- Email: [email protected]
Answers to environmental questions recently submitted to the Commission of the European Community
A. Kiss - speaking at the request of the Institute for European Environmental Policy - that a European Agency for the Protection of the Marine Environment be established. The proposed agency would have the following functions: 1. to help direct studies of marine pollution and the marine environment along European coasts; 2. to help investigate possible measures for the prevention of accidental sea pollution and research the best remedies for cleaning pollution; 3. to help collect and disseminate data concerning pollution of marine environment; 4. to help establish and coordinate national emergency plans and inventory existing emergency measures; 5. to seek to coordinate existing monitoring resources; 6. to offer scientific and technical assistance to member countries of the Council of Europe and to underdeveloped countries as well. Following submission of the proposal for a European Agency for the Protection of the Marine Environment, the parliamentary hearing was opened to general debate. During the general debate, the concept of a European Agency along the lines proposed was embraced by a number of participants. The Chairman of the hearing, Monsieur Hanin, thought the concept was worth studying. Monsieur Legendre, Mayor of the Brittanic village of Portsall, which was heavily affected by t h e A m o c o Cadiz pollution, speaking as an invited expert also noted the need of coordination in pollution cleanup efforts and welcomed the idea of a European agency to help in coordination of future efforts. Finally, Mr. G. Bagier, the General Rapporteur of the hearing, concluded in his summation that a European agency would be essential, particularly if it was established for the protection of the marine environment. The concept of a European agency was, in the words of Mr. Bagier, "an important suggestion". The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will receive and debate a report on the problems covered by the hearing of 4 July. After the scheduled debate, the Assembly is likely to adopt a resolution to endorse those of the suggestions put forward which it concludes are most promising and useful. In a public parliamentary hearing oi similar format sponsored by the Parliament of the European Community,
Environmental Policy and Law, 4 (1978)
held 20 - 22 June 1978 in Paris, conclusions and recommendations were reached that complemented and supplemented those of the Council of Europe hearing. The European Parliament hearing focused more specifically on means and techniques for improving sea transport safety. This hearing, too, was called in response to the grounding of the A m o c o Cadiz. In it, Mr. Despicht of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of the European Community suggested that "there needs to be a comprehensive European regime dealing with environmental protection just as there is for safety of life at sea and on fishing
matters... The regime would have to cover not only the protection of the marine ecology and marine matters such as shipping and off-shore oil platforms, but would also have to be linked with, or properly coordinated with, the physical and conservation regimes for the coastal and inshore fishing areas". The speaker concluded that, "This is a vast and difficult subject". 2 Given, however, the sense of urgency expressed at both hearings for such a European agency, it appears that implementation of this particular proposal may become the first positive developmen t of the wreck of the A m o c o Cadiz.[]
1 See the table prepared by Henry, Christian, "Etat des Signatures et Ratifications, par les Pays Membres du Conseil de l'Europe, des Conventions Multilat6rales, Relatives fi la Pollution des Mers", Environmental Policy and Law, Vol. 4, No. 2/3, July 1978, p. 124. 2 European Parliament, Committee on Regional Policy, Regional Planning and Transport, Verbatim Report of the Public Hearing on the Most Effective Means of Preventing Accidents to Shipping in Community Waters, and the Avoidance of Consequential Marine and Coastal Pollution, Paris, 20, 21, 22 June 1978 (PE 54.206), p. 162.
