WRITTEN QUESTION E-0511/03 by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. TSE surveillance programme.
Date: 2003-02-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, Spain, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, disease prevention, veterinary inspection

C 242 E/142

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

funds and cohesion funds),
With regard to the possible use of Community funding (structural
the regulations associated with these funding programmes require that projects should be consistent with
Community legislation and policy. It is the Commission’s role to monitor that these rules and regulations
are respected.

With regard to the issue of the Zebra mussel, the Commission is aware of its presence in the lower Ebro.
The Commission is also aware of the significant environmental and economic damage, which can result
from the introduction of this species into river systems. If water were to be transferred from the lower
Ebro into other river basins there is a clear risk that the Zebra mussel would be transferred along with the
water. The Spanish authorities will need to take this important issue into account when carrying out
environmental impact assessments of the proposed inter-basin transfers.

(1) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 201.
(2) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.
(3) OJ C 174 E, 20.6.2002.
(4) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002.
(5) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
(6) Directive 2000/60 EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy (cid:1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(2003/C 242 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0511/03

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2003)

Subject: TSE surveillance programme

According to the Commission’s reply to Oral Question H-0896/02 (1), the lower amount allocated to Spain
under the TSE surveillance programme is due to the reduction in the Community contribution to the cost
of individual tests.

Have the amounts allocated to other Member States likewise been reduced?

Has the Spanish allocation been cut because the funds earmarked for 2002 were underused on account of
the failure to carry out the full complement of tests?

Have larger amounts been allocated to other Member States which have shown that they are conducting
more tests?

Can the Commission give details of the new share-out of funding among the 15 Member States?

(1) Written answer of 11.12.2002.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

Commission Decision 2002/934/EC of 28 November 2002 approving the transmissible spongiform
encephalopathy (TSE) monitoring programmes of certain Member States for 2003 and fixing the level of
the Community’s financial contribution (1) establishes the maximum financial contribution to the TSE
monitoring programme in each Member State for 2003.

The maximum amount allocated to each Member State was calculated based on a maximum contribution
of EUR 10,5 per test and the actual number of tests carried out in that Member State in the second half of
2001 and the first half of 2002. Compared to 2002, the maximum allocations have been reduced by
7-30 %, depending on the Member State. In the case of Spain, the reduction was 29 %.

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/143

Originally the maximum allocation to each Member State for 2002, as laid down in Commission Decision
2001/854/EC (2), was based on the size of the bovine population in that Member State. The amounts were
increased by Commission Decision 2002/246/EC (3)
the
monitoring programme in small ruminants and changed monitoring programmes in Austria and Finland.

in March 2002 following an expansion of

From Member State reports, it soon became evident that some Member States were overspending and
other were not using the full amount allocated to them. According to reports from the Commission’s Food
and Veterinary Office, the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) monitoring programme is generally
well implemented and cases where animals would have been slaughtered without testing have not been
reported. Failure to test all slaughtered animals is therefore not the reason why some Member States are
testing a lower percentage of their adult cattle population annually than others. The reason for the
variation is that in some Member States cows are kept to a higher age, and thereby a smaller percentage of
the total adult cattle population is slaughtered each year.

The allocations for 2002 were adjusted for the second time in November 2002 by Commission Decision
2002/945/EC (4) with a view to transfer money from Member States not using the full amount allocated to
them to those which were overspending. Details of the maximum amounts allocated to each Member State
for 2002 and 2003 can be found in the table sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

(1) OJ L 324, 29.11.2002.
(2) 2001/854/EC: Commission Decision of 3 December 2001 approving the programmes for the monitoring for TSE
presented for 2002 by the Member States and fixing the level of the Community’s financial contribution (notified
under document number C(2001) 3819) (cid:1) OJ L 318, 4.12.2001.

(3) 2002/246/EC: Commission Decision of 27 March 2002 amending Decisions 2001/730/EC and 2001/854/EC on
the Community’s financial contribution to the Member States’ TSE monitoring programmes for 2002 (notified
under document number C(2002) 1266) (cid:1) OJ L 84, 28.3.2002.

(4) 2002/945/EC: Commission Decision of 28 November 2002 amending Decisions 2001/730/EC and 2001/854/EC as
regards the allocation of the Community’s financial contribution to Member States’ TSE monitoring programmes for
2002 (notified under document number C(2002) 4594) (cid:1) OJ L 326, 3.12.2002.

(2003/C 242 E/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0541/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2003)

Subject: Structural inspections of ships

Does the Commission accept that European citizens are entitled to know whether the current inspection
regime for ships is likely to be effective in preventing tragedies like the sinking of the ERIKA and Prestige?

The Commission in its answer to Written Question P-3484/02 (1) has entirely failed to address the issue of
structural inspections referred to in the penultimate paragraph. Could the Commission now address those
issues?

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 95.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

The Commission considers it unrealistic to expect current port-State control procedures to be sure to
detect structural damage to ships such as that which affected the ERIKA and the Prestige.

For this reason, International Maritime Organisation instruments and Community regulations on single-
hull tankers provide for the introduction of a system of structural inspections of ships, known as the
condition assessment system (CAS).