WRITTEN QUESTION E-1625/03 by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Recognition of the egg sector vis-à-vis third country imports.
Date: 2003-05-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal welfare, common commercial policy, egg, food safety, import (EU), laying poultry, tariff negotiations

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/147

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of the fact that a range of lakes in Ireland have deteriorated in quality in the past
decades. Relevant Community legislation includes the Dangerous Substances Directive (1) and the Water
Framework Directive (2).

The Commission is also aware of the specific situation to which the Honourable Member refers, namely
the disappearance of Arctic char from Lough Conn during the 1980s. It considers that the probable cause
of this is the sedimentation of the spawning beds of the species in the littoral parts of the lake as a result
of eutrophication caused by increased discharges of phosphorous to the lake. It is estimated that, during
the 1980s, the phosphorous load to the lake from all sources doubled. It is also suspected that another
contributing factor might be the introduction of roach and pike, which are popular with anglers.

The Dangerous Substances Directive requires action to be taken on those substances or groups of
substances listed in the annex of the Directive. Inorganic compounds of phosphorus are part of list II of
this annex, entailing the obligation for Member States to develop and implement pollution reduction
programmes for these substances. These programmes are required to include phosphorous quality
objectives, and a system of authorisations with emission standards based on such objectives. The Directive
also provides that the application of measures under it may on no account lead, either directly or
indirectly, to increased water pollution (a so-called stand-still provision).

In 2002, the Commission lodged an application against Ireland before the European Court of Justice for
non-compliance with the Dangerous Substances Directive (3). It inter alia contended that Ireland had not set
quality objectives for phosphorous for Irish lakes in accordance with the Directive. More specifically,
whereas, under the relevant Irish legislation, water quality in Lough Conn is considered to be satisfactory,
the Commission contends that its water quality has suffered deterioration, as is inter alia evident in the
disappearance of Arctic char, and that the stand-still provision has not been respected. The judgement of
the Court is awaited.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that lakes hosting pollution-sensitive species like the
Arctic char need to be safeguarded from nutrient enrichment. Apart from the Dangerous Substances
Directive,
it would also draw attention to the Water Framework Directive, which provides for a
comprehensive water protection of all waters (rivers, lakes, coastal waters and groundwaters), addressing all
sources of impact and setting the binding obligation to achieve good quality (‘good status’) for all these
waters by 2015. Good status for surface waters like lakes will focus on ecological parameters (microfauna,
microflora, and fish fauna) and will allow for an only small deviation from pristine status (very good
status) to good status. These (cid:1) legally binding (cid:1) remediation efforts will reverse negative trends of the
past, and provide again for a sustainable ecosystem including adequate diversity and population of fish.
Designation of the necessary measures will be subject
to mandatory participation of citizens, non-
governmental organisations, stakeholders and interested parties; these will also have a legal right to access
to all relevant information, data and background documents.

(1) Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into

the aquatic environment of the Community, OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.

(2) 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, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(3) C-282/02.

(2004/C 33 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1625/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject: Recognition of the egg sector vis-à-vis third country imports

Given that the EU egg industry is facing additional legislation in relation to food safety and animal welfare,
does the Commission agree that the egg sector should be recognised as a sensitive sector vis-à-vis third
country imports?

C 33 E/148

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Under Article 10 of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for
the protection of laying hens (1) an external study is to be carried out on the socio-economic implications
where third countries are concerned of the Community legislation on laying hen welfare. Its findings will
help determine the degree of sensitivity of the egg sector.

It is also to be noted that in the World Trade Organisation negotiations the Community has confirmed
that it considers it important that trade liberalisation should not imperil the effort to improve animal
welfare protection. Exclusion from the commitment reductions (’green box’) is therefore proposed for
compensation covering the additional costs involved in satisfying animal welfare standards, provided it can
be shown that they are a direct result of adoption of more rigorous standards and therefore do not disturb
trade or disturb it as little as possible.

(1) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999.

(2004/C 33 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1639/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: Extra measures to promote means of subsistence in regions where Roma people constitute a large

proportion of the population

1.
Is the Commission aware that after the next two enlargements the population of the European Union
will include at least three or four million Roma people, and that most of them are concentrated in the
economically weakest regions, i.e. regions with high unemployment and low mean per capita incomes?

2. What is being done to ensure that in the future Member States with the largest percentages of Roma,
namely Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, sufficient EU funds are deployed from the time of their
accession for projects to improve education, housing, sources of income and other facilities for the large
Roma minorities, in order to create better opportunities for these residents to enjoy equal opportunities
and equal status with other citizens, without having to migrate?

3. What is being done to ensure that in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, from the time of
their accession, the disadvantaged regions where the Roma are concentrated receive assistance by means of
cofinancing from EU funds? What is being done to prevent a large part of this funding from finding its
way to the most prosperous, central regions, which may seek to further increase their advantage over the
rest of the Member State concerned?

4.
Do the existing rules on the taking of initiatives and the readiness of Member States or local
authorities to provide cofinancing for them constitute an obstacle to special EU measures to assist the
Roma and the regions where they mainly live? What, if anything, needs to change in order to eliminate
such obstacles?

5. Will this issue be taken into account in decisions to be adopted concerning the extent to which and
way in which EU funds are to be made available and deployed from 2006 onwards?