WRITTEN QUESTION E-0019/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Rejection of food aid funded from Echo's budget.
21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/69 The only possible solution, according to the Maríne Ecological Centre in Ostend, would be rules making it compulsory for ships to clean their oil tanks before leaving port. Ships would not be able to leave without a certificate of proof. Can the Commission agree to a directive making it compulsory for ships to clean their oil tanks before leaving port, given the threat to various biotopes along Europeís coastline from oil discharges? If not, why does the Commission feel that such an obligation is unnecessary and what alternative proposals does it have for effectively tackling the problem of oil discharges? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (14 March 2000) The Commission shares the Honourable Memberís concern about operational pollution in Community waters. Regulations governing the reduction of operational pollution by tankers have been developed by the International maritime organisation (IMO) through the International convention for the prevention of pollution from ships (Marpol 73/78). These regulations have been effective in reducing operational pollution to the extent that modern crude oil tankers are no longer cleaning their tanks with water. The current phasing in of modern designs and operating systems is expected to reduce such pollution further in the next few years. Much of the operational pollution from all types of ships in Community waters results from their inability in some ports to deliver cargo residues and ship generated wastes to shore facilities. The Commission proposal for a Council directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (1) addresses this particular problem and introduces a number of requirements on both ports and ships to ensure that adequate facilities are available in all Community ports and that ships use them. By providing rules, incentives and control procedures for the delivery of ship-generated waste in ports, the need for discharges at sea will be greatly reduced. The Commission is confident that the proposed directive, currently in second reading in the Parliament, will have a strong effect on reducing operational pollution, and in particular oil pollution of all types of ships. In addition, the Commission presented a proposal for a decision setting up a Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental marine pollution (2). This proposal, currently under discussion in Council and Parliament, aims at further developing Community initiatives (common training, exchange of experts, exercises, pilot projects, exchange of information) in order to support Member Statesí efforts to tackle the problem of oil pollution at sea. In view of the above, the Commission does not envisage, proposals requiring ships to clean their tanks before leaving port. for the time being, preparing additional (1) OJ C 271, 31. 8. 1998. (2) OJ C 25, 30. 1. 1999 amended by COM(1999) 641 final. (2000/C 330 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0019/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (19 January 2000) Subject: Rejection of food aid funded from Echoís budget Shortly, more than 70 tons of food aid ü approximately 170 000 tins of beef ü is to be flown back to the Irish Republic because the Bosnian authorities have refused to authorise its consumption. The failure of this food aid project is a serious financial blow to MØdecins sans FrontiŁres and Echo, the Commissionís C 330 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 humanitarian assistance agency. Echo contributed 7,3 million francs to the project, and will not seek to recover this amount because MØdecins sans FrontiŁres has complied with all its contractual obligations. 1. When was Echo informed of the refusal by (a) the Croatian customs authorities and (b) the Bosnian customs authorities to admit the food aid? 2. After these refusals, did the Commission take steps to persuade the customs authorities to admit the food after all? If not, why did the Commission not do anything, bearing in mind that the beef complied with quality standards and a serious financial loss was to be anticipated? 3. When was Echo informed of the refusal by the Bosnian authorities to distribute the food aid among Bosniaís disabled? 4. After this refusal, did the Commission take steps to secure permission for the food aid to be consumed in Bosnia? If not, why did the Commission not do anything, bearing in mind that the beef complied with quality standards and a serious financial loss was to be anticipated? 5. When contracting humanitarian contracts out to third parties, will the Commission and Echo in future conclude enforceable contracts which are conditional on results and include provision for repay- ment if goods and services are not supplied? If not, how will the Commission prevent shortages of funds from occurring in Echoís budget failure to supply goods and services for humanitarian operations? in future as a result of Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (8 March 2000) The Commission contracted (ECHO/YU-/B7-0214/96/0228AB for ECU 2 200 000) with MØdecins sans FrontiŁres Belgium (MSF-B) for the provision and delivery, among others, of approximately 99 tons of food aid (cans of beef goulash) in favour of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) refugees and displaced persons, in January 1997. The budget of the beef goulash under the contract was ECU 155 000. This aid was a