WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/00 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Waste wood in chipboard.
C 330 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 February 2000) The Commission is aware of management problems affecting Community agricultural aids in certain regions such as Andalusia. The main reason for the payment delays is deficiency of the financial administration arrangements of the organisation responsible for the actual payment to aid recipients. Under the decentralised system in place for financial management of the common agricultural policy, paying agencies accredited by the Member States administer payments and guarantee compliance with the Community rules (including payment dates). In Spain the Autonomous Province of Andalusia is an accredited paying agency for Community agricultural aids. To secure compliance with the time limits set in the agricultural legislation for aid payments to farmers, the Commission has for several years been applying the penalty system specified in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 296/96 (1) to non-compliant Member States. Penalties are imposed only on the paying agencies, i. e. farmers remain entitled to receive in full the aid applied for. By way of example, and disregarding any further decisions that may be taken as part of the accounts clearance exercise, in the 1999 EAGGF financial year corrections of PTA 521 million (€ 3,3 million) were imposed on Spain for delays in paying olive oil sector aids. It must be remembered in connection with aid applications for which payment is said to be outstanding that the Community rules set payment periods and it is only once the period is over that the Commission can consider payments as delayed and apply the financial penalties mentioned above. The Honourable Member refers in this case to olive-oil production aid applications for the 1998/99 marketing year. The relevant payment period began on 16 October 1999 and ends on the ninetieth day following publication of the Regulation determining actual olive oil production for 1998/99. This must be adopted by the Commission at the latest eight months after the end of the marketing year. Consequently it is only around 16 October 2000 that the Commission will be able to consider the expenditure in question as delayed and apply penalties on the basis of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 296/96. In the case of payments relating to previous marketing years, the Commission can already detect delays when the EAGGF monthly expenditure statements are made and where appropriate apply the regulatory penalties. it must be remembered that this same check will be made as part of the accounts clearance Lastly, exercises. This is a further constraint on Member States to meet their regulatory obligations on the dates of payments to farmers. (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 of 16 February 1996 on data to be transmitted by Member States and the monthly booking of expenditure financed under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and laying down certain detailed rules of application for Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999. OJ L 39, 17. 2. 1996; OJ L 331, 23. 12. 1999. (2000/C 330 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/00 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission (24 January 2000) Subject: Waste wood in chipboard A letter from Department DGM/A/GA of the Directorate-General for Conservation of the Netherlands Ministry of Public Health, Regional planning and the Environment ü ref No NL 94141 ü clearly states 21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/77 that 1 500 tonnes of waste wood have been delivered by the Netherlands firm Van der Galiºn to the Belgian firm Unilin N. V. for the manufacture of chipboard. (The original text states: áthe order concerns the export from the Netherlands of 1 500 000 kg of shredded treated wood to Unilin N. V. in Belgium with a view to using this waste in chipboard productioní). The Netherlands Ministry registered this waste, pursuant to the requirements and criteria laid down in Regulation 259/93 (1) on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as non-hazardous waste (áwas not considered to be hazardous waste within the meaning of the Decision on hazardous wasteí). In doing so, the Ministry refers to a study which the firm Galiºn asked the laboratory Kock Bodemtechniek Eurolab in Deventer to carry out on its behalf. This study, which consisted of two tests on one kilogram of waste wood, did not test for substances such as cadmium, barium, chrome, copper, cobalt or nickel. Furthermore, the test also found excessive levels of PACs (polycyclical aromatic hydrocarbons), i. e. 72 and 146 mg/kg (limit value: 40 mg/kg) and penta- impregnated chlorophenol, 0,73 mg/kg (limit value: 0,002 mg/kg), which indicate the presence of (preserved) wood (= special category waste) in the waste. Can the Commission assure any buyers of chipboard produced with this waste that 1. there is absolutely no health hazard involved within the meaning of Regulation 259/93 (through the ingestion of carcinogenic wood preservatives in the waste)? If the Commission is unable to give that assurance, will it carry out comprehensive tests to dispel any 2. misgivings that consumers may have? (1) OJ L 30, 6. 2. 1993, p. 1. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (7 March 2000) Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 regulates the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community. The procedure applicable to shipments of wastes for recovery within the Community is determined by the classification of the wastes according to Annexes II ü IV to the Regulation. Untreated wood waste falls under entry GL 010 of Annex II to Regulation 259/93. Treated wood waste is classified as entry AC 170 in Annex III to the Regulation. According to a common understanding among the experts in the framework of the correspondentsí group established pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation 259/93, wood waste is to be considered as treated if the wood has undergone any treatment other than a purely mechanical treatment. Conversely, wood waste is to be considered as untreated only to the extent that the wood has not been treated at all, with the exception of purely mechanical treatments. The Commission understands from the information provided by the Honourable Member that the wood wastes in question were indeed wastes of treated wood. According to Regulation 259/93, their shipment is subject to a notification procedure. This procedure allows for the shipment of the wastes in question for recovery within the Community, subject to the prior consent of the authorities of dispatch, destination and transit. Regulation 259/93 sets out the regime applicable for the control and supervision of cross-border shipments of wastes. Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended, sets out the principles for waste management in the Community. Article 4 of that Directive sets the obligation for Member States to ensure that wastes are recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment. However, neither Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 nor Directive 75/442/EEC establish standards for the products derived from a waste recovery operation. Recycled products need to comply with the general standards in place for the type of product in question. In the absence of specific standards at Community level for chipboards, Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (2) would apply. C 330 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not in a position to determine whether or not chipboards produced with the waste in question would involve a health hazard. Nor is it in a position to determine whether or not the requirements of Directive 92/59 are met in the case in question. The Honourable Member is welcome to submit further information. (1) OJ L 194, 25. 7. 1975. (2) OJ L 228, 11. 8. 1992. (2000/C 330 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0076/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission (24 January 2000) Subject: Possible exclusion of the municipalities of Barberino, Tavernelle and S. Casciano from the areas eligible for funding under the Leader+ project In October the eight municipalities of the Chianti area around Florence and Siena opened a áplanning conference for the development of Chiantií, with a view to forming a árural districtí whose main purpose would be to attract Community funding available under the Leader+ project, with the help of the Eurochianti local action group, with which cooperation was established several years ago. Despite an enthusiastic response on the part of economic operators and trade associations in the area, the policy pursued by the Tuscany Regional Council may well lead to the exclusion of the municipalities of Barberino, Tavernelle and S. Casciano from the area eligible for funding under the Leader+ project. How does the Commission intend to ensure that the above municipalities are not excluded for political reasons? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 February 2000) Under the draft guidelines for the Community Initiative for Rural Development (Leader+) approved by the Commission on 13 October 1999 all rural areas are eligible for consideration or inclusion. However, only a limited number of areas will in fact benefit from Community support, following a transparent, objective and rigorous selection procedure designed to concentrate many Community resources on the most promising pilot proposals and derive maximum lever effect from them. It will be up to the Member Statesí authorities ü in the case of Italy and the regions ü to propose the most appropriate procedures and criteria for defining classification requirements for interested local groups. The draft Commission guidelines set out minimum criteria? to be supplemented by more specific ones due to the particular needs of the region and the objectives to be obtained. These criteria will be an integral part of the programme and subject to Commission approval. Member States will be able to restrict the application of Leader+ to particular rural areas if this can be justified using criteria based on their rural development policy objectives. The Commission will on approving Leader+ programmes verify that the abovementioned requirements are strictly complied with