You are on page 1of 2

C 60/90 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 2.

98

development of integrated freight management strategies, in order to organise commercial traffic more
efficiently, to limit access to the outskirts of towns with the help of intermodal transport, and to reduce the use of
polluting fuels and the size and mileage of vehicles within cities. In addition, reference can be made to existing
Community legislation concerning emissions of carbon monoxide, hydro-carbons and nitrogen oxides and
particulate matter from diesel engines in heavy-duty vehicles (Directive 88/77/EEC, last amended by Directive
96/1/EC) (2) and concerning noise emissions from motor vehicles (70/157/EEC last amended by 96/20/EC) (3) In
its communication (4) on the Auto-oil programme, the Commission undertook to come forward with proposals
for a further tightening of heavy-duty vehicle emission standards. It emphasised the shared responsibility of the
Community and local, regional and national authorities in dealing cost-effectively with local environmental
problems. On future noise policy, a green paper (5) was recently published by the Commission. It outlines options
for future actions on tyre noise, integrating noise costs into fiscal instruments, amending Community legislation
on road-worthiness tests to include noise and promoting low noise surfaces through Community funding.

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.


(2) OJ L 40, 17.2.1996.
(3) OJ L 92, 13.4.1996.
(4) COM(96) 248.
(5) COM(96) 540 final.

(98/C 60/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/97


by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission
(19 June 1997)

Subject: National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) in the Phillippines

Further to its reply to Question E-3115/96 (1), can the Commission supply the following more detailed
information:
1. To what extent has the process of ascertaining the presence of indigenous communities in the selected areas
been completed? How was this done, and by whom? Does the Commission have information on which
peoples live in these areas, what economic activities they engage in, and how many people are involved?
2. How will indigenous peoples be represented on the administration of NIPAS? Will they for example sit on
the Project Area Management Boards? Is there any provision for a percentage of the posts needing to be
filled to be held by members of indigenous communities? If so, which posts would go to them?
3. What form will communication between indigenous communities and, for example, the staff of NIPAS take?
4. To what extent are the indigenous communities and indigenous people’s organizations aware of the content
of the bilateral agreement? Has it been distributed to the people affected?

(1) OJ C 105, 3.4.1997, p. 51.

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission


(28 July 1997)

1. The presence of indigenous communities is ascertained by staff of the National integrated protected areas
programme (NIPAP) through the review of secondary literature, rapid rural appraisals, baseline surveys and
direct contacts with key informants in the areas such as local government agencies, non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and church groups, and the indigenous communities and their leaders. For six of the
NIPAP protected areas, practically all indigenous communities have been ascertained. In this process, NIPAP
has identified more detailed information on the indigenous communities, such as the various economic activities,
the location, population estimates, and the farming and fishing practices.
25. 2. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 60/91

2. Each protected area is governed by a protected area management board (PAMB). The involvement of the
indigenous peoples in the management of the National integrated protected area system (NIPAS) is through their
representation in the PAMB in their respective area. Section 11 of Republic Act number 7586 of 1992, prescribes
that one representative of each tribal community shall be a member of the PAMB. There is no provision for the
percentage of posts held by indigenous communities, but each distinct community has a seat on the PAMB.

3. Besides the appraisals described under point 1, NIPAP maintains regular contact with the indigenous
communities through their representatives at the PAMB. The national co-director of NIPAP sits as a non-voting
member at the PAMB, and exchanges information regarding plans and activities of NIPAP. The PAMB is due to
meet at least twice a year, but in practice meetings take place more frequently. NIPAP further maintains contact
with the indigenous communities at grass roots level through the implementation of information, education and
communication (IEC) activities.

4. During the inception phase of the NIPAP, a series of consultations have been held informing the
communities and their representatives about the planned project activities. Following these initial consultations,
NIPAP is holding further consultations and organising workshops with those directly concerned. These
occasions have been used to distribute documentation containing detailed information about the bilateral
agreement between the Commission and the Philippines on NIPAP. Furthermore, this information has been
disseminated through the IEC activities.

(98/C 60/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2079/97


by Mair Morgan (PSE) to the Commission
(19 June 1997)

Subject: Expert groups

How many expert and advisory groups are used by the Commission in total and in each DG? How many of these
groups are used for the purpose of project selection?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission


(31 July 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the list of committees contained in Annex 1 to the
general budget of the European Union for the financial year 1997, and to the note on the operation of committees
in 1995 that was sent to Parliament on 28 June 1996.

(98/C 60/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2081/97


by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission
(19 June 1997)

Subject: Flags of convenience and the EU fleet

As the Commission will know, Community shipowners and seamen are unjustly penalized by increasingly stiff
competition from vessels flying flags of convenience, owing mainly from the fact that they are subject to much
heavier taxation than shipowners and seamen from non-Community countries.

Given the above, would the Commission not agree that:


1. appropriate fiscal, social and administrative measures should be taken to put an end to the discrimination
from which Community shipowners and seamen are currently suffering?
2. with a view to ensuring that the Union and Member States’ flags are flown by the gigantic Community fleet
sailing on the world’s seas, the relief measures provided for in the 1989 Directive should be implemented as
soon as possible, so as to enable Community vessels compete on equal terms with the huge number of
vessels flying flags of convenience?