WRITTEN QUESTION P-1720/01 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European grant to the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (B.P.R.C.) in Rijswijk.
Date: 2001-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, EU research policy, animal experimentation, animal welfare, protection of animals

C 364 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

This option is open to the Member States under the subsidiarity principle, allowing them in particular to
take into account the environmental certification structure which existed previously. Whichever option the
Member State chooses in adopting a national accreditation system, the accredited environmental verifiers
must be independent of the activities they are verifying.

Under Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 (2),
Member States have 12 months from the date of entry into force of the Regulation to have fully
operational accreditation systems in place. It is therefore difficult to judge in advance whether they will
choose organisations or individuals as EMAS verifiers.

Accordingly, the Commission cannot for the moment uphold the view that certain verification bodies are
preventing individuals from participating in the EMAS accreditation scheme.

3.
The concept of (cid:145)environmental verifier(cid:146) relates only to the EMAS Regulation, so that the reference
made in the question to 80 verifiers who may be excluded from verification is not very clear. Either these
are 80 environmental verifiers accredited in accordance with the EMAS Regulation or they are individuals
with other responsibilities for whom the conditions for pursuing their profession are not laid down in the
EMAS Regulation. It should be mentioned here that the Community register of accredited environmental
verifiers contains only six verifiers for the Netherlands.

The Commission has not yet officially received the Dutch bill referred to, and cannot therefore

4.
comment on its compatibility with Regulation (EC) No 761/2001.

5. and 6.
As already stated in 1 and 2 above, Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 leaves it to the Member
States to choose what type of environmental verifiers they are going to accredit (individuals, organisations
or both), so exercising this option cannot be understood as a difference in interpretation of the Regulation.
At any rate,
in accordance with the principle of freedom to provide services environmental verifiers
accredited in one Member State, whether organisations or individuals, may carry out their duties in any
other Member State, as, incidentally, Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 reiterates.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 of 29 June 1993 allowing voluntary participation by companies in the

industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (OJ L 168, 10.7.1993).

(2) OJ L 114, 24.4.2001.
(3) Cf Annex III A to Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 and Annex V 5.1 to Regulation (EEC) No 761/2001.

(2001/C 364 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1720/01

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: European grant to the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (B.P.R.C.) in Rijswijk

Can the Commission confirm that around € 3 million is given annually for research projects of the B.P.R.C.
in Rijswijk?

Is the Commission aware that this centre is heavily criticised on the grounds that:

(cid:129) experiments on primates which have been banned for ethical reasons in a number of countries are

continuing to be carried out there, even, to a limited extent, on chimpanzees;

(cid:129) the purpose of the experiments is regularly called into question, and the B.P.R.C. receives scarcely any

support from the pharmaceutical industry;

(cid:129) the housing in which the apes are kept is exceptionally poor?

Under what budget line of the Commission(cid:146)s budget does this grant come, and what is the legal basis for it?

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/191

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

the
Under the Fifth framework programme for Research and Technological Development
Community (1998-2002) Decision No 182/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 December
1999) (1), the Commission has so far funded the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) to a total
amount of approximately € 4,3 million. The funding encompasses several three-year research projects
started in 1999 and 2000. They cover research areas, such as vaccine and drug development for human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), tuberculosis, malaria and hepatitis C.

(RTD) of

The BPRC is mainly participating in research projects funded within the Quality of Life Programme
(Budget line: B1.6111) under the Fifth RTD framework programme of the Community.

The Commission has been most vigilant as
implementing the Fifth framework programme.

regards animal experiments and animal welfare in

The annex of the Fifth framework programme, concerning the Quality of Life Programme and the annex
of the specific program on Quality of Life (2) both specify that funding of research involving animals is
restricted under this programme with regard to animal experiments and tests on animals, which should,
when ever possible, be replaced with in vitro or other alternative methods. An obligation is placed on all
the 3Rs
applicants for proposals to describe the procedures adopted to respect
(replacement, reduction and refinement) and to protect the welfare of animals.

the principles of

In addition, research on the development of alternatives to animal experiments and animal welfare is
supported under this programme.

An independent ethical review has been implemented systematically under the Quality of Life specific
programme for proposals dealing with sensitive issues such as the use of non-human primates. The ethical
review panel includes, among others, representatives of animal welfare groups. The ethical review ensures
that all research involving animals are conducted in accordance with Council Directive 86/609/CEE of
24 November 1986 (3). It takes account of the overall benefit of the research proposed in relation to the
possible costs in terms of animal suffering. Furthermore, participants in research projects must fulfil all
national
legal and ethical requirements. Funding of the project will not be granted before all ethical
questions has been answered satisfactorily.

The BPRC, which is situated in the Community but independent of the Community, has engaged itself
contractually to fulfil all national legal and ethical requirements.

(1) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999.
(2) Council Decision 1999/167/EC of 25 January 1999 adopting a specific programme for research, tecnological
development and demonstration on quality of life and management of living resources (1998 to 2002), (OJ L 64,
12.3.1999).

(3) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.

(2001/C 364 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1723/01

by Willi G(cid:246)rlach (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: Threat posed to European vine growing by phylloxera

Grape phylloxera (Phylloxera, Dactylasphaera vitifoliae or Viteus vitifolii) is a vine pest which,
previous century, caused huge devastation to European vineyards.

in the

How does the Commission assess the current threat to the European vine growing sector from phylloxera?