WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3086/97 by Jessica LARIVE to the Commission. Draft directive on paraffin
C 134/76 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 4. 98 3. The removal of the great cormorant from Annex I has no effect on the legal status of special protection areas which were classified for the habitats of other bird species as well as the great cormorant. Special protection areas classified exclusively for the sub-species phalacrocorax carbo sinensis would have been classified on the basis of its inclusion in Annex I, and the Commission considers that the effect of its removal from Annex I is that the obligations of Directive 79/409/EEC in respect of special protection areas no longer apply to the areas concerned in the absence of some new basis for classification. Such a basis might lie in Article 4(2) of the Directive, which requires the classification of areas for migratory species not included in Annex I. As a migratory species no longer included in Annex I, the great cormorant qualifies for protection under this provision. The Commission considers that there is no risk to the coherence of special protection areas as a whole. 4. The same legal conservation and protection regime applies to areas classified under Article 4(1) and areas classified under Article 4(2) of Directive 79/409/EEC. The difference between the two provisions lies in the species for which habitat conservation measures are required to be classified. Article 4(1) exclusively addresses the habitats of Annex I species whereas Article 4(2) addresses the habitats of non-Annex I migratory species, with a particular accent being placed on wetlands. The same site may qualify for classification under both provisions. (1) OJ L 103, 25. 04. 1979, as lastly amended by Directive 97/49/EC, OJ L 223, 13. 08. 1997. (98/C 134/98) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3086/97 by Jessica Larive (ELDR) to the Commission (19 September 1997) Subject: Draft directive on paraffin Can the Commission answer the following questions concerning its proposal for an amendment of Directive 76/769/EEC (1) in respect of paraffin? 1. Does the current proposal in respect of paraffin really constitute an adaptation to technical progress within the meaning of Directive 89/678/EEC (2) amending Directive 76/769/EEC? 2. Has the Commission carried out an in-depth investigation into the real risks involved in this issue and into the effectiveness of the proposed measure in terms of risk reduction? If so, what were the findings of those investigations? 3. To what extent is the Commission aware that the danger to health results largely from oil lamps which are not properly secureed, and what measures has it envisaged to reduce that risk? 4. To what extent does the Commission consider it justified that the proposed measure will have a major economic impact on certain undertakings within the European Union, although alternative and effective measures are available which will have a considerably less adverse effect on those undertakings? (1) OJ L 262, 27. 9. 1976, p. 201. (2) OJ L 398, 30. 12. 1989, p. 24. Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1997) The Honourable Member is referred to the Commissionís answers to Written Questions E-2302/97 from Mrs Jackson and P-2377/97 from Mr Cassidy (1), E-2415/97 from Mr Kellett Bowman (2) and E-2763/97 from Mrs Peijs (3). (1) OJ C 60, 25. 2. 1998, p. 122. (2) OJ C 60, 25. 2. 1998, p. 130. (3) OJ C 102, 3. 4. 1998, p. 113