WRITTEN QUESTION P-1508/99 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Promoting the Königsbrücker Heide and Am Spitzberg nature conservation areas (in Saxony, Germany) in the context of the Community's Konver initiative.
C 170 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 6. 2000 zone and is contrary to international law. Some time ago this situation led to the seizure of the Galician vessel Estai and a dispute which has still not been settled in law. In view of all this, can the Commission say why it refuses to settle the ongoing fisheries dispute? What steps has the EU devised to safeguard Community fishing interests ü which affect Galicia in particular ü in the NAFO area, in view of the authorised increase in fishing activity and the repeal of Law C-27? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 October 1999) It should be recalled that the dispute, which arose within the Northwest Atlantic fisheries organisation (NAFO) on the sharing of the Greenland halibut stock and which culminated in Canadaís arrest of the Spanish trawler Estaií in international waters in March 1995, was settled by both the conclusion of the Agreement constituted in the form of an agreed minute, an exchange of letters, an exchange of notes and the Annexes thereto between the European Community and Canada on fisheries in the context of the NAFO Conventioní of 20 April 1995 (1) and, as intended, the subsequent adoption (ámultilateralisationí) by NAFO of the agreed package of measures at the 17th annual meeting of NAFO which was held from 11 to 15 September 1995. Under the terms of this settlement, Canada removed Spain and Portugal from the list of states against which the Canadian fisheries legislation of 1994 (so-called Bill C-29) could be applied. It should also be noted that, in recent dealings about the new legislation enabling Canada to implement the 1995 United Nations (UN) Agreement on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (so-called Bill C-27), Canada restated in writing that áfurther to the 1995 Canada/EU Agreed Minute, Canada took Spain and Portugal off the list of States against which the provisions of Bill C-29 could be applied; those two countries are still off that list and the adoption of Bill C-27 does not change anything in that respectí. The Commission believes that firmness on principles offers the best prospects for the avoidance of a repetition of the events of 1995. In line with this, the Commission has consistently taken exception to extra-territorial aspects of Canadian fisheries legislation. Furthermore, it has emphasised and continues to emphasise the importance of the rule of law in international fisheries relations, the priority of international law (i. e. the NAFO Convention and customary international law in the present instance) over pieces of domestic legislation and the need for appropriate procedures for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. In the latter context, the Commission has insisted on a continuation and acceleration of work on a specific dispute settlement mechanism in the framework of NAFO. At this yearís annual meeting of NAFO, which was held from 13 to 17 September 1999, and against initial resistance from Canada, this motion remained successful. (1) Council Decision 95/0586/EC of 22 December 1995, OJ L 327, 30. 12. 1995. (2000/C 170 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1508/99 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: Promoting the Königsbrücker Heideí and Am Spitzbergí nature conservation areas (in Saxony, Germany) in the context of the Communityís Konver initiative As part of the Konver initiative the Community has given financial aid to the Königsbrücker Heideí and Am Spitzbergí nature conservation areas in Saxony. Can the Commission answer the following: 1. What is the amount of subsidies and loans, what are they for and what specific measures have they been used to support? 20. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 170 E/27 2. Have the measures resulted in the protected status of the areas being impaired (e. g. as a result of destruction of biotopes, afforestation of open areas or provision of firebreaks in woodland areas)? 3. Have the measures jeopardised the areasí suitability as natural habitats (Directive 92/0043/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora)? 4. To what extent do the measures supported contradict environmental or nature conservation legislation in force or violate the provision in the Community initiative Konver that measures supported must be such as to improve the environment? 5. Is the Commission aware that application has been made to remove the protected status of the Am Spitzbergí conservation area? for the purpose of applying for more money from Konver an (1) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 7. Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (6 October 1999) During the present programming period 1994-1999, Saxony is receiving grants from the structural funds under the Konver Community initiative. In application of the principles of partnership and subsidiarity, national or regional authorities are responsible for the implementation of operational programmes and the selection of specific projects. In the case of Saxony, the ministry of economics is responsible in the first instance. They are of course bound by European legislation including that relating to nature protection legislation. For the Konver Community initiative, priorities for funding are defined, and then specific projects are selected during the implementation of the programme. It is certainly possible therefore to submit project applications for the different priorities to the responsible authorities. Should the Honourable Member be aware of a potential in relation to the case of Am Spitzbergí or any other, he is invited to submit further details so that the Commission can take up the matter with the German authorities. infringement (2000/C 170 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1510/99 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: Excessive use of European Structural Fund resources for road construction in the five new Länder and East Berlin (Objective 1 area of the Federal Republic of Germany) The Federal German Government has decided that the substantial sum of DM 3,4 billion of ERDF resources is to be spent on basic infrastructure from the Structural Funds for the new Länder, two thirds of this amount being earmarked for long-distance road transport and only one third for rail transport. This is inconsistent with the following principles adopted for the Structural Funds and considered essential by the European Parliament: ü the goal of harmoniously balanced and sustainable development; ü the goal of increasing employment; ü the goal of protecting and improving the environment;