WRITTEN QUESTION E-0017/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Oil discharges at sea.
21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/67 different interests are at stake. At the 1997 COP in Harare a decision was taken to allow three southern African countries to export a limited amount of ivory to Japan. Does the Commission have a position on the CITES policy on elephant poaching for COP 10 at this moment, and on what information is this position based? 2. Consultation is an important part of the European decision-making process. How will the Com- mission consult with interested parties, such as NGOs, in drawing up its recommendations? How does the Commission take the specific position of developing countries into account in this respect? How will the Commission harmonise the need for development with the worldwide need to protect endangered species? 3. At the time of COP 10 of CITES in 1997 the EU common position was drawn up at the last minute before the Conference, with no time for consultation. The Commission has repeatedly called for increased transparency in international procedures. In order to be able to study the list of endangered species as well as to react to it, the European Parliament needs the Commission to present its recommendations on the listings proposals for the upcoming Conference in good time. Can the Commission guarantee that the proposals will indeed be presented early next year (2000) at the latest? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (7 February 2000) The Commission condemns elephant poaching in both Africa and Asia as this practice undermines international efforts to ensure the sustainable use of wildlife and threatens the conservation of the species. To the extent that this poaching is driven by a demand for international trade, CITES and our own wildlife trade 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) are important instruments in reducing incentives. The Commission organised a hearing with European non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on 17 Jan- uary 2000 in order to inform the deliberations leading to Commission recommendations for common positions. The position of developing countries on specific proposals is often presented in the text of proposals to amend the CITES appendices and full account is taken of these views. On other issues, the views of developing countries only manifest themselves at the conference itself. Although the primary goal of CITES relates to the conservation of endangered species, the Commission takes the view that this objective is unlikely to be achieved without the support of local people in developing countries where much of the worldís biodiversity is to be found. The Commission makes its CITES conference recommendations as early as possible following the receipt of the proposals, and after consultations with experts from the Member States and European NGOs. The determination of the common position will be made in the Council. (1) OJ L 61, 3. 3. 1997. (2000/C 330 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0017/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council (20 January 2000) Subject: Oil discharges at sea Oil discharges in the Atlantic and the North Sea are a threat to the various biotopes along Europeís coastline. The large number of birds covered in oil, mainly in December, January and February, illustrates the serious nature of the pollution. Ships usually make use of stormy weather to flush their oil tanks clean without being seen. The only possible solution, according to the Maríne Ecological Centre in Ostend, would be rules making it compulsory for ships to clean their oil tanks before leaving port. Ships would not be able to leave without a certificate of proof. C 330 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 Can the Council agree to a directive making it compulsory for ships to clean their oil tanks before leaving port, given the threat to various biotopes along Europeís coastline from oil discharges? If not, why does the Council feel that such an obligation is unnecessary and what alternative proposals does it have for effectively tackling the problem of oil discharges? Reply (2 May 2000) 1. The Council is aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member. Incorporating environ- mental-protection requirements is a precondition for defining and implementing Community policies and actions. Following the mandates given by the European Council at its meetings in Cardiff (15 to 16 June 1998), Vienna (11 to 12 December 1998) and Cologne (3 to 4 June 1999), the task of incorporating these requirements has already started within the various sectoral policies. The Council has not, however, yet received any proposals from the Commission specifically concerning the points raised in this question. The Council would refer the Honourable Member to a body of texts which have already been 2. approved or are currently under examination which, on account of the growing quantities of dangerous or polluting goods transported by sea, are designed to avoid and reduce the risks likely to arise from serious accidents at sea. 3. In this respect mention should be made of Directive 93/75/EC concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods. It was amended twice in 1998. 4. On 8 November 1999 the Council adopted a common position with a view to adopting a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues. That common position, together with Directive 95/21/EC on Port State control, provides for inspections in Community ports in order to monitor implementation of the international and Community rules on the subject. In a similar vein the Council has just adopted (December 1999) a common position on a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution. One of the aims of that Decision is to supplement Member Statesí efforts in cases of oil spillage or threat of oil spillage and to strengthen their clean-up capacity in that field. 5. In addition, at its meeting on 24 January 2000, dealing among other things with oil tanker safety, the Council took note of the initiatives envisaged by the Commission concerning in particular increased security standards for oil tankers to be admitted to European Union ports, intensification of security inspections and identification of those financially responsible in cases of pollution. The Council would stress, furthermore, that the Community provisions on the subject are based on 6. international the International the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships or the resolutions of the International Maritime Organization. law, i. e. (2000/C 330 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0018/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (19 January 2000) Subject: Oil discharged at sea Oil discharges in the Atlantic and the North Sea are a threat to the various biotopes along Europeís coastline. The large number of birds covered in oil, mainly in December, January and February, illustrates the serious nature of the pollution. Ships usually make use of stormy weather to flush their oil tanks clean without being seen