WRITTEN QUESTION E-1675/99 by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Exotic animals.
C 225 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 area; is it aware of the economic appraisal on which the scheme is based; and what steps will it take to ensure no scheme receives EU funds if it is shown to be a threat to the environment? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (22 November 1999) The Commission is not aware that the proposal to extend a runway area into Lough Foyle will damage a special protection area (SPA), classified by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). The Commission is aware that an economic appraisal has been carried out but, under the principle of subsidiarity, assessment of the various elements contained therein rests with the national authority which in this case is the Department of environment in Northern Ireland. The protection regime applying to the Lough Foyle SPA is defined in Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2). Therefore, any plan or project not directly connected to the management of this site but likely to have a significant effect on it must be subject to an appropriate environmental assessment in view of the siteís conservation objectives. Given that the Honourable Member has alleged that the proposal to develop the runway will damage a special protection area he is invited to submit further details on the nature and extent of the threat to the birds and their habitats so that the Commission will be able to fully investigate the matter with the United Kingdom authorities. In relation to whether the scheme would receive Community funds, it is a requirement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 on the tasks of the structural funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European investment bank and the other existing financial instruments (3) that measures to be co-financed by the structural funds should be in conformity with Community environment policy. (1) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992. (3) OJ L 193, 31. 7. 1993. (2000/C 225 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1675/99 by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 September 1999) Subject: Exotic animals Exotic animals are subjected to indescribable suffering during transportation. Treated as ágoodsí, they are transported in appalling conditions. Many animals are dead or seriously injured by the time they reach their destination. What measures is the Commission taking to halt practices of this kind which are cruel to animals? What measures is the Commission taking to monitor the illegal transportation of exotic animals? Will the Commission support a ban on imports of exotic animals into the Member States of the European Union? 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/7 Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (28 October 1999) The Commission would like to point out to the Honourable Member that Council Regulation (EC) No 338/ 97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1) contains all the necessary provisions for trade and transport of wild animals and plant species. In particular, all imported and exported specimens of species covered by the Regulation must be transported in accordance with international norms established by the International air transport association (IATA) or Convention on trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES). Mortality in transport is closely monitored in the Community and import restrictions can be put in place where necessary. The authorities of individual Member States have the responsibility for ensuring that these requirements are complied with. However, according to the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 an enforcement group has been established, consisting of responsible authorities of each Member State, to combat illegal trade. The Commission considers that the conservation of many species is sometimes better served by permitting a well-monitored and controlled trade rather than instituting an import ban. (1) OJ L 61, 3. 3. 1997. (2000/C 225 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1697/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 September 1999) Subject: Violation of Directive 91/271/EEC concerning the designation of vulnerable areas in the Gulf of Elefsina. The Committee on Petitions has examined Petition 413/92 submitted by the inhabitants of the region of Elefsina. A group of Euro-MPs visited the region in October 1995 and examined the state of the environment and the alleged violations of Community legislation which local inhabitants had protested about, but they failed to receive any undertakings from the Greek government that it would address the problems. The Commission initiated proceedings against Greece for failing to implement Directive 91/271/EEC (1) on vulnerable regions: the result of the Greek Governmentís failure to act is that the Gulf of Elefsina is not being protected, and no measures are being taken to restore the environment. Will the Commission say which programmes can be used to fund substantive measures to rid the Gulf of environmental pollution and to improve the quality of the water and the coastline? (1) OJ L 135, 30. 5. 1991, p. 40. Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1999) When Petition 413/92 was examined the Commission informed the members of Parliamentís Commission on Petitions (on 22 April 1999) of the action taken in the Elefsina region by the Greek authorities in implementation of Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major accident hazards of certain industrial activities (1) (amended by Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances (2)). They found the information given satis- factory and decided to terminate action on the petition