<s>[INST] The next text is a question of a member of the European parliament:"1.What measures — with regard both to seagoing vessels registered in EU Member States and to the admission of seriously polluting vessels from other States — are being prepared in the European Union in order, pending any effective measures which might be adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), to cut to a minimum emissions of greenhouse gases from seagoing vessels and to encourage the IMO to adopt effective regulations?  2.Will the requirement for ships in the North Sea and Baltic to use fuel whose sulphur content does not exceed 1,5 % enter into force on 31 December 2002, as scheduled in 1997, or will there be a delay because Annex VI to Marpol has not yet been ratified by 15 flag states representing a total of 50 % of the world merchant shipping tonnage?  3.Is the fuel referred to in question 2 now sufficiently available at all EU ports, or is the situation still as it was found to be at the beginning of 2001 (written question E-0407/01(1)), in that fuel with a sulphur content of 1 % is only produced and available to a limited extent, while it also costs significantly more than fuel with a sulphur content of 3 % and moreover higher transport charges are made for it?  4.Can the Commission indicate for each EU Member State and for the EU as a whole what percentage of the seagoing vessels registered there is equipped with a catalytic reduction unit?  5.To what extent are other Member States following the example of Sweden and encouraging the use of low-sulphur fuel by means of financial incentives? Is the Commission encouraging it? If not, why not?    (1)OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 45."
Analyze carefully the text and assign it to the most relevant policy area among those listed below. Do not explain your answer and return only a number.
Policy area numbers: 1 = Macroeconomics
2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties
3 = Health
4 = Agriculture and Fisheries
5 = Labour, employment and pensions
6 = Education
7 = Environment
8 = Energy
9 = Immigration
10 = Transportation
12 = Law and Crime
13 = Social welfare
14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning
15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues
16 = Defence
17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues
18 = Foreign trade
19 = International affairs and foreign aid
20 = Governance and government
21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues
23 = Culture and media
[/INST]. Answer = [10]. </s>
1.What measures — with regard both to seagoing vessels registered in EU Member States and to the admission of seriously polluting vessels from other States — are being prepared in the European Union in order, pending any effective measures which might be adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), to cut to a minimum emissions of greenhouse gases from seagoing vessels and to encourage the IMO to adopt effective regulations?  2.Will the requirement for ships in the North Sea and Baltic to use fuel whose sulphur content does not exceed 1,5 % enter into force on 31 December 2002, as scheduled in 1997, or will there be a delay because Annex VI to Marpol has not yet been ratified by 15 flag states representing a total of 50 % of the world merchant shipping tonnage?  3.Is the fuel referred to in question 2 now sufficiently available at all EU ports, or is the situation still as it was found to be at the beginning of 2001 (written question E-0407/01(1)), in that fuel with a sulphur content of 1 % is only produced and available to a limited extent, while it also costs significantly more than fuel with a sulphur content of 3 % and moreover higher transport charges are made for it?  4.Can the Commission indicate for each EU Member State and for the EU as a whole what percentage of the seagoing vessels registered there is equipped with a catalytic reduction unit?  5.To what extent are other Member States following the example of Sweden and encouraging the use of low-sulphur fuel by means of financial incentives? Is the Commission encouraging it? If not, why not?    (1)OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 45.