Answers to Environmental Questions recently submitted to the Commission of the European Community Written Question 194/78 In this submission, Mr. Power made six inquiries regarding the possibility of Community financial assistance for the reclamation of cutaway bogland in Ireland. In its response, the Commission conceded that it is aware of the fact that cutaway bogland is becoming .... a good business image?
available in Ireland but stated that according to its information, special aid measures to reclaim the land concerned do not exist in the member states. The Commission stated further that the Community is not presently financing research regarding best possible uses Courtesy: Heinz Hebeisen Fotograf
169
of the reclaimed land, nor does it presently have appropriations to finance the reclamation. The Commission also declined to indicate whether it would specifically include aid for bogland reclamation and research in measures proposed for Ireland in the near future. Written Question 320•78
Mr. Normanton inquired whether, and under which conditions, land drainage projects would be eligible for grant aid from Community funds. In a one sentence response, the Commission concluded that the Community's f'mancial regulations do not provide for wetland drainage grants.
not acted regarding Petition 8/74, citing its proposal for a Directive on bird conservation which it presented to the Council in December, 1976. As regards additional measures, the Commission stated that it is preparing proposals regarding application of the 1973 Washington Convention in the Community. The Commission also stated that it is maintaining close contact with the Council of Europe regarding proposals on endangered European species of flora and fauna, and with the United Nations regarding migratory species, with the hope that such proposals shall culminate in international conventions.
Written Question 286[78
Mr. Vandewiele made a reference to Petition 8/74 adopted by the European Parliament on 21 February 1975, entitled "Save the migratory birds" and stated that the Commission has not yet taken any action regarding this resolution. He then questioned what measures were being considered to promote the protection of Eurafrican migratory birds. In its answer, the Commission disputed Vandeweile's assertion that it had
CEDE- Environmental
Impact Assessment Procedure The Conseil Europ~en du Droit de l'Environnement (European Council of Environmental Law) (CEDE), meeting in Colmar on 2 - 3 June 1978, adopted 18 principles for the guidance of legislators in drafting rules concerning environmental impact statement procedures. The 18 principles, elaborated in CEDE Resolution No. 7, are the culmination of several years effort. A seminar on this subject was held in Louvain in December 1975 under the auspices of CEDE and the European Environmental Bureau. At the seminar as well as at several other sessions held between 1976 and 1978, national reports were submitted concerning environmental impact legislation in the various countries and a questionnaire survey was conducted. A team of experts in comparative and international law, working with this information, drafted the 18 principles adopted in Resolution No. 7. [] (See Selected Documents, this issue, p. 193.) 170
Written Question 240[78
Mr. Guerlin questioned whether, in view of the economic and ecological
implications of recent accidents such as the Amoco Cadiz and the Brazil/Uruguay mercury-fume poisoning incident, the Commission felt that there was an urgent need to draw up proposals for regulations governing the transport of dangerous substances. The Commission responded, stating that in its communication to the Council of 27 April 1978, it had announced a number of measures designed to facilitate swift ratification of IMCO international conventions which regulate the safety of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution. With regard to land transport, the Commission has not considered it necessary to propose Community Regulations due to its belief that present European regulations, once applied by all Member States, will be "completely satisfactory." []
Britain Adopts Firm Position on EEC Fisheries Policy -- C o n s e r v a t i o n or S e l f - I n t e r e s t ?
Britain's firm stand against a proposed EEC fishing pact and her unilateral closing of fisheries off the coasts of Scotland and Northern Ireland is causing serious dissention among the Agricultural Ministers of the EEC. The rift has widened to the point where it is highly probable that the Commission will institute proceedings against the UK in the European. Court of Justice. Within Britain, public sentiment has been growing in support of the hard-line position taken in EEC fisheries meetings by British Agriculture Minister John Silkin. Backed by both political parties, Mr. Silkin has adamantly refused to budge from Britain's demands for dominant preference for British fishermen within 12 to 50 miles of the coast, cessation of the practice of switching net mesh sizes at sea, and tighter control over the amount of edible fish taken in industrial catches of smaller species destined for oil or livestock fodder. A compromise solution is far less likely now than it appeared during preliminary negotiations late last year. The EEC, faced with the problem of apportioning the fish stocks within the EEC 200-mile limit (as well as those fishing quotas permitted to the EEC in other countries' waters) scheduled a meeting of the Council of Ministers in January 1978 to adopt an agreement on
