WRITTEN QUESTION E-2852/02 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Problems for EU fruit and vegetable growers arising from the continued use of methyl bromide in the developing countries.
Date: 2002-10-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU production, Greece, chemical compound, developing countries, fruit, marketing restriction, restriction on competition, stratospheric pollution, substitute product, vegetable

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/125

Reply

(18 February 2003)

It is not for the Council to state its views on relations between a Member State and an international
organisation of which that State is a member.

(2003/C 137 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2852/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Problems for EU fruit and vegetable growers arising from the continued use of methyl bromide in

the developing countries

The use of methyl bromide, a broad-spectrum soil disinfectant, is to be discontinued in the developed
countries by 2005, whereas the developing countries have a ten-year grace period and will receive funding
to cover the cost of replacing that substance (Montreal Protocol). Because of this difference in treatment,
fruit and vegetable growers in Greece and the other Mediterranean Member States, who have to replace
methyl bromide with other methods (cid:1) without financial assistance and with higher production costs as a
result (cid:1) will be placed at a disadvantage and have their produce supplanted by produce from third
countries which not only use methyl bromide but also receive funding to replace it.

1. What measures will the Commission take to protect fruit and vegetable growers in Greece and the
other Member States from the fierce competition they will face from corresponding produce grown in
North Africa and Asia using methyl bromide?

2. What stringent measures will it use to control the movement within the EU of fruit and vegetables
from countries which will continue to use methyl bromide beyond 2005, in order to protect consumers’
health?

3.
Is the EU monitoring whether the countries with which it has preferential agreements (Turkey, Egypt,
Morocco, etc.) are phasing out the use of methyl bromide? Does the Commission have any information
concerning the finance those countries have received from the multilateral fund which covers the added
cost of restricting ozone-depleting substances?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

As developing countries generally have a lower level of technical expertise and limited financial
1.
resources compared to developed countries, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed a freeze in
consumption of methyl bromide (MB) in 2002, a 20 % reduction in 2005 and a total phase out by
1 January 2015. The Parties agreed to review this phase out schedule in 2003 with a view to eliminating
MB as soon as it is no longer required. On the other hand, the Parties also agreed to farmers from
developed countries implementing alternatives to MB by 2005. The Commission cannot change these
agreements made by the Parties but it will, however, continue to take steps to promote the adoption of
alternatives in all countries as soon as possible.

Since 1994, the Commission has allocated EUR 40,8 million to promote the adoption of alternatives to
MB in the Community including research and development projects, demonstration projects and grower
training. These projects have been conducted in Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France,
Italy, the
Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. This expenditure excludes commercially-funded
projects and those funded nationally. Projects conducted in Europe and other countries have shown that
some alternatives to MB not only increase yield but are also sometimes more cost-effective than MB.

C 137 E/126

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

The Commission and the government of Spain jointly sponsored a four-day Conference on alternatives to
MB in Sevilla in March 2002 that was attended by about 300 researchers, extension workers, farmers,
industry and government representatives from 18 developing and 22 developed countries. This conference
was co-sponsored by the Commission pursuant to its obligations under Article 4(2)(i)(d) of Regulation (EC)
No 2037/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the
ozone layer (1) that requires it to encourage the development and the use of alternatives to MB.

2.
The use of MB is not a health issue for consumers but rather an issue of eliminating MB globally in
order to accelerate the recovery of the ozone layer. Maximum residue levels (MRLs) of MB in food are laid
down in Council Directives 86/362/EEC (2) and 93/58/EC (3). In addition, a full evaluation of MB will
shortly be carried out under Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4) and on the basis of that evaluation it may be
decided whether the MRLs need to be reviewed. Any review of the MRLs shall also take into account those
established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

3.
To assist in the identification and adoption of alternatives the Protocol’s Multilateral Fund (MLF) has
provided funds of about USD 49 million for 208 projects in more than 55 developing countries. It should
be noted that Member State contributions to the MLF for the phase out of all ozone depleting substances
including MB in developing countries account for more than 40 % of the total for the past three funding
trienniums. The Member States recognise the value of implementing alternatives as soon as possible and in
this way promote a ‘level playing field’ for all countries.

Some developing countries have unilaterally accelerated their phase out schedule to avoid further
dependency on MB and potential consumer boycotts in developed countries of MB-treated commodities.
As examples, Morocco has several projects that will introduce alternatives for major crops, and plans to
reduce MB imports/consumption from 1 600 tonnes in 1998 to 275 tonnes in 2006. Turkey will
introduce alternatives for tomato, cucumber, cut flowers and dried fruit, and plans to reduce MB imports/
consumption from 840 tonnes in 1997 to 34 tonnes in 2006.

(1) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.
(2) Council Directive 86/362/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on

cereals, OJ L 221, 7.8.1986.

(3) Council Directive 93/58/EEC of 29 June 1993 amending Annex II to Directive 76/895/EEC relating to the fixing of
maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables and the Annex to Directive 90/642/EEC
relating to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including
fruit and vegetables, and providing for the establishment of a first list of maximum levels, OJ L 211, 23.8.1993.
(4) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market,

OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2003/C 137 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2853/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Climate change (cid:1) implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in Greece

The adoption of the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1) commits the
EU to reducing, in the period 2008-2012, the sum total of man-made emissions of gases which contribute
to the greenhouse effect to 1990 levels and to make tangible progress towards this target by 2005.

1. What is the level of gas emissions in each Member State in relation to the Kyoto Protocol targets?
What changes were observed in the period 1990-1999 in relation to the 2008-2012 targets and in
accordance with the EU’s burden-sharing mechanism?