WRITTEN QUESTION E-1673/99 by Horst Schnellhardt (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Regulation No 820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products.
C 303 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 As already explained above (at 1), and as far as variable costs are concerned, the ESP is repaid by the 4. Commission only for actually provided and accepted services (based on the number of proposals or supported expert-day). All the parties recognise that the context within which the first proposals were collected, encoded and transferred to the Commission, and the first evaluation campaigns were organised, was not optimal (due to the late signature of the lease contract and to the constraints applying to the implementation of the 1999 budget). Some parts of the building were not totally ready for hosting the ESP and the evaluators, and some parts of the data processing infrastructure were still in the installation phase. Only a joint effort by both Wang and the Commission made it possible, under these exceptional circumstances, to run the evaluation process so that the important functions were in place and the important deadlines kept. The main part of the question has been answered under 3 above. The associated delays resulting 5. from the unforeseen circumstances can therefore not be attributed to a particular service or person. 6. Under FP4, evaluations were generally executed in temporary offices and hotels for periods between three and six months. This required the installation and removal of infrastructure, networks, and furniture. In addition temporary staff (managing as well as administrative) were contracted. The global costs are difficult to estimate, as the accounting systems did not give the possibility of consolidating these costs, including the numerous overheads. In terms of cost, the Commission is of the opinion that the áin-houseí costs would be of the same order as those associated with this common evaluation facility. The computer systems used for the initial evaluations were perfectly suitable and have done the job 7. as intended. The lack of infrastructure did physically limit their availability however. Now that the network and computer room infrastructure is in place in the building, the systems are being physically moved to the secure computer room from where they will be able to serve users throughout the building. (1) OJ C 173, 7. 6. 1997. (2000/C 303 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1673/99 by Horst Schnellhardt (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 September 1999) Subject: Regulation No 820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products In Regulation No 820/97 (1) of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products, the EU Agriculture Council provided for the introduction of compulsory labelling of beef from 1 January 2000 in all Member States. According to press reports, compulsory labelling in the form laid down in the 1997 Regulation until the year 2002. the Commission intends to retreat from this date and not introduce 1. What progress has been made with preparations in the various Member States for the introduction of the system guaranteeing the origin of cattle? 2. What problems are occurring in implementing the regulation? In which Member States in particular are the problems arising? 24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/7 Does the Commission intend, contrary to the press reports, to adhere to 1 January 2000 as the 3. deadline for introducing the new identification and labelling system? (1) OJ L 117, 7. 5. 1997, p. 1. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 November 1999) Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (1) states that the Commission shall receive reports from all Member States on the implementation of beef labelling and shall draft a report to the Council and Parliament, accompanied by proposals for the future, on the situation across the Community. A reliable, compulsory beef labelling scheme depends on a fully operational system of identification and registration of bovine animals. In the compiling of the report, the Commission came to the conclusion that adequate systems for tracing back carcasses to the holding from which they last came are in place in all Member States except one. However, it will not be possible for at least half of the Member States, as from 1 January 2000, to know for each animal slaughtered, its place of birth and all the places or countries where it has been held during its life, in particular because the requirement for the full movement record of an animal in the form of a passport only applies to animals born after 1 January 1998. On 13 October 1999, the Commission formally adopted the report (2) and two proposals (3), which set the timeframe for the compulsory labelling of beef in the Community. Both proposals are based upon Article 152 (public health) (ex-Article 129) of the EC Treaty. The objective of the first proposed regulation is to replace the existing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 and to lay down the general rules for a compulsory labelling system in two steps. The first stage, which will enter into force one month after the adoption of the regulation, makes provision for the obligatory indication on labels of information readily available concerning the point of slaughter. From 1 January 2003 the beef label has also to include in addition precise information about where the animal was born and reared. Given the time required for adoption of the first regulation under co-decision, a second regulation has been proposed. This amending regulation prolongs the dispositions of the existing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97, which provide a legal base for voluntary labelling scheme only until 1 January 2000. However, this prolongation will only last until such time as the first proposal is adopted, that is, until 1 January 2001 at the latest. (1) OJ L 117, 7. 5. 1997. (2) COM(1999) 486 final. (3) COM(1999) 487. (2000/C 303 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1716/99 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 September 1999) Subject: Environmental disaster following the bombing of Pancevo An unprecedented environmental catastrophe with disastrous consequences for human health was caused during the Balkansí conflict by the destruction by missiles of the refinery, fertiliser and petrochemical plants at Pancevo. The destruction has resulted in the release into the atmosphere of thousands of tonnes of oil, vinyl chloride, monomer, mercury, sulphur dioxide, nitric acids and trichlorodiphenyl/trichlor- oethane