WRITTEN QUESTION E-1581/03 by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission. Review of the CAP — impact assessment on agriculture in the outermost regions.
Date: 2003-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community acquis, aid system, common agricultural policy, impact study, peripheral region, reform of the CAP

C 51 E/112

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

contain any nickel at all). Neither is there scientific evidence of a recent increase in nickel allergies among
European citizens. It is not, therefore, envisaged either to phase out the use of limited quantities of nickel
in the euro coins or to develop alternatives to the use of nickel.

As regards the application of the EU-Nickel Directive (Parliament and Council Directive 94/27/EC of
30 June 1994 amending for the 12th time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing
and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (1)),
it should be noted that this Directive
exclusively refers to objects that come into direct and prolonged contact with the human skin, such as
jewellery or wristwatch cases. Therefore, the limit stipulated by the Directive 94/27/EC should not be
applied to coins.

Certain specialised institutes are known to collect data on allergies, including those related to nickel, on a
systematic and scientific basis.

(1) OJ L 188, 22.7.1994.

(2004/C 51 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1581/03

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Review of the CAP (cid:1) impact assessment on agriculture in the outermost regions

The discussions on the mid-term review of the Common agricultural policy are of vital importance for
agriculture in the outermost regions.

However, this review has been launched without any prior impact assessment on agriculture in these
regions having been conducted.

This runs contrary to the undertakings given by the Commission which, in its report of 14 March 2000
on the implementation of Article 299(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam (1), stated that when considering any
new Community legislation, it would ‘first look at whether there are any issues affecting the outermost
regions which require attention. In fact, in connection with each and every policy, consideration should be
given to the possible implications, whether direct or indirect, positive or negative, for these regions.’

Could the Commission inform Parliament why it has not yet done this?

(1) COM(200) 147 final.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Although regional impact analyses can be carried out using the econometric impact-simulation models
available within both the Commission and academic centres, none of those models, to our knowledge, can
provide the type of analysis for the most remote regions requested by the Honourable Member. That
analysis cannot therefore be carried out.

Neither can the mathematical models using data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network provide an
exhaustive analysis of the impact of the proposed reform on those regions because the data required to
provide a representative sample is either not available or incomplete.

The impact analyses carried out by the Commission or, at its request, by research centres, show a globally
positive impact on the Union’s agriculture and farmers from the measures proposed by the Commission.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/113

At all events, the reform adopted on 26 June 2003 by the Council of Ministers for Agriculture, on a
proposal from the Commission, gives a special place to the outermost regions, which will be affected
neither by the decoupling of aid from production nor by the modulation of direct aid.

The Commission will continue to ensure that
maintained and take full account of the specific nature of those regions.

the special measures for the outermost regions are

(2004/C 51 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1592/03

by Karin Scheele (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject: Legal admissibility of Member States’ measures concerning the coexistence of crops

For some time, the Commission has been debating the possibilities of allowing genetically modified crop
farming and conventional or organic agriculture to exist
side by side. Commissioner Fischler’s
communication set out various options for regulating the coexistence of different forms of agriculture.
It emerged from discussion of the communication at the Commission’s meeting of 5 March (IP/03/314)
that the majority of Commissioners are opposed at this point to legislative measures at Community level in
this regard. Instead, the Commission prefers the Member States to take measures, although supplemented
by Commission ‘guidelines’.

1.
Under current EU law, to what extent can Member States restrict the marketing or use of genetically
modified organisms which have been authorised for placing on the market pursuant to Community law, in
particular Directive 2001/18/EC (1), or attach certain conditions thereto (which are not provided for in the
Community authorisation), where such restrictions or conditions are in pursuance of objectives other than
the protection of public health or the environment?

2.
Can Member States require, on grounds other than those referred to in Article 23 of Directive 2001/
18/EC, that certain safe distances be observed between genetically modified crops and fields containing
conventional crops of the same type if the sole objective of such safe distances is to prevent cross-
fertilisation of non-genetically modified crops by genetically modified crops in order to guard against any
economic damage which conventional or organic farmers might
incur as a result of such cross-
fertilisation?

3. Would the measures notified by the UK in Wales on 13 July 2001 concerning T25 maize be, in
principle, legally admissible if they were not notified pursuant to Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC (2)?

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The Commission is committed to provide appropriate solutions to address the issue of co-existence
between conventional, organic and genetically modified crops. The Commission believes that no form of
agriculture (cid:1) be it conventional or organic farming, or agriculture using genetically modified organisms (cid:1)
should be excluded in the Union in the future.

The Commission would like to clarify that the need for measures to protect the environment, including the
protection of particular ecosystems, is adressed as part of the environmental risk assessment carried out in
accordance with 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/EEC. Measures to address such risks, where appropriate, would be included in the final consent