WRITTEN QUESTION E-0671/03 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Chemical testing.
Date: 2003-03-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Member States' contribution, chemical product, research and development, research method, research programme, testing

C 268 E/118

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

(2003/C 268 E/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0670/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: Tolls on the Attica motorway

The tolls fixed by the company contracted to build and operate the Attica motorway into Athens have met
with a justified public outcry from road-users who will have to pay a high, flat-rate amount irrespective of
the length of their journey. Setting the tolls in this manner effectively bars residents from using the
motorway for local journeys.

The agreement
signed between the Greek Government and the contracting consortium states
(Article 50.1.3) that it is open to the contractor ‘to raise or lower the tolls according to the category of
vehicle at the various toll booths along the motorway’, while Directive 93/89/EEC (1) defines tolls as
‘payment of a specified amount
for a vehicle travelling the distance between two points on the
infrastructure’ and states that ‘the amount shall be based on the distance travelled and on the category of
the vehicle.’ Will the Commission, therefore, make representations to the Greek authorities and the
contractor to persuade them to use a cheaper and more flexible system of toll pricing in order to fulfil the
purpose of the Attica motorway (cid:1) a project jointly funded by the EU (cid:1) which is to serve the needs of
road-users?

(1) OJ L 279, 12.11.1993, p. 32.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Directive 1999/62/EC (1) is the Community legal instrument for the levying of taxes, tolls and user charges
on lorries above 12 tonnes. It is to be underlined that Member States levying tolls on vehicles below
12 tonnes do not have to comply with the provisions contained in Directive 1999/62/EC as such tolls fall
outside its scope.

Within the scope of the Directive that has replaced Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on
the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and
tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures, the principles of tolls have not changed. As the
Honourable Member has pointed out they are defined as ‘payment of a specified amount for a vehicle
travelling the distance between two points on the infrastructure’ where ‘the amount shall be based on the
distance travelled and on the type of the vehicle’. Therefore, it is clear that a flat rate irrespective of the
distance travelled raises some issues from the point of view of Community legislation that need to be
addressed.

The Commission will contact the Greek Authorities in order to clarify this point.

(1) Directive 1999/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods

vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure, OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

(2003/C 268 E/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0671/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: Chemical testing

In its resolution on the White Paper: Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy (1), the European Parliament
called for ‘more resources to be provided immediately to accelerate the development and validation of
further scientifically reliable, recognised and standardised alternative tests to replace animal tests in the

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/119

implementation of the new system’. However, funding provision for development and validation of new
tests frequently lacks transparency, especially with respect to Member State contributions.

Could the Commission give details of current funding allocations for both development and validation of
new non-animal tests from the following sources: (1) The Sixth Framework Programme for Research,
(2) the Joint Research Centre (ECVAM budget), and (3) Member State contributions?

The UK Government claims that it contributes to the development and validation of alternatives through
the EU, but does not make clear how much is contributed or how funds are allocated. Could the
Commissioner quantify Member State contributions to EC funding of alternatives research over the past
year, giving exact figures for each Member State contribution? Most specifically, how much money has
been contributed to the Commission for the funding of development and validation of new non-animal
tests by the UK over the past year?

(1) OJ C 140 E, 13.6.2002, p. 552.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

research,

The development of alternative methods will be funded in the ‘Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) of the
Community for
technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to
the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006)’. Two specific parts of the
Framework Programme will support the development of novel alternative, non-animal testing methods:
Development of new in-vitro tests to replace animal experimentation (Thematic Priority 1 (cid:1) Life Sciences,
Genomics and Biotechnology for Health) (1), and Development of alternative in vitro testing methods and
strategies for chemical substances (Specific activities covering a wider field of research (cid:1) Policy support
and anticipating scientific and technological needs) (2), the deadlines for submissions are of 25 and
12 March 2003, respectively. Financial participation by the Community will be granted in compliance
with the principle of co-financing, with the exception of financing for studies, conferences and public
tenders. This means that part of project costs shall be borne by the contractors themselves (Decision
No 1513/2002/EC of the Parliament and of the Council concerning the Sixth Framework Programme of
the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, con-
tributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) (3), Annex II.
point 2). So far, no projects have been selected and first figures on actual project funding will not be
available before the end of 2003.

