WRITTEN QUESTION E-1878/03 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Impact assessment.
Date: 2003-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, cost-benefit analysis, drafting of EU law, evaluation method, impact study, proposal (EU)

C 70 E/66

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Derogations are provided for in this regard if the specimen entered the territory of the Member State
before CITES legislation applied. However, such derogations are only granted on a case-by-case basis where
the CITES Management Authority in the relevant Member State has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the
case and issues a certificate accordingly. Otherwise, it would be possible to trade commercially in illegally
taken wild animals or plants by misrepresenting them as ‘pre-convention specimens’ and the objective of
Annex A listing would be undermined.

If the specimen is being used for commercial purposes and no derogation is granted, this constitutes an
offence and the specimen must be seized and confiscated. Unless they can feasibly be returned to their
country of origin, live specimens (of animals or plants) are sent to a designated rescue centre in such
circumstances. If they cannot remain there in the long term, they are usually passed on to reputable zoos
or breeders but the prohibition on commercial use remains.

The Commission has contacted the Swedish Management Authority about the present case. It had come to
the attention of the authorities in Sweden that the bird was being displayed without a certificate. Quite
correctly, the owner was advised to apply for a certificate. This certificate has subsequently been granted.
In the meantime, on the basis of media reports, a misunderstanding arose that the bird would be killed if a
certificate could not be granted. The Commission is informed that this was never the Swedish Management
Authority’s intention.

The Commission is satisfied that the Swedish Authorities interpreted Community legislation correctly and
acted properly in this case. The welfare of the bird was not put at risk and the overriding objective of
preventing fraudulent or unsustainable use of endangered species in Annex A species was respected.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by

regulating trade therein, OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2004/C 70 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1878/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Impact assessment

Will the Commission detail what measures it is taking to improve the quality of the cost and benefit
analysis attached to its legislative proposals? What are its objectives in this regard?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission has introduced an impact assessment (IA) procedure covering both regulatory aspects and
sustainable development. The Better Regulation Action Plan and the Communication on Impact
Assessment, adopted in 2002, establish a new integrated approach to IA as agreed at the Göteborg and
the Laeken European Councils. The Communication (1) foresees that, for all major initiatives included in
the Commission’s Annual Policy Strategy and Work Programme, an impact assessment be carried out. This
covers a preliminary assessment of the main impacts of the proposal.

This year, the Commission will carry out extended IAs (Ex IAs) for 43 of its initiatives. These proposals fall
within the three main Commission priorities for 2003, being (1) Enlargement, (2) Stability and Security
and (3) Sustainable and Inclusive Economy.

The Ex IAs should evaluate the economic, social and environmental impacts of the proposal concerned.
The benefits and disadvantages of
the various policy proposals should be described in qualitative,
quantitative terms and, whenever possible, monetary terms. This should allow all stakeholders to
understand the implications of Commission proposals giving them the possibility to draw their conclusions
about the costs and benefits of the proposal concerned.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/67

As can use different methodologies:

(cid:1) cost-benefit analysis, comparing costs and benefits expressed in the same units, normally money;

(cid:1) cost-effectiveness analysis, compares the costs of achieving a given objective;

(cid:1) multi-criteria analysis, compares the costs and benefits expressed in a mixture of qualitative,

quantitative or monetary terms.

The cost-benefit analysis that the Honourable Member refers to entails numerous advantages. It provides
comprehensive information on all effects of a proposed measure and, by so doing, gives political decision-
makers and indication as to whether this measures can be considered justified or not. However, cost-
benefit analyses fail to capture impacts that cannot be adequately quantified and therefore tend to be
underestimated. This is for instance the case of social and environmental benefits.

For this reason, cost-benefit analysis is not always the most appropriate methodology to assess the impact
of Commission proposals. In these cases, other evaluation methods will have to be applied.

this stage,

At
three extended impact assessments have been adopted. These are the Commission’s
Communication on the Employment Strategy (2), the Communication on Immigration, Integration and
Employment (3) and the on unfair trade practices (4).

List of extended impact assessments for 2003 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

(1) COM(2002) 276 final.
(2) COM(2003) 6 final.
(3) COM(2003) 335 final.
(4) COM(2003) 356 final.

(2004/C 70 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1930/03

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Population movements in the oil-rich areas of Sudan

The bloody civil war in Sudan has claimed two million lives. Four million people have fled their homes.
European Coalition on Oil
in Sudan (ECOS), a network of 70 European organisations, predominantly
church-based and other Christian bodies, notes that tens of thousands of Sudanese nationals have been
forced to flee from Reweng County in the West Upper Nile region as a result of conflicts over oil
extraction, and with the knowledge of the oil companies. A large proportion of the revenue which oil
brings into Sudan goes on military expenditure. Only 2 % of the Sudanese budget is spent on health care,
while 48 % goes for military and police purposes, e.g. the purchase of Russian Mig 29 fighters, Mig 24
helicopter gunships and T 72 tanks.

What measures is the EU taking through the Commission to influence the Sudanese government and the
oil companies to halt this deliberate movement of population from the oil-rich areas? What is the EU
doing to persuade countries not to sell expensive high-technology weaponry to the warring parties in
Sudan?