WRITTEN QUESTION E-1190/02 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Trade and environment.
Date: 2002-04-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Commission Delegation, common commercial policy, environmental protection, exchange of information, impact study, management, sustainable development, third country

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/83

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2002)

As the Honourable Member mentions, the Union-Mexico Global Agreement has been negotiated and has
come into force before the Council’s conclusions concerning sustainability impact assessments were
adopted.

However, the Decisions regarding the Community-Mexico free trade area contained a revision clause,
which states that three years after their entry into force the parties will discuss the liberalisation of some
products and sectors not included in the first Decisions. This revision will be done following all Union
rules and procedures and it will therefore be a good opportunity to take into account Gothenburg
Council’s conclusions (of 15 and 16 June 2001).

Moreover, the Commission is bound by the EC Treaty to integrate environmental concerns into all areas of
Community policies and to promote sustainable development. In that sense, the Commission has included
in the above-mentioned agreement clauses concerning co-operation in the environmental sector. To this
end, Article 34 of the Global Agreement states that the preservation of the environment and ecological
balances shall be taken into account in all co-operation measures between the Union and Mexico. It also
makes specific reference to develop co-operation to prevent degradation of the environment; to promote
the conservation and sustainable management of natural resources; to develop, spread and exchange
information and experience on environmental legislation; to stimulate the use of economic incentives to
promote compliance; to strengthen environmental management at all levels of government; to promote
training of human resources, education in environmental topics and the execution of joint research
projects; to develop channels for social participation.

The Commission has underlined environment as a crosscutting issue in the country strategy paper, which
set up the priority co-operation actions to be implemented with Mexico for the period 2002-2006.
Moreover, the Union-Mexico Global Agreement foresees the negotiation of a bilateral agreement on
environment actually under consideration.

(2003/C 28 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1190/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Trade and environment

Mainstreaming environment in trade policy needs to be dealt with on a number of levels and also needs a
continuous dialogue with the EU’s trading partners. The Gothenburg Council has made a number of
recommendations in this regard.

In what way has the Commission ensured that, since the Gothenburg Council, the environment is covered
in the Commission Delegations in third countries, concerning staff, budget and activities? Which
delegations in which countries are at the forefront of this process?

Following the decision that Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIA) will be undertaken for all trade
negotiation proposals, will Environment DG officials take part
in the trade negotiations with third
countries on a regular and cross-disciplinary basis?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2002)

As rightly stressed by the Honourable Member, integrating environment into trade policies has to be done
at various levels if we are to ensure a mutually supportive relationship between trade and environment.

C 28 E/84

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

The External Service of the Commission has tried to cover as wide a range of areas and fields as possible
within very tight financial constraints. Hard decisions have had to be taken recently concerning the closure
of Offices, the streamlining of Delegations and the re-balancing of the ratio of officials to non-statutory
staff in Delegations.

For specific policies,
like the environment, no additional resources have recently been allocated to
Delegations. However, the Commission expects its Delegations to improve their management of assistance,
including environmental programmes and projects, thanks to de-concentration the guiding principle of
which is that ‘anything that can be better managed and decided on the spot, close to what is happening on
the ground, should not be managed or decided in Brussels’.

In addition, the Commission and the Council fully agree, as reflected in the Strategy on environmental
integration in the external policies of the General Affairs Council, that focal points for environment issues
in Embassies, Missions and Commission delegations, at least on a regional basis, should help ensure
headquarters have accurate information on the environmental
legislation, situation and needs of third
countries. These officials should also play a role in promoting and explaining Union positions on
international environmental questions.

As confirmed by the Commission’s Communication ‘Towards a global partnership for sustainable
development’ of February 2002, Sustainability Impact Assessments, pioneered by Directorate General
(DG) Trade as far as Union institutions are concerned, are carried out for all trade negotiations. Directorate
General (DG) Environment is invited to participate in the SIA interservice steering group. Current trade
negotiations are taking place under a Council mandate based on a Commission proposal. The negotiating
process is run by the Commission in consultation with the 133 Committee. DG Environment, like other
is involved in the preparation of the Community negotiating position through an inter-service
DGs,
process. The participation of DG Environment officials in the negotiating team is decided by DG
Environment. One should, however, recall that the responsibility of integrating environmental consider-
ations into Community policies, and in this case into trade policies, lies on the Commission as a whole.

(2003/C 28 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1192/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Consequences of

introduction of the euro: prices rises experienced by consumers and their

nostalgia for the old currencies

1.
Is the Commission aware that a survey carried out between 26 March and 2 April by the Catholic
broadcasting association KRO and financial research institute Nibud among 2 500 Netherlands citizens
revealed that, of those questioned, 80 % have seen their spending go up since the euro became legal tender,
above all on daily shopping, clothes and leisure (going out, restaurants), whilst 17 % feel they have spent
about the same and 3 % think they have spent less, as they are now hesitating to buy luxury goods that
have risen sharply in price? And is it aware that these figures are very different than anticipated in January
2002 when, of those questioned in a similar survey, only 24 % felt they had spent more and 68 % thought
they had spent the same amount as before?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that 66 % of those questioned by KRO/Nibud think that prices have
risen sharply compared with last year, 31 % that they have gone up slightly, 1 % that they have remained
about the same and 1 % that they have fallen sharply, whilst in January only 26 % believed there had been
a sharp increase and 59 % thought that prices had risen slightly and 14 % that they were unchanged?