WRITTEN QUESTION E-1283/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Exporting waste to third countries/Basle Convention.
6. 3. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/35 Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 May 2000) The question of eligible land is a general requirement of the arable crops regime that was introduced for environmental reasons as well as to keep production and budgetary expenses under control. As the flax and hemp reform proposal (1) is now being discussed in the Council, as well as in the Parliament and Economic and social committee, the final rules applicable for flax and hemp will depend on the outcome of those discussions. As far as short fibres are concerned, the proposal does indeed support the development of new markets during a 5 year period through the straw processing aid. In fact, the Community finances do not allow for high subsidies to new products that would only find their market at a very low price. Thus, the right sign is given now to the sector: at the end of the transitional period, these productions will need to be economically viable with the common level of support for arable crops. Concerning the differentiated aid rate between long and short flax fibres, the proposal takes account of the wide differences in product value and production costs between both products. Considering that long flax fibres used in the textile industry can easily reach prices several times higher than those for short fibres used for other outlets, it seems inappropriate to claim that both products compete in the same market. (1) OJ C 56 E, 29. 2. 2000. (2001/C 72 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1283/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council (27 April 2000) Subject: Exporting waste to third countries/Basle Convention Despite international conventions, there is an increase in exports of (toxic) waste to developing countries. The Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/EEC (1) regulate these cross-border flows of waste. According to UNEP, in 1989 the OECD countries exported one fifth of their waste. UN rapporteur Fatma-Zohra Ksentini says the countries which export most are Australia, the US and EU Member States the Nether- lands, Germany and Britain. She is particularly concerned at the growing tendency to ship toxic waste to developing countries where it is simply dumped. How does the European Union ensure compliance with the Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/ 1. EEC, in particular: (a) what service, and (b) how many officials are involved, (c) how many checks are carried out every year, and (d) where? 2. How much category 1 waste have the fifteen EU Member States exported to third countries since the Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/EEC entered into force (broken down by year, exporting Member States and countries of destination)? 3. How much category 2 waste have the fifteen EU Member States exported to third countries since the Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/EEC entered into force (broken down by year, exporting Member States and countries of destination)? C 72 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6. 3. 2001 How many infringements of the Basle Convention and Regulation 259/93/EEC have there been since 4. they entered into force, in particular: (a) in which Member States, (b) to which third countries was the waste shipped, (c) by which companies, (d) what substances and quantities were involved (detailed breakdown of type and weight), and (e) when (chronological breakdown of infringements)? (1) OJ L 30, 6. 2. 1993, p. 1. Reply (18/19 September 2000) The Honourable Memberís Question is not a matter for the Council. Questions regarding the application of the Basle Convention and Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 are a matter for either the Member States or the Commission, within their respective spheres of responsibility. (2001/C 72 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1285/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (19 April 2000) Subject: Subsidies to coal and nuclear sectors to the nuclear and coal sectors. A question put Substantial amounts in direct and indirect subsidies are granted in the Community at both EU and national level to the Commission in that connection on 13 December 1999 was answered wholly inadequately. The Commission moreover severely damages its own credibility when it asserts that the claim that state subsidies have been granted to the nuclear energy sector in the Community has not hitherto been substantiated. 1. Must it consequently be assumed that the Commission or departments of the Commission are insufficiently aware of EU and national assistance programmes and subsidies? Must it consequently be assumed in tabling questions that the Commission may well be unaware of the circumstances to which they relate? 2. An indirect subsidy to nuclear energy exists for example in the form of: ü EU support payments for nuclear fusion research and for reactor safety and radiation protection; ü national support payments for nuclear fusion research and for reactor safety and radiation protection; A direct subsidy to nuclear energy exists for example in the form of: ü the limitations on liability applicable in the Community to nuclear plant operators, with ceilings on the cover required; ü the expenditure in connection with safety checks on nuclear power stations, as required by Euratom; ü the options available to nuclear power station operators in the Federal Republic of Germany of constituting reserves (a separate question will be tabled shortly)