WRITTEN QUESTION P-3331/01 by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Residues of plant-protection products in fruit.
Date: 2001-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: fruit, marketing standard, pesticide, pharmaceutical product, plant health control, plant health legislation, plant health product

C 147 E/154

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

In the light of the above, given the lack of specific grounds on complaint on the application of the EIA
Directive to the specific cases, no breach of this Directive can be identified at present.

Problems of application of Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora (2), have also been raised with reference to the project for a landing stage for
vessels at Ronchi and to the agreement-programme for a marina at Pioppi.

The two works fall within the proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCI) IT32100018 ‘Basso Garda’
under Directive 92/43/EEC. According to the information given by the Honourable Member, the project
for a marina at Pioppi is to be considered as having a significant impact on the reeds banks (foreste
ripariali a canneto) which are one of the main reasons for which the site has been proposed.

Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC provides for protection requirements with reference to Special Areas of
Conservation (SACs): any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on SACs, either individually or
in combination with other plans or projects, are subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for
the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives (valutazione d’incidenza). Under Article 4, paragraph 5,
of Directive 92/43/EEC these requirements are applied also to Sites of Community Importance (SCI) when,
on the basis of the list of proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCI), they are adopted in accordance
with the procedure laid down in Article 4 paragraph 2. At present, SACs have not been designated yet and
the list of the SCI has not been adopted yet. However, with reference to proposed Sites of Community
Importance,
in particular when including priority habitat and species, Member States have certain
obligations to act in a way so as to ensure that the aims of the Directive are not jeopardised. Even in the
absence of a Community list, Member States’ authorities are advised to at least abstain from all activities
that may cause a proposed site to deteriorate.

As regards the specific case, the pSCI ‘Basso Garda’ has no priority habitats or species. Reeds banks are not
listed in the ‘Natura 2000 form’ concerning this site and, therefore, it cannot be said that they have been
one of the main reasons for this site to be proposed. No further effect on habitats or species in this site,
other than on reeds banks, has been described or claimed.

Therefore, at present, in the light of the above mentioned legal regime presently in force for proposed Sites
of Community Importance (pSCIs), in the light of the information given by the Honourable Member and in
the absence of more information on how habitats and species may be affected by the works mentioned, no
potential deterioration of the proposed Site of Community Importance IT32100018 ‘Basso Garda’ can be
presumed and no breach of Directive 92/43/EEC can be identified.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 147 E/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3331/01

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Residues of plant-protection products in fruit

In a number of European countries imports of fruit from other European countries are required to comply
with the standards set by the importing country’s laws on maximum authorised residues of plant-
protection products, even where these differ from standards in the producer countries.

This applies, in particular, to new plant protection products, which not all countries have registered and in
respect of which maximum residue levels vary considerably from one country to another.

This is causing much uncertainty for Community fruit growers, who are obliged to bring their export
products into line with a range of different standards, depending on their countries of destination.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/155

for products, based on mutual
This is also contrary to European rules on freedom of movement
recognition, i.e. the principle that the importing country must accept any product that meets the standards
applying in the country of origin.

What stage has been reached in the process of harmonising laws on active ingredients used in plant-
protection products and maximum authorised residues, a process which is apparently not due to be
completed until 2012?

What does the Commission intend to do to avoid serious problems arising in 2002 for Community fruit
in the absence of action on its part, will be obliged to take responsibility for plant
growers, who,
protection measures while facing total uncertainty, a situation that will benefit neither consumers nor the
market?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2002)

The Community Legislation concerning Pesticide Residues provides in two ways for the problem raised by
the Honourable Member. If correctly implemented and applied by the Member States no trade problems
should occur.

For pesticides for which Community Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) apply, Member States have to
transpose these MRLs into their national legislation. When no Community MRLs exist Member States shall
set national MRLs to protect their consumers and to be able to control illegal uses of pesticides in their
country.

In the case that no Community MRL exists and the Member State of origin (the producing country) has set
a national MRL and the product sent to another Member State country (the country of destination) satisfies
the MRL of the Member State of origin a special procedure applies when this product is refused by the
Member State of destination on the ground of not fulfilling its national MRL. This procedure is called ‘the
conciliation procedure’. The Member State of destination is obliged to notify all other Member States and
the Commission about this measure within 20 days after application of the measure.

The two Member States concerned shall immediately contact each other to solve the problem bilaterally,
notify the Commission about the solution (in the form of an MRL). The Commission shall submit the
solution to the Standing Committee on Plant Health in order to apply the MRL in the whole Community.

In the case of new pesticides for which new uses are being developed, Member States can adopt national
provisional MRLs (PMRLs) and have to notify these to other Member States and the Commission.
Enforcement authorities can take these national PMRLs into account although nowhere in the Community
legislation it is explicitly indicated that Member States have to take each other’s PMRLs into account.

The Commission is presently preparing a consolidation and revision of the Pesticide Residues framework
Directives and will modify the provisions concerning the conciliation procedure in such a way that
Member States will have less problems to implement them, in particular, the initiative of triggering the
procedure and notifying the Commission will be transferred to the Member State of origin.

The Commission is progressively harmonising all national MRLs and expects this process to be finalised by
2008, by which time no more conciliation procedure will be needed.

(2002/C 147 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3332/01

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Council

(3 December 2001)

Subject: Tax on the personal income of Community citizens living in Andorra

The Union and its Member States have launched a series of measures to combat money laundering and tax
evasion in what are termed tax havens. These measures, whose aims I fully support, have already achieved