WRITTEN QUESTION E-0307/02 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Malta and environmental directives.
Date: 2002-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Malta, accession negotiations, accession to the European Union, bird, environmental law, national implementing measure, protection of animal life

C 277 E/34

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

are met, and to draw up action plans for the progressive improvement in air quality in those areas where
the limit values can be expected to be exceeded. They must also inform the Commission whenever the
limit values are exceeded. It should be noted, however, that these directives are primarily aimed at limiting
pollution from routine emission sources rather than to reduce the risk of accidental release.

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.
(2) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(2002/C 277 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0307/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Malta and environmental directives

The republic of Malta officially applied for membership of the European Union in June 1990 and renewed
its application in February 1999.

Malta, like the other applicant countries, it is therefore required to incorporate into its national legislation
all provisions regarding the Community acquis.

This harmonisation between the Member States and applicant states makes it possible to uphold the rights
and duties of their citizens and ensure the conservation of their heritage.

The geographical situation of Malta, an island situated between the continents of North Africa and Europe,
places it exactly along the migratory routes of the bird populations crossing the first external border of the
enlarged EU and its territory protected by Community legislation.

During accession negotiations with the Maltese Government, did the Commission take full account of the
importance of the strategic situation of the island of Malta for migrant birds and its irreplaceable value in
terms of ornithological biodiversity and its responsibility to all the Member States in this respect?

Can the Commission give its assurance that no exemption clauses based on any local hunting traditions
will be adopted which could compromise the full application of Community environmental directives, in
particular those concerning birds and habitats in the republic of Malta once it becomes a member of the
EU?

Does the Commission fully subscribe to the need for fully binding protection of the ornithological heritage
at this new border of the enlarged EU?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2002)

One of the general principles established by the Commission for all the accession negotiations is that there
can be no derogations from the Community acquis and any transitional measures must be of limited
duration and scope. Any request for a transitional period must also be fully substantiated and accompanied
by a plan for implementing the acquis during the transitional period.

These general principles apply to the Environment chapter, and in particular to Council Directives 92/43/
EEC of 21 May on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) (‘Habitats Directive’)
and 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2). The Commission fully subscribes to
the objective of protecting natural habitats and birds in the expanded European Union, in accordance with
the relevant Community legislation.

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/35

The Commission is aware that Malta’s special geographical situation makes it a particularly important place
of transit for birds migrating between Europe and North Africa.

In the course of the accession negotiations the Commission asked Malta for additional information on the
implementation of the ‘Habitats Directive’, and will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that it is
actually applied. It has also asked Malta to give detailed information on its timetable for the transposition
and implementation of the Directive on the conservation. It is following developments in this area closely.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2002/C 277 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0322/02

by John Purvis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Preparations for the European Council meeting in Barcelona

The 2000 Lisbon European Council asked ‘the Council and the Commission to report by the end of 2000
on the ongoing review of EIB and EIF financial instruments in order to redirect funding towards support
for business start-ups, high-tech firms and micro-enterprises, as well as other risk-capital
initiatives
proposed by the EIB’. Did it so report?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Yes, the Commission prepared together with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European
Investment Fund (EIF) a Commission communication called ‘Review of specific Community financial
instruments for SMEs’ (1). The Ecofin Council of 7 November 2000 welcomed this communication.

(1) COM(2000) 653 final.

(2002/C 277 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0348/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Destruction by Israel of EU investments in Palestinian territory

European investments to the value of 17 million euro have already been destroyed by Israeli attacks on
Palestinian territory. The absolute limits of pure cynicism are reached with the unremitting accusation by
the Israel government against the Palestinian Authority and Yasser Arafat that they are not moving
repressively enough against Hamas and Jihad terrorists. It is precisely the Israelis who are deliberately
destroying all the Palestinians’ means of deploying repressive and preventive measures for the purpose of
reining in violence and terrorism.

Can the Commission state if it will support moves to demand that Israel refund the monies paid?

The Council should do more than just ask Israel to explain how destroying civilian infrastructures can help
to combat terrorism. The Council must impose damages so as to sent a clear political signal to Sharon that
he is making a strategic miscalculation.