WRITTEN QUESTION E-0784/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Compliance with environmental priorities and Sogama plan.
C 46 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 are concerned (notably for verification of maximum constituent levels and presence of other elements) Member States use analytical methods as part of their controls. Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (1) confirms such analytical work as incumbent on the national authorities. Their work of checking that products meet the specified requirements is of wide scope (technical installations, stock records, analyses etc. ). A particular analysis method cannot be considered as in itself the sole means of irrefutably concluding that a product does or does not meet the legally binding requirements. Nonetheless, given the political sensitivities over chocolate and the desirability of a single European analysis method, the Commission asked the Joint Research Centre (Ispra) to find one. Having assessed all the possible methods with the Member Statesí laboratories, the JRC has formulated a method applicable to ordinary chocolate that it considers very satisfactory. This is based on determination of the triglyceride profile, which turned out to be the most suitable (EUR Report 18992 EN (2)). There are of course for all analysis methods criteria of reproducibility and repeatability but these do not call the method into question in any fundamental way. To facilitate analysis, the JRC is preparing reference material that can be used as technique (high- an internal standard for the analysis and will permit calibration of temperature gas chromatography). the analytical Moreover, as stated in the communication to Parliament on 18 November 1999 (3) on the Council common position on chocolate products, the Commission will include, in the next coordinated Commun- ity foodstuff control programme, arrangements for checking conformity for these fats with the require- ments of the new Directive due to be adopted shortly by the Council following Parliamentís recent second- reading opinion. Such arrangements may cover both analysis methods and the other types of check provided for in Directive 89/397/EEC. (1) OJ L 186, 30. 6. 1989. (2) Report (including description of method) available from JRC (E. Anklam, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, I-21020 Ispra). (3) SEC(1999) 1912 final. (2001/C 46 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0784/00 by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission (16 March 2000) Subject: Compliance with environmental priorities and Sogama plan The treatment of waste in densely populated regions such as Galicia must comply with strict safety rules, since otherwise dangers could arise for the population through the pollution of the air, water and soil. The Galician governmentís Sogama plan for the treatment of solid urban waste has attracted criticism on the grounds that it is not geared to the five key objectives of Community environmental policy as regards urban waste: preventing the production of waste, reusing it as raw material, improving its disposal, strengthening rules governing the transport of waste and cleaning up polluted ground. On the basis of what technical conditions was the subsidy granted for the Sogama plan? Should that plan be revised to bring it more closely into line with environmental requirements, would the Commission be in a position to re-examine the funding of the improved plan? 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/43 Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (26 April 2000) Through its Decision of 7 May 1998, the Commission decided to grant financial support to the Plan de Gestión de Residuos Sólidos Urbanos de Galiciaí (1) (plan for the management of municipal waste for the Galicia Region). This decision was taken after a thorough evaluation of the proposal and the assessment that it complied with the requirements of all the relevant Community policies, including environmental policy. The environmental impact assessment of the project shows that it represents an environmental improvement for the region of Galicia. Regarding the hierarchy established for the management of wastes, the assessment states that all those wastes that cannot be reused or recycled after separate collection at the point of origin would be further selected for recycling in the central facility. Moreover, the non-reusable and non-recyclable portion will be subject to energy recovery through its transformation into a refuse derived fuel to be used for the production of electricity in the generation plant built in the Complexo Medioambiental de Cercedaí. Furthermore, most of the wastes produced in the region will be transported by railroad from the transfer stations to the central facility. The development of the project has been carried out in full respect of the terms of the decision of the Commission. (1) Cohesion Fund Project No 97. 11. 61. 047. (2001/C 46 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0785/00 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission (16 March 2000) Subject: Failure by DG XIII to pay a subsidy promised to the Netherlands Film Festival In 1995 the Commission (DG XIII) decided to grant the Netherlands Film Festival a subsidy of ECU 12 000 to organise the Scientific Technical Festival. After a series of letters, phone calls and requests for payment, the sum in question was eventually received in early 1997. In 1996 another subsidy, this time of twice ECU 12 000, was promised by an official of DG XIII. The requisite papers were completed and returned by the recipient. However, despite a number of letters, petitions and a complaint to the European Ombuds- man, no money has yet been forthcoming. In reply to a previous question by a Member of the European Parliament (E-2730/98 (1)) on this subject, the Commission wrote that it would await the close examination by the European Ombudsman. The Ombudsmanís reply has been known for a long time now: he delivered a moral victory to the Netherlands Film Festival, while addressing a ácritical remarkí to DG XIII and referring to ábad governanceí. A further question to the Commission by the same Member, of 20 April 1999, has never received a reply. Is the Commission aware of the facts concerning the granting of subsidies by an official of DG XIII 1. and excuses about mail not being received and the service moving premises? 2. Has the official in question promised more than he can deliver? Does the Commission feel morally obliged to pay the Netherlands Film Festival the sum promised, 3. since the Ombudsman has upheld the complaint by the Netherlands Film Festival? If not, why not? (1) OJ C 135, 14. 5. 1999, p. 106