the indicative budget allocated to all scientific areas of the ‘Advanced
Within Thematic Priority 1,
Genomics and its applications
the Framework Programme is
EUR 1 100 million, which includes the development of alternatives to animal experimentation and testing.
Similarly, the indicative budget allocated to all the topics covered by the ‘Policy support and anticipating
scientific and technological needs’, including the one on alternatives in support of the chemicals policy is
EUR 555 million for the duration of FP6.

the duration of

for Health’

for

The increased availability of alternative methods involves first new methods to be developed and then
these methods to be validated. Primary responsibility for method development lies with the cosmetics and
chemical industries. The Joint Research Centre’s (JRC) role, through the European Centre for the Validation
of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), is in the validation of the new methods thus produced.

The financial resources available for ECVAM within the Multi-Annual Work Programme of the JRC for the
period 2003-2006 are increased to EUR 35,2 millions. This budget is not currently considered to be a
the
limiting factor in the validation of alternative methods. However, should the situation change,

C 268 E/120

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

necessary flexibility to address the variable needs for scientific and technical support to Community policy
development and implementation is built
JRC work
programme budget is reviewed annually in close collaboration with our user Directorates General of the
Commission.

into the JRC resource allocation as the actual

Member State contributions to the Community budget are not broken down and attributed to specific
areas of expenditure, such as those mentioned in the question. It is, therefore, not possible to answer to
this specific question.

(1) more information is available from the following http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/lifescihealth.htm.
(2) more information is available from the following http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/support.htm.
(3) OJ L 232, 29.8.2002.

(2003/C 268 E/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0688/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: Phytosanitary measures to detect Mexican fruit fly and Oriental fruit fly

Healthy quality of agricultural products is a precondition for viable trade, and the presence of pests and
disease is one of the major limiting factors on the sector’s productivity. Certain species of fruit fly represent
a serious problem for farmers, both in terms of the direct damage they inflict and the quarantine measures
they entail.

The Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens Loew), which attacks oranges, mandarins, grapefruit and the like,
is a good example; it lays its eggs under the outer skin of ripe or nearly ripe fruit, and once the larvae
hatch, they feed on the pulp, tunnelling through it and causing the fruit to fall to the ground, and
encouraging the proliferation of bacterial and fungal infections.

The Oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel) deposits eggs in the tissue of the host fruit, where the
larvae grow until fully developed, when they leave the fruit and bury themselves in the soil at a depth of
1 to 5 centimetres, followed by pupation and the emergence of the adult insect. B. dorsalis is propagated
by flying adults, the wind and movements of infected host fruit by human agency. B. dorsalis’s hosts
include over 175 species. Over 100 types of fruit and vegetable are attacked by this pest, with some of the
most common and popular hosts being Citrus spp., Prunus spp., apples, guavas, mangoes, bananas, coffee
beans and papayas. Other hosts include Annona spp., pineapple, white sapote, star apples,
figs,
strawberries, passion fruit, avocados and others. B. dorsalis is one of the world’s most destructive soft
fruit pests.

Given the serious consequences should one of these pests enter the EU, does the Commission intend to
step up phytosanitary measures on produce entering European ports, with a view to detecting Oriental
fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) and Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens) in citrus products from the USA,
particularly California, so as to prevent
them entering the EU and devastating Spanish citrus fruit
production?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of developments as regards the two non-European fruit flies Anastrepha ludens
(Loew) and Bactrocera (Dacus) dorsalis Hendel in the United States, in particular in certain citrus producing
areas in California.