WRITTEN QUESTION E-3766/00 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Labelling and checking of animal skins.
Date: 2000-12-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal skin, animal welfare, customs inspection, drafting of EU law, protected species, protection of animals, surveillance concerning imports

C 187 E/44

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Community market before September 1981 and which are set out in the European Inventory of Existing
Commercial Chemical Substances (EINECS). Given the high number of substances set out in the EINECS
(more than 100 000), the regulation is introduced an order of priority. Four lists of priority substances
have been published, for which the risk assessment has been or will be carried out. The Commission is
able to inform the Honourable Member that silver iodide is not contained in any of those four lists.
Nevertheless, the Community could decide in future to ask for information on that substance in order to
assess it under Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 or other Community legal instruments, and with a view to the
possible adoption of risk-management measures. Those measures could include a marketing and use
restriction.

Moreover, the silver iodide used against hail is not considered to be a plant protection product (agricultural
pesticide) within the meaning of Directive 91/414/EEC (2) governing the marketing of such products.

Moreover, in accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of
dangerous substances (3), manufacturers, distributors and importers of a chemical substance must comply
with the provisions of the Directive with regard to the classification, packaging and labelling of that
substance. These provisions also apply to silver iodide, even if it is currently not included in Annex I to
that Directive.

The Spanish authorities have not notified the Commission, as required by Article 88 (former Article 93) of
the EC Treaty of the subsidised use of silver iodide against hail as provided for in the Spanish Official
Journal, issue No 28790 of 11 August 2000. The Commission will ask the Spanish authorities to give
notification of that subsidy in pursuance of said Article 88 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
(2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.
(3) OJ B 196, 16.8.1967.

(2001/C 187 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3766/00

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Labelling and checking of animal skins

In reply to a recent question on the labelling of animal skins, Commissioner Lany said that the trade in
cats and dogs is not prohibited in the Community under the CITES convention. Such a ban has been
announced in the USA, partly because it is not easy to distinguish between the skins of endangered species
and those of cats and dogs. University research has also confirmed that the visual checking of skins is
a totally useless measure.

Is the Commission considering stricter checks in order to prevent the skins of protected animal species
being imported into the EU as cat and dog skins?

Is the Commission considering announcing a ban on cat and dog skins, both in order to improve the
protection of these animals against commercial exploitation, and in order to close the loopholes in the
CITES convention and to improve compliance with the ban on the trade in the skins of endangered
species?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2001)

The Commission(cid:146)s responsibilities towards animal protection have increased under the recent amendments
of the Community, which includes a Protocol requiring the European institutions and Member States to
pay full regard to animal welfare when drawing up policies concerned. Therefore, Commission(cid:146)s policies

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/45

tend to further the objective of improving protection and respect for the welfare of animals as sentient
beings. However, as already recalled in the Commission(cid:146)s answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written
Question E-2654/00 (1), the commercial exploitation of fur-bearing animals is not against the law in the
Community or its Member States.

The Commission has no data on fraudulent imports of protected fur-bearing animals covered by the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

With regard to more stringent controls on the import of animal skins, the Commission confirms that
under the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection species
of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (2), which implements CITES in the Community,
appropriate controls of imports of specimens of endangered species are being carried out by customs
officers, equiped with the necessary identification materials.

In the light of public concern about the commercial exploitation of cat and dog furs,
including in
international trade, the Commission will follow up this question in order to examine whether it should
propose measures at European level, taking into consideration the principle of subsidiarity. The Commis-
sion will report back to the Parliament on progress on this issue.

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 69.
(2) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2001/C 187 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3774/00

by Juan Izquierdo Collado (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Supply of water to Zaragoza

What decision has the Commission taken concerning possible financing from the Cohesion Fund for the
period 2000-2006 for the project to supply Zaragoza and the surrounding areas with water from the
Pyrenees?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

In January 2001, the Commission proposed adoption of a decision on the part-financing by the Cohesion
Fund of a project to supply water to Zaragoza and 22 municipalities in the Ebro valley at a total cost of
€ 70 901 365. The work concerns pipes from the La Loteta dam to Zaragoza and the other localities but
does not include the transfer of water from the Pyrenees as originally planned.

(2001/C 187 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3775/00

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Assent for new EC-Greenland fisheries agreement

(4 December 2000)

On 14 September 2000 the Commission concluded negotiations with Greenland for a new fisheries
agreement, which provides for an annual contribution from the EU of € 42,82 million for the period
2000-2006. The agreement makes no distinction between the two types of funding involved, namely that
in spite of the Commission(cid:146)s undertaking that the
for fishing rights and that for development aid,