (cid:145)shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while
respecting their national and regional diversity(cid:146)?

Reply

(26 September 2000)

The Museum Project referred to by the Honourable Member is not the result of a Community initiative.

The Council did not therefore receive a Commission proposal for the setting up of such a museum. At its
meeting on 23 November 1999 the Council was briefed by the Greek delegation and took note of that
delegation(cid:146)s concerns regarding the objectives and priorities of the project as conceived by the Belgian
private law association which is the promoter.

The Council will adopt an appropriate position, within the framework of its powers, if a proposal is put to
it directly.

(2001/C 72 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1580/00

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Ritual slaughter of live animals

For many years now, the celebration of the (cid:145)Eid-el-Kabir(cid:146) festival in France has resulted in live animals
being slaughtered without stunning and outside slaughter houses. While the inability of French slaughter
houses in urban areas to deal adequately with the demand from local Muslim communities is a factor in
this situation, it cannot be a justification for allowing the inhumane slaughter of animals to continue. Due
regard must be given to cultural and religious practices, but this must not occur at the expense of animal
welfare and hygiene considerations.

Can the Commission confirm that France is in breach of its legal obligations under Council Directive 93/
119/EC (1) concerning the slaughter of live animals? What steps is the Commission taking to see that the
Directive is correctly implemented? When will the Commission commence legal proceedings under Article
226, if France is indeed in breach of Directive 93/119/EC?

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.