WRITTEN QUESTION E-1619/00 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Appropriations for lowering nitrate content.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural expenditure, chemical fertiliser, chemical salt

C 103 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

The Commission has reserved its position on proposing an amendment to the new regulation in the event
of the base date for HCFC allocation remaining at 1996 in the final text of the regulation on substances
that deplete the ozone layer. Overall there appear to be reasons for proposing a new base date for HCFC
allocation through a proposal for an amendment to the new regulation on substances that deplete the
ozone layer.

(1) OJ C 83, 25.3.1999.
(2) OJ L 333, 22.12.1994.

(2001/C 103 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1619/00

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Appropriations for lowering nitrate content

The Budget Authority reserved an appropriation of 220m euro in the year-2000 budget under
item B1-4050 (environmental operations in agriculture) for financing incentive measures to lower nitrate
content below the permitted upper limit.

To date, no appropriations have been committed or paid out for that purpose.

Can the Commission state why no action has hitherto been taken to implement

1.
Authority(cid:146)s express wish?

the Budget

Does the Commission consider it acceptable for the Budget Authority(cid:146)s express wish that these

2.
appropriations should be used to influence current developments in the Member States to be ignored?

3. What proposals will the Commission submit for ensuring that these appropriations can still be
committed and paid out for that purpose? By what deadline can such proposals be expected?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

As indicated by the Honourable Member, budget item B1-4050 is for part-financing of action by Member
States and regions encouraging farmers to apply agricultural production methods designed to protect the
environment and preserve the landscape. The terms of Articles 22 to 24 of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1) and of
Articles 12 to 20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed
rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 apply (2). Agri-environment measures are the
sole compulsory component of Member States(cid:146) rural development programmes but under the subsidiarity
principle informing the basic Regulations incentives to reduce nitrate levels further than required by law
need not be included in them. However, such incentives cannot then be provided.

1.
The Commission is at present examining the rural development programmes for 2000-2006 sent by
the Member States for approval. Once approval has been given, the chapter B1-40 appropriations will be
used to part-finance expenditure incurred on the various rural development measures. As no programme
has yet been approved no appropriations have yet been used.

2.
Examination of most of the programmes sent by Member States is very advanced. Some seventy of
them contain this type of measure. Member States have the option of launching, without awaiting
programme approval by the Commission, all operations leading to contracts with farmers for the
implementation of agri-environmental measures. They can even begin paying aid under such contracts

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/17

this expenditure cannot be
from the date on which the Commission received the programme but
reimbursed from the Community budget until after approval. Thus some expenditure has probably already
been incurred but cannot yet appear in the Commission(cid:146)s accounts.

The Commission considers that the existing legal framework will permit approval of the programmes

3.
in the near future and hence utilisation of the appropriations without any need for new proposals.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999.

(2001/C 103 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1627/00

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) and Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Genetically modified salmon

(29 May 2000)

is planning to bring
Various sources of information report that an American company (AF Protein)
genetically modified salmon on to the market.
In this salmon, the gene that is responsible for the
production of growth hormones is modified. This causes the modified salmon to have a much higher
growth rate than its natural congener. There is a risk that modified salmon will oppress its natural
congeners and thus eliminate in the longer term the genetic material of natural salmon. Furthermore, little
is known about their sensitivity to diseases. Although the company argues that their salmon is infertile,
there is reason to doubt the safety of this product. If the product is commercialised on a large scale, one
mistake could cause an enormous disaster.

European producers have indicated that they are interested and willing to bring this salmon on to the
European market.

Is the Commission aware of plans to commercialise genetically modified salmon?

Does the Commission share the view that such practices pose great risks as regards biodiversity, fish
diseases and the survival of non-modified species?

What is the Commission(cid:146)s position on the possible future introduction of modified salmon on to the
European market?

Is the Commission willing to undertake action (at WTO and UN level) to prevent this?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

The Commission is aware of several press articles dealing with genetically modified salmon. Apparently the
development of fast growing salmon has reached a state where commercial use appears feasible.
In
particular companies from North America have expressed their interest.

An application has been submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration for permission to
market such salmon (see Nature, Vol. 406 of 6 July 2000, pp. 10-12). In addition to examining whether
transgenic salmon are fit for human consumption and animal welfare aspects, the potential environmental
impact is being examined in conjunction with two other agencies (Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Mar(cid:237)ne Fisheries Service).