WRITTEN QUESTION E-3673/01 by Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Animal by-products not intended for human consumption — alternative ways of using bonemeal.
Date: 2002-01-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: cereal substitute, energy production, waste disposal, waste recycling

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/7

As for funds from the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Commission and the EIB are launching a
3.
dialogue on the total volume of funds which the EIB provides to finance projects in non-EU countries. The
Community would make its proposals in this context concerning funds for Latin America in good time
and on the basis of the general need to strengthen economic and cooperation links between the two
regions as a whole.

4.
The Honourable Member’s concerns are those which the Commission always takes into consideration
when it commits itself financially to a project. If the Commission were to decide to make a financial
contribution to the PPP, it would follow the internal cooperation procedures and the preliminary viability
and impact studies would therefore be carried out before budgetary commitment. In this context, the
consequences for the environment and the indigenous populations would be analysed.

5.
The Commission considers that the PPP is a programme for developing the region and combating
poverty and in any detailed analysis of the PPP it will take into account the situation regarding human
rights, and in particular economic and social rights.

(2002/C 309 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3673/01

by Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject: Animal by-products not intended for human consumption (cid:1) alternative ways of using bonemeal

In its proposal for a regulation (1) concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption the
Commission proposes a legal framework intended to remove BSE-infected animals and animal material
from the food chain. The proposal lays down methods for disposing of animal by-products.

Products in Category 1, with the highest risk factor, may be disposed of only by incineration, waste
incineration or landfilling. The Commission may, after hearing the relevant Scientific Committee, authorise
alternative disposal methods. This is apparently being delayed by administrative and scientific procedures
in commitology.

The disposal of bonemeal is very costly. Does the Commission see no advantages in introducing

1.
reliable alternative methods for using Category 1 bonemeal more rationally and cheaply?

Is the Commission aware of scientific developments in this field, especially as regards the processing

2.
of residues?

If so, how does the Commission intend to promote alternative processing methods, such as further

3.
processing in a biogas or composting plant or fermentation for the generation of energy?

(1) COM(2000) 574, OJ C 96 E, 27.3.2001, p. 40.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not

In line with the most updated scientific advice, Article 4 of the proposed Regulation of the Parliament and
the Council
intended for human
consumption, establishes that Category 1 material,
the highest risk category, shall be disposed by
incineration, co-incineration or landfill following sterilisation. However, the same Article allows for this
material to be disposed of by other means that are approved by the Commission, after consultation of the
appropriate scientific committee.

C 309 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

In the light of the above, the Commission is ready to evaluate any request aiming to allow other means of
disposal of category 1 material, like the ones indicated by the Honourable Member. The evaluation will be
carried out on the basis of the ‘Framework for the assessment of the risk from different options for the safe
disposal or use of meat and bone meal and other products which might be contaminated with
transmissible spongiform encephalopathy’s (TSE) and other materials’, which was adopted by the Scientific
Steering Committee on 28-29 June 2001 and is available on Internet.

At present, the Commission has not yet received such a request.

(2002/C 309 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3703/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject: Research into renewable energy sources in the candidate countries

Ending dependency on nuclear power is a sensitive issue in some candidate countries and also in the CIS
States.

How is the Union helping to support research into renewable energy sources in Ukraine?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2002)

The last EU-Ukraine summit identified renewable energy resources and energy efficiency as a priority for
future co-operation including over improving energy efficiency and conservation and enhancing the use of
renewable energy resources. There is a clear link between energy efficiency and renewables, both
contributing to the security of supply and to the improvement of environmental standards.

Through the TACIS Action Programmes 1991-2001 the Commission has financed 24 projects amounting
EUR 30,6 million in the area of energy efficiency. The first project to support the production of biofuel in
the southern part of Ukraine should start this year.

The Commission manages a substantial Research Programme, in which research, development, demon-
stration and promotion of new energy technologies has a major role. Work is already in progress towards
allowing participation of Ukraine in the programme. The Commission hopes that this area of cooperation
will be facilitated by the Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement with Ukraine that has already
been initialled can be signed this year.

In addition, the EU is a major donor supporting the Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine (STCU)
which sponsors research into renewable energy sources. Since 1998 five projects concerning research into
renewable energies with an overall budget of more than EUR 660 000 have been funded.

(2002/C 309 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0062/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 January 2002)

Subject: The Spanish presidency’s position on the budget

forecasts and the implementation of

the

Structural Funds after 2006, when the new Member States have been fully incorporated

The Spanish presidency’s priorities presented by the Spanish Head of Government, José María Aznar, and
Josep Piqué, do not include the negotiations for the budget forecasts and the
the Foreign Minister,