WRITTEN QUESTION E-1299/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Nature conservation and environmental protection in Poland during the run-up to its accession to the European Union.
Date: 2001-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU law, Poland, accession to the European Union, environmental law, environmental protection, non-governmental organisation, protected area

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/31

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2001)

The Delphi Packard company in Olvega (Soria) has received Structural Fund financial assistance through
the Community Initiative ADAPT amounting to € 251 636 from the European Social Fund. Moreover, as a
complement to the above mentioned co-financing, it has received European Regional Development Fund
support for an amount of € 49 000 to finance the computer equipment needed for the training of its
personnel dealing with new technologies.

Should the Commission identify any anomaly regarding the use of the financial support granted, it would
take the appropriate regulatory measures to ensure respect of the relevant Community legislation (1) and
the conditions under which this support was granted.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds

(OJ L 161, 26.6.1999).

(2002/C 40 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1299/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Nature conservation and environmental protection in Poland during the run-up to its accession to

the European Union

1.
How can we prevent effective legislation on nature conservation, environmental protection and
animal welfare, which exists in Poland and in other applicant countries, from being watered down on the
grounds that the European Union has laid down less strict rules as minimum provisions?

2.
How can a solution be found to the problem that Poland protects wolves in nature conservation
areas in the Carpathian Mountains, whereas those same wolves, if they cross the national border, are shot
dead in the adjoining Slovakian nature conservation area?

3. What can the European Union do to help overcome the recent stalemate in the assignment to the
Bialowieza National Park contained therein of the entire Polish section of the former imperial hunting
ground between Hajn(cid:243)vka (Podlaskie) and the Belarus border (a total area of 62 500 ha), which is now
used by the state for timber extraction?

4.
How can we prevent a situation whereby, during the run-up to its accession to the European Union,
Poland largely ignores studies into and discussions about the possibility of alternatives, consultation of
those involved and testing for compliance with European Union directives and whereby natural river banks
with valuable flora and fauna are being destroyed by the energetic start being made on the construction of
new dams on the River Vistula and (possibly) the River Oder near Legnica?

5.
Does the Commission share the view of the Polish Government that the existing dam on the River
Vistula near Wloclawek will burst within the next nine years and will, therefore, have to be demolished,
renovated or replaced, in the short term and on safety grounds, by an entirely new water management
system? Does it have any opinion about which solution would be preferable, if the worst came to the
worst, and about what could be done to ensure that that solution could be given the best chance of
implementation?

6. What possibilities exist, even before Poland becomes a Member State of the European Union, for
further aid to be granted to non-governmental organisations which are active in the field of nature
conservation and environmental protection in Poland in the form of subsidies similar to those granted
from the environment budget to organisations in the current Member States and independent of any form
of cooperation with organisations in Member States with a view to a pan-European project?

C 40 E/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2001)

1.
By accession date, the candidate countries will have to comply with the requirements of Community
environmental directives. In general, Community directives will significantly raise the level of environ-
mental protection in the candidate countries, as Community rules are consistently stricter than their
national legislation. However, as rightly noted, Community directives often set minimum standards. In this
case, the candidate countries will be able to maintain or introduce more stringent environmental standards
provided they comply with the procedural and substantive rules in Articles 95 (ex Article 100A) or 176
(ex Article 130T) of the EC Treaty. The Commission is unaware of any decision in the candidate countries
to lower environmental standards to adjust to Community directives. The candidate countries have tended
to maintain those standards that are stricter than foreseen by Community directives as this is often
necessary to address the specific environmental problems faced by these countries.

Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
2.
flora (1) provides protection for wolves. This is also the case of the Bern Convention according to which a
favourable conservation status has to be secured for wolves. The Slovak Republic is a party to the Bern
Convention. However, geographical restrictions exist in the Member States. Therefore, this issue will have
to be discussed with the Slovak Republic in the context of the accession negotiations. If it does not want to
ensure full protection for wolves in its part of the Carpathian mountains, the Slovak Republic will have to
justify this and do so on sound scientific grounds based on the size of the wolves population.

