WRITTEN QUESTION E-0431/00 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Environmental impact of afforestation, land reclamation and peat extraction.
C 374 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 (2000/C 374 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0430/00 by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission (23 February 2000) Subject: Development, validation and legal acceptance of alternative methods to animal testing experiments On 22 October 1997 the European Parliament approved a report by Mrs Roth-Behrendt (A4-0277/ 1997 (1)) in which the Commission was called upon, inter alia, to: ü bring forward without delay a proposal to ban testing of finished cosmetic products, ü take positive and urgent measures to give new momentum to the development of alternative methods. Could the Commission state what action has been undertaken to date, or what action it proposes to take, to meet the calls made by Parliament in the report? Could the Commission state whether it favours a complete ban on the use of animals to test finished products, and if so what timetable and strategy it envisages to achieve such a ban? Could the Commission state what action it proposes to take ü in conjunction with the Directorate-General for Research through the Framework Programme or by other means ü to promote the development of alternatives? (1) OJ C 339, 10. 11. 1997, p. 47. Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (29 March 2000) the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1). The draft The Commission is presently working on a draft proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive amending for the seventh time Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws form introduces a of permanent and definitive prohibition on the performance of experiments on animals for finished cosmetic products in the territory of Member States. This proposal would be in compliance with the request of the Parliament quoted by the Honourable Member. The proposed time-table for the entry into force of this ban would be the date of entry into force of the Directive. in its current The Commission is taking measures to continue the promotion of research into the development and validation of alternative methods in the field of cosmetic products. The fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration (RDT) activities 1998-2002 (2) makes provisions for such research. In particular, within the third key action The Cell Factoryí of the specific programme on quality of life and management of living resources, the Commission supports the development of novel in vitro testing and screening methods as alternatives to animal testing. (1) OJ L 262, 27. 9. 1976. (2) OJ L 26, 1. 2. 1999. (2000/C 374 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0431/00 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (23 February 2000) Subject: Environmental impact of afforestation, land reclamation and peat extraction Has the Commission taken steps to ensure that Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment will be complied with in relation to the 28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/75 use of forthcoming Community grant aid? In the case of Ireland, what steps has the Regional Development Commissioner taken to ensure that the forthcoming Community grant aid does lead to further infringe- ments of this directive, as identified in the judgment of the European Court of Justice against Ireland of 21 September 1999 [C-392/96] on the environmental impact of afforestation, land reclamation and peat extraction. Of particular concern are the small-scale forestry initiatives being promoted by the Irish authorities under the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme, which will fund the planting of commercial, monocultural plantations of non-native species by small farmers with the consequent fragmentation of native bio- landscape. diversity, already under critical pressure through rapid economic development in the rural Specifically, the Court judgment noted that áeven small-scale projects can have substantial effects on the environment where, by reason of its nature, there is a risk that it will cause substantial or irreversible change in those environmental factors, irrespective of its size. í Given that the Irish Minister for the Environment informed the Irish Parliament in a reply to written parliamentary questions on 9 November 1999 that he was unable to indicate what amendments to national procedures were necessary to comply with the Court of Justice judgment against Ireland, will the Commission ensure that the Irish decision-making process complies with this judgment and that appro- priate procedures are in place before approval is given for further Community support for these activities? (1) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985, p. 40. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (6 April 2000) In relation to the use of Community funds in general, the Commission is conscious of the importance of respect for Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1). In relation to Ireland, future Community funding is only likely to be of major relevance to one of the three categories of project mentioned by the Honourable Member, namely afforestation. For this category, the Irish authorities proposed in their National development plan and in the Rural development plan substantial Community grant-aid, principally pursuant to the rural development regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain regulations (2)) but also pursuant to the structural funds regulation (Regulation (EC)No1260 laying down general provisions on the structural funds (3)). However, Commission decisions on funding the relevant Irish plan and programmes have not yet been taken. Any Commission decisions will take account of the requirements of both regulations. In this context, the Honourable Memberís attention is drawn to Article 37(1) of the rural development regulation which provides that support for rural development shall be granted only for measures that comply with Community law. As regards the structural funds regulation, her attention is drawn to Article 12 which provides that operations financed by the funds shall be in conformity with Community rules on environmental protection, and its Article 41(b) which provides that an ex-ante environmental evaluation shall set out the arrangements for ensuring compliance with Community rules on the environment. Finally, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, following the Court of justice judgement to which she refers, it wrote to the Irish authorities asking for information on how Ireland intends to comply in relation to the above-mentioned three categories of project. The Irish authorities have responded that it is their intention adopt new planning legislation. Unfortunately, this new legislation has not yet been adopted or forwarded to the Commission. (1) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985. (2) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999. (3) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999