WRITTEN QUESTION P-1841/02 by Georges Garot (PSE) to the Commission. Shallot production.
Date: 2002-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, bulb vegetable, common agricultural policy, complaint to the Commission, product designation, restriction on competition, seed

C 301 E/238

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

The situation in Spain described by the Honourable Member reflects the limited authority the Commission
has in relation to the approval of breeding organisations or breeders associations and moreover in relation
to stud books maintained by official services.

A procedure for settling disputes between organisations or associations or, in a second step, between the
competent authorities of different Member States is provided for in Commission Decision 92/354/EEC of
11 June 1992 laying down certain rules to ensure coordination between organizations and associations
which maintain or establish stud-books for registered equidae (2); if necessary the Commission may lay
down rules to ensure co-ordination between organisations or associations in accordance with Article 4(e)
of Directive 90/427/EEC.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.
(2) OJ L 192, 11.7.1992.

(2002/C 301 E/252)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1841/02

by Georges Garot (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Shallot production

The French fruit and vegetable intertrade association and shallot producers in western France are
concerned at plans put forward by the Commission’s Directorates-General for Agriculture and for Health
and Consumer Protection which call for the standardisation of shallot and onion production on the basis
of those products’ trade descriptions.

This approach is worrying on a number of counts:

(cid:1) it is incompatible with the European Union’s stated intention to promote the European agriculture
model and it seriously detracts from the multifunctionality of agriculture,
in particular the aspects
thereof which are concerned with the environment (biodiversity) and with product safety and quality;

(cid:1) it goes against

the decisions taken at

reference to rural
development. The purpose of this second pillar is to maintain activity in rural areas; the main
European shallot production method goes a long way towards meeting that objective, despite
receiving no support;

the Berlin Summit, with particular

(cid:1) it runs counter to the sustainable-development strategy drawn up at the 2001 Göteborg European

Council;

(cid:1) lastly, it is at odds with the substance of the 2000 White Paper on food safety and, in particular, with
the major principles of increased product quality and safety and better provision of information to
consumers.

How can the Commission account for its failure to take the major principles and rules of conduct which it
has adopted into account in its study, analysis and handling of the problems relating to shallots?

What interests and what policy is it really aiming to promote? Should the European texts relating to
shallots not be reconsidered?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The Commission is not currently drafting any texts aimed at standardising shallot and onion production or
their trade descriptions.

However, it has emerged from a complaint submitted to the Commission that French shallot producers,
particularly in Brittany, are very concerned by the fact that shallot seeds have been placed on the market.

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/239

According to the complainants, the seeds in question do not meet Community standards and should not,
under Community law, be placed on the market.

In addition, a complaint has been lodged with the Commission regarding the fact that French legislation
allows shallots to be placed on the market only if they are grown from bulbs using vegetative propagation.

The Commission is currently examining these complaints in detail and will ensure that the points put
forward by the Honourable Member in his written question are taken into account in the course of this
examination.

(2002/C 301 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1852/02

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Pollution of the Segura river (Murcia, Spain)

(28 June 2002)

The pollution of the river Segura (Murcia, Spain) is a problem of serious proportions, which is only slowly
and gradually being dealt with by the authorities concerned in the autonomous regions of Murcia and
Valencia.

A report drawn up in 2001 by the Spanish Ombudsman, to be submitted to the Congress of Deputies on
17 June 2002, draws attention to the deterioration and pollution of the Segura and takes the view that the
action taken on the matter by the regional and national authorities
(the Segura Hydrographic
Confederation) has not been effective.

In addition, a lawsuit is currently before the courts in Murcia and Orihuela, relating to charges of ongoing
environmental crime. The charges in question relate to the dumping of waste into the Segura, and identify,
as the worst polluters, the municipalities of the Murcia region through whose territory the Segura flows.

Among the nine defendants are the chief administrator of the Segura Hydrographic Confederation and the
Commissioner for Water. It is stated in the charge against them that they have failed to fulfil their legal
obligation to preserve the quality of the Segura river and of the water used for irrigation; this water,
according to the depositions of numerous experts involved in the case,
is causing damage to the
environment and to human health.

1.

Is the Commission aware of these circumstances?

2. What action does it intend to take to investigate the above charges?

3.
Does the Commission not believe that the regional and national authorities concerned must be asked,
as a matter of urgency, to propose immediate and comprehensive measures with a view to ensuring
respect for the EU legislation concerning the right of all citizens to a healthy environment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member concerning the

1.
judicial action currently before the Spanish courts relating to the pollution of the river Segura.

2.
The Commission does not have any power as regards penal law and therefore cannot act to shed
light on the alleged environmental offences to which the Honourable Member refers. The Community is
therefore not responsible for this matter, but it can be dealt with through the national courts. It is clear
from the Written Question that the Spanish judicial authorities are aware of the facts of this case.