WRITTEN QUESTION E-1285/02 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. East Timor.
Date: 2002-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Commission Delegation, EU aid, EU relations, East Timor, humanitarian aid

C 33 E/2

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

into and out of the
1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
Community (1). This Regulation establishes a control regime and specific measures such as take back of the
waste by the exporting country in cases of waste illegally shipped. In this context pesticides exported with
the intention of discarding them, would be deemed to be waste even if labelled as products by the
exporting party and thus constitute illegal shipments. For this provision to apply evidence of the intention
to discard by the exporting party would be required.

Furthermore, the Commission is preparing for the ratification of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants (POPs) signed in May 2001 which currently addresses nine pesticides out 12 pollutants.

The provisions of the Stockholm Convention with regard to stockpiles, wastes containing or contaminated
by POPs stipulate the goal of their environmental sound management. To this end Parties shall, inter alia,
manage stockpiles in a safe, efficient and environmentally sound manner until they are deemed to be
wastes and take measures to handle, collect, transport and store wastes in an environmentally sound
manner disposing of them in a way that destroys the POP content. Parties should not allow recovery,
recycle, reclamation, direct reuse or alternative uses of POPs and not transport POPs across international
boundaries without taking into account international rules (e.g. Basel Convention on transboundary
movements of hazardous wastes).

Although these provisions concern for the time being only the nine pesticides included in the Stockholm
Convention, an environmentally sound management must be applied to all types of obsolete pesticides to
ensure the maximum protection of the environment against the effects of this type of hazardous waste.

In parallel the Commission has recently put forward proposals to ratify and give effect in the Community
to the provisions of the Rotterdam Convention for the application of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC)
Procedure. The objectives of the Convention are to better inform developing countries on chemicals
(pesticides, industrial and consumer chemicals) and to help these countries to manage them properly, in a
sustainable way. The Rotterdam Convention therefore represents another significant step in improving
international regulation and management of hazardous chemicals.

The Commission is not in possession of data allowing the identification of companies having produced
and transported the toxic chemicals referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is however well informed of initiatives undertaken by Greenpeace in Nepal as well as in
other Asian and African countries focussing on unsafe storing conditions of large amounts of expired
pesticides.

Finally, the Commission is also aware of the fact that Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), OECD, aid agencies, countries with obsolete stocks, pesticide
producers and non-governmental organisations have undertaken collaborative projects to inventory, collect
and dispose of existing stocks of obsolete pesticides and to prevent the accumulation of new ones.

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.

(2004/C 33 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1285/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: East Timor

What plans does the Commission have to open a delegation in Dili, East Timor? Has a timetable been set?

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/3

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

After the events of 1999, the Commission established an office of the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) in
Dili to help to manage the ongoing emergency aid actions in the territory. Since February 2001, a
Community Correspondent Technical Assistance office has been established in Dili which, for reasons of
economy and efficiency, is sharing office facilities with ECHO. The Commission plans to continue this
Community Correspondent Technical Assistance office in Dili until the end of 2004. It is funded from
budget line B7 304A to provide project management and local technical assistance support to the ongoing
Community rehabilitation, reconstruction and development programmes and actions in East Timor.

The Commission’s Head of Delegation based in Jakarta is presently in process of being formally accredited
to the United Nations Transitional Administration for East Timor and is proposed to be accredited to East
Timor after its independence on 20 May 2002. Given that the Community Correspondent Technical
Assistance Office funding provides for a local presence until the end of 2004, and that the Commission’s
budget for Delegations in third countries is committed to the maximum, the Commission does not
currently have any plans to open a Community Delegation in Dili, since to do so would require closing on
scaling back another delegation.

(2004/C 33 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1638/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 June 2002)

Subject: Position of Commissioner Busquin on tax competition in the European single market

On 18 May 2002 in the newspaper De Morgen the European Commissioner for research policy, Philippe
Busquin, was reported as stating that he is in fundamental disagreement with his colleague Commissioner
Bolkestein. He blames Bolkestein for encouraging the Member States to compete against one another in
the area of taxation and is quoted as saying ‘Should we drive up fiscal competition within the European
internal market? Mr Bolkestein (internal market) is in favour of this. I must make it quite clear that I am
against it. It is time that we had a serious discussion of the issue.’

In the meantime has Commissioner Busquin officially informed his fellow commissioners of his
dissatisfaction with Mr Bolkestein’s policy and has he now urged his colleagues in the Commission to
debate the issue?

If not, when will Commissioner Busquin officially notify the Commission of his views?

If so, how did the Commission react to the proposal for a thorough debate?

Can Commissioner Busquin once again explain why he disagrees with Mr Bolkestein’s approach. If not,
how are we to interpret the interview published in De Morgen?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2002)

The Commission’s position on Union taxation policy is set out in its Communication ‘Tax policy in the
European Union (cid:1) priorities for the years ahead’ (1). This Communication is very comprehensive and
identifies several levels of actions and priorities for the coming years. It is the result of a debate within the
Commission on the role of fiscal policy and fiscal measures.