WRITTEN QUESTION E-2418/03 by Dominique Souchet (NI) to the Commission. Sustainable use of pesticides and aerial spraying.
Date: 2003-07-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: derogation from EU law, pesticide, plant health legislation, plant health treatment, soil conditioning

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/147

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

While it is not possible to give a precise indication of when the Commission will be in a position to bring
forward its planned Communication on the environmental issues of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) many of the
issues arising are the subject of ongoing work. A study is currently being carried out to compare the life-
cycle assessments of PVC and other potential substitute materials in a wide range of applications and first
results are expected early in the new year. The Commission is also keeping under continual review
progress towards the achievement of the voluntary commitment made by industry to phase out lead
stabilisers in PVC by 2015 and increase recycling of PVC by an additional 200 000 t by 2010, as well as
assessing the level of ambition of this commitment. For that purpose senior Commission officials, together
with Members of the European Parliament, are members of the monitoring group which will oversee the
operation of the voluntary commitment. As regards other aspects mentioned in the Commission’s Green
Paper, consideration is currently being given to banning the use of cadmium in PVC, and, in the case of
phthalates, risk assessments are still ongoing.

The Communication (1) towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste, while not
addressing PVC specifically, addresses it indirectly under the prevention and recycling of waste in general.

The framework legislation on Chemicals, which is expected to be adopted later this year, while not
focusing specifically on PVC, will cover chemicals in general and their uses in products.

(1) COM(2003) 301final.

(2004/C 65 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2418/03

by Dominique Souchet (NI) to the Commission

Subject: Sustainable use of pesticides and aerial spraying

(21 July 2003)

Paragraph seven of the European Parliament’s resolution on a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of
pesticides (P5_TA-PROV(2003)0128) states that Parliament ‘fully supports the recommendation for a ban
on aerial spraying and the possibility to designate pesticide free zones’. This resolution forms part of the
Van Brempt Report, which was adopted by Parliament at its plenary sitting of 27 March 2003 in Brussels.

Helicopter spraying accounts for only 1 % of the plant health treatments employed in Europe. However,
some pesticide products can only be applied from the air, for a variety of reasons: the location of the
parasite or the scale of the crop (cercosporiosis in bananas, the pine processionary caterpillar,
last
generation European corn borer, the corn root beetle), the geographical relief of the crop area (sloping
vineyards), the type of climatic aberration (vine or potato mildew) or problems of access to the crop (rice
fields).

In this case, how does the Commission intend to reconcile the ban on aerial spraying with the need for a
consistent approach to combating plant diseases that sometimes can also affect man?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

The Commission continues to be concerned about the specific risks linked to the application of pesticides
via aerial spraying, in particular due to the exposure of bystanders and the environment incurred through
spray-drift.

The Commission would like to recall that its proposals regarding a ban on aerial spraying in the
Communication ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides’ (1)
foresaw the
possiblity for derogation, when there are clear advantages and also environmental benefits compared to
other spraying methods. The proposals have incited numerous comments from various stakeholders, which

C 65 E/148

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

are widely diverging in their views. There are also existing or ongoing studies initiated by official bodies in
Member States concerned. All information available is currently being examined further.

In the light of the results of this examination, the Commission will then propose the most appropriate
measures regarding aerial spraying, taking into account a high level of protection for human health and
the environment, technical feasibility, and the necessary crop protection.

(1) COM(2002) 349 final.

(2004/C 65 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2426/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Harmonisation of tax on the income from the savings of non-resident Union citizens and abolition

of banking secrecy

Knowing that:

(cid:1) at the Feira summit on 19/20 June 2000 the EU finance ministers decided that as of 2011 the
automatic exchange of information would be introduced for all Union countries in the interests of
harmonising, at Community level, the tax on income from the savings of Union citizens;

(cid:1) on 21 January 2003 the EU finance ministers initialled a policy agreement, which is subject to

acceptance of equivalent measures by other third countries and stipulates that:

(a) as of 1 January 2004 twelve Member States will initiate the automatic exchange of information;

(b) Luxembourg, Austria and Belgium will initiate the automatic exchange of information ‘if and
when’ the Council unanimously agrees that Switzerland, the United States, Liechtenstein, Andorra,
San Maríno and Monaco accept the exchange of information on the basis of OECD’s 2002
parameters, which define criminal and civil offences in the areas of taxation and fraud.

(cid:1) on 3 June 2003 the EU finance ministers approved an arrangement negotiated with Switzerland.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Why do the third countries do not include the Vatican State, despite the fact that:

(a)

(b)

the central bank, the Istituto Opere di Religione (IOR) does not belong to any international
monitoring body;

the IOR takes part indirectly in the payment systems of the euro zone (cid:1) with dual access via two
major banks, one of them German, the other Italian, which are themselves linked to the system (cid:1)
thereby evading surveillance by the banking authorities to which only direct participants are
subjected;

(c)

it has no legislation to combat money-laundering;

(d)

(e)

it has not accepted the exchange of information on the basis of the 2002 OECD parameters,
which define criminal and civil offences in the areas of taxation and fraud;

it has on several occasions been involved in financial transactions with serious implications,
which have never been the subject of legal proceedings because of the concordat with the Italian
Republic guaranteeing the Catholic hierarchy absolute impunity?