each member's share of the catch. Although the ostensible purpose of the meeting was to agree on quotas, it was widely hailed as the beginning of an EEC fisheries policy. During negotiations in preparation for this meeting, the other member states had gradually accepted most of the British proposals. In the formula agreed to in principle, Britain would have been allocated more than 25% of the total 4,250,000 tonnes which the Commission estimates can be caught without endangering the recovery of depleted stocks such as herring. Although this EEC total represents a 7% reduction from the annual average take during the benchmark period 1973 - 1976 as a conservation measure, Britain was asked to accept only a token reduction in total catch. The January Council of Ministers talks broke down, because Britain was unwilling to go along with the agreement which the other eight member states were willing to endorse. The main objections raised by Mr. Silkin were that the quota scheme did not include a coastal preference zone - which the others could not bring themselves to accept because they considered it "discriminatory" under the terms of the Treaty of Rome - and that conservation and enforcement measures were minimal. It was, however, widely assumed that the talks were close to agreement and Environmental Policy and Law, 4 (1978)
Environmental Policy and Law, 4 (1978)
held 20 - 22 June 1978 in Paris, conclusions and recommendations were reached that complemented and supplemented those of the Council of Europe hearing. The European Parliament hearing focused more specifically on means and techniques for improving sea transport safety. This hearing, too, was called in response to the grounding of the A m o c o Cadiz. In it, Mr. Despicht of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of the European Community suggested that "there needs to be a comprehensive European regime dealing with environmental protection just as there is for safety of life at sea and on fishing
matters... The regime would have to cover not only the protection of the marine ecology and marine matters such as shipping and off-shore oil platforms, but would also have to be linked with, or properly coordinated with, the physical and conservation regimes for the coastal and inshore fishing areas". The speaker concluded that, "This is a vast and difficult subject". 2 Given, however, the sense of urgency expressed at both hearings for such a European agency, it appears that implementation of this particular proposal may become the first positive developmen t of the wreck of the A m o c o Cadiz.[]
1 See the table prepared by Henry, Christian, "Etat des Signatures et Ratifications, par les Pays Membres du Conseil de l'Europe, des Conventions Multilat6rales, Relatives fi la Pollution des Mers", Environmental Policy and Law, Vol. 4, No. 2/3, July 1978, p. 124. 2 European Parliament, Committee on Regional Policy, Regional Planning and Transport, Verbatim Report of the Public Hearing on the Most Effective Means of Preventing Accidents to Shipping in Community Waters, and the Avoidance of Consequential Marine and Coastal Pollution, Paris, 20, 21, 22 June 1978 (PE 54.206), p. 162.
Answers to Environmental Questions recently submitted to the Commission of the European Community Written Question 194/78 In this submission, Mr. Power made six inquiries regarding the possibility of Community financial assistance for the reclamation of cutaway bogland in Ireland. In its response, the Commission conceded that it is aware of the fact that cutaway bogland is becoming .... a good business image?
available in Ireland but stated that according to its information, special aid measures to reclaim the land concerned do not exist in the member states. The Commission stated further that the Community is not presently financing research regarding best possible uses Courtesy: Heinz Hebeisen Fotograf
169
of the reclaimed land, nor does it presently have appropriations to finance the reclamation. The Commission also declined to indicate whether it would specifically include aid for bogland reclamation and research in measures proposed for Ireland in the near future. Written Question 320•78
Mr. Normanton inquired whether, and under which conditions, land drainage projects would be eligible for grant aid from Community funds. In a one sentence response, the Commission concluded that the Community's f'mancial regulations do not provide for wetland drainage grants.
not acted regarding Petition 8/74, citing its proposal for a Directive on bird conservation which it presented to the Council in December, 1976. As regards additional measures, the Commission stated that it is preparing proposals regarding application of the 1973 Washington Convention in the Community. The Commission also stated that it is maintaining close contact with the Council of Europe regarding proposals on endangered European species of flora and fauna, and with the United Nations regarding migratory species, with the hope that such proposals shall culminate in international conventions.