A candidate country does not have an obligation to identify protected areas under Community
3.
legislation prior to accession. However, the Commission strongly recommends that the candidate countries
respect the requirements of Community directives, notably as regards nature protection. Concerning the
Bialowieza park, the Commission is aware of the proposal of the Polish Minister of Environment to extend
the natural park and is following the issue closely. The Bialowieza forest is of special natural value, as it
constitutes one of Europe(cid:146)s last virgin forests composed of leaf-trees. At present, the decision to extend the
natural park is an internal Polish issue. By accession, Poland has to provide a list of sites eligible for sites of
Community importance. On this basis, the procedure under Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 92/43/EEC will
apply, i.e. the Commission evaluates the proposals and establishes, in agreement with Poland, a draft list of
sites of Community importance. In exceptional cases, where the Commission finds that the national list
fails to mention an important site, a bilateral consultation procedure shall be initiated and, if no agreement
is reached, the Council, acting unanimously, shall take a decision.

4. and 5.
In line with Agenda 2000 and the Council Conclusions of 24 September 1988 on accession
strategies for the environment, the Commission considers that all new investments in the candidate
countries should comply with the environmental acquis. This notably includes carrying out proper
environmental
impact assessments and respecting rules similar to those of Community legislation on
nature protection.

The Commission has invited Poland to identify sites of particular natural
interest for inclusion in the
Natura 2000 network as well as to transpose and implement Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997
amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on
the environment (2) (hereafter the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive). In this context, it is worth
noting that Poland has recently adopted the Act on Environmental Impact Assessment which, according to
Poland(cid:146)s official position, achieves full transposition of the Directive.

The Commission does not have sufficient information to take a position on the Wloclawek dam and the
future water management of the Vistula river. However, it continues to follow the proposal to build dams
on the Vistula and Odra very closely. In particular, the member of the Commission responsible for
Environment has, on numerous occasions, raised this issue with the Polish authorities and, in line with the
above-mentioned principle, recommended Poland carry out an environmental impact assessment, similar
to Community rules, for the dams. Therefore, the Commission welcomes Poland(cid:146)s recent commitment that
a full environmental
impact assessment in line with Community requirements will be performed and
stresses that this should include an evaluation of all alternatives.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/33

The Commission has established good and regular contacts with environmental non-governmental
6.
organisations (NGOs) from the candidate countries and is supporting their activities. Twice a year, an
informal dialogue is organised with environmental NGOs. During this dialogue, the NGOs are informed
about the status of the enlargement process and are given the opportunity to express their views and
opinions in order to improve the transparency of the environmental accession process. The 4th NGO
dialogue was held on the 23/24 of April 2001.

The Community is granting direct support to environmental NGOs in some candidate countries through
the Access programme, which aims to strengthen the civil society of the candidate countries in the field of
environment and social and economic development. The Commission has also taken the initiative of
establishing a grant scheme to enhance the NGOs(cid:146) capacities in the accession process related to
environment and is providing the possibility to support environmental NGOs through the newly
established REAP facility.

the public,

Moreover, it should be kept in mind that Community environmental directives will considerably strengthen
the involvement of
the
environmental acquis already provide for this. The Directives on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA),
Access to Information (3), the Air Quality Framework (4) and the new Water Framework Directive (5) are
well-known examples. As a result of the alignment of candidate countries with Community directives, civil
society, and notably NGOs, have already been granted an increasing insight into decisions. This will be
further strengthened once Community directives are fully implemented.

in the candidate countries. Several pieces of

including NGOs,

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment

(OJ L 158, 23.6.1990).

(4) Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (OJ L 296,

21.11.1996).

(5) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000).

(2002/C 40 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1315/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject:

.EU domain name

1.
Is it true that there is currently no charter or document for .EU domain name, defining the purpose
and reasoning behind this ambitious project? If this is true, how does the Commission propose to regulate
an entity without declaring the purpose and aims of the regulation?

2.
The ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) had originally indicated
that, under the right circumstances, it would delegate the .EU name to the European Commission. Is this
still the case?

3. Why does the Commission want to control those aspects of .EU domain name policy which are
normally controlled by the stakeholders in the Internet community in line with the generally accepted
Internet conventions expressed in RFC 1591?

4.
The Interim steering group of the EU consultation EC-POP report on .EU proposed that the .EU name
should be structured in line with RFC 1951. Why does the Regulation make no mention of this
fundamental precept?

5. Why does Article 3(b) require various levels of residency within the European Community for users
of the .EU domain name? Existing ccTLDs (Country Code Top Level Domain Name) such as .fr or .uk
indicate the area in which an enterprise does business or where the enterprise wishes to be seen to do
business. What benefits does the residency element of the proposed domain name have for users?