WRITTEN QUESTION E-2346/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council. Connivance between traffickers and anti-drugs authorities.
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Nicaragua, United States, common foreign and security policy, drug traffic, secret service

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/127

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

(15 September 2000)

On the question of the plan to construct a high-voltage power line on Tenerife (Canaries), it should be
noted that the Commission has recently received a complaint criticising the project in question as likely to
affect a site classified by the Spanish authorities as a (cid:145)special protection area for birds(cid:146) (SPA) under Article 4
of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.

As regards Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora, it should be noted that paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 6 lay down that any plan or
project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the SPA but likely to have a
significant effect thereon is subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of
the site(cid:146)s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for
the site, the competent national authorities will agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained
that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained
the opinion of the general public. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and
in the absence of alternative solutions, a project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of
overriding pubic interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member States must take all
compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. The
Member States must inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.

As regards Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment, it should be noted that Article 2 of that Directive lays
down that, before consent is given, projects likely to have a significant effect on the environment by virtue
inter alia of their nature, size or location must be made subject to an assessment with regard to their
effects.

This provision applies to the projects listed in Annexes I and II of the Directive. Annex II(3)(b) includes
installations for the transmission of electrical energy by overhead cables. Under Article 4(2), projects listed
in Annex II must be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics
so require.

In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take the necessary measures to ensure that
Community law is upheld in the case in question.

(2001/C 103 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2346/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Connivance between traffickers and anti-drugs authorities

In May 2000, the US Congress committee for the secret services published the conclusions of the
parliamentary inquiry into the role of the CIA in the support given to the Nicaraguan (cid:145)Contras(cid:146) in the
early 1980s.

During the hearings, which were held in camera, former CIA agents confirmed that the (cid:145)Contras(cid:146) were
allowed to benefit from a policy of (cid:145)active tolerance(cid:146) with the (cid:145)blessing(cid:146) of the US secret services, which
enabled them to self-finance their armed campaign, thanks to the profits of an extensive cocaine-trafficking
network.

Was the Council aware of these circumstances? Does the Council consider these dubious practices to be a
purely exceptional phenomenon in terms of anti-drugs-trafficking policy, or is it, on the contrary,
in
possession of similar information for other regions of the world, for recent years or for today? Does the
Council not consider that, in view of the seriousness of this case, it should raise the matter in the relevant
international forums, beginning with the UN(cid:146)s anti-drugs authority (the UNDCP)? Does the Council not
also consider that, in view of the seriousness of the matter, it should propose, as a matter of urgency, the
revision of the international conventions on narcotics with a view to creating a single legal framework to
cover all activities related to the production of marketing of substances forbidden under present law?

C 103 E/128

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Reply

(7 November 2000)

The facts raised by the Honourable Member have not been discussed by the Council.

(2001/C 103 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2349/00

by VØronique Mathieu (EDD) to the Commission

Subject: Civil protection and natural or technological disasters

(13 July 2000)

The EU must react in proper fashion to natural or technological disasters. Several months after the storms
of December 1999 and the wreck of the (cid:145)Erika(cid:146), the Commission has undertaken to submit, by the end
of July 2000, a communication and a proposal to the Council for the completion of the Community
action programme for civil protection established by the Council decision of 9 December 1999.

Can the Commission explain the fact that at the time of the disasters of December 1999 coordina-
1.
tion at Community level was not carried out under this programme, despite its having entered into force
on 1 January 2000?

How does the Commission propose to improve communication, not only between the Member
2.
States(cid:146) civil protection authorities but also between the Commission and the Member States and between
the different Commission DGs?

Has the Commission acted to identify the operational resources existing in the Member States for

3.
civil protection?

4.
In what fashion has the Commission decided to link up its new civil protection proposals to the
Council resolution of 8 July 1991 on mutual assistance between Member States in case of natural and
technological disaster (1), in particular as regards the environmental effects of disasters?

5.
How does the Commission intend to ensure the coordination and coherence of action of a future
European intervention force, whose creation would compound the proliferation of crisis centres, units and
management committees now existing under Union authority?

Can the Commission state how it intends to obtain guarantees from the Member States concerning

6.
their political commitment to cooperating with its forthcoming proposals?

(1) OJ C 198, 27.7.1991, p. 1.

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

(7 September 2000)

1.
The Community action programme the Honourable Member is referring to is aimed only periph-
erally at disaster intervention. Its main purpose is to develop and finance measures relating to prevention,
preparedness and public information. Had the storms of December 1999 necessitated Community
coordination, this would have happened within the framework of the resolution of 8 July 1991 on mutual
assistance, to which the Honourable Member also refers.

2.
Regarding communication between the Member States and between these and the Commission, the
latter has already launched a project through the IDA (interchange of data between administrations)
framework to set up a reliable and effective communication network. As for communication between the
Commission(cid:146)s own departments, an inter-departmental group has been set up inter alia to prepare
thoroughly the proposals the Honourable Member refers to in the fourth point of her question.