continuation of the European Community humanitarian office (ECHO) operations since the beginning of the war in BiH. The Commission has been following the events surrounding the shipment and the subsequent refusal of the BiH authorities to allow its release during the whole period of the contract. In addition to operational reports on the implementation of the contract, both ECHO Croatia and ECHO BiH field staff were involved in numerous bilateral and trilateral meetings with MSF and between MSF and the authorities respectively, since 17 February 1997. Following the final refusal of the BiH Supreme Court to an appeal by MSF-B in BiH for the release of the goods by the authorities, MSF-B officially notified the Commission on 5 October 1998 of the fact that the beef goulash purchased under the contract was not distributed as planned but it was stopped by the authorities of BiH upon its arrival in Sarajevo. The following circumstances should be noted: ü written permission from the Ministry of Agriculture in BiH for the import of the food was obtained by MSF-B (on 12 February 1997) prior to the export of the goods from Ireland, ü the goods were certified as being fit for human consumption by two independent laboratories in Europe, ü on 28 February 1997, and while the food was in transport, the government of BiH adopted a decree banning the import of beef and all beef products from Ireland, Germany and Switzerland, ü Ireland was not subject to Commission Decision (96/239/EC) of 27 March 1996, placing restrictions on beef and beef products exports from the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland), ü following the ban imposed by the BiH government on this shipment, it became impossible to re-direct the food to a humanitarian destination other than BiH. 21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/71 It is certainly regrettable that the Federation government issued a ban on the import of Irish beef products. The Commission, however, has no means to rescind the order of a government it was committed to supporting. the Commission is not under an obligation to According to the framework partnership agreement reimburse the undistributed goulash. However, after careful consideration of the facts and the exceptional circumstances under which the project was implemented, the Commission has accepted MSF-B invocation of áforce majeureí clause under the general conditions of the CCP (1) related to the contract. This acceptance is seen only in the context of this individual situation and does not prejudge future situations of similar kind. (1) CCP: Article 5. 3 in the General Conditions of the Contract Partnership agreement states The Partner shall have the right to suspend or terminate, in writing, with immediate effect, the implementation of the operations for reasons of force majeure. The amounts committed and spent by the Partner up until that time will be charged to the budget of the operationí. (2000/C 330 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0034/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (19 January 2000) Subject: The effect of glyphosate on the environment and biodiversity Will the Commission outline the research which has been carried out to date concerning the effects of the chemical glyphosate on the environment and on biodiversity? Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (3 March 2000) Glyphosate is a plant protection product currently being evaluated in the framework of the first review programme of existing active substances undertaken under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1). The objective of the evaluation is to determine whether it can be included in a positive list of active substances (Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 on the placing of plant protection products on the market (2)) that can be used in plant protection products in the Community. The Regulation provided that the notifiers should submit all the information required by the Directive. This includes information on effects on the environment. The information had to be submitted before 30 April 1995, to the rapporteur Member State (RMS) (for glyphosate, the RMS is Germany). Any interested party could also submit by that date technical or scientific information with regard to the potentially dangerous effects of the substance or its residues on human and animal health and on the environment. The rapporteur Member State reviewed all information submitted for glyphosate and prepared a draft assessment report (monograph) on it. This was submitted on 1 February 1999 to the Commission and the other Member States. According to the usual procedures provided in the Regulation, the monograph was immediately forwarded for an expert consultation (peer-review) with specialised experts from five Member States to examine in detail all areas of human health and environmental safety. Data gaps were identified and new data was requested, supplied and reviewed. The process also allowed that any other relevant new information be taken into consideration or be considered during further discussions with all Member States in the framework of the standing committee on plant health and its working groups. The monograph and the results of the peer-review for glyphosate will be discussed by all Member States in the evaluation working group of the standing committee on plant health. Depending on the outcome of the discussions the Commission will submit a draft decision to the standing committee on plant health after consultation of the scientific committee on plants