WRITTEN QUESTION E-3449/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Licensing of biotechnologists.
Date: 2002-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: biotechnology, environmental protection, ethics, health policy, new technology, research and development

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/91

Moreover, in the very short term, support could be given for an environmental impact assessment of the
coast affected by the pollution. This should aim to analyse the environmental effects of the accident,
evaluate the preventative and remedial measures taken and broadly disseminate the results and experience
acquired to the other Member States.

The Commission is at present in close contact with the Spanish authorities to determine the co-financing
(50 % up to a maximum of EUR 300 000) of a survey on the environmental impact of this accident. Other
‘specific measures’, as envisaged in the Conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council, may also be
proposed.

The Commission confirms that the Prestige came from Saint Petersburg and was heading for

2.
Gibraltar, with a call in Estonia.

According to the inspection report supplied by the Prestige’s classification society, the American

3.
Bureau of Shipping (ABS), the ship was well maintained.

At the request of this society, an ad hoc audit has been started by the International Association of
Classification Societies in which the Commission is participating as an observer, on the same terms as the
International Maritime Organisation and the Maritime Administration of the Bahamas.

4.
Yes, the oil being carried by the Prestige was authorised and classified by the International Standards
Organisation (ISO) as intermediate heavy fuel oil. It is one of the fuel oils lawfully used as fuel by certain
types of ships and by power stations.

5. to 7.
The Commission does believe that stricter application of the legislation could reduce the number
of accidents. It has therefore submitted to the Council a new communicatio (5) which provides in particular
for speeding up the entry into force of the regulations contained in the Erika I and II packages.

At its meeting on 6 December 2002, the Transport Council decided to ban single-hull tankers carrying
heavy fuel oil from EU ports and to consider monitoring ships carrying hazardous materials and keeping
them more than 200 nautical miles away from the coastline.

In this context, and as announced in its communication of 3 December 2002, the Commission, on
20 December 2002, proposed a Regulation to prohibit the transport of heavy fuel oil in single-hull tankers
bound for or leaving EU ports, and to speed up the replacement of single-hull by double-hull tankers (6).
The proposal is currently before the co-legislators for consideration.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2372/2002 of 20 December 2002 instituting specific measures to compensate the
Spanish fisheries, shellfish industry and aquaculture affected by the oil spills from the Prestige, OJ L 358,
31.12.2002.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements

regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/02 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund,

OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds,

OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(5) COM(2002) 681 final.
(6) COM(2002) 780 final.

(2003/C 161 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3449/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Licensing of biotechnologists

In view of the increasing potential for harm arising from the abuse of the latest advances in biotechnology,
does the Commission have any plans for requiring those working in the field to be licensed after agreeing
to sign a ‘Hippocratic Oath’ committing them to work within laid-down norms?

C 161 E/92

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

The Stockholm European Council has asked the Commission to examine measures required to utilise the
full potential of biotechnology while ensuring that those developments occur in a manner which is healthy
and safe for consumers and the environment and in full compliance with the existing legislative
framework.

Both Commission and Member States have safety regulations in place, or are adopting such regulations as
the technology develops, in order to ensure that biotechnologies are applied in a manner that is safe for
the consumer and to the environment. Examples of these are Directive Directive 2001/18/EC of the
Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of
genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EC (1).

The Commission’s Communication on Life Sciences and Biotechnology (cid:1) A strategy for Europe (2)
highlights the need to ensure that Life Sciences and Biotechnology are developed in harmony with ethical
values and societal goals. It is among others suggested to develop ethical guidelines/standards or best
practice for stem cell research, xenotransplantation, etc. Such guidelines could, when appropriated, take the
form of self-regulatory initiatives in the scientific community and industry. In order to ensure that ethical
issues are taken into account in relation to Community funded research in Biotechnology, an ethical
framework has been defined in the decisions adopting the 6th Framework Programme and the specific
programmes. Furthermore, the Commission has taken initiative to ensure that the analyses of the ethical,
legal and social aspects become an integrated activity within Community funded research under Priority 1
‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology’ and Priority 5 ‘Food quality and safety’.

The Commission is very attentive to the safety and ethical aspects of biotechnology research and its
potential application. The Commission is constantly examining the need for initiatives, when appropriate,
to regulate the use of new technologies. It is the Commission’s view that in an area of research, which is
constantly evolving, it is more appropriate to regulate the use of biotechnology than regulating the users
of biotechnology and research actors.

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.
(2) COM(2002) 27 final.

(2003/C 161 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3465/02

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Poseima (cid:1) Environment

In 1993, at the European Parliament’s initiative, a budget heading was created in order to provide funding,
under the POSEI programmes, for activities relating to environmental protection and nature conservation
in the outermost regions. The activities funded in Madeira were concerned in particular with protecting the
soil, increasing surveillance in nature reserves, safeguarding the visual aspect of landscapes, training the
local people to protect their environment and increasing their environmental awareness.

The added value which those activities brought to Madeira in terms of the local inhabitants’ improved
quality of life and greater interaction between the environment and the various aspects of socio-economic
development is indicative of the need to maintain Community involvement in areas such as waste
management, the management of water resources, nature and landscape conservation, environmental
education, and so on.

Such involvement has on a number of occasions been requested from the Commission, in particular by
means of the 1999 Memoranda and, more recently, in the form of a resolution adopted in Lanzarote at the
Seventh Conference of Leaders of the Outermost Regions and forwarded to the Community institutions,
concerning the problems of waste management in those regions, with particular reference to waste
management.