You are on page 1of 3

C 137 E/126 Official Journal of the European Union EN 12.6.

2003

The Commission and the government of Spain jointly sponsored a four-day Conference on alternatives to
MB in Sevilla in March 2002 that was attended by about 300 researchers, extension workers, farmers,
industry and government representatives from 18 developing and 22 developed countries. This conference
was co-sponsored by the Commission pursuant to its obligations under Article 4(2)(i)(d) of Regulation (EC)
No 2037/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the
ozone layer (1) that requires it to encourage the development and the use of alternatives to MB.

2. The use of MB is not a health issue for consumers but rather an issue of eliminating MB globally in
order to accelerate the recovery of the ozone layer. Maximum residue levels (MRLs) of MB in food are laid
down in Council Directives 86/362/EEC (2) and 93/58/EC (3). In addition, a full evaluation of MB will
shortly be carried out under Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4) and on the basis of that evaluation it may be
decided whether the MRLs need to be reviewed. Any review of the MRLs shall also take into account those
established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

3. To assist in the identification and adoption of alternatives the Protocol’s Multilateral Fund (MLF) has
provided funds of about USD 49 million for 208 projects in more than 55 developing countries. It should
be noted that Member State contributions to the MLF for the phase out of all ozone depleting substances
including MB in developing countries account for more than 40 % of the total for the past three funding
trienniums. The Member States recognise the value of implementing alternatives as soon as possible and in
this way promote a ‘level playing field’ for all countries.

Some developing countries have unilaterally accelerated their phase out schedule to avoid further
dependency on MB and potential consumer boycotts in developed countries of MB-treated commodities.
As examples, Morocco has several projects that will introduce alternatives for major crops, and plans to
reduce MB imports/consumption from 1 600 tonnes in 1998 to 275 tonnes in 2006. Turkey will
introduce alternatives for tomato, cucumber, cut flowers and dried fruit, and plans to reduce MB imports/
consumption from 840 tonnes in 1997 to 34 tonnes in 2006.

(1) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.


(2) Council Directive 86/362/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on
cereals, OJ L 221, 7.8.1986.
(3) Council Directive 93/58/EEC of 29 June 1993 amending Annex II to Directive 76/895/EEC relating to the fixing of
maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables and the Annex to Directive 90/642/EEC
relating to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including
fruit and vegetables, and providing for the establishment of a first list of maximum levels, OJ L 211, 23.8.1993.
(4) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market,
OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2003/C 137 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2853/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Climate change  implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in Greece

The adoption of the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1) commits the
EU to reducing, in the period 2008-2012, the sum total of man-made emissions of gases which contribute
to the greenhouse effect to 1990 levels and to make tangible progress towards this target by 2005.

1. What is the level of gas emissions in each Member State in relation to the Kyoto Protocol targets?
What changes were observed in the period 1990-1999 in relation to the 2008-2012 targets and in
accordance with the EU’s burden-sharing mechanism?
12.6.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 137 E/127

2. By what percentage do gas emissions in Greece exceed that country’s allocated quota and its
commitments in quantitative terms to restrict and reduce emissions pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol
(if possible, could the Commission provide an analytical table for each of the six gases separately both in
relation to 1990 and the type of source)?

3. What measures has Greece taken pursuant to Article 2 of Council Decision 1999/296/EC (2)
concerning an emission monitoring mechanism (national programme) and what is the Commission’s
evaluation thereof in terms of Article 5 of the above decision, i.e. whether they are sufficient to ensure
fulfilment of the commitments that Greece has undertaken?

(1) OJ L 130, 15.5.2002, p. 1.


(2) OJ L 117, 5.5.1999, p. 35.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

The Commission delivered its second progress report to the Parliament and the Council under Council
Decision 93/389/EEC of 24 June 1993 for a monitoring mechanism of Community CO2 and other
greenhouse gas emissions (1) (as amended by Council Decision 1999/296/EC of 26 April 1999 (2)).
This report assesses the actual and projected progress of Member States and the Community towards
fulfilling their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission commitments under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, and is available at http://
www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/docum/0708_report_en.pdf.

In table 5.2.2 (which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s secretariat) of this report
on greenhouse gas emissions and Kyoto Protocol targets for 2008-2012, the first and second columns
show the level of greenhouse gas emissions in each Member State in 1990 and 1999. The fourth column
shows the change in greenhouse gas emissions in each Member State between 1990 and 1999. The fifth
column shows the change in greenhouse gas emissions in each Member State required by the Kyoto
Protocol by 2008-2012 according to each Member States’ burden-sharing target.

The sixth column shows the distance to target indicator for Member States. The distance-to-target indicator
is a measure for the deviation of actual emissions in 1999 from a linear target path to the target.
The intention has been to perform a consistent and comparable assessment of the contribution of each
Member State towards meeting the greenhouse gas targets of the Community as a whole. The analysis does
not aim to evaluate compliance of Member States with their targets, but rather their contribution to the
Community greenhouse gas emissions in 1999. The progress evaluation is carried out by comparing
1990-1999 greenhouse gas emission data of the Community and its Member States with two
(hypothetical) linear target paths: (a) the UNFCCC target path for 2000; and (b) the Kyoto target path for
2008-2012. By calculating the deviations from these target paths in 1999, a measure of actual progress of
the Community and its Member States in 1999 is established.

An analytical table for each of the six gases in each Member State in relation to 1990 is included in the
progress report as table 5.2.1 and is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s secretariat.

These figures show the variations of greenhouse gas emissions in these six gases between 1990-1999,
and Greece’s figures are in the eighth column.

The measures that Greece has taken in its national programme are detailed in an Annex to the
Commission progress report under Council Decision 93/389/EEC (2) COM(2001) 708 final.

Table 5.2.5 in the main body of the report to the Parliament and the Council shows the Commission’s
evaluation of Member States, by comparing the greenhouse gas emissions of Member States with their
linear target paths for 2008-2012. This table, which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s secretariat, shows Greece to be above its linear Kyoto target path by 5,7 index points.
C 137 E/128 Official Journal of the European Union EN 12.6.2003

The Commission will give its third progress report to the Parliament and the Council under Council
Decision 93/389/EEC (as amended by Decision 1999/296/EC) for a monitoring mechanism of Community
CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions later this year.

(1) OJ L 167, 9.7.1993.


(2) COM(2001) 708 final.

(2003/C 137 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2857/02


by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Use by the municipality of Rome of funding under the Daphne programme

In September 2002 the supervisory committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs presented a
report on how EU funding has been spent.

The inquiry revealed the worrying slowness and inefficiency in the award of contracts by local authorities:
commitments for 2000 accounted for only 2 % of the whole CSF.

Alarm at the inadequate use of European funding by local authorities has also been expressed by the
Commission on various occasions.

A number of local authorities, such as the municipality of Rome, very much need to use European funding
to combat abuse of women and children.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

1. whether the municipality of Rome has submitted projects under the Daphne programme;

2. whether the municipality of Rome has obtained funding for such projects;

3. whether the funding has been used?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

Since 1997 the following departments of the municipality of Rome have presented three proposals under
the Daphne programme:

 in 2000: the Cultural Office of District VI;

 in 2002: Department V  Social health policies;

 in 2002: Department XVIII  Public safety policies.

The first two proposals were turned down. The third is on the list of potential candidates for financing in
2002 provided that it is accepted by the Commission’s financial department. The Commission could
contribute a total of EUR 246 829 for a maximum of two years.