WRITTEN QUESTION E-1726/03 by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission. Shooting noise abatement.
Date: 2003-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: approximation of laws, firearms and munitions, market organisation, noise protection, single market, sport, sports equipment

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/45

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

importance of the Leuser region in Aceh and has,
The Commission is well aware of the ecological
therefore, supported the conservation of the area through the ‘Leuser Development Programme’ (with a
Community support of EUR 31 000 000).

The Commission has also promoted and supported the establishment and the self-sufficiency of the ‘Leuser
International Foundation’ (LIF) as a crucial mechanism to ensure the long-term sustainable protection of
the Leuser Ecosystem. The LIF was granted the right to implement the conservation management of the
Leuser Ecosystem for seven years by Ministerial Decree No 227 in 1995, and this was strengthened by
Presidential Decree No 33 in 1998, with the right extended to thirty years. The Community support to the
the existing
Leuser International Foundation contributes to the Government’s efforts to ensure that
protection laws aimed at conserving the Leuser Ecosystem will be duly enforced.

The Commission is aware of the environmental degradation that opening of roads and the subsequent land
clearance would have on such a delicate ecosystem, as well as the potential adverse consequences on the
long-term sustainable economic growth and social development which the Leuser Ecosystem supports, and
the potentially damaging effect on the bio-diversity in the area.

In order to prevent an escalation of environmental damage and economic loss the ‘Leuser Development
Programme’ and the LIF have been active in lobbying the Government of Aceh, the District Governments,
the donor community and the central Government to rethink the road proposals and even cancel the most
contentious plans.

The Commission’s Delegation implemented an action plan on this topic with a series of meetings which
were held with several line Ministers. The purpose of the meetings was to put forward the Community
view on Ladia Galaska and to explore possible joint alternatives to the project.

In addition, considering the severe damage to the area that a land transportation network would provoke,
the Commission has been supporting the construction of an airstrip in Kutacane. The Government of Aceh
Tenggara considers this as an alternative for the lost benefits for not proceeding with the construction of
roads through the Leuser ecosystem. The support to the construction of the airstrip in Kutacane has been
based on sound pre-conditions: environmental, technical, legal and financial.

The Commission will endeavour to ensure that funds for which it is responsible are not utilised for
infrastructure projects that risk to damage the Leuser Ecosystem.

(2004/C 78 E/0043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1726/03

by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Shooting noise abatement

Shooting is a widely popular sport which has very solid long-standing traditions all over the world. One
problem that has arisen, however, is the resulting noise, a considerable nuisance factor in the vicinity of
shooting ranges, which are often situated close to built-up areas. Shooting noise has thus become an
environmental problem.

In some Member States the problem has been effectively solved, in particular by adopting the use of
silencers. In Finland, for example, the use of silencers was prohibited before 1993, but the authorisation to
use them has since then brought nothing but benefits. Norway’s experiences have been much the same as
Finland’s. Sweden is at the moment amending its law along similar lines.

C 78 E/46

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The use of silencers is not allowed in every Member State. As a result, new types of silencers do not come
onto the internal market, and product development is also made more difficult.

Does the Commission consider that any of the factors involved in this matter are likewise hampering the
operation of the internal market? Secondly, does it think that any Community action might be conducive
to environmental noise abatement at shooting ranges? Is there any way in which it could encourage
Member States to remove legislative obstacles to the use of silencers, citing the favourable experiences in
the Nordic countries?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The use of silencers is not subject to harmonisation at Community level. This question therefore falls
directly within the scope of Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty.

In this context, the Member States may adopt measures aimed at restricting the use and movement of
certain products, provided that these are justified on grounds such as public order or safety. The question
which arises therefore is to know whether the restrictions in some Member States, as mentioned by the
Honourable Member, are covered by such grounds. As the Commission has no knowledge of the nature,
scale and scope of the restrictions, it can only ask that the Honourable Member provide further details on
the restrictions he mentions, and particularly on their justification.

(2004/C 78 E/0044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1781/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: The EQUAL funding programme post-enlargement

Can the Commission please provide information or analysis on how the EQUAL funding programme will
be affected by the enlargement of the EU in 2004?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

The table below gives the breakdown of the financial envelope for the Accession Countries for EQUAL by
country, and has been prepared in full compliance with the decisions of the European Council at
Copenhagen (12 and 13 December 2002).

The figures for each year have been indexed to the prices of the year in question, and the total figures for
the period 2004-2006 are shown below:

(cid:1) Cyprus: EUR 1 808 504;

(cid:1) Czech Republic: EUR 32 095 830;

(cid:1) Estonia: EUR 4 067 447;

(cid:1) Hungary: EUR 30 287 325;

(cid:1) Latvia: EUR 8 024 512;

(cid:1) Lithuania: EUR 11 864 504;

(cid:1) Malta: EUR 1 240 962;