WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/03 by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission. Cadmium in fertilisers.
Date: 2003-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: cadmium, chemical fertiliser, drafting of EU law, environmental protection, standard

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/213

2.

If so, by what date can such a decision be expected?

3.
If not, does the Commission not take the view that, in the case of small fishing vessels operating
exclusively within the 12-mile zone or returning to harbour within 24 hours, fulfilling these obligations
would create a ‘disproportionate burden (…) compared to the economic importance of the activity’?

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-2156/03 and P-2157/03
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

1.
The extension of VMS to smaller vessels is part of the political agreement on the Reform of the
Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reached in December 2002. The aim of the extension is to improve the
control and enforcement of the CFP.

It is believed that VMS is more acceptable to the fishing industry if this type of monitoring applies equally
to all fishing vessels based on the length criteria, which has the advantage of being easily identifiable and
transparent. This in turn constitutes an important factor in favour of the creation of a Community-wide
level playing field for the fishing industry.

This approach is consistent with the Communication from the Commission on the Reform of the
Common Fisheries Policy (the so-called ‘Road Map’). Therein, the Commission announced the removal of
existing exemptions and the extension of VMS to all fishing vessels exceeding 10 metres in length.

Against this background, the Commission does not have the intention to propose exemptions to the
application of VMS for vessels over 15 metres.

2.

In line with the answer given to the first question, no further decision is to be expected.

The Commission believes that VMS is a cost effective monitoring tool that significantly improves

3.
fisheries control and that its extension is justified.

In order to ease the burden for the fishermen, Member States have applied for a community financial
contribution for satellite tracking devices. The Commission will grant aid under similar conditions as it did
in the past for the vessels already subject to VMS, within the budgetary constraints.

(2004/C 51 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/03

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Cadmium in fertilisers

The cadmium content of fertilisers is limited more strictly in the Nordic countries and Austria than in
to the environment, and the EU should
other EU countries. Cadmium is known to be harmful
consequently endeavour to reduce the cadmium content of fertilisers.

The phosphates imported into the EU, mainly from Morocco, contain a significant amount of cadmium.
Alternatives could be found and, moreover, are available in the EU itself. The substantial phosphate deposit
in Sokli, in northern Finland, is free of cadmium.

C 51 E/214

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Is the Commission proposing to tighten the cadmium limits in the EU as a whole so as to make them at
least as strict as in the Nordic countries and Austria? Can it provide any form of encouragement to ensure
that the phosphates to be used in the EU would come from the EU area, since this would create new jobs
and new economic activity in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The Commission is aware that cadmium is harmful to human health and to the environment, and that
cadmium contained in phosphate fertilisers now represents one of the main inputs of cadmium to the
environment.

The Commission is therefore preparing a proposal for a Regulation on cadmium in fertilisers that will
address this problem by setting upper limits for the cadmium content of phosphate fertilisers, thereby
ensuring the free circulation of phosphate fertilisers in the Internal Market. The upper limits for cadmium
in the proposal will be set at a level sufficient to prevent further accumulation of cadmium in agricultural
soil and to ensure that possible uptake into foods would not compromise food safety standards.

It is planned to present the proposal for adoption by the Commission before the end of 2003. The
proposal will set standards based on science, and, in accordance with World Trade Organisation (WTO)
rules, will permit the use of phosphate which can meet these standards, whatever the country of origin.

(2004/C 51 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2165/03

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Contractual rules of the fifth scientific and technological research programme

The fifth scientific and technological research programme is based on a number of contractual rules which
at times are couched in excessively general terms and in some cases are so vague as regards their substance
that they fail to provide legal certainty or protect contracting parties, which are often vulnerable to
mistreatment and complete latitude of interpretation on the part of the Commission. The Commission is
thus behaving improperly towards other contracting parties.

In particular, for the purposes of administering payments for the CRAFT projects, the Commission refers
to Article 3 of Annex II to the contract, the substance of which is very vague. The article in question
stipulates that, whenever a periodic payment is made, an amount corresponding to a portion of the
advance will be recovered, the total of which is calculated on the basis of the relationship between eligible
costs and expenditure for the period in question.

That being the case, can the Commission therefore say why, without laying down specific criteria or
notifying them to the other contracting party (which is not allowed to alter the text of the article), at the
time of an intermediate payment, it automatically recovers, ‘according to its practice,’ 40 % of the advance
granted to a consortium when a contract was concluded, causing particular inconvenience to public
research institutes, which cannot use their own resources in anticipation of the money that they should
receive under a contract from the Commission?

Can it also say what steps it will take to ensure that such improper behaviour does not continue under the
sixth framework programme and to protect parties with which it enters into contracts?