WRITTEN QUESTION P-1765/01 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. Zimbabwe.
Date: 2001-06-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Zimbabwe, cooperation policy, democratisation, the EU's international role

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/99

Can the Commission say what practices involving the use of depleted uranium were the subject of
reporting or authorisation on EU territory before the above-mentioned directive was adopted,
in
accordance with the previous Directive 80/836/Euratom?

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

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

(3 September 2001)

The new Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the
protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising
radiation (1) does indeed provide that depleted uranium falls within the scope of (cid:145)practices(cid:146) (Article 2 (1))
and therefore comes under the rules for reporting (Article 3 (1)) or authorisation of practices (Article 4 (1))
or disposal, recycling or reuse of uranium or materials containing depleted uranium resulting from such
practices (Article 5 (1)).

In Council Directive 80/836/Euratom of 15 July 1980 (2), practices were only subject to authorisation in
cases decided upon by each Member State (cid:145)in the light of possible dangers and other
relevant
considerations(cid:146) (Article 3).

Though Member States are required to institute the reporting and authorisation procedures required under
Directive 96/29/Euratom (and previously Directive 80/836/Euratom), they are under no obligation to send
the Commission a list of activities which have been subjected to these procedures, except in cases falling
within the scope of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty. Commission Recommendation 1999/829/Euratom of
6 December 1999 on the application of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty (3) provides that this is the case
for the operation of nuclear reactors, the reprocessing or storage of irradiated nuclear fuel and U-235
enrichment of uranium, but in these cases depleted uranium occurs only as a residue of enrichment or
fission of U-235. A specific authorisation for depleted uranium in the framework of Article 37 would
therefore be required only in cases where it was processed or stored as radioactive waste in another
installation. Recycling or reuse of depleted uranium outside the fuel cycle does not fall within the scope of
Article 37.

The Commission therefore has no information on Member States(cid:146) application of the basic standards for
depleted uranium either before or after the date of implementation of Directive 96/29/Euratom (13 May
2000).

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.
(2) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980.
(3) OJ L 324, 16.12.1999.

(2002/C 40 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1765/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Zimbabwe

What is the progress, or otherwise, of consultations between the EU and Zimbabwe under Article 8 of the
Cotonou Agreement?

In view of recent increased violence,
decide that further measures are necessary?

intimidation and repression, at what point will the Commission

C 40 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The political dialogue between the Union and Zimbabwe started at the beginning of March 2001. Meetings
between the Union troika in Harare and the government of Zimbabwe have so far been held on eight
occasions, most of them under the leadership of the Senior Secretary for Foreign Affairs Chiwewe, but also
with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr Mudenge. The subject of the dialogue meetings has so far largely
been about the format and agenda for the dialogue. Discussions on the agenda did give the opportunity to
raise Union concerns and to identify problems. The agreement on the agenda including key issues such as
governance issues and land reform is important when analysing the results of the dialogue. Dialogue will
now concentrate on how to transform the agreed agenda into clear actions and results on the ground.

The Commission is aware that this constructive and critical dialogue has not yet yielded enough tangible
results. It remains, however, convinced that the dialogue should continue despite the difficulties as it could
be an important instrument in stabilising relations between Zimbabwe and the Union and in preventing
conflict within Zimbabwe.

For the Commission, one of the Union(cid:146)s major political objectives is to support free and fair 2002
elections. The Union policy is to remain neutral, engaged and to keep a medium and long-term view on
the crisis. Therefore, the Commission maintains its strategy of constructive engagement consisting in
providing humanitarian- type assistance and supporting the democratic process, so that the Zimbabwean
people can express their will through the ballot box at the next Presidential elections. In this perspective
the Commission has already started preparations for election assistance and observation. The Commission
believes that the political dialogue must be constructive and positive and that time has not yet come to
have recourse to Article 96 consultations and sanctions.
In the course of a Commission mission to
Zimbabwe early June 2001, Mr. Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change
(MDC) encouraged the Union to continue on the path of engagement and dialogue rather than sanctions
and ostracism, and in a conversation with Commissioner Nielson July 4 he emphasised the importance of
a strong EU engagement in the electoral process, both in terms of technical support and electoral
observation.

(2002/C 40 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1773/01

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Compliance with ethical rules on the treatment of animals in the BPRC

is

the Commission(cid:146)s responsibility to verify compliance with all ethical, animal welfare and
It
environmental safety standards in all research and development projects to which the EU contributes
funding. It is reported that these standards are widely flouted at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre
(BPRC) in the Netherlands. 1500 primates are currently kept at the centre in conditions which in Denmark
would immediately lead to a police investigation. I refer to the Report on the Biomedical Primate Research
Centre published by the CEECE, the Coalition to End Experiments on Chimpanzees in Europe (1) and to an
article in the journal Nature Vol. 411, page 123 of 10 May 2001.

The Commission should familiarise itself with the European campaign to close the centre and transfer the
animals to nature reserves. Many of the animals in question are no longer used in experiments and it
would apparently cost half the amount spent on keeping the animals at the BPRC if they were transferred
to nature reserves.

Will the Commission immediately ensure that financial aid to the BPRC is made conditional upon the
primates living in totally unacceptable conditions at the centre being transferred so that they can lead a life
under conditions which meet the ethical standards for the treatment of animals applying in northern
Europe?

(1) Box 3384, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 5WB, UK.