You are on page 1of 2

17. 3.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 82/9

Does the Commission consider that it amounts to a breach of the conservationist spirit of Directive 92/43/EEC?
Has the Commission considered analysing whether the activities carried out in the south of the island are
compatible with conserving pilot whales, which are listed in Annex IV among the ‘Animal and plant species of
Community interest in need of strict protection’?
Can the above incidents be considered as contravening the provisions of Article 12 of the Habitat Directive,
which prohibits the deliberate disturbance of species listed in Annex IV(a) (as is the case with the species in
question) and deterioration of their resting places?
What measures will the Commission take to ensure that the Directive is complied with in the case of these
species?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission


(30 June 1997)
A single species of Cetacea, the bottle-nosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) is included in Annex II to Directive
92/43/EEC. All species of this family, including Globicephala macrorhyncha, are included in Annex IV to the
Directive.
The Commission is aware of the difficulties in conserving these species, and particularly in achieving
compatibility between protection measures and the tourist industry which has grown around the provision of
observation trips in certain parts of the Canary Islands Archipelago. It was for this reason that the Commission,
during the first meeting held with the Spanish authorities to select locations for inclusion in the Natura 2000
network, expressed its concern at the absence of marine areas suitable for the conservation of these species in the
proposed Spanish list.
In response to the Commission’s questions, and in order to fulfil the requirements of the Directive and preserve
the habitat of the bottle-nosed dolphin, the Canary Islands Government has recently proposed two special
conservation zones for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. These include some of the biggest populations of
Globicephala macrorhyncha in the islands. According to the Directive, in particular Article 6, it is the Member
States who must determine what measures are necessary in order to guarantee the conservation of the species in
these areas.
As well as conserving the habitat, the Canary Islands Government has published Decree 320/95 on the regulation
of tourist activities involving observation of cetaceans in the area. The responsibility for monitoring these
measures also lies with the Canary Islands Government.
As regards Commission activities to help protect cetaceans, the Commission is currently evaluating the project
for conservation of the species Caretta caretta and Tursiops truncatus in the Canary Islands, proposed by the
Consejerı́a de Polı́tica Territorial of the Canary Islands Government as part of the Life-Nature 97 programme.
The Commission is also currently supporting a project that aims to demonstrate the potential of voluntary
financial schemes within the European tourism industry, as an approach to generating monetary contributions
from visitors towards the conservation and tourism managament of tourist destinations. One of the schemes
consists of an extensive research exercise amongst visitors in Tenerife based on the conservation of dolphins and
whales.
Another scheme is the promotion of conservation holidays concerned with pilot whale watching in Tenerife,
through attracting tourists to pay for the cost of research on the effects of tourism on the cetaceans of the area by
offering their own time and money. The project, selected in 1995 under the Community action plan to assist
tourism, will be completed by July 1997.

(98/C 82/11) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1500/97


by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission
(30 April 1997)
Subject: Aid programmes
Will the Commission state what proportion of the principal aid programmes goes on paying fees for the drawing
up of application dossiers, management dossiers during implementation and validation dossiers?
What is the general profile of the physical or moral persons who receive such fees?
C 82/10 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 3. 98

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(24 September 1997)

The Honourable Member's question appears to concern the management costs associated with implementation of
Community-funded programmes and, in particular, the processing and analysis of applications, the monitoring of
implementation, and financial management of commitments and payments.

First, it should be noted that separate arrangements are made for each funded programme. There are no
management rules that apply to all the main policy areas. For instance, some funded programmes (e.g. research
and technological development, trans-European networks and culture) are implemented by the Commission
direct, while others (e.g. technical assistance under the Structural Funds) are implemented in partnership with
national or regional authorities. Still others (such as Socrates, Leonardo, Youth for Europe and town-twinning)
involve both public and private organisations and agencies. Private organisations are selected by tendering
procedure.

The Commission can provide examples showing the costs involved in the implementation of various
programmes. For example, at the Commission's initiative, the Structural Funds regulations set ceilings for
expenditure on support for technical assistance (technical assistance measures forming part of operations
part-financed by the Funds aside). The ceilings are: 0.5% for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
and the European Social Fund (ESF), 1% for the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
and 2% for the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG).

However, the ceilings do not cover exactly the same categories of expenditure. In the case of the EAGGF and the
FIFG, they also apply to pilot projects, while the ESF is able to fund industrial-relations measures.

For more information on expenditure on studies and technical assistance funded by the Structural Funds, the
Honorary Member can consult Chapter I, point B.2 ‘Innovative measures and technical assistance’ of the 8th
Report on the Structural Funds (1996), which is currently going through the adoption procedure.

In 1997, 3% (ECU 11 million) of the ECU 346 million allocation for Socrates, Leonardo and Youth for Europe
was spent on the national agencies responsible for implementing the programmes. The Commission spent a
further ECU 13 million on the two technical assistance offices. This was charged to Part A of the budget.

Staffing and administrative costs for programmes in the field of research and technological development are
capped by the Council Decisions adopting them.

On average, these costs amounted to less than 6% of commitments in 1996. They vary depending on the type of
measures contained in the different programmes.

In the case of the enterprise policy, the cost of paying staff to run the assistance office for the Euro-Info Centres
amounted to ECU 740 000 in 1996 (around 4.5% of the total budget of ECU 16 million.)

(98/C 82/12) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1581/97


by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Council
(12 May 1997)

Subject: The Dublin Declaration on Employment

The Declaration stresses once more that employment is an issue of major importance. It endorses the main
employment priorities decided on at Essen in December 1994, and makes specific recommendations on
improving the situation of European labour markets.