WRITTEN QUESTION E-0553/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Consumption of the meat of endangered primates.
C 46 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (12 May 2000) As the Honourable Member will know, there was considerable resistance at the Seattle World Trade Organisation (WTO), Ministerial Conference to the Community call to include animal welfare in the agenda for the next round of trade talks. It is clear that much of this resistance was based on a misunderstanding of our objectives. The Commission will continue to work actively both to launch a comprehensive round of trade talks and to create a better understanding of our concerns on animal welfare in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome. (2001/C 46 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0553/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission (29 February 2000) Subject: Consumption of the meat of endangered primates According to a recent report by the World Conservation Union, one of the leading environmental lemurs and other primates risk associations in the United States, around 25 species of monkeys, disappearing from our planet in the next 10 to 20 years. This threat of extinction is caused not only by the destruction of tropical forests, but also by an increasingly alarming phenomenon ü the exponential growth in the consumption of monkey meat. The blame is being laid first and foremost on the logging companies, trading in tropical timber, which allegedly fail to provide their workers with sufficient food. Furthermore, the problem of poaching has become more serious as a result of the wars which are devastating central Africa and have put an end to tourism, which was previously the cornerstone of the local economies. Now that gorillas are no longer useful as a tourist attraction, their meat has acquired enormous value as a delicacy. Can the Commission say what measures it intends to take to guarantee the protection of the primate species under threat of extinction? Can it issue a directive banning all forms of trade in monkey meat within the EU, especially considering the serious viral risk presented by the consumption of such meat? Can the Commission also put the required pressure on the WHO to ban such practices in the countries in question? Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (4 April 2000) The information available to the Commission indicates that trade of illegal primate meat towards the Community is not a significant factor in the context of the extinction of endangered primates. Interna- tional commercial trade in parts or derivatives of great ape species is already prohibited under the provisions of the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) as it is for all other species threatened with extinction included in its Appendix I and Annex A of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (1), which implements CITES in the Community. A great number of developing countries are party to CITES as well as 14 Member States. 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/13 The Commission is aware of serious problems caused by unsustainable bushmeat consumption and bushmeat trade among developing countries, in particularly in parts of Africa. The Commission has therefore under the environment budget line supported a study in order to identify the magnitude of bushmeat trade in Africa, to determine the underlying causes and to define possible policy measures. The results of the study will be published soon. The threat to wildlife is in the first place from habitat degradation and destruction. The Commission supports projects and programmes, which focus on the sustainable management of ecosystems as well as the preservation of protected areas. Tropical forests are among the most important habitats for wildlife, and for primates in particular. Therefore, activities supported under the tropical forest budget line have many links with wildlife. Attention to conservation and sustainable use of wildlife by the local population is also given through several rural development programmes funded under the European development fund or the export earnings stabilization system for least-developed countries in Asia and Latin America. In both cases this is mainly done in the context of a álivelihoodí approach, where local development opportunities are linked with the conservation of biodiversity. Local use of wildlife is not necessarily illegal or unsustainable. Significant pressure on endangered wildlife is also exerted by illegal activities (e. g. hunting and trade) not at least in unstable situations of warfare or social unrest. In this context, Community support for ágood governanceí and ácapacity buildingí projects and programmes is therefore also important to tackle the problem. (1) OJ L 61, 3. 3. 1997. (2001/C 46 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0562/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (29 February 2000) Subject: Legislation and the manufacturing industry How many regulations has the EU produced which affect the manufacturing industry in each of the last five years? How many equivalent regulations have been produced by each Member State? Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (11 May 2000) The wide spectrum of the Communityís fields of activities makes it difficult to identify all pieces of Community legislation which may have an indirect impact on manufacturing industry. However, for legislation directly applicable to industry, the Honourable Member will find below the required statistics on legal acts adopted during the course of the last five years. These cover, on the one hand, the number of legal acts adopted by the Community (387 in total) and, on the other hand, the corresponding technical regulations notified to the Commission within the framework of Directives 83/ 189/EEC and 98/34/EC (3 057 in total). the number of Although one would expect to see a certain disparity between the two sets of figures, because of the nature of the legal instruments used by the Community (regulations or directives), and the timing of their transposition into national law, the Honourable Member will notice the relatively large divergence between these statistics. This issue was examined by the Commission, with concern, in its 1995 report on National Regulations applicable to Internal Market productsí (1). In substance, the report confirmed the widespread perception that Member States frequently add (gold-plate) to Community rules in their transposition measures, by failing to opt for the simplest of a range of options or by requiring complicated procedures to achieve requirements set out in directives. This not only increases the limited number of Community rules but also imposes unnecessary burdens on business while contributing, unfairly, to the perception of the Commun- ity as a source of red tape