WRITTEN QUESTION E-3059/03 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU funding for marine conservation.
Date: 2003-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, eligibility criteria, environmental protection, fund (EU), marine environment

C 78 E/456

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The company ‘Technical Polymers Ticona’, situated at one end of the planned runway, is a Seveso top-tier
establishment. Therefore, the Commission shares the view that the Seveso II -Directive, and in particular
Article 12, must be respected in connection with the extension of Frankfurt Airport.

Moreover, as Frankfurt Airport itself is a Seveso top-tier establishment, in addition to the requirements
relating to land-use planning, possible ‘domino effects’ between Ticona and Frankfurt Airport have to be
examined.

impact assessment (EIA),

According to Article 4(2) and Annexes I No 13 and II No 7(a) of the amended EIA-Directive, the
2.
extension of airports with a runway length of 2 100 metre (m) or more has to be made subject to an
environmental
if the Member States so decide on the basis of an individual
assessment or according to national criteria and thresholds. The decision has to be taken in accordance
with the criteria laid down in Annex III of the EIA-Directive. However, according to Articles 1 and 4, the
EIA-Directive applies only to ‘projects’ and not to ‘plans’. The Commission has, therefore, taken the view
that the Directive is only applicable in the permit procedure, not during earlier planning phases of a
project.

3.
The Commission has not received any information as to the possible relevance of Council Directive
90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990, on the freedom of access to information on the environment (1). The
information by the complainants regarding possible violations of the Birds and the Habitats Directives is
currently being assessed. The assessment has not yet been completed.

4.
According to Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive, Member States shall ensure that all competent
authorities and planning authorities, responsible for land-use planning decisions, set up appropriate
consultation procedures. These procedures shall be designed to ensure that technical advice, on the risks
arising from the establishment, is available, either on a case-by-case or on a generic basis, when decisions
are taken. It goes without saying that misleading studies are never suitable for an assessment of accidental
risks.

Should the Commission find that Community legislation is being violated, appropriate steps will be

5.
taken, e.g. the opening of infringement proceedings against Germany.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2004/C 78 E/0483)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3059/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: EU funding for marine conservation

Given that Ireland lacks any dedicated facility, in the form of a publicly accessible marine conservation
area, through which it can play a full role in an EU network of marine mammal rescue and oil spill
response, and given that consequently it is ill-equipped to fulfil its international responsibilities.

Can the Commission advise on whether there are any EU funds available for the purpose of developing
such a conservation centre to service the country?

Can the Commission advise on the availability of EU funding to support the work of the Irish Seal
Sanctuary, a wildlife conservation NGO run entirely by volunteers for the past 20 years in this area but
now without sources of finance to continue its operations?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/457

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

As the Honourable Member is aware, a number of International and Community measures and policies
require Ireland to take adequate provisions to conserve or restore the marine environment. In principle,
funds provided by the Community and managed by Ireland could be used to honour these responsibilities,
provided that the legal framework allows for this.

There are limited possibilities for direct support from the Commission for nature conservation projects.
is the LIFE Regulation (1) nearly half of which is devoted to nature
The key financial
conservation projects. The key objective of LIFE Nature is to support the establishment of the Natura 2000
network of protected areas.

instrument

There are certain rules and criteria that need to be met for LIFE funding. Applications for financial support
under LIFE are considered each year and must be submitted via the national authority for nature
protection. The deadline for submission of applications to the Commission under the final round of the
present LIFE Regulation was the end of October 2003.

Unfortunately, the number of applications received by the Commission considerably exceeds the financial
possibilities of this instrument.

In regard to the Structural Funds, the Commission understands that the Irish Seal Sanctuary is currently
examining the possibility of seeking funding under the Tourism Measures of the Regional Operational
Programmes.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial

Instrument for the Environment (LIFE), OJ L 192, 28.7.2000.

(2004/C 78 E/0484)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3062/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Improving water networks

This summer’s weather conditions demonstrated the great importance of water, as much for people as for
agriculture and production in general. The drought suffered by many parts of Europe drew sudden
attention to the catastrophic consequences our countries would face in the event of the phenomenon
occurring again. One of the most worrying aspects to have emerged from the crisis was the wastage of
water brought about by the poor state of the existing canal and river networks. Networks used in
agriculture and production and those that provide drinking-water all need to be modernised, which, in
some cases, particularly as far as drinking water is concerned, may require the complete replacement of
pipes, some of which are still made of lead and will therefore be prohibited on health grounds from 2013
by an EU directive. The total cost of replacing these ancient pipes in France is estimated to be around
EUR 18 000 million; in Italy, the situation is not much different. Nevertheless, the current state of the
networks exacerbates water wastage, estimated at between 15 and 40 %.

Does the Commission not think it advisable to draw Member States’ attention to the need for

1.
projects to improve or renovate pipes and water networks?

Does the Commission not feel it would be useful to propose a plan to modernise water networks

2.
along the same lines as the plan to modernise motorway networks?

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to put forward a water-saving programme, given that

3.
water is a vital and irreplaceable asset for both individuals and society as a whole?

Does the Commission not feel

4.
timetables and funding for the modernisation of water networks?

it advisable to draft a general water directive, setting objectives,

5.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects currently in preparation?