You are on page 1of 2

8. 6.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174/33

No distinction is made in these figures between those which were incinerated with energy recovery and those
incinerated without energy recovery.

The United Kingdom incinerated 102 000 tonnes of used tyres with energy recovery in 1996 (4). Official figures
are not available to the Commission for Spain, Ireland, Luxembourg or Finland.

(1) Total for Wallonia and Flanders, excluding Brussels region.

Figures for Flanders (100) for 1994.
() Figures for 1993.
(3) Per annum figures 1993-1995.
(4) United Kingdom Industry/Government Scrap Tyre Working Group 2nd Annual Report.

(98/C 174/69) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3269/97

by Marı́a Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission
(20 October 1997)

Subject: Used tyres

Article 5(2)(d) of the proposal for a Council Directive on the landfill of waste (COM(97) 0105) stipulates that
whole used tyres may not be accepted in a landfill with effect from two years from the date of entry into force of
the Directive and shredded used tyres may not be accepted with effect from five years from that date (1).

Can the Commission say what measures and procedures it has laid down to ensure compliance with the
requirements of the above proposal for a Directive?

(1) OJ C 156, 24.5.1997, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1997)

A priority waste stream working group on used tyres, which was set up by the Commission in 1991, proposed a
ban on landfilling of tyres in its final conclusions of September 1993. As mentioned by the Honourable Member,
this has been taken into account in the new proposal on landfill of waste in order to prevent landfilled tyres from
making the sites unstable and to reduce the risk of fire. Furthermore, the ban on landfilling of whole tyres and
shredded tyres aims to encourage the recovery of tyres and thus to save resources.

When the time for implementation of the landfill directive expires Member States will communicate to the
Commission their national implementing measures, which the Commission will examine in the usual way.

(98/C 174/70) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3272/97

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission
(20 October 1997)

Subject: Fifth framework programme

To repeat the query not dealt with in the answer to my Written Question E-1873/97 (1) of 29 May 1997 (see point
2 of the question), will acceptance of projects be ‘linked to compliance with the 50% reduction in the use of
animals in experiments announced by the Commission in the fifth programme on the environment’?

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 115.

C 174/34 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 6. 98

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 1998)

The acceptance of research projects under the Fifth Framework Programme in the field of Research will depend
on whether the criteria set out in Annex I of the Commission Proposal (1) are met. Moreover, the Commission
stipulates in its Proposal that, as far as possible, testing on animals will be replaced by in vitro experiments or
other alternative means. The Commission places great importance on the objective of reducing the amount of
testing carried out on animals to a minimum; to achieve this, when it comes to assessing the research projects
submitted within the Fifth Framework Programme, compliance with the ethical requirements in relation to
animal testing − replacement, reduction, optimisation − will be taken into account. These principles are also
mentioned by the Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology in its 10th Opinion, published
on 11 December 1997, on the ethical aspects of the Fifth Framework Programme.

The objective referred to by the Honourable Member appears in the general terms of the Commission Proposal
on the Fifth Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment (2), as presented by the
Commission in 1992. This objective has not however been re-addressed at Council level in its resolution on the
Fifth Community programme of policy and action, but it remains a principal which the Commission pays close
attention to when accepting projects.

(1) COM(97) 142 final.

(2) COM(92) 23.

(98/C 174/71) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3280/97

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission
(20 October 1997)

Subject: Classification of the stowage of waste in mining cavities according to Annex IIA or IIB of Directive
91/156/EEC on waste

In Germany, some of the waste used as stowage in mines is of high quality and could be suitable for recycling, for
example the recovery of metals from steelwork dust or the treatment of foundry sand. This is contrary to a waste
management policy of channelling waste towards recovery centres where it can be recycled as effectively as
possible and endangers the very existence of such recovery centres.

1. Is stowage in mines a disposal operation within the meaning of Annex IIA or a recovery operation within
the meaning of Annex IIB of Directive 91/156/EEC?

2. If the Commission considers stowage in mines to be a disposal operation, does it regard it as the most
rational solution in ecological terms?

3. What part of coherent Community waste-management strategy is formed by stowage in mines?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 1997)

1. The Commission considers stowage of waste in mines to be a disposal operation in accordance with Annex
IIA of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (1), on waste. Such an operation could be
classified as D1, D3 or D12.

2. Pursuant to Article 3 of Directive 75/442/EEC, Member States take the appropriate measures to encourage
firstly the prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness, and secondly the recovery of waste
by means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a view to extracting secondary raw
materials or the use of waste as a source of energy.

This hierarchy of waste management principles is confirmed in the communication from the Commission on the
review of the Community strategy for waste management of July 1996 (2), stating that prevention of waste shall
remain the first priority, followed by recovery and finally by the safe disposal of waste. It is recognised that this
hierarchy has to be applied with a certain degree of flexibility, with a view to the best environmental solution in
each specific case. Notwithstanding, landfilling of waste is seen by the Commission as the last and least best