WRITTEN QUESTION E-3558/02 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Setting up of a European Bank for Environmental Prevention and Rehabilitation.
Date: 2002-12-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, bank, degradation of the environment, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, environmental risk prevention, natural disaster, natural hazard

C 161 E/106

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

As regards the implementation of Community legislation by the Member States, the Commission attaches
great importance to the attainment by the Member States of the objectives set by Community legislation.
However, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to case law of the Court of Justice
in this respect (3). The Court has ruled that a Directive must be implemented in the national legal order by
means of provisions which are capable of creating a situation which is sufficiently precise, clear and open
to permit individuals to be aware of and enforce their rights. The fact that a practice is consistent with the
protection afforded under a Directive does not justify failure to implement that Directive in such a way. In
order to secure full implementation of Directives in law and not only in fact, Member States must establish
a specific legal framework in the area in question.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
(2) COM(2002) 412 final.
(3) See Case C-131/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-825, at paragraph 8 of the judgement.

(2003/C 161 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3558/02

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

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Setting up of a European Bank for Environmental Prevention and Rehabilitation

For the decade following the collapse of the Communist bloc in Europe, the EU set as priorities the
implementation and follow-up of the process of economic and industrial transition in the countries of
Eastern Europe,
in response to their prompt application to join the EU and in preparation for their
accession. Under these circumstances and faced with the challenges presented by a changing Europe, the
EU established an ad hoc bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

The transition process has benefited greatly in each of the accession countries from EBRD guarantees,
funding and strategies. That the EU has now set a firm date for accession is testament to the advanced
stage of the process, and, therefore, leaves room for new and equally pressing priorities.

The challenges presented by natural disasters are at least as great as the previous challenge of transforming
the Communist economies in the eastern half of Europe. The effects of disruptions to ecosystems or in
terms of climate, weather or marine life, which are currently being vigorously felt on our continent, take a
huge financial toll. The scale of the cost of the present environmental crises and, above all, of those to
come has recently been estimated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) at some
USD 150 billion a year.

Do these facts and figures, illustrating the challenges and dangers and therefore the funding and efforts
required, convince the Commission of the need for a Community policy aimed at taking measures
commensurate with the problems that arise and dealing with these environmental situations?

Should there not be one interlocutor and central actor to coordinate and manage rebuilding and the
limitation of these environmental disasters, such as the EBRD was in the case of industrial crises?

Would the Commission not simply be carrying out its responsibilities by setting up a European Bank for
Environmental Prevention and Rehabilitation, which would play a monitoring role and provide
information and education, with the task of aiding environmental transition today and in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Commission is convinced of the importance of the challenges presented by the recent natural
disasters. The relevance of this issue prompted the Commission, even before the tragic floods in the
to include the development of an integrated strategy to cope with natural and
summer of 2002,

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/107

technological hazards in its work programme for 2003. Its development is one of the Commission’s
priorities, as it indicated in the Communication which the Commission adopted following the floods in the
summer of 2002 (1).

The Commission wishes to thank the Honourable Member for the concrete suggestions made. One
possible solution would be to set up a European Bank for Environmental Disaster Prevention and
Redevelopment responsible in particular for carrying out monitoring activities and tasks related to
information and education.

Nonetheless, the measures already taken by the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB), in
particular to ensure the swift provision of funds following the floods in the summer of 2002, should also
be taken into consideration. There is also the possibility of using the rural development funds for damage
prevention and flood repairs and the recently set up Solidarity Fund. Any proposal to establish a
specialised bank must also take account of the role of the national and international institutions, and in
particular the EIB.

the moment,

At
technological hazards in the framework of the debate on an integrated strategy.

the Commission is investigating all

the possible ways of managing natural and

The Commission plans to study how effective all the solutions would be and will adopt those which seem
most relevant to enable it to achieve its objectives. In addition, Parliament will also be invited, at the end of
the winter in 2003, to express its opinion and to make suggestions at a meeting which will be open to all
parties concerned and will consider the integrated strategy.

(1) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (cid:1) The European Community
response to the flooding in Austria, Germany and several applicant countries (cid:1) A solidarity-based initiative,
COM(2002) 481 final.

(2003/C 161 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3560/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Proposed introduction of Article 23 in the Hong Kong legislation

In September 2002 the Hong Kong Government introduced controversial legislation known as Article 23.
It seems that the proposed law was written under direct pressure from the People’s Republic of China and
is far more restrictive and severe than is required by the Basic Law. It appears that, if it were enacted,
Hong Kong would have to ban any organisation that China considered a national security risk. All
dissident groups including human rights groups, democracy activists, Catholics and Falun Gong, as well as
individuals, would be affected. This is against Hong Kong’s autonomy and the ‘one country (cid:1) two systems’
principle. It seems that the proposed law would also place serious restrictions on Hong Kong’s media with
regard to publishing information relating to the Chinese Central Government in Beijing.

What information does the Commission have on this issue? What initiatives has the Commission taken or
does it intend to take in order to prevent the implementation of Article 23? More generally, what initiatives
has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to urge the Hong Kong Government to keep the ‘one
country (cid:1) two systems’ policy, which the Chinese authority promised to maintain in Hong Kong for 50
years after Hong Kong was handed over to China in 1997, and to respect basic human rights and in
particular freedom of speech,
freedom of religion or belief and freedom of assembly and peaceful
demonstration?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

The Commission is following closely the consultative process launched by the Hong Kong Government on
24 September 2002 with a view to implementing Article 23 of the Basic Law.