WRITTEN QUESTION E-0330/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Grant of a licence to conduct test borings for gas in the De Biesbosch National Park in the Netherlands.
Date: 2000-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, biotope, drilling, environmental protection, national park, natural gas, protected area

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/129

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The transposition into the Italian law of Council Directive 94/57/EC (1) put an end to the monopoly that
the Italian register of shipping (RINA) enjoyed in Italy for the issuance of safety certificates to merchant
ships. The Italian law was adopted in 1998 and from that date onwards classification societies other than
RINA will be in a position to carry out statutory tasks (arising from the international conventions) on
behalf of the Italian administration. The private legal nature of RINA does not contravene with the
provisions regulating the Community-wide recognition of classification societies laid down in the above
mentioned Directive.

The presence of shipowners on the board of directors is a normal practice for classification societies.
Together with the shipowners, there are other representatives of the shipping industry on the board of
directors of these organisations. Their role is to guide the activities of the classification society, mainly by
indicating their needs and requesting the establishment of specific rules. Of course, what needs to be
verified is the compliance of RINA (cid:129) and of the other recognised organisations (cid:129) with the provisions of
criterion A.6 of the Annex to the above mentioned Directive. This criterion states that (cid:145)the organization
should not be controlled by shipowners or shipbuilders, or by others engaged commercially in the
manufacture, equipping, repair or operation of ships. The organization should not be substantially
dependent on a single commercial enterprise for its revenue(cid:146). Compliance of RINA with these provisions
will be verified during the forthcoming assessment to be carried out by the Commission.

The possibility of establishing a body to assess the activities of the classification societies in a centralised
and harmonised manner has recently been raised by several
interested parties. The Commission is at
present in the process of analysing the feasibility and possible implications of the establishment of such a
body. The Commission will keep the Parliament duly informed of its decisions on this matter in the
shortest possible time.

(1) Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey

organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (OJ L 319, 12.12.1994).

(2000/C 330 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0330/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Grant of a licence to conduct test borings for gas in the (cid:145)De Biesbosch(cid:146) National Park in the

Netherlands

1.
Is the Commission aware of the new licence granted on 13 January 2000 by the Netherlands
Economic Affairs Minister to the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschapij NV (NAM (cid:129) Netherlands Petroleum
Company) to conduct boring operations for the (cid:145)Andel-2(cid:146) concessionary area situated between Schoon-
hoven, Dordrecht and Hertogenbosch in the provinces of South Holland, Gelderland and North Brabant?

2.
Is the Commission aware that the concessionary area referred to in paragraph 1 above includes not
only farming and residential areas, but also the De Biesbosch river area, connected to it by a slender one-
kilometre wide strip of land situated between the Nieuwe Merwede (on the north side) and the Amer
(on the south side), a former fresh-water tidal area that is home to a large number of rare plant and animal
species and has enjoyed national-park status since 1994?

3.
Is the Commission aware of the Netherlands government(cid:146)s reasons for including the De Biesbosch
area referred to in paragraph 2 above with the rest of the (cid:145)Andel-2(cid:146) concessionary area, and does it agree
that the area would not have been included unless it had been expressly intended to leave open the option
of conducting natural-gas boring operations within a national park area?

4.
Can the Commission confirm that De Biesbosch is one of the areas to which the European habitats
and birds directive applies, and that oil-boring operations in that area can result in unintended disruption
to plant and animal
life, and, by way of land subsidence and further soil pollution (following earlier
damage by 112 000 tons of petroleum-retaining soil and catalytic converter waste by a company (Shell)
with a 50 %-shareholding in NAM on the north side of the Biesbosch?

C 330 E/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

Does the Commission agree that holding open the option of allowing gas-boring operations to be
5.
conducted within the De Biesbosch National Park area conflicts with the region(cid:146)s status as a protected area?

6. What action will the Commission take to ensure that the De Biesbosch area ceases to be included in
the (cid:145)Andel-2(cid:146) concessionary area, so that it can continue to be protected against boring operations and
their adverse impact?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

The only information the Commission has about the facts that are raised by the Honourable Member is
from articles in Dutch newspapers. Therefore it is not able to go more deeply into this case.

The Commission would furthermore refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question
P-0179/00 by Mr de Roo (1), in which it said that it is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the
Netherlands comply with Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds (2) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild flora and fauna (3).

(1) See page 99.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2000/C 330 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0332/00

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Financing arrangements for combating veterinary disease in the EU

Under the new financial framework, agricultural expenditure is subject to even more restrictions than
hitherto. The EU has, in recent years, experienced widespread outbreaks of veterinary disease (in particular
BSE and swine fever) that have placed a heavy burden of expenditure on the EU budget.

In the different Member States the costs of combating veterinary sickness are met from the national budget
by constituting special funds, the better to be prepared for possible outbreaks, or by developing particular
insurance schemes.

Can the Commission:

1.

2.

Provide a summary outline of the arrangements for financing the response to outbreaks of veterinary
disease, the combating of which is required pursuant to European regulations or directives in Member
States?

Look into options for financing the costs of any future outbreaks of such infectious diseases of farm
animals from funds specially set up for that purpose or by developing special insurance schemes?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

The cost of veterinary diseases is generally made up of two elements: compensation paid to farmers for the
slaughter of their animals, and operating costs for measures to combat these diseases.

The method of calculating and rules on meeting these costs are governed by national law. As regards
compensation for farmers, the Member States have generally opted for one of the following arrangements:
the cost of veterinary diseases is either funded by means of a special budget earmarked for animal health,
or a State fund for veterinary diseases steps in to meet the costs incurred. This is financed through
compulsory contributions from farmers, which are usually supplemented by a balancing subsidy from the
public authorities. The contributions payable by farmers and the compensation to which they are entitled
sometimes depend on the size of the farm concerned.