WRITTEN QUESTION P-2112/01 by Gordon Adam (PSE) to the Commission. Temelin nuclear power plant environmental impact assessment.
Date: 2001-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Czechia, environmental impact, impact study, nuclear power station, nuclear safety

C 40 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

It should be emphasised that the agreement reached is relatively balanced because as well as satisfying the
Community(cid:146)s partners it above all enables the sector(cid:146)s operators/importers to be kept in the Community
market, since a not inconsiderable share of the tariff quotas is reserved for non-traditional operators.

The Commission would also stress that the management methods adopted by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
as regards the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community (1) were discussed beforehand with
everyone
the
through consulting
European Community Banana Trade Association (ECBTA).

individual operators

direct or

in the

sector,

either

via

Managing tariff quotas by reference to past trade patterns also has the advantage of providing security for
importers, including as regards trade with their suppliers and customers. In addition, allowing licences to
be transferred makes it possible to maintain a dynamic element in the system.

The African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) are due to have a reserved quota from 1 January 2002
onwards, which will also entail further amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February
1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas (2).

(1) OJ L 126, 8.5.2001.
(2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993.

(2002/C 40 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2112/01

by Gordon Adam (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 2001)

Subject: Temelin nuclear power plant environmental impact assessment

In light of the report on the above assessment, preparation of which was agreed in Melk in December
2000 and concluded with a public hearing in Vienna in June 2001, does the Commission agree that the
Czech Republic has fulfilled the commitments made at Melk? Does the Commission also agree that there
are no safety reasons why the commissioning of number one reactor should not proceed?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Under the provisions of Chapter V of the Melk Protocol, the voluntary environmental impact assessment
procedure undertaken by the Czech authorities is to be guided by the Community(cid:146)s Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA)-Directive, Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC
on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1). The public
hearings held in Ceske Budejovice on 25 April 2001 and in Vienna on 26 June 2001 represent key steps
in this procedure, in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of the said Directive. The same is to be said of the
public consultations conducted in Germany by providing the German public with the opportunity to
express their opinion by means of written depositions.

Following this phase of the EIA procedure, the Czech authorities are to take the results of the public
participation into consideration in the further procedure for the Temelin Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). In
addition to the public participation procedure under the provisions of Article 7 paragraph 4 of the EIA
Directive, a Member State is to enter into consultations with the concerned neighbouring States regarding,
inter alia, the potential trans-boundary effects of the project and the measures envisaged to reduce or
eliminate such effects. The results of such consultations have to be taken into account in the development
consent procedure as well.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/191

At this juncture, therefore, the Commission cannot yet state that the Czech Republic has fulfilled all
commitments made at Melk.
the Czech Republic has, however, made a
commendable effort to fulfil its voluntary undertaking that is part of the Melk process.

In the procedure, so far,

It remains entirely at the discretion and within the responsibility of the Czech nuclear safety regulatory
authority to take the decision to license the commissioning of Unit 1 of the Temelin NPP. The Commission
would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Melk
Protocol. This chapter does not foresee an external safety assessment of the Temelin NPP, but established
an expert mission with trilateral participation with the aim to facilitate the dialogue between the
Governments of Austria and the Czech Republic on the issue of nuclear safety and to find solutions to
identified problems. This so-called (cid:145)trialogue(cid:146) has widely achieved its aims.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2002/C 40 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2119/01

by Fernando FernÆndez Mart(cid:237)n (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 July 2001)

Subject: Payment of compensatory aid to Canary Island banana producers

Pursuant to Regulation 404/93 (1) and subsequent amendments thereto, Canary Island banana producers
receive aid to compensate for loss of income. Hitherto, such aid has been paid to producer organisations
or individual producers every two months as a supplement to the payment of an advance previously
calculated by the Commission on the basis of actual market prices. In 2000 the aid was approximately ESP
63 per kilo of bananas actually placed on the market. For the same year the payment advanced by the
Commission was approximately ESP 47 per kilo. However, the two-monthly payments which should have
been made for 2000 have still not been effected despite the length of time which has elapsed (cid:129) i.e. the
difference between the ESP 47 per kilo actually received and the ESP 63 per kilo to which Canary Islands
banana producers are entitled on the basis of prices actually recorded on the market has not been paid.

Furthermore, the amounts for the first and second two-month periods of 2001 have not yet been paid
either, despite the fact that they have already been calculated by the Commission and were published in
the Official Journal of the European Communities nearly two months ago.

As a result of these delays (which have yet to be accounted for), Canary Island banana producers are still
awaiting the sum of approximately ESP 8 000 million to which they are entitled,
the arrears
corresponding to the outstanding payments for 2000 and the first two two-month periods of 2001 are
included.

if

What is the cause of the considerable delay which has accumulated (and which has no precedent in earlier
years), who is responsible for the serious losses suffered by Canary Island banana producers, which
administrative department is responsible for the delay and what action is to be taken by the Commission
in order to ensure that the outstanding payments are made immediately?

(1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1195/2001 of 18 June 2001 fixing the compensatory aid for bananas
produced and marketed in the Community in 2000, the time limit for payment of the balance of the aid
and the unit value of the advances for 2001 was published in the Official Journal on 19 June 2001 (1).
Article 3 of this Regulation gives the Member States(cid:146) authorities two months from the entry into force of
the Regulation to pay the balance of the compensatory aid to be granted in respect of 2000 and the
advance for bananas marketed during January and February 2001.