WRITTEN QUESTION E-2517/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) and Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission. Protection of pure olive oil.
Date: 2000-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common agricultural policy, designation of origin, olive oil

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/169

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

(19 September 2000)

There are a number of Community directives which apply to household waste but there is no specific
directive on household waste management. According to the Community waste strategy (1) and Council
Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (2), priority is given first to the prevention of waste
generation, then to the recovery of waste in its triple dimension (reuse, recycling and energy recovery) and
lastly to safe disposal (incineration without energy recovery and landfill).

Prevention of waste generation requires consumer information and change of consumption behaviour.
Where prevention meets the limits of today(cid:146)s life style, separate collection at source is inevitable to
optimise material recycling, which has, where environmentally sound, general preference over energy
recovery. For this purpose separate collection is specifically requested for packaging waste (3), waste oils (4),
and spent batteries (5) and it is proposed for electronic waste (6). Moreover, as organic waste in landfills has
to be reduced according to Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (7),
separate collection of biodegradable waste prior to composting or anaerobic digestion is a valid option. An
initiative on organic waste composting is under discussion.

The best way to deal with household waste apart from the provisions above, which include potential
health implications, depends very much on the local conditions and thus falls under the principle of
subsidiarity. The decision on the frequency of waste collection depends on the climate, waste containers in
place, the infrastructure, and waste treatment options which can not be regulated or recommended at a
European level.

(1) COM(96) 399 final.
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(3) Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365,

31.12.1994).

(4) Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (OJ L 194, 25.7.1975).
(5) Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous

substances (OJ L 78, 26.3.1991).

(6) COM(2000) 347.
(7) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

(2001/C 103 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2517/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) and Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Protection of pure olive oil

(2 August 2000)

Commissioner Fischler has admitted that the question on the search for an analytical method to ascertain
the presence of hazelnut oil in olive oil is a valid one.

Does the Commission therefore not consider that once such a method has been determined and
incorporated into Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91, its aim should be to safeguard the various types of pure
olive oil rather than to please the multinationals?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

A method of analysis is laid down in Community legislation only after it has been tested several times and
has been subject to many rigorous laboratory tests to analyse its level of precision.

C 103 E/170

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

To this end the Commission calls on the assistance of expert chemists from each Member State, who meet
regularly in Brussels. They are professionals from universities or research centres and their standing in their
particular fields of expertise is beyond question. As already stated in the reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s
earlier written question P-1763/00 (1), these experts (cid:129) together with other researchers from the main non-
member countries that produce olive oil (cid:129) also take part
in research work coordinated by the
It must be stressed that the IOOC is an
International Olive Oil Council
international organisation which counts the Community among its members and is part of the United
Nations.

(IOOC), based in Madrid.

Under the circumstances, the analytical methods laid down in Commission regulations are chosen precisely
because of their scientific objectivity vis-(cid:224)-vis the physical and chemical problems to be overcome. They do
not work towards political ends and so do not pursue the two goals referred to in the question.

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 111.

(2001/C 103 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2518/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Urban parking plan in Rome, environmental
Oslavia, P. Vescovio, via Taranto, etc.)

impact assessment and public information (via

Some years ago the Rome city authorities drew up a plan for the construction of underground car parks
known as the urban parking plan (PUP). The project was to be carried out by private firms and the parking
spaces sold to members of the public who applied for them. The building of the car parks has generated
much controversy among local residents because of the length of the work, the effects on traffic, and the
possible environmental impact of the project, which is affecting the stability of buildings, jeopardising
business activity, and often leading to the disappearance of trees and green spaces.

The information provided by the city authorities concerning the dangers posed by the environmental
impact of the car parks has been extremely vague and inadequate, compelling residents to bring the matter
before the regional administrative court in order to safeguard their right to be kept informed on the length
and duration of the building work. This lack of openness on the part of the bodies responsible concerning
the possible dangers posed by the project has also generated legitimate concerns among residents,
prompting them to form protest committees, thereby creating unfortunate and needless conflicts between
residents and the construction firms. It is not these firms (which are running risks themselves and may
have to lay off staff), but rather the city authorities which are responsible for providing public information.
It should also be noted that environmental impact assessments have not been carried out in all cases,
unlike similar projects in various parts of Rome, leading to the conclusion (with reference also to the
Commission(cid:146)s answer to my previous question E-2858/99 (1)) that the provisions of Directive 85/337/
EEC (2) and subsequent amendments are being infringed in that proper prior assessments have not been
performed either for individual projects or for the car parks plan as a whole, a project which, given the
number of construction sites running simultaneously, is having a considerable impact on the environment.

In the light of the above:

1. Does the Commission not consider that the PUP projects should be subject to environmental impact

assessments, together with the car parks project as a whole?

2. Does it not believe that the public has a right to be provided with detailed information by the Rome

city authorities?

3. Does it not believe that the public should be involved in the relevant decisions before these building

projects are begun to allow them to put forward possible alternatives?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 120.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.