You are on page 1of 2

C 76/120 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 11. 3.

98

3. What is its view of the development results?

4. Does it consider that animal testing in the cosmetics industry will become unneccessary as a result?

5. Will it take this development into account in future regulations?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission


(10 September 1997)

Hitherto the Commission has been unaware of the scope for using pig's tails as substitutes for experiments on live
animals in order to test the effectiveness of cosmetic products or their ingredients. It has therefore not been in a
position, by granting Community funding, to support the development of similar processes which could prove to
be alternative methods for the future. True to its well-known position regarding this matter the Commission is
keeping itself informed of any developments in this area which would spark alternative methods with a view to
their scientific validation by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), and then
to their acceptance by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in accordance with the
spirit of Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 amending, for the sixth time, Directive 76/768/EEC on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1) which is aimed at the banning
of cosmetic-product experiments on animals.

(1) OJ L 151, 23.6.1993.

(98/C 76/229) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2526/97


by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission
(24 July 1997)

Subject: Illiteracy in Morocco

The illiteracy rate in Morocco is alarmingly high, particularly among the female population. What immediate
measures does the Commission intend to take within the framework of the MEDA agreements to contribute to
the gradual reduction of this alarming phenomenon? Has it notified the Moroccan Government of the need for
immediate and bold measures to establish compulsory education and to abolish discrimination against females,
as a precondition for EU-Moroccan cooperation and aid?

Answer given by Mr Marı́n on behalf of the Commission


(11 September 1997)

Coverage of basic educational needs in Morocco is extremely poor, being similar to that in some of the least
developed countries. Half the population is illiterate. Women and the rural population are particularly badly
affected (1) and this is a major obstacle to sustainable growth in Morocco. School attendance is compulsory in
Morocco and a satisfactory proportion of the central-government budget is allocated to education (2).

But access to education for the most disadvantaged sections of the population is made difficult by a number of
factors: shortage of resources for basic education; the internal inefficiency of the system, with excessive numbers
of badly managed and ill-trained personnel, run-down infrastructure, and unsuitable teaching systems; and
highly scattered homes in rural areas. The opportunity cost of school attendance (3) is also high for the poorest
families (more especially parents of girls in rural areas), which affects the demand for education. The problem,
therefore, is a complex one.

The Moroccan authorities − at the very highest level − realise how serious the situation is. Last year the king
appointed a national commission to make an overall assessment of the reforms needed by the education system
as a whole. The first concrete results were expected in October 1997.
11. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 76/121

The 1996-98 National Indicative Programme for Morocco allocated a total of ECU 50 000 000 to basic education
in that country (4). The first part was to finance an investment programme for building and repairing schools in
rural areas. This is now in the planning stage. Phase Two would see the Commission aiding a programme of
essential − though delicate − reforms, in close collaboration with the World Bank.

(1) In the countryside 90% of women are illiterate (1994). The net rate of school attendance by girls in rural areas was 34% in 1994 (as against
85% for boys in urban areas).
2
() Averaging about 25% over the last ten years (not including higher education), which is well within the average for countries with similar
income levels.
(3) Combined with a very poor standard of infrastructure (water, roads and farm tracks, health) in remote country areas.
(4) I.e., 11% of the total 1996-98 National Indicative Programme for Morocco.

(98/C 76/230) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2535/97


by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission
(24 July 1997)

Subject: Decision 94/730/EC establishing simplified procedures concerning the deliberate release of genetically
modified plants

As I am not satisfied with your answer either to Written Question E-2394/96 (1) or to the supplement (2), I will put
my question again.

1. What is the origin of the Member States’ obligation to provide ‘appropriate public information’ in the
context of simplified procedures too?

2. Where is the definition of ‘appropriate information’ in the context of the simplified procedure to be found?

3. What is the appropriate timescale for and scope of the information given to the population concerned by
virtue of the first sentence of Article 1(1) of Directive 90/220/EEC (3) in the case of simplified procedures and
from which provision are they derived?

4. When and to what extent is the population informed under the procedure in accordance with points 6.1. and
7. of the Annex to Decision 94/730/EEC (4) in respect of points 7.1. and 7.2?

5. Where and how often has cauliflower been released?

6. How is sufficient experience proven?

(1) OJ C 96, 24.3.1997, p. 5.


(2) OJ C 60, 25.2.1998, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.
(4) OJ L 292, 12.11.1994, p. 31.

(98/C 76/231) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2536/97


by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission
(24 July 1997)

Subject: Decision 94/730/EC establishing simplified procedures concerning the deliberate release into the
environment of genetically modified plants − legislative status

As I am not satisfied with your answer either to Written Question E-2395/96 (1) or to the supplement (2), I will put
my question again.

1. Are the contents of the Annex to Decision 94/730/EC (3) to be understood as a suggestion to the Member
States to which they are addressed, in accordance with Article 1(5) and Article 2(2) of Decision 93/584/EEC (4)
and Article 4(1) and (3), the first sentence of Article 5 and Article 7 of Directive 90/220/EEC (5) or as binding
within the meaning of Article 189(4) of the EC Treaty?