WRITTEN QUESTION E-1329/00 by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Aid for French départements affected by the recent storms.
Date: 2000-04-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, France, aid to disaster victims, eligible region

C 89 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

Is the Commission aware that 22 Canadian scientists have seriously advised the Canadian government
against allowing this slaughter of marine mammals, the largest in the world, to take place?

Is the Commission aware that as a result of the premature melting of ice in Eastern Canada many pups
were not born or suckled on time with the result that the young seal population is much smaller than
expected?

Is the Commission aware that because of the premature melting of the ice many hunters shot young seals
from their boats, resulting in many seals drowning so that the number of 275 000 dead seals is much
greater than permitted?

What can the Commission do to prevent slaughter on this scale next year?

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

(15 June 2000)

As stated in the Commission(cid:146)s reply to Written Question P-0395/00 by Mrs Corbey (1), Canadian catch
quotas for harp and hooded seals have remained unchanged since 1996.

Conclusions of a national marine mammal review committee meeting in Ottawa on April 11-12/2000, on
the stock status of the harp seal stated that the harp seal population has been stable since 1996 at the
highest level since estimates have been available (1960), the population estimate for 2000 is 5,2 million
seals (there is a 95 % chance that it is in the range of 4,0 to 6,4 million) and that aerial surveys results
provide an estimate of total pup production for harp seals in the Northwest Atlantic in 1999 of
approximately 1 million pups (range 200 000 to 1 200 000). Pup production has been increasingly steady
since the early 1980s.

Furthermore the Commission noted that the Ministry of fisheries and oceans has announced the formation
of an independent panel of scientists to evaluate the current state of scientific knowledge of the seal
population in Atlantic Canada and to provide advice on a long-term strategy for its management.

Although the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member concerning this year(cid:146)s ice conditions are
regrettable indeed, it does not appear that they pose a conservation threat to the species. Consequently
the Commission considers that, apart from a strict implementation of the Council Directive 83/129/EEC of
28 March 1983 concerning the importation into Member States of skins of certain seal pups and products
derived therefrom (2), there is no scope for Community involvement in this matter.

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 150.
(2) OJ L 91, 9.4.1983.

(2001/C 89 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1329/00

by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Aid for French (cid:145)dØpartements(cid:146) affected by the recent storms

Following the violent storms which struck France towards the end of December 1999, a number of
severely affected (cid:145)dØpartements(cid:146) had to spend large amounts of money on rebuilding damaged infrastruc-
tures, even though much of the expense was covered by insurance.

Could the Commission take the plight of these departments and districts into account when next it decides
which areas of France are eligible to receive assistance from the Structural Funds?

Also, would it be possible to restore the budget heading covering aid for the victims of natural disasters?

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/27

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission decided on the list of French areas eligible under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for
the 2000-2006 programming period on 7 March 2000, on the basis of a proposal from the French
authorities.

Under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general
provisions on the Structural Funds (1), that list can be amended on a proposal from a Member State only
in 2003, in the event of a serious crisis in a region and without increasing the eligible population of the
region in question.

It is worth pointing out that the areas eligible under Objective 2 for the period 2000-2006, in accordance
with the Commission decision of 7 March, contain 70 % of the population affected by the storms at the
end of 1999.

However, areas which suffered damage but which are not eligible under Objective 2 can still receive other
forms of Community assistance. An information note (2) lists the various Community instruments which
can be used for this purpose.

The Commission has no plans at this stage to restore the budget heading covering aid for the victims of
natural disasters. In view of the small amounts entered in the budget for this purpose up to 1997,
Community financial assistance was purely symbolic and too often took the form of scattered operations
on a fairly modest scale. The Commission now intends to concentrate on assisting the economic recovery
of the affected areas by means of the Community structural instruments.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) SEC(2000) 40.

(2001/C 89 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1330/00

by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Discharges of oil at sea

Following the disastrous loss of the (cid:145)Erika(cid:146) oil tanker off the coast of Brittany, several oil tankers took
advantage of the polluted state of the sea to clean their tanks while at sea, in defiance of the law.

In view of the threat to the environment from illicit discharges of this kind, does the Commission have any
plans to draw up a directive requiring ships to clean their tanks before leaving port in order to obtain a
certificate without which the ship would not be allowed to put to sea?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The Commission is greatly concerned about operational pollution, including tank-cleaning operation in
Community waters, which represents a greater share of the total marine oil pollution than that caused by
accidents.

Various international measures regarding construction and operation of oil tankers (mainly through the
Marpol 73/78 Convention) have significantly reduced the need for and benefits of discharge of cargo
residues at sea during the last decades. The application of these international rules is controlled in
Community ports through port state control under Council Directive 95/21/EC of 29 June 1995
concerning the enforcement,
in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters
under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention