WRITTEN QUESTION E-0851/02 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Euro: quantities of nickel and tributyl tin (TBT) used in the production of coins and banknotes, and their effects on human health.
Date: 2002-03-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Central Bank, chemical product, euro, issuing of currency, nickel, public health, technical standard

C 28 E/54

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Since the terrorist activities of 11 September 2001 additional security measures have been applied in the
aviation sector. These, undoubtedly, have resulted in extra costs.

However, it is outside of the remit of the Commission to instruct Member States to meet the costs in full
or in part through funding from the state.

Nonetheless, the Commission has looked sympathetically to requests from the aviation sector for flexibility
in interpretation of Community rules governing state aids with regard to additional costs post-
September 11. This was reflected in the Communication from the Commission to the Parliament and the
Council dated 10 October 2001 on the repercussions of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the air
transport industry (1).

The Honourable Member should also be aware that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) at
its special high-level, ministerial conference on aviation security held on 19 and 20 February 2002 in
Montreal adopted a recommendation that ICAO would ‘elaborate on its policy and guidance material on
cost recovery of security services, notably to include development of policy and guidance material on cost
recovery, through charges, of security measures with regard to air navigation services’.

The Commission intends to review the issue further on the basis of the outcome after the Second Reading
of the legislative process for a Regulation of the Parliament and the Council on establishing common rules
in the field of civil aviation security.

(1) COM(2001) 574 final.

(2003/C 28 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0851/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Euro: quantities of nickel and tributyl tin (TBT) used in the production of coins and banknotes,

and their effects on human health

Given that the 1 and 2 euro coins contain nickel and that tributyl tin (TBT) is used as a colour stabiliser in
the production of banknotes, can the Commission say whether:

(cid:1) the quantity of nickel used in the 1 and 2 euro coins could constitute a health hazard? Did the

Commission carry out research or seek scientific advice before the coins were minted?

(cid:1) TBT has been used in the production of banknotes, and if so, of what denomination? Could the
quantities used constitute a health hazard? Did the Commission carry out research or seek scientific
advice before the banknotes were put into production?

(cid:1) the 1 and 2 euro coins could have been produced using a less toxic material than nickel, and a less

toxic colour stabiliser than TBT could have been used for the banknotes?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

Before the production of the euro coins the Commission did undertake scientific research on the issue, and
no conclusive scientific evidence was found against the use of nickel.

The nickel used in 1-euro and 2-euro coins is essentially contained inside the alloy, thus skin contact with
nickel is limited.

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/55

The presence of nickel is necessary to implement techniques minimising the risk of counterfeiting. Since 1
and 2 euro coins demand a particularly high level of security, nickel is needed in the production of these
high-quality coins. Nevertheless, the rate of coins that contain nickel is currently considerably smaller than
with the previous national coins (14 % of euro coins contain nickel as opposed to 75 % of the national
coins that were in circulation).

The decision on the technical specifications of the banknotes was taken by the European Monetary
Institute (EMI), and the matter is presently of the competence of the European Central Bank (ECB).

(2003/C 28 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0873/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2002)

Subject: EU fisheries agreements in the future

A report by UNEP, published on 27 December 2001, argues that developing countries which open up
their waters to foreign fishing fleets lose more than they gain, noting also that over-fishing pushes their
people even deeper into poverty.

It singles out Namibia as a good example of how a country which says ‘no’ to concluding fisheries
agreements with the European Union can very successfully build up a fishing industry from scratch.

in most countries with which the European Union concludes fisheries
Another problem is that,
agreements, the bulk of the money it pays for the agreements goes to the political elite, whilst very little
of the money reaches fishermen, who are in fact deprived of their incomes.

Has the Commission studied the report in question and does it agree with the views expressed therein?
What will it do to ensure that the African countries with which the European Union currently concludes
fisheries agreements are able instead to develop their own fishing industries, like Namibia has done?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2002)

The Commission is aware of the study by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) presented
in December 2001. The main objective of this study, which focuses on two case studies (Senegal and
Argentina), is to examine and establish a correlation between trade liberalisation, economic reforms, the
environment and the marine resources.

Even if there may be room for improvement, it should be noted that the Union’s Fishery Agreements aim
at supporting responsible and sustainable fisheries in the countries with which it has an agreement.
Through these agreements, the Community pays a financial contribution in return for access to surplus
stocks. These funds are paid to the Public Treasury and are split, on the one hand, into a contribution to
the State budget and, on the other, to so called ‘targeted actions’ for the development of the fisheries sector
of the partner country. The Community favours a high incidence of targeted actions. Sometimes these
actions reach as much as 60-70 % of the Community’s financial contribution. The main actions are
maritime control and surveillance, scientific and technical programmes, institutional support, training for
fisheries managers, support to small-scale fishery and participation in international meetings on fisheries.
In order to ensure that the funds aimed at targeted actions are invested in accordance to the programming,
the Commission requests yearly reports from the partner country on the implementation and results of
these actions.