WRITTEN QUESTION E-1896/02 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Independence and impartiality of the Scientific Committee.
Date: 2002-07-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: diploma, fur-bearing animal, livestock farming, research report, research results, scientific committee (EU), self-employed person, vocational training

C 192 E/28

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

(2003/C 192 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1896/02

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Independence and impartiality of the Scientific Committee

The report on fur farming published in December 2001 by the EU Commission Scientific Committee’s
subcommittee on animal welfare led to a protest by a majority of members on the expert working party
which had drafted the report. The working party maintained that the conclusions, marketed as being
scientific, had in fact been twisted into political statements. The expert group spent over two years drafting
its unanimous proposal and the Scientific Committee altered the conclusions in principle at a single
meeting.

The impression has been given that the objectivity required of the Commission’s Scientific Committee, at
issue here, means in practice that the Committee’s members (a) are not familiar with the field on which
they issue scientific reports, and (b) have a negative attitude to the field in question, in this case fur
farming. This is what happened in the case of the fur farming report at issue. The chairman and vice-
chairman of the sub-committee both stated in public on several occasions that they opposed present-day
fur farming on scientific grounds, even though they had never even researched into it themselves. Expert
experience in the field is essential, because scientific committees carry out important ground-work which
at least provides guidance for directives, and in this case the fur farm directive.

Secondly, objectivity is turned into subjectivity and science into political opinions,
if the key people
responsible for the report fail to take into account the results of research which do not support their own
opinions. The fur farms report was widely criticised and its publication is such as to weaken the credibility
of the EU Commission’s scientific committees.

It is expected of the members of Commission committees, and sub-committees set up in connection with
them, that when they are appointed they will furnish a declaration of their economic interests and political
affiliations.

1.

Did all the members of the committee furnish the declaration in question?

How does the Commission monitor that these certificates contain all the essential information on the

2.
members’ interests?

Does the Commission have any means in practice of ensuring that the interests mentioned in these

3.
declarations do not influence the members’ committee work in an inappropriate manner?

4.

Are these declarations published, and if so, where?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In accordance with Article 6(2) and (3) of Commission Decision 97/579/EC (1) of 23 July 1997 setting up
Scientific Committees in the field of common health and food safety, the members of the Scientific
Committees shall inform the Commission each year of any interests, and shall declare at each meeting any
specific interests which might be considered prejudicial to their independence.

On 24 March 1998, the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (Scahaw) adopted
‘rules of procedure’ in accordance with Commission Decision 97/579/EC. These rules of procedure shall
ensure that the Scientific Committee performs its task in the best possible way, in compliance with the
principles of excellence, independence and transparency, while respecting the legitimate requirements of
commercial confidentiality.

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/29

All 19 members of the Scahaw have provided a written annual statement of interests as required by the
Commission Decision and the rules of procedure. All members of the Scahaw agree that the annual
statement should be accessible to the public and communicated or made available to third parties on
request.

Additionally at each meeting of the Scahaw, the Subcommittees of Animal Health, Animal Welfare or of a
Working Party, members are requested to declare any particular interests which could be regarded as
prejudicial to their independence in relation to topics on the agenda for that meeting. This declaration may
be made either in writing or verbally and is noted in plenary minutes which are published on the
Internet (2) thereby ensuring a high degree of transparency.

According to the current ‘Rules of procedure’, members concerned that their interests may be considered
as prejudicing their independence shall
inform the Chairperson who shall, together with the other
members of the Scahaw, of its subcommittees or of the Working Party, decide on the appropriate action,
for example, that the member shall not act as rapporteur or as Chairperson, or simply provide information
but refrain from influencing the conclusions of the discussions.

The Honourable Member can additionally find further explanations in relation the report on fur farming,
in the replies to written questions E-0285/02 from Mr Kyösti Virrankoski (3); P-0077/02 from Mrs Astrid
Thors (4) and E-367/02 from Mr Jan Mulder (3).

(1) OJ L 237, 28.8.1997.
(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/index_en.html.
(3) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 174.
(4) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 238.

(2003/C 192 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1917/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Delays in payment of Community aid to banana production in Madeira

Banana producers in Madeira (Portugal) have been complaining about considerable delays in the payment
of Community aid; this circumstance is causing them severe problems, notably in the acquisition of factors
of production.

Can the Commission state whether delays are in fact occurring in the payment of Community aid to
banana producers’ organisations in Madeira and, should this be the case, give reasons for the delays?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2002)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that calculating compensatory aid every year for
Community banana producers involves a long process of collecting and meticulously verifying data on
prices and marketed quantities for each of the producer Member States. These various tasks entail
administrative deadlines that can hardly be shortened especially if the prime concern is to produce correct
and reliable data. As soon as the data in question are collected and after a final check, the Commission,
without delay, under the Management Committee procedure, adopts the legislation fixing the amount of
the compensatory aid. National administrations are then required to pay the aid to producers within a
reasonable time limit set out in the rules.

Specifically as regards aid for the 2001 marketing year, the most recent information from the Member
States reached the Commission on 6 May 2002.