Written Question 286[78
Mr. Vandewiele made a reference to Petition 8/74 adopted by the European Parliament on 21 February 1975, entitled "Save the migratory birds" and stated that the Commission has not yet taken any action regarding this resolution. He then questioned what measures were being considered to promote the protection of Eurafrican migratory birds. In its answer, the Commission disputed Vandeweile's assertion that it had
CEDE- Environmental
Impact Assessment Procedure The Conseil Europ~en du Droit de l'Environnement (European Council of Environmental Law) (CEDE), meeting in Colmar on 2 - 3 June 1978, adopted 18 principles for the guidance of legislators in drafting rules concerning environmental impact statement procedures. The 18 principles, elaborated in CEDE Resolution No. 7, are the culmination of several years effort. A seminar on this subject was held in Louvain in December 1975 under the auspices of CEDE and the European Environmental Bureau. At the seminar as well as at several other sessions held between 1976 and 1978, national reports were submitted concerning environmental impact legislation in the various countries and a questionnaire survey was conducted. A team of experts in comparative and international law, working with this information, drafted the 18 principles adopted in Resolution No. 7. [] (See Selected Documents, this issue, p. 193.) 170
Written Question 240[78
Mr. Guerlin questioned whether, in view of the economic and ecological
implications of recent accidents such as the Amoco Cadiz and the Brazil/Uruguay mercury-fume poisoning incident, the Commission felt that there was an urgent need to draw up proposals for regulations governing the transport of dangerous substances. The Commission responded, stating that in its communication to the Council of 27 April 1978, it had announced a number of measures designed to facilitate swift ratification of IMCO international conventions which regulate the safety of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution. With regard to land transport, the Commission has not considered it necessary to propose Community Regulations due to its belief that present European regulations, once applied by all Member States, will be "completely satisfactory." []
Britain Adopts Firm Position on EEC Fisheries Policy -- C o n s e r v a t i o n or S e l f - I n t e r e s t ?
Britain's firm stand against a proposed EEC fishing pact and her unilateral closing of fisheries off the coasts of Scotland and Northern Ireland is causing serious dissention among the Agricultural Ministers of the EEC. The rift has widened to the point where it is highly probable that the Commission will institute proceedings against the UK in the European. Court of Justice. Within Britain, public sentiment has been growing in support of the hard-line position taken in EEC fisheries meetings by British Agriculture Minister John Silkin. Backed by both political parties, Mr. Silkin has adamantly refused to budge from Britain's demands for dominant preference for British fishermen within 12 to 50 miles of the coast, cessation of the practice of switching net mesh sizes at sea, and tighter control over the amount of edible fish taken in industrial catches of smaller species destined for oil or livestock fodder. A compromise solution is far less likely now than it appeared during preliminary negotiations late last year. The EEC, faced with the problem of apportioning the fish stocks within the EEC 200-mile limit (as well as those fishing quotas permitted to the EEC in other countries' waters) scheduled a meeting of the Council of Ministers in January 1978 to adopt an agreement on
each member's share of the catch. Although the ostensible purpose of the meeting was to agree on quotas, it was widely hailed as the beginning of an EEC fisheries policy. During negotiations in preparation for this meeting, the other member states had gradually accepted most of the British proposals. In the formula agreed to in principle, Britain would have been allocated more than 25% of the total 4,250,000 tonnes which the Commission estimates can be caught without endangering the recovery of depleted stocks such as herring. Although this EEC total represents a 7% reduction from the annual average take during the benchmark period 1973 - 1976 as a conservation measure, Britain was asked to accept only a token reduction in total catch. The January Council of Ministers talks broke down, because Britain was unwilling to go along with the agreement which the other eight member states were willing to endorse. The main objections raised by Mr. Silkin were that the quota scheme did not include a coastal preference zone - which the others could not bring themselves to accept because they considered it "discriminatory" under the terms of the Treaty of Rome - and that conservation and enforcement measures were minimal. It was, however, widely assumed that the talks were close to agreement and Environmental Policy and Law, 4 (1978)