WRITTEN QUESTION E-1498/03 by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. 2003 financial package to tackle BSE and other animal diseases.
Date: 2003-05-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU aid, EU programme, United Kingdom, animal disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commitment of expenditure, disease prevention, financial aid

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/155

Has the Commission seen the report by Mr Khasbulatov and Mr Rybkin? If so, how does it view the
report? Does it not consider that this expenditure is totally incompatible with the Russian economy’s
current state? Moreover, does it not consider that it is only through the economic and financial aid
provided by the EU and its Member States that Russia is capable of spending such huge amounts in order
to continue the war in Chechnya?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Commission deeply regrets the tragic situation which has existed in the Russian republic of Chechnya
the past decade. The ongoing conflict has entailed huge costs for both federal and local
over
administrations and for the civilian population of Chechnya, in human, social and economic terms. The
Commission hopes that the constitution adopted during the referendum held on 23 March 2003 will
provide a platform for dialogue, reconciliation, restoration of the rule of law and effective protection of
human rights in line with the statement made by President Putin on 16 March 2003. It will continue to
raise the concerns which it has in this regard with the Russian authorities, in the context of the Union’s
political dialogue with Russia.

The Commission recalls that it has provided assistance via the European Initiative for Democracy and
Human Rights (EIDHR) to promote civil society, media freedom and respect for human rights in the north
Caucasus throughout the period of conflict in Chechnya, with the aim of promoting a lasting peace in the
region. The Commission notes that assistance provided to Russia via the Tacis programme aims, inter alia,
at the promotion of civil society, the rule of law and public institutions, as well as assisting Russia’s
difficult political, economic and social transition.

The Commission notes the analysis presented by Mr Khasbulatov and Mr Rybkin. The Commission is
unable to make a judgement on the estimated costs of the Russian Government’s present policy in
Chechnya or their impact on the wider economic situation. There is however no evidence that the Russian
authorities present policy is dependent on financial assistance from the EU.

(2003/C 280 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1498/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject: 2003 financial package to tackle BSE and other animal diseases

What amount of financial aid was available to the UK Government under the 2003 EU financial package
to tackle BSE and other animal diseases; further, which of the Member States applied for such assistance
and what amounts have been awarded to each; and finally can the UK Government still make a claim for
payment to be made?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2003)

The budget available for the 2003 transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) Monitoring Programme
it is estimated that around EUR 4,2 million would have been available
was EUR 94,5 million. Of this,
initially for the United Kingdom’s eligible costs if their programme had been submitted on time, with a
possible reallocation of the budget from the underspending Member States to the overspending Member
States before the end of the year, as was done for the 2002 TSE Monitoring Programmes.

The other 14 Member States all submitted a programme for TSE Monitoring 2003.

C 280 E/156

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

The global amount committed for the 14 Member States was EUR 94 327 000, with the maximum amount
for the eligible costs of each individual Member State set out in Commission Decision 2002/934/EC of
28 November 2002 (1) as follows:

(cid:1) Belgium: EUR 4 719 000;

(cid:1) Denmark: EUR 2 977 000;

(cid:1) Germany: EUR 20 723 000;

(cid:1) Greece: EUR 975 000;

(cid:1) Spain: EUR 5 984 000;

(cid:1) France: EUR 30 554 000;

(cid:1) Ireland: EUR 9 577 000;

(cid:1) Italy: EUR 6 952 000;

(cid:1) Luxembourg: EUR 198 000;

(cid:1) The Netherlands: EUR 6 312 000;

(cid:1) Austria: EUR 2 455 000;

(cid:1) Portugal: EUR 1 059 000;

(cid:1) Finland: EUR 1 402 000;

(cid:1) Sweden: EUR 440 000.

