WRITTEN QUESTION E-0704/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission. Cat and dog fur.
Date: 2003-03-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, EU production, animal skin, domestic animal, import restriction, marketing, proposal (EU), single market

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/29

On 4 October, the Spanish Government asked the Commission to cofund the project (EUR 54 million).
The Commission indicated that its reply would be given within three months, i.e. before 4 January 2003.
Without waiting for the EU decision, the Spanish Prime Minister laid the first stone of the new channel on
14 November 2002.

Can the Commission tell me what stage has been reached with regard to processing this request for aid?

Has the Commission made any assessment of the project and of the accompanying environmental impact
study?

Supplementary answer
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

On 4 October 2002 the Spanish authorities sent the Commission a request for confirmation of the level of
cofinancing for the ‘Conducción Júcar-Vinalopó’ project under the integrated operational programme for
the Valencia Region (2000-2006). To provide the Honourable Member with accurate information, it should
be pointed out that the amount of Community aid requested is EUR 80 121 million, given eligible
expenditure of EUR 155 244 million and a total cost estimated at EUR 254 639 million.

Regarding the questions on the processing of the request for aid:

(cid:1) the Directorate-General for Regional Policy consulted the European Investment Bank (EIB), within the
framework of the collaboration agreement with the EIB and the regulatory provisions, to obtain an
independent opinion. It asked the EIB for a technical report on the viability of the project. The EIB
delivered its report on 1 August 2003;

(cid:1) the Directorate-General for Regional Policy examined the recommendations of the study and sent
them to the Spanish authorities. On 20 October 2003 the Spanish authorities sent the Commission a
In addition to the abovementioned EIB report, the
formal reply, which is now being assessed.
Commission also has the economic assessment and the environmental
impact statement of the
authority responsible;

(cid:1) as this is a complex dossier still being examined, the Commission has not yet taken a final decision on

the request for cofinancing.

(2004/C 70 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0704/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject: Cat and dog fur

Does the Commission have any plans to propose legislation to ban the import into the EU of pelts from
domestic cats and dogs?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2003)

The cat and dog fur issue is not one of purely external trade but also one of domestic production and use.
Indeed the common commercial policy must be seen as a complement to the single market: trade
restrictions in the absence of equivalent measures on domestic production and marketing might be
contestable as discriminatory and an obstacle to the principle of national treatment.

C 70 E/30

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Therefore, the question of a trade policy initiative in the field of cat and dog furs (a ban on import of cat
and dog furs) should not be imposed in isolation from the more general
issue of a domestic policy
concerning the production and marketing of cat and dog furs on the internal market.

(2004/C 70 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0730/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

Subject:

‘Prestige’: Measures for Natura 2000 network areas

(11 March 2003)

In 19 December 2002, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on safety at sea and measures to
alleviate the effects of the ‘Prestige’ disaster, paragraph 22 calls on the Commission, in conjunction with the
Spanish authorities, to draw up special plans for the regeneration of the Natura 2000 areas affected.

On 21 November 2002, Parliament had already adopted a resolution on this issue; paragraph 14 reads:

Calls on the Commission to adopt specific measures in order to guarantee a proper ecological balance
in the SCI areas of the Natura 2000 network affected by this catastrophe.

How does the Commission view these requests from Parliament?

What measures has it taken or does it intend to take in response?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2003)

According to its Resolution of 19 December 2002, the Parliament asked the Commission to provide
specific measures in order to guarantee the ecological balance of the Natura 2000 site.

The role of the Commission in relation to the Natura 2000 network is clearly established in the Habitats
Directive, (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
In this case the Commission is not responsible for the maintenance and
wild fauna and flora) (1).
the Natura 2000 sites. This is a Member States
restoration at a favourable conservation status of
responsibility. However, the Commission is aware of the exceptional circumstances of this situation.

Within the framework of Commission responsibilities the Commission has carried out the bio-geographical
seminar for the Atlantic region in order to adopt the Atlantic list of sites of Community importance in
order to guarantee Member States the application of provisions under Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of the
Habitats Directive.

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its replies to written questions
E-3661/02 (2) and P-0001/03 (3) where the possibilities of using financial instruments available at the EU
level are described.

Finally, the Commission could consider (cid:1) upon request (cid:1) any specific measure regarding restoration
activities in the framework of the Habitats Committee.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 67.
(3) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 166.