WRITTEN QUESTION E-3020/02 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Adoption of a less stringent policy on fertiliser in the Netherlands.
Date: 2002-10-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, chemical fertiliser, environmental standard, national agricultural policy, pollution control, pollution control measures, pollution from agricultural sources

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/35

However, it is often difficult to estimate the full importance of craft businesses in the European economy
because there is no European level definition of the craft trade and where there are definitions of craft
businesses at national level, these reflect different circumstances. Nor then is there any definition of a
‘traditional craft product’ at Community level. To remedy this situation, a study has been carried out to
draw up a methodology to produce a statistical definition of a small craft business which should enable the
Commission to obtain more accurate and comparable statistical data.

The Honourable Member will find further information on this study on Internet site: http://europa.eu.int/
comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/craft/craft-studies/methodology-craftstatistics.htm

In addition, the Commission is aware of the need to take advantage of the quality of craft products and
European rare crafts, and has conducted a study aimed at identifying rare crafts in Europe and the channels
for transferring know-how in the rare crafts sectors.

The final report from this study can be found on the Internet site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/
entrepreneurship/craft/craft-studies/rarecrafts.htm

The Commission is thus continuing to look into this very important matter as it is aware that local
traditional craft products are an integral part of the cultural and economic life of the peoples and regions
of Europe and that the quality of these products lies in their traditional methods of manufacture.

(2003/C 222 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3020/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Adoption of a less stringent policy on fertiliser in the Netherlands

In May 2002, on the basis of the 2002 evaluation of the implementation of the Fertilisers Act, the
Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) advised the Netherlands
Government then in office to adopt more stringent rules on the spreading of fertilisers containing nitrogen
land in 2003. Unless the Netherlands did so, the EU nitrates directive (91/676/EEC (1))
on agricultural
would be violated in 2003. On 31 May the Netherlands Government, then acting in a caretaker capacity,
decided not to adopt any decision on fertiliser policy in 2003. The new government has informed the
Netherlands Parliament (by letter no TRC 2002/8255 of 4 October 2002) that it intends to assign priority
to the interests of agriculture and therefore to increase the scope for farmers to pursue free-enterprise
objectives. In effect the Netherlands Government wishes to adopt a policy which is less, rather than more,
stringent. ‘In this connection, the international frameworks are the point of departure’.

This is surprising, as the international framework (the nitrates directive) lays down clearly what rules the
Netherlands is required to comply with. At the same time an infringement procedure (initiated in 1998) is
pending because according to the Commission the nitrates directive has not been implemented sufficiently.

So far the Commission has been quite clear and precise about the implementation of the nitrates directive.
What will it do in the light of the above letter to the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament?

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

So far, the Commission has received no recent formal communication from the Dutch government
regarding new intentions either to tighten or loosen its laws governing nitrogen fertilisation. The
Commission is grateful for the information concerning the recommendations of the Dutch National
Institute of Public Health and Environment (RIVM) on the need for stricter norms for the spread of manure
on agricultural land.

C 222 E/36

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

As the Honourable Member might know, on 20 April 2000, the Netherlands informed the Commission of
their intention to apply a derogation under the Annex III, paragraph 2(b) of the Nitrates Directive (1),
regarding the mandatory application limit of 170 kilograms/hectare/year (kg/ha/yr) of nitrogen from
livestock manure. The Dutch request for derogation involves the possibility to apply up to 250 kg/ha/yr of
nitrogen from livestock manure to all types of grassland (both permanent and temporary). In order to
including by the above-
justify the derogation, the Netherlands provided a series of technical studies,
mentioned RIVM. These studies were examined by an ad hoc expert group established by the Commission,
which presented its conclusions and recommendations in August 2001. The Commission has been
discussing with the Dutch authorities these conclusions and recommendations for over one year.

These discussions, unfortunately, have not led to a situation where the Dutch approach could be approved.
Whereas the Commission has not yet
taken a formalised position concerning the above-mentioned
notification of derogation, it is continuing to affirm the need for the full implementation of the Nitrates
Directive both through the infringement proceedings mentioned by the Honourable Member and in
discussions on the derogation.

(1) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused

by nitrates from agricultural sources.

(2003/C 222 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3021/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: EU aid to Afghanistan

In its Policy Brief on Afghanistan of 1 October 2002, CARE International mentions five key findings:

1.

In four recent post-conflict situations, donors spent an average of USD 250 (EUR 257) per capita per
annum on aid. In Afghanistan they pledged that they would spend USD 75 (EUR 77) in 2002, and
over the next five years USD 42 (EUR 43) per capita.

2. Donors are slow to release funds for reconstruction. Most of the funds received have been spent on

emergency aid, not reconstruction.

3.

In post-conflict situations, aid grants can bring about growth and economic recovery if the volume of
aid is gradually increased over time.

4. The Afghan authorities have minimal strategic control over the expenditure of aid funds for

reconstruction.

5. The National Army will not be trained during the next two years. In the meantime the funds for the
funding since

peace-keeping force, expenditure on which is estimated at 4 % of
7 October 2001, are insufficient.

international

What is the Commission’s view of these five points?

What specific action can the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

1.
It is very difficult to compare post-conflict situations since a whole range of factors and specific local
circumstances influence them. Consequently, the need for reconstruction aid may differ from case to case.
Therefore, the amount of aid available per capita, on its own, is of limited value when judging if funds are
appropriate or not. For this, Afghanistan has to be seen in the context of its high level of population, and
its relatively low level of actual absorption capacity, which is decisive for meaningful and sustainable
reconstruction investment. The Commission considers that Afghanistan has received very significant
support from the international community.