WRITTEN QUESTION P-4150/00 by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission. Restructuring of the Commission's Directorate-General for the Environment.
Date: 2001-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, European Commission, administrative reform, environmental protection

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/147

(2001/C 187 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4148/00

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Rules governing the funding of obligatory BSE tests on cattle aged over 30 months

It is reported that, on 19 December 2000, the Agriculture Council decided that no European funds would
be used to cover any part of the cost of obligatory tests to be carried out on all cattle aged over 30 months
entering the food chain in order to prevent BSE-infected meat from entering the food chain. The same
applies to the cost of the ban on the processing of meat waste into animal feedingstuffs.

Does not the Commission fear that, if funding rules are left without further ado to the discretion of the
Member States, the disparities in the options chosen may lead to distortion of competition and to
deflection of certain trade flows? Does not the Commission therefore take the view that rules should be
adopted which would apply to all Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The Commission co-financing of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) tests for cattle is subject to the
legal framework laid down by the Commission Decision 2000/773/EC of 30 November 2000 approving
the programmes for the monitoring of BSE presented for 2001 by the Member States and fixing the level
the Community(cid:146)s financial contribution (1), and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of
of
18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market (2).

In the case that measures to combat BSE would constitute State aid in the sense of Articles 87-88
(ex Articles 92-93) of the EC Treaty which might distort competition, such measures would be assessed by
the Commission under the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (3) and in particular
under point 11.4 thereof (aid for combatting plant and animal diseases).

(1) OJ L 308, 8.12.2000.
(2) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000.
(3) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4150/00

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Restructuring of the Commission(cid:146)s Directorate-General for the Environment

A root-and-branch restructuring of the Commission(cid:146)s Directorate-General for the Environment is planned,
with the unit concerned with waste and the unit concerned with nature conservation, the two units which
are the most active in ensuring implementation of Community directives in the Member States, being
threatened with abolition or splitting up. Such restructuring is being heavily criticised by non-govern-
mental organisations and by officials concerned in the Directorate-General for the Environment itself. The
new structure and the new appointees are being perceived as a shift in policy which cannot be justified by
the general interest and which is seen solely as a pro-industry shift in emphasis.

How can a case be made for maximum implementation of current European environmental legislation
when the most active units in this field are in the process of either being abolished (waste) or split up
(nature conservation)?

C 187 E/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

What is the thinking behind the decision to split the financial mechanism (Life) from the other tools for
administering the implementation of the Natura 2000 directives?

What reasons can be put forward for posting elsewhere two important, very competent and valued
members of a unit against their will?

Does the Commission bear political responsibility for this current restructuring?

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

(27 February 2001)

The mission statement of the Commission in the field of environmental policy has five main objectives:
a high level of environmental protection; continuous improvement in the quality of life; the preservation
increased
of
environmental efficiency and finally ensuring equitable use of our common environmental resources.

future generations to a viable environment (cid:129) sustainable development;

the rights of

All actions and activities taken by the Commission in the field of environment serve to develop and further
these objectives.

The working blueprint for the next decade will be the 6th Environmental Action Programme, which is
transmitted to the Parliament on 29 January 2001 (1). Other guidelines which steer Commission decisions,
include the (cid:145)Strategic Objectives of the Commission 2001-2005(cid:146) and the organisational consequences of
the White Paper on Administrative Reform of the Commission (2).

the services must always reflect and facilitate the achievement of

The organisation of
the mission
statement. The core activities of the services will focus on: sustainable development; environmental quality
of natural resources; environment and health; implementation and Enforcement (which will regroup all
three parts of the LIFE programme into one unit for coherence and economies of scale); global and
international affairs.

The objective is to regroup tasks and functions to reflect core concerns and allow the services to
implement legislation, develop policies and execute programmes in the most efficient and effective way
possible, taking account of the evaluations carried out and using to the full the talents of the highly
dedicated and flexible workforce.

(1) COM(2001) 31.
(2) COM(2000) 200 final.

(2001/C 187 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4151/00

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Women(cid:146)s rights in Saudi Arabia

At the 56th session of the UN Commission of Human Rights, the EU voiced grave concern about
(cid:145)the serious violations of human rights of women in Saudi Arabia(cid:146) and called again for (cid:145)the improvement
of human rights of women in law and in practice(cid:146).

What new initiatives has the Council promoted to improve the human rights situation of women in Saudi
Arabia since this statement was made at the 56th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights?