WRITTEN QUESTION P-0480/03 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Obsolete pesticides.
Date: 2003-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Central and Eastern European countries, accession to the European Union, environmental protection, hazardous waste, pesticide, waste disposal, waste incineration

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/105

Has Finland supplied the explanations that the Commission requested, among other things regarding

3.
the complete list of special protection areas and the necessary geographical information?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

1.
The judgement of the European Court of Justice in Case C-240/00 Commission against Finland was
delivered on 6 March 2003. The Court found that Finland has, by failing to classify fully and definitively
the special protection areas (SPAs) in its territory, failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.

The Commission will take the necessary measures to ensure that Finland complies with the above

2.
judgement.

3.
The list of SPAs that Finland has submitted is not yet final nor complete, as it lacks several territories
most suitable for designation as SPAs on the basis of ornithological criteria. This prevents the Commission
from taking the appropriate measures in accordance with Article 4(3) of Directive 79/409/EEC, for the
purpose of the co-ordination necessary to ensure that SPAs form a coherent whole.

(2003/C 268 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0480/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Obsolete pesticides

In her answer to Written Question E-1951/02 (1), the Commissioner with special responsibility for the
environment said: ‘Although there may indeed be very large quantities of obsolete pesticides in Central and
Eastern Europe, requests for Community financial assistance for the destruction of obsolete pesticides have
been very limited. None of the candidate countries has so far during the accession negotiations raised the
destruction of obsolete pesticides as an issue. In fact, it is the Accession Countries who have to take the
initiative.’ On 4 December 2002, 28 MEPs signed a letter concerning such ‘forgotten’ pesticides which was
sent to all those responsible for environmental policy in all the applicant countries. In that letter, reference
was made to the answer to Written Question E-1951/02. The addressees were asked to contact the
Commission with a view to discussing the possibility of assistance being granted for the destruction of
such obsolete pesticides.

Can the Commission indicate which applicant countries have already established contact in connection
with this issue, and does the Commission feel that, given the facts of the case, it should also take the
requisite steps to contact the applicant countries on its own initiative?

Can the Commission indicate whether the applicant countries now have available the appropriate thermal
incinerators required for the destruction of such obsolete pesticides, and can it confirm, on the basis of
that information, that the obsolete pesticides in the applicant countries will, therefore, not be incinerated
in plants located on the territory of the current Member States?

Is the Commission aware of the problems caused by obsolete pesticides, and can it indicate what measures
it is taking to convince the applicant countries of the absolute need to do something about them?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 159.

C 268 E/106

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2003)

To date, no Candidate Country has sought to contact the Commission specifically about assistance in
relation to the issue of the destruction of obsolete pesticides.

However, the Commission has commissioned a study in order to be able to better identify the problems
associated with obsolete pesticides in the Candidate Countries and the ways in which the countries are
going to deal with them (1). The study, which was published in September 2002, provides an overview of
each of the Candidate Countries of stockpiled obsolete pesticides, including persistent organic pollutants,
and their management.

The Commission has not sought detailed information on the thermal incinerator capacity of Candidate
Countries. However, Candidate Countries will be required to implement Community legislation concerning
hazardous waste that ensures that these stockpiles are disposed of in an adequate manner. According to
Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (2) pesticides are considered as
hazardous waste requiring specific care during disposal (incineration in specific incinerators). If a Candidate
Country does not have an adequate incinerator which respects the environment
this will
necessitate upgrading of the facility or transport to appropriate incinerators elsewhere in the Union.

‘acquis’,

As indicated in the reply to Written Question E-1951/02 by the Honourable Member the Commission is
aware of the problems caused by obsolete pesticides and Community financial assistance is available if
requested by the Candidate Countries. In its recent Communication, ‘Towards a thematic strategy on the
sustainable use of pesticides (3)’ which follows on from Article 7(d) of the 6th Environmental Action
Programme (4), the Commission proposes that, in close co-operation with Candidate Countries, specific
support programmes be developed, which target the handling of stocks of obsolete plant protection
products and their safe destruction. However, the Commission is of the opinion that responsibility and
initiative should be taken by the Candidate Countries themselves, in line with their obligation to transpose
and implement the ‘acquis’.

Given that a percentage of obsolete pesticides fall under the scope of the Stockholm Convention on
persistent organic pollutants, measures for their disposal will be eligible for funding through the
Convention. So far proposals from seven Candidate Countries for inventory work for persistent organic
pollutants related contamination have been accepted.

(1) European Commission, Directorate General for Environment,

‘Obsolete Pesticides Status in Candidate Countries’.

Final Report. September 2002.

(2) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.
(3) COM(2002) 349 final.
(4) Decision No1600/2002/EC of

the Parliament and of

the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth

Community Environment Action Programme, OJ L 242, 10.9.2002.

(2003/C 268 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0483/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Consequences for farmers of digital mapping of the UK

(20 February 2003)

As a result of the digital mapping of the United Kingdom, some British farmers fear that all European
payments will be consolidated and then paid out as a hectorage payment.

Should this come about, they fear that the payment would be made to the owner/landlord of the land and
not to the occupier as is the case with milk quotas, and would result in landlords claiming a large
proportion of the payment.

Are their fears justified?