WRITTEN QUESTION P-3056/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Ending of support for indigenous breeds in Portugal.
Date: 2000-09-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, Portugal, livestock

C 89 E/226

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

3. and 4. Member States are under an obligation to implement the directive on time. They cannot
therefore postpone the introduction of the necessary legislation. However, as noted above, it normally
takes national patent offices quite some time to examine patent applications. The Court(cid:146)s judgment in the
main case is therefore likely to intervene before any patents are finally granted under the directive.
Moreover, in terms of Community law, it is open to any Member State to make the grant of such a patent
conditional on the validity of the directive being upheld.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.

(2001/C 89 E/258)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2950/00

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 September 2000)

Subject: Compliance with public procurement legislation

for

two public procurement directives

The proposals
that were published in May this year
(COM(2000) 0275 and COM(2000) 0276, recently amended by subsequent corrigenda, seek to simplify
legislation in the area of public procurement. There is, however, evidence to suggest that non-compliance
with current legislation in this area is widespread. Whilst the Commission has previously acknowledged
that such problems exist, neither of the proposals fully addresses this issue.

What action is the Commission planning to take in order to enhance compliance with public procurement
legislation. Does it foresee the possibility of appropriate amendments being made to the proposals
currently under consideration?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2000)

As stated by the Honourable Member, the Commission has realised that there is a need to increase
compliance with the current Community rules on public procurement. However, the Commission also
believes that non-compliance is to a large extent caused by a lack of knowledge and understanding of the
rules. It therefore sees the effort of clarification and simplification of the provisions, which is one of the
main characteristics of the two proposals (1) it has presented to the Parliament and the Council, as a means
which should enhance compliance with the rules.

The reasons for this are several. On the one hand, the requirements for contracting authorities and entities
will be easier to understand, and, on the other, the Commission will be able to focus more intensively on
the enforcement of clear rules. A further advantage in this respect is that interested parties, participants or
potential participants in specific award procedures, will be able to pursue their rights better at national or
Community level.

(1) COM(2000) 275 final COM(2000) 276 final.

(2001/C 89 E/259)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3056/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Ending of support for indigenous breeds in Portugal

(22 September 2000)

Support for indigenous breeds has played a key role in preserving endangered species, thereby helping to
improve the quality of meat production and enhance its image in the eyes of consumers. The aid has done
a great deal to revitalise the agricultural sector in certain less favoured regions in Portugal(cid:146)s rural heartland.

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/227

In accordance with the last Community support framework (CSF), the aid in question was financed under
the Portuguese rural development plan. The plan for the period from 2000 to 2006, to be implemented
under the new CSF, also provided for aid. However, it has emerged that the Commission is preparing to
alter the rules governing the award of aid, reducing breed-related support in cases where the number of
females is below 1 000. What this basically means is that no more aid will be granted in respect of over
twenty indigenous breeds and 140 000 head of livestock (cattle, sheep, and goats). The resulting cut will
thus amount to some ESC 2 billion.

Is it true that the aid rules are to be altered as described above? If so, why has the Commission thought fit
to make this proposal? Does it not consider such a measure to be contrary to the principle of multi-
purpose farming and protection of high-quality production?

Is the Commission aware of the serious socio-economic consequences that the measure will entail for
hundreds of Portuguese producers and many rural regions in the Portuguese heartland?

Does the Commission not consider it preferable to pursue a policy to promote quality and regional
production that would grant a higher proportion of aid to small and medium-sized farmers instead of
reducing that aid to further the interests of intensive mass production?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 89 E/260)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3062/00

by Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Landfill at Garraf (Barcelona)

The landfill at Garraf in the district of Gav(cid:224) i Begues (Barcelona) was established in 1972 and serves as a
tip for large-scale urban waste. It currently contains more than 20 million tonnes of refuse.

The landfill is located in a porous limestone massif and no measures were taken to make it watertight
when it was first installed. As a result, leachate infiltration has been polluting the groundwater for the last
28 years, reaching as far as the sea and phreatic level of the Delta del Llobregat, which has been designated
a site of special natural interest. The landfill is located within the nature park, which has been designated
an area of natural interest protected under a special plan for protection of the physical environment and
landscape of Garraf (PPMFENG). Article 28 of the law in force until last year stipulated that the dumping
of organic material should end on 31 December 1999.

On 6 April 2000, the biannual revision of the metropolitan municipal waste management programme
(PMGRM) was adopted, providing for the Garraf landfill to be used until 31 December 2006.

Both the revision of the PMGRM and the amendment of the PPMFENG failed to take account of Council
Directive 1993/31/EEC (1) on the landfill of waste, which must be transposed into the laws of the Member
States by 31 July 2001 (Article 18). It is therefore clear that the Garraf landfill will not meet the conditions
necessary for remaining open and will have to be closed (Annex 1, points 1, 2 and 3).

Furthermore the Garraf landfill is illegal in that is an industrial installation sited on land designated as
forestry land by the general metropolitan plan. In addition, it does not have an operating licence from the
GavÆ local authorities.