The budget available for the 2003 Eradication Programme was EUR 41 million. Of
least
EUR 765 000 (EUR 700 000 for Brucellosis and EUR 65 000 for Tuberculosis (cid:1) the same as for the year
2002) would have been available initially for the United Kingdom’s eligible costs had they submitted their
programmes on time, with a possible reallocation between the Member States before the end of the year,
as was done for the 2002 Eradication Programmes.

this, at

The other 14 Member States submitted Eradication Programmes for 2003.

The global amount committed for the various programmes approved for the 14 Member States was
EUR 37 850 000, with the maximum amount for the eligible costs of each individual Member State set in
Commission Decision 2002/943/EC as follows:

(cid:1) Belgium: EUR 650 000;

(cid:1) Denmark: EUR 150 000;

(cid:1) Germany: EUR 2 090 000;

(cid:1) Greece: EUR 1 170 000;

(cid:1) Spain: EUR 14 200 000;

(cid:1) France: EUR 2 555 000;

(cid:1) Ireland: EUR 6 855 000;

(cid:1) Italy: EUR 4 925 000;

(cid:1) Luxembourg: EUR 150 000;

(cid:1) The Netherlands: EUR 900 000;

(cid:1) Austria: EUR 215 000;

(cid:1) Portugal: EUR 3 95;

(cid:1) Finland: EUR 35 000;

(cid:1) Sweden: EUR 5 000.

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/157

The United Kingdom Government cannot make a financial claim for its 2003 Eradication Programmes and
TSE Monitoring Programmes. The United Kingdom’s programmes were not approved for co-financing due
to the fact that they were submitted after the 1 June deadline given in Article 24(3) of Council Decision
90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (2). Therefore, any payment application
submitted by the United Kingdom for 2003 eradication or monitoring programmes will not result in a
financial contribution on the part of the Commission. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) was informed of this in a letter dated 11 November 2002.

(1) OJ L 324, 29.11.2002.
(2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2003/C 280 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1499/03

by José Mendiluce Pereiro (PSE), Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE)
and Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Zebra mussels and transfers from the Ebro

(5 May 2003)

The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) is a bivalve mollusc some three centimetres in size, similar in
appearance to the common mussel. The population explosion that results when these mussels are
introduced makes it virtually impossible to stop them colonising the various natural and artificial substrata
encountered in the freshwater environment. They feed on phytoplankton, for which they compete with
other autochthonous species, disrupting the ecological balance. The pseudofaeces they expel cover the beds
of rivers and reservoirs forming a cloak that is toxic to humans and also eliminates all fish in the zone
concerned. The colonisation capacity of these mussels enables them to block irrigation channels, intakes
and outtakes of power stations, hydraulic constructions of all types, turbines, drainage channels, tanks,
engines and anchors of vessels, water treatment plants, streams and watercourses and even to totally
obstruct pipes and pipelines. In the early 1980s they were introduced into the North American Great
Lakes. Efforts to control the species have already cost some USD 2 billion and, despite this large-scale
investment, it is now firmly established.

During summer 2001 the presence of zebra mussels was detected in the Ebro (at the Riba Roja reservoir
and at various points between Flix and Xerta).
In the space of a few months, the species became
commonplace from the Riba Roja reservoir to the Ebro delta. It has recently been found in the irrigation
systems of Les Garrigues and Terra Alta, more than 20 kilometres from where it initially appeared, having
reached the area as a result of normal water harnessing.

1.

2.

Does the Commission know what measures the Spanish Government is taking to eradicate this pest?

Are any of these measures 100 % effective? If not, what measures would be 100 % effective?

3. Will the Commission support the funding of the National Hydrological Plan, under which it is
proposed to transfer infected waters (from the river Ebro) to other river basins?

4. Would a transfer be legal under such circumstances? Would it not be in breach of the habitats
directive prohibiting the introduction of non-native species?

Does the Commission plan to take a decision on the National Hydrological Plan before or after the

5.
eradication of this pest?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question E-0510/03 by
Joan Colom i Naval (1) on the same issue.