WRITTEN QUESTION E-2536/00 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission. International Marine Pollution Commission report.
Date: 2000-07-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, marine pollution

C 103 E/176

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Bass PLC has concluded an Article 13 agreement, which, on the basis of information available to the
Commission, was amended in 1998 after negotiations between social partners and after consultation with
the European committee of food, catering and Allied workers unions (cid:129) ECF-IUF.

As regards the revision of Directive 94/45/EC, the Commission, in its report of 4 April 2000 on the
application of that Directive (2), has taken a formal position stating that (cid:145)the review process will continue
taking into consideration the debates in the Council and in the European Parliament on the dossiers closely
linked with the Directive (proposal for a Directive establishing a general framework for informing and
consulting employees in the European Community (3); draft Directive on employee involvement within the
European Company.) On the basis of the results of this review as well as on the basis of the evolution of
the other dossiers, the Commission will at the given moment decide on the possible revision of the
Directive.(cid:146)

(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.
(2) COM(2000) 188 final.
(3) COM(98) 612 final.

(2001/C 103 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2536/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: International Marine Pollution Commission report

(28 July 2000)

Is the Commission aware of a report published recently by the International Marine Pollution Commission,
on behalf of OSPAR, warning of irreparable damage to marine life in the seas around the west and north
of Europe? The report refers to sewerage discharge and industrial pollution, toxic and radioactive pollution,
chemical pollution and overfishing and calls for a response from the Commission. Does the Commission
propose to make a statement on the matter or respond to the report?

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

(15 September 2000)

The Commission is unaware of the existence of an international marine pollution commission but assumes
that the Honourable Member refers to a report recently issued by the Oslo-Paris commission (OSPAR).

During its annual meeting of 26-30 June 2000, the OSPAR commission adopted the quality status report
2000 on the whole North-East Atlantic, commonly known as (cid:145)QSR 2000(cid:146). This report, together with
reports covering the five regions of the OSPAR maritime area, is the first detailed assessment of the status
of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic from the Arctic to the Straits of Gibraltar and from
Greenland to the Kattegat.

According to QSR 2000, the worsening trends on marine pollution and fisheries have been reversed or at
least halted. Nevertheless, there are still threats to the marine environment and action is needed on
sustainable management of fish stocks, reduction of fisheries impact on fragile ecosystems, and elimination
of inputs of hazardous substances, which have been clearly identified.

The Community, represented by the Commission, is a contracting party to OSPAR and has collaborated
actively in the four-year preparation of QSR 2000. The Commission welcomes the completion of QSR
2000 and recognizes the extensive efforts of contracting parties that went into its preparation. The
Commission hopes to see OSPAR build upon this QSR in the future and emphasizes the need for future
assessments to have greater coherence between regions and to coordinate assessments with those of other
regional seas fora through collaboration under the European environment agency(cid:146)s inter-regional forum.

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/177

Consequently, the Commission endorses the report and will respond to the main challenges it raises in the
fields falling within Community competence. On that last point, it has to be recalled that many pieces of
Community legislation as well as coordinated Community activity in various international fora contribute
either directly or indirectly to the improvement of the marine environment protection.

(2001/C 103 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2539/00

by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Commission(cid:146)s review of active substances in herbicides and pesticides

A small business in the English region which I represent manufactures and sells and environmentally-
friendly weedkiller. They wrote to me to complain that they have been obliged to participate in the EU(cid:146)s
review. A coordinating authority in Germany has demanded € 5000, otherwise their product must be
taken off the market. Later they will be informed by the German authority which Member State will
conduct the review of their product but they have no choice in the matter. If it is Greece, they will be
charged a further € 90 000, if it is the United Kingdom the extra charge will be € 180 000, if it is Sweden
it will be nearly € 500 000. Are these facts correct? If so, why are the charges so different across different
EU states? Why is there so little concern for a small growing business which is likely to be forced out of
business by these unfair and apparently ridiculous rules?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Whilst the Commission does not want to penalise small innovative enterprises operating in the field of
plant protection, it has, in Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market (1), a responsibility to review the safety of all plant protection products,
in a timely and efficient manner, so as to ensure the highest level of human and environmental safety.

It is true that there is a high cost in carrying out a review for a plant protection product. Nevertheless this
high cost should be seen against a background of highly complex work, demanding teams of experts to
assess, in a careful and professional way, all the possible impacts which plant protection products could
have.

As to the amounts charged in the different Member States for doing this work, it is true that the cost
structures are not the same. It is therefore not possible to completely harmonise the amount of such fees.
Nevertheless, the amount of the fee has to be established in a transparent way and has to correspond to
the real cost of the examination.

The Commission is currently collecting information on the range of fees charged by the Member States.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2001/C 103 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2543/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Television programme (cid:145)Report(cid:146)

On 13 June 2000 a television programme entitled (cid:145)Report(cid:146) was broadcast by RAI 3 in Italy containing
disturbing revelations about the WTO and its underhand dealings with the Commission and the FAO.