WRITTEN QUESTION E-4160/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Cotton quotas.
Date: 2001-01-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: cotton, marketing year, production aid, production quota, utilised agricultural area

C 187 E/150

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The main provision concerning gutting of fish in Community legislation is contained in Council Directive
91/493/EEC (1). Article 3.2 of this Directive requires (cid:145)Where gutting is possible from a technical and
commercial viewpoint, it must be carried out as quickly as possible after the products have been caught or
landed(cid:146).

The requirements referred to by the Honourable Member are not contained in Community legislation.

(1) Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the

placing on the market of fishery products (OJ L 268, 24.9.1991).

(2001/C 187 E/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4160/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Cotton quotas

On 11 December 2000 the Greek Ministry of Agriculture announced that it was imposing individual
quotas in respect of both the area which each producer is entitled to cultivate and the volume of
production eligible for aid in 2001. Each producer will be entitled to cultivate an area 5 % smaller than the
average over the previous five years and receive aid for a quantity of cotton 5 % less than average of his
three best harvests over the previous five years.

The Commission(cid:146)s answer to my Written Question E-1952/00 (1) states that existing Community legislation
makes no provision whatsoever for restrictions on the area on which cotton may be grown. The same
applies to the volume of cotton eligible for aid. Even the Commission(cid:146)s proposal adjusting the system of
aid for cotton (2) which is not definitive and will not be adopted before the middle of February 2001 makes
no provision for the implementation of generalised individual quotas for the cultivation and production of
cotton, but merely provides that measures may be taken to restrict the area under cultivation on the basis
of a number of specific criteria in certain regions.

How does the Commission intend to intervene to avert in good time the implementation of measures

1.
contrary to Community regulations governing cotton?

2.
How will it ensure the right of producers to find out in good time, i.e. at the time in which they plan
their annual crops, the legal provisions applicable to each crop so that they can take decisions and
undertake the necessary work (choice of crop, tenancy arrangements, cultivation, acquisition of seeds, use
of fertilisers, etc.)?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 117.
(2) COM(1999) 492 final.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Question E-1952/00 about cotton areas and production volumes
eligible or not eligible for aid (1)
is hereby confirmed, namely that there is no provision in current
Community legislation imposing restrictions on the area which may be put under cotton and hence on the
corresponding cotton production volume eligible for aid.

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/151

After examining in detail Greek ministerial decree No 35 870 of 10 February 2000 laying down (cid:129) for
2000/2001 marketing year sowings (cid:129) administrative measures to support cotton growing, the Commis-
sion instituted infringement proceedings against Greece under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission wishes to examine in more detail the official legal texts concerning the ministerial decree
of 11 December 2000 before commenting on the new measures to which the Honourable Member refers
in respect of sowings for the forthcoming 2001/2002 marketing year. After examining the decree in detail,
the Commission may decide to institute proceedings similar to those in respect of the 2000/2001
marketing year sowings.

The proposal on adjusting the system of aid for cotton was published on 13 December 1999 (2). The
proposal(cid:146)s content (cid:129) inter alia the scope for Member States to restrict, where appropriate, the areas eligible
for aid on the basis of objective criteria (cid:129) was therefore known several months before the normal date of
the sowings in question, thus ensuring compliance with the principle of safeguarding operators(cid:146) legitimate
expectations.

In any case, measures taken at national level must not infringe the corresponding Community legislation.

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001.
(2) COM(1999) 492 final.

(2001/C 187 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4161/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: European Commission(cid:146)s proposed Chemical Testing Programme

I am receiving letters every day from constituents who continue to be concerned about the European
Commission(cid:146)s proposals to test 70 000 existing chemicals, which, I am advised, will result in the death of
around 10 million animals.

1. Where can I find a list of the 70 000 chemicals it is proposed to test?

2. Which committee, or group of persons, within the European Commission decided on this recom-
mendation?

3. What are the opportunities for MEPs to debate, amend or reject these proposals?

Does the European Commission agree with the estimate that over 10 million animals will be

4.
slaughtered as a result of this proposal?

5. Which organisations and individuals have, to date, made representations to the European Commis-
sion against this proposal?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2001)

On 13 February 2001 the Commission adopted a White Paper on a strategy for a future chemicals policy.
The White Paper will be presented to the Parliament which will have the opportunity of giving its opinion.

It is not possible, on the basis of the White Paper, to estimate the number of animals needed for testing.
What can be said is that for two thirds of the substances, testing should generally be limited to non-animal
testing.