92003E0178

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2003)

Subject: Adder conservation area on the island of Milos: the protection of public health and violation of environmental legislation

Local bodies and professional associations on the island of Milos have condemned a plan to create an adder conservation area on Milos in violation of Community legislation; this plan is based on a special environmental study entitled the Milos adder habitat programme. They are also protesting at the fact that this poisonous snake which is not an endangered species in Greece would constitute a public health risk. They are particularly concerned that the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC(1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and notably Article 6, paragraph 3, have not been respected. This Article states that the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and after having obtained the opinion of the general public. Moreover, on the basis of the study in question it has been proposed that a presidential decree be issued providing that the snake conservation area should cover 60 % of the surface of the island. Given the public health threat that would result from this scheme and the fact that other species of snake which are non-indigenous would also be introduced on Milos without controls, this represents a violation of the content of Directive 92/43/EEC and the Natura 2000 network and distortion of their objectives.

1. What measures does the Commission intend to take to address, firstly, the violation of the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and the Natura 2000 network, given that specific provisions thereof have been breached in the procedure for the creation of an adder conservation area on the island of Milos and, secondly, the violation of the provisions of the Directive in question through the introduction of non-indigenous snakes?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take to address the dangers and public health risks on the island of Milos, particularly in inhabited areas, that would result from the creation of an adder conservation area covering 60 % of the island and the uncontrolled introduction of other non-indigenous snakes?

3. Which projects or studies have been co-funded by the Community or proposed for the creation of an adder conservation area on Milos, and how will the Commission generally address the phenomenon of the maladministration of Community funding of environmental protection projects and plans, since disproportionate protection measures (for instance, converting 60 % of the surface of the island of Milos into an adder conservation area) represent a distortion of the objectives and content of Directive 92/43/EEC and the Natura 2000 network?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2003)

1. Endemic to Greece, Vipera schweizeri is listed in Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC(1) as a priority species, and in Annex IV thereto as a species of Community interest in need of strict protection. Vipera schweizeri is endangered at international level, as its presence has only been confirmed on four small islands of the Western Cyclades. 90 % of the population is concentrated on the island of Milos, particularly in the west, in a sparsely inhabited area where the natural environment is largely untouched and provides an excellent habitat.

When it proposed its national list for the Natura 2000 network, Greece proposed three sites for the protection of this species: one on Milos (West Coast code GR422005), one on Kimolos (Nisos Polyaigos-Kimolos code GR4220006) and one on Siphnos (Siphnos-Prophitis Ilias code GR4220008). At the last Mediterranean biogeographical seminar held in Brussels (29-31 January 2003) the species was deemed to be sufficiently represented. However, scientific reservations were expressed requiring Greece to give further consideration to site delimitation and the presence of the species on the Prophitis Ilias site on Milos (code GR4220020), initially included in the Greek list of proposed sites of Community importance.

Further to a complaint received in April 2000 reporting that the Milos vipers were not being properly protected, especially from the dangers of extractive operations, the Commission launched an enquiry. The information provided by Greece shows that a specific environmental study, intended to determine the most appropriate boundaries for the Natura 2000 sites on the island, has been carried out. Once approved, this management plan should result in the creation of a system of complete and effective protection for the species and its habitats, the components being the plan itself, a presidential decree on the protection of the species and its habitats and a management authority set up to implement the provisions of the legal framework.

On the basis of the information available, the Commission does not consider that Greece has taken all the measures required to establish and implement an effective system of strict protection for Vipera schweizeri on Milos in order to prevent the deliberate killing of wild specimens, deliberate disturbance of the species particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration, and the deterioration or destruction of their breeding sites or resting places. More specifically, the Commission considers that Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(a), (b) and (d) of Directive 92/43/EEC. For this reason infringement proceedings were initiated in October 2002, as provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

2. For species listed in Annex IV, such as Vipera schweizeri, Article 12 of Directive 92/43/EEC, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in the Caretta caretta(2) case, requires the establishment and effective implementation of a system of strict protection. Member States

can of course derogate from the provisions of Article 12 in the interest of public health and safety. However, they may only do so where there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, as stipulated in Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC.

The Commission does not have any information on the uncontrolled introduction of other, non-indigenous species. Article 22 of Directive 92/43/EEC gives Member States a broad margin of discretion in this regard. They must ensure that the deliberate introduction into the wild of any species which is not native to their territory is regulated so as not to prejudice natural habitats within their natural range or the wild native fauna and flora and, if they consider it necessary, prohibit such introduction. It should be noted that the specific environmental study prohibits the uncontrolled introduction of other, non-indigenous species.

3. No projects concerning the protection of Vipera schweizeri have been cofinanced by the LIFE financial instrument.

A Milos viper conservation project was cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), under the Environment 1994-1999 operational programme, notably measure No 3.1 on the conservation of protected species.

The project, Protection of the Milos viper's biotope (code number 3.1.01), received 75 % of a total budget initially set at ECU 221 641. At the end of 2000, ECU 127 253 had been spent. The funds were used for information/awareness-raising work, a study on measures to be taken to protect the Milos viper and a study on the construction of a Visitor Information Centre.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) Judgment of the Court of 30 January 2002, Commission v Hellenic Republic, case C-103/00, European Court Reports.