WRITTEN QUESTION E-3451/02 by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission. Agriculture and IACS.
Date: 2002-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Greece, aid system, aid to agriculture, management information system

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/155

Therefore, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, due to a lack of grounds, no
breach of Community law can be identified at present.

In addition, according to the Regional authorities of Sardinia, the information given by the Honourable
Member does not allow the exact identification of the infrastructural projects concerned by the question
(roads, water mains, sewers, etc.): it is therefore impossible to establish whether they have been carried out
with Community funding within the framework of multiannual guidance programme (MAGP) Sardinia
1994-1999 and/or Sardinia regional operational programme (ROP) 2000-2006.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2003/C 155 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3450/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Uranium in public drinking water

Can the Commission explain why there are no parametric values for uranium 238 in either EU or WHO
guidelines, and is there any evidence of physical side-effects on humans or animals from ingesting uranium
238?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

At the time of negotiating and of adopting Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998, on the
quality of water intended for human consumption (1), it has been agreed to make a distinction between the
chemical toxicity of uranium and its radio-toxicity and to retain only the radio-toxicity; a parametric value
has been fixed for the total indicative dose.

This was in line with the conclusions from the World Health Organisation (WHO) acknowledging that no
adequate short- and long-term studies on the chemical toxicity of uranium were available and that a
guideline value for uranium in drinking water couldn’t be defined at that time. Once a guideline will be set
by WHO on the basis of additional information, the Commission will make the necessary proposal for
amendment of the Directive in the frame of the five years review process foreseen in Article 11.1 of the
same Directive.

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

(2003/C 155 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3451/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Agriculture and IACS

What agricultural products are included in the IACS forms? Could you tell us how much Greece has
received for these products in subsidies per year, since the IACS forms have been introduced? Could you
tell us how much Greece was fined for not complying with the rules on IACS forms per year since the
IACS scheme became compulsory?

C 155 E/156

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) is a tool designed to provide an effective and
efficient means to control direct aids to farmers, but there are no particular IACS forms as implied by the
question. IACS was introduced as from claim or harvest year 1993 and presently covers animal subsidies
in the bovine, ovine and caprine sectors, and in respect of surface subsidies it covers arable crops, rice,
grain legumes and set-aside land.

IACS had to be completed by 1 January 1997 at the latest, since when IACS-related expenditure has been
declared at EUR 669,6 million for 1998, EUR 755,7 million for 1999, EUR 734,6 million for 2000,
EUR 752,6 million for 2001 and EUR 722,9 million for 2002.

It is not strictly correct to refer to fines in relation to the Commission’s clearance of accounts procedure,
according to which the Commission decides to refuse expenditure for which a Member State fails to
provide the Commission with reasonable assurance as to the effectiveness of the management and control
procedures used to check the legality and regularity of the aid schemes. Financial corrections are not
applied by enquiry but by financial year and so, in answer to the question, a global amount is considered
more appropriate. In respect of Greece, for claim years 1997 to 1999, a total amount of EUR 156 153 993
has so far been refused Community financing in this way in respect of IACS-related schemes. However, the
clearance of accounts procedure continues in respect of the years 1999 onwards, and further refusals to
finance are envisaged during 2003.

(2003/C 155 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3455/02

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2002)

Subject: Outbreak of avian influenza in Italy

An outbreak of avian influenza caused by the low pathogenic H7N3 virus has been recorded in the Italian
provinces of Verona, Mantua and Brescia. So far, the influenza has almost exclusively affected turkey
farms. In order to check the spread of the disease, the Italian authorities are to ask the EU for authorisation
to vaccinate vulnerable species in the risk area.

However, recourse to vaccination may mean that it is no longer possible for poultry products from the
vaccination areas to be exported to other Member States. The three provinces in question produce around
80 % of the turkeys reared in Italy, with exports accounting for around 20 % of total production.

It is therefore clear that an export ban would entail:

(cid:1) a 20 % reduction in turkey production;

(cid:1) the importation of poultry meat from third countries (Brazil and Thailand);

(cid:1) the loss of the German market;

(cid:1) a possible limiting of the vaccination radius and the concomitant risk of the disease persisting and the

virus mutating from a low pathogenic virus to a high pathogenic one.

In view of the above, could the Commission indicate whether emergency vaccination could be authorised
without the possibility of exporting to other Member States being forfeited? Exportation was possible
during the previous influenza outbreak in 2000, when discriminatory testing made it possible to
distinguish between animals that had the disease and animals that had tested positive as a result of being
vaccinated.

Would it be possible to vaccinate a vast area with a heterologous vaccine (H7N1) and to allow exportation
to continue while still guaranteeing with absolute certainty that the animal meat to be exported is not
harbouring the virus because the animals were not carrying it prior to slaughter?