WRITTEN QUESTION P-2806/02 by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission. Statements made on 24 September by the European Commission concerning a relaxation of the rules governing the reduction of budget deficits applying to the euro area countries.
Date: 2002-09-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: budget deficit, budget policy, coordination of EMU policies, euro area, participating country (euro area), stability pact

C 222 E/18

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

In light of the above, does the Commission now intend to raise the issue with the US Government?

Will the Commission alert the Portuguese Government to its obligation under Council Directive 92/43?

Is the Commission aware of the development of similar projects in the Member States or by NATO?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 177.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Cetaceans are afforded strict protection by Directive 92/43/EEC (‘Habitats’ Directive) (1), which requires
Member States to take measures to prevent inter alia deliberate disturbance of these species.

Low-frequency active sonar (LFAS) emits intense, low-frequency tone bursts. It is widely suspected that this
type of noise has a disturbing effect on cetaceans, but the seriousness and degree of that effect still need to
be studied more thoroughly.

The Commission believes that, given its potential impact on cetaceans, this type of technology needs to be
used with caution. Moreover, those provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC which protect cetaceans apply fully
both in territorial waters and in the waters of the exclusive economic zone, if the Member State concerned
exercises sovereign rights there. The Commission has offered this opinion to the Member States on several
occasions.

To date, most of the information the Commission has received on this type of sonar has been prompted
by reports of activities of a military nature coinciding with the stranding of cetaceans.

Nonetheless, even though Community law does not require Member States to supply information on such
activities except in specific cases, such as those relating to derogations or complaints, the Commission took
the opportunity at the recent Habitats Committee meeting on 20 November to request further details from
the national authorities of the Member States where these events are probably taking place.

The Commission does not intend, for the moment, to raise the matter in the context of relations with the
United States.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (cid:1)
OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (cid:1) OJ L 1, 1.1.1995.

(2003/C 222 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2806/02

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Statements made on 24 September by the European Commission concerning a relaxation of the

rules governing the reduction of budget deficits applying to the euro area countries

1.
How can the statement made by the European Commission on 24 September 2002 about a
relaxation of the rules governing the reduction of budget deficits be reconciled with another statement it
made on the same day that there will be no tampering with the Stability Pact, and is the European
Commission aware that, in taking that position, it was acting against the spirit of the Stability Pact and,
consequently, inflicting serious damage on consumer confidence, which is already low?

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/19

Can the European Commission clarify how it will explain to Irish citizens why their country received
2.
a warning earlier this year, while Germany, a ‘big’ Member State, did not and why now, for the second
time within a period of a few months, some ‘big’ Member States (cid:1) France and Italy (cid:1) will not have to
comply with their obligations under the Stability Pact, and can the European Commission confirm that a
twin-track policy is being pursued within the euro area, with the ‘big’ Member States being able to ignore
agreements but not the ‘little’ Member States?

3.
How can the European Commission’s current position be reconciled with the press release dated
14 May 2002 issued by Commissioner Solbes, in which he ‘urged the Member States … to make a last
effort to reach a close to balance by 2004. … Stability should become the acquis for the euro area and
Europe. … The process of budgetary consolidations needs to resume as soon as possible. Otherwise we
will be forever in a transition period and would be impossible to milk the full benefits of our economic
policy’. (sic)

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The statement of 24 September 2002 is in no way to be interpreted as a relaxation of the rules of the
Union fiscal framework. Rather, it emphasises the importance of strengthening the implementation of the
Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) in order to ensure the achievement of the objective of a balanced budget
position.
It aims at doing so by explicitly incorporating in this framework the effects of cyclical
developments on budgetary policy and by drawing the attention of Member States to the importance of a
forceful and swift action when divergences in the adjustment path or excessive deficits are identified. This
statement was also aimed at restoring confidence as it clarified key issues when confusing criticisms on the
working of the SGP were undermining the credibility of the Union’s fiscal framework. This framework
does serve the Union’s economies well as it helps to avert unsustainable fiscal positions and to maintain
inflation expectation to historic lows.

The press release dated 14 May 2002 can be reconciled with this statement in that Member States still in
deficit are urged to make considerable efforts to achieve balanced budgets. However, considering the actual
economic conditions, the required adjustment now to achieve the target by 2004 would have been too
high. Consistent with the May 2002 press release, these Member States are urged to resume consolidation
without delay but are, in addition, urged to commit to consolidate by at least an agreed minimum path of
structural adjustment, so that the transition period can finally be concluded by 2006 at the latest.

For its part, the Commission is confident that each actor will play its role in the system. Nevertheless, the
Commission will require full compliance by all Member States with their commitments under the EC
Treaty and the SGP thereby ensuring that no twin-track policy favouring any Member State is pursued. The
Commission will therefore activate the procedures foreseen by the EC Treaty and the SGP whenever
necessary. This is in line with past policy, as these procedures were triggered by the Commission already in
2001 when Ireland failed to respect the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs) and in 2002 when
Germany and Portugal failed to meet the agreed budgetary target.

(2003/C 222 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2832/02

by Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Ban on exports of EU certified organic products to the USA

From 21 October 2002 it will apparently no longer be possible to export certified organic products from
Europe to the United States because organic product inspection and certification bodies must be accredited
with the US Department of Agriculture according to American production standards, which are seemingly
different from the European standards.