WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Continuing treatment of ship cargoes with toxic gases and measures to reduce the risks involved.
Date: 2001-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: International Maritime Organisation, chemical product, decontamination, load, maritime safety, occupational health, occupational safety, pesticide, toxic substance, vessel

C 134 E/20

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

(2002/C 134 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Continuing treatment of ship cargoes with toxic gases and measures to reduce the risks involved

Can the Commission confirm that, even since the conclusion of European agreements on the
1.
reduction of dangerous and harmful gases to conserve ship cargoes, biocides such as methyl bromide and
phosphine are still being used?

Can the Commission also confirm that the use of such biocides is now superfluous owing to the
2.
development of a process based on ‘controlled atmosphere’, which reduces oxygen pressure and increases
CO2 pressure and CO2 temperature?

To what extent do the International Maritime Organisation (IM0) Recommendations on the safe use
3.
of pesticides in ships, which refer to a fumigator-in-charge but not to proven expertise, satisfy the safety
standards that the Commission considers necessary?

Can ship-owners and firms which conclude contracts for the transportation of goods, as well as firms

4.
that treat cargoes with toxic substances, be held liable for the consequences of import fumigation?

5. What can the Commission do to prevent further import fumigation taking place within the Member
States of the EU?

6. What can the Commission do to prevent ships from outside the Member States of the EU which
have undergone import fumigation berthing at ports in the European Union and thus endangering persons
involved in unloading and processing the cargoes?

7. What other possibilities does the Commission consider necessary and desirable to promote greater
safety?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2001)

As regards the use of pesticides and biocides on board vessels, Member States implement the relevant
provisions of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), in the absence of specific provisions in the
Community maritime safety legislation in force. As regards the possible risks during unloading operations,
it is worth noting that the Commission has adopted a proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and the
Council establishing harmonised requirements and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk
carriers (1), which will ensure more uniform and safe conditions for loading and unloading operations in
ports of Member States. The Directive will in particular enable Member States to prevent or halt the
loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes whenever they have clear indications that the safety of the ship
or crew would be endangered.

Moreover, there is an important body of Community legislation in the field of health and safety at the
work place. Particularly relevant to this aspect is Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the
protection of the health of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual
Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2).

With specific respect to hazardous chemical agents, Article 5.2 of Directive 98/24/EC requires employers
to eliminate or reduce to a minimum the risks to the health and safety of workers at work.

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/21

As far as phosphine and methylbromide are concerned, it can be stressed that phosphine is one of the
chemical agents included in the preparatory work for a proposal
indicative
occupational exposure levels (IOELV’s). This list should be adopted, under Directive 98/24/EC, in the first
half of 2002. Methylbromide is currently on the priority list for the work of the Scientific Committee of
Occupational Exposure Limits values to be evaluated during 2002.

for a second list of

Furthermore, the use of phosphine and methylbromide for these applications within the Community will
be evaluated under the 10 year review program established by Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of
the Council of 16 February 1998, on the placing of biocidal products on the market (3). Manufacturers
who wish to continue to place these substances on the market for the purpose of cargo fumigation, will
have to notify this according to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the
first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council on biocidal products (4) until 28 March 2002 and supply the required data. On the basis of all
notifications received for all biocidal substances, a detailed program of evaluation will be determined. The
evaluation, which will be carried out by a rapporteur Member State, will address all aspects related to the
effects on human health and the environment, including occupational safety. At the moment it is not
possible to state with certainty at what moment the evaluation will be finalized.

(1) OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000.
(2) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.
(3) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998.
(4) OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.

(2002/C 134 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2282/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: European Commission funding in Paraguay

(31 July 2001)

What is the overall amount of money the European Commission has awarded to Paraguay in the past five
years and the amount of money awarded to the NGO AMAR (Assistance to Minors and Adolescents in
situation of high risk) in the same period?

Could the Commission clarify what is the legal status of AMAR and its precise role in Paraguay, as it
appears to act as a subcontractor and/or an intermediate body between NGOs and the EU?

We are aware from good sources that there have been complaints about the way EU funds are being spent
by AMAR. Could the Commission state whether regular audits of AMAR have been carried out and
whether any irregularities have been unveiled?

Could the Commission outline what measures it proposes to take, or has taken,
irregularities?

to remedy these

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

Community co-operation with Paraguay is carried out within a Framework Cooperation Agreement signed
between the Commission and the Government of Paraguay in 1991. In the context of this agreement,
which sets out the thematic areas for co-operation, the Community has committed € 90,3 million so far.

the priority thematic areas of co-operation is social development. Within this sector,

the
One of
Community is presently co-financing,
the Project PRY/
B7-0310/96/007 ‘Assistance to Minors and Adolescents in situation of high risk’, also known as AMAR.
The Commission’s contribution to this project is € 10,030,000 for a period of five years.

along the Government of Paraguay,

AMAR is not an non governmental organisation (NGO) but a project managed under the rules for
Community’s external aid. Its legal status is guaranteed under the project’s Financing Agreement, which
was signed between the Commission and the Government of Paraguay in 1997.