WRITTEN QUESTION E-3920/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Updating of protected areas on the basis of the EU directive on the conservation of birds

Lower Saxony is currently updating its protected areas under the EU directive on the conservation of birds. It is widely felt that this is happening despite the justified concerns of the local population and runs counter to the spirit of the directive, which requires economic interests to be taken into account.

Would the Commission state:

1. What is the legal basis for the current updating exercise and are there concrete grounds for it?

2. To what extent should the local population be involved in the process?

3. Is it in keeping with the directive to require valuable and irreplaceable arable land to be converted into pasture, place severe restrictions on its use or designate whole parcels of such land as nature conservation areas?

4. Is it in keeping with the directive for the continued existence of old-established businesses to be placed in jeopardy?

5. To what extent does the Commission check the import and purpose of the measures taken by the Member States?

6. Is the Commission aware that the EU directive is being used as a means of pursuing a policy inimical to the local population on the pretext that it is imposed by Brussels? What does the Commission think of the damage that is being done to Europe's standing with the public, and what does it intend to do about it?

7. Is it true that the Commission is bringing pressure to bear on the Member States by threatening to withhold certain forms of aid from the region if the legislation is implemented inadequately or not at all? Is any such linkage permissible?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

The Commission has been pursuing since 1992 a complaint and later infringement case about a failure to fully implement Article 4 of the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1) (the Birds Directive) in Germany due to insufficient designation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for the bird species covered by articles 4(1) and 4(2) and the failure to transmit sufficient information concerning the designated SPAs as required under Article 4(3) of the Directive. The respective court application was decided in summer 2000 and is currently under preparation. Flevoland only (the Dutch programming document for areas outside Objective 1 is still being negotiated) Sources: single programming documents and operational programmes 2000 2006

Based on limited knowledge in the Commission about the actual situation in Lower Saxony only the following response is possible:

1. The Land Lower-Saxony is among the remaining German Länder, which, more than 20 years after the adoption of the Birds Directive, are considered as not having so far designated sufficient SPAs nor as having transmitted the respective information. The Commission has neither received from Lower Saxony nor from Germany information about the scope and the timing of the actual procedure described by the Honourable Member. It is therefore suggested that the Honourable Member asks this question directly to Germany or Lower Saxony.

2. The last sentence also applies to the question of public participation. The Birds Directive itself contains no provision obliging Member States to consult the public on the site selection process.

3. The Birds Directive does not in general prevent agricultural practices in Special Protection Areas, but it obliges Member States to respect the conservation objectives of these sites and to prevent deterioration of these sites.

As regards the change from grassland to arable land, the Commission has only been informed through complaints, that areas in Germany which merit designation under the Birds Directive have been destroyed i.e. by change from grassland to arable land. The Court of Justice has recently stated in its sentence C-96/98 (Marais Poitevin) that in a SPA such detrimental change is illegal.

4. In the difficult negotiations to reach agreement about subsidies for agriculture in the framework of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT /Urugay-round) green box measures jointly were accepted by the GATT participants.

The Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999/EC of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(2), allows for Member States to compensate for restrictions arising from Community environmental legislation, such as the Birds Directive. Lower Saxony has used this opportunity in its Rural Development Plan and farmers can thus be compensated for such restrictions. This should guarantee that farms are not endangered.

5. The Commission has indeed checked in detail the purpose and the sufficiency of the Member State measures to comply with Article 4 of the Birds Directive and has recognised the insufficiency of the situation. However, the majority of the Länder appear to have in the meantime undertaken significant efforts to improve the situation.

6. The Commission would regret such statements and would like to remind the Honourable Member that the Commission according to Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty is obliged to ensure that Community legislation (including the nature Directives adopted by the Council) is fully and correctly applied.

7. By letter from the member of the Commission responsible for Agriculture, Member States were indeed informed that they have to submit lists of the Sites designated in the framework of Natura 2000 as soon as possible, and within a given deadline. In addition, Member States were asked to inform the Commission, in their Rural Development Plans, about the provisions undertaken to ensure that measures funded under the plans will not lead to deterioration of any areas designated or to be designated under Natura 2000. The Honourable Member will understand that otherwise the approval of the Rural Development Plans as an important financial instrument to support the rural community and agricultural holdings would not have been possible. Otherwise, the Commission would have been in the situation to approve measures, which might degrade or destroy areas, which should be protected under European environmental legislation. The same holds true for the Structural funds, where such commitments by Member States/Regions of objective 1 areas had to be given based on a similar letter from the members of the Commission responsible for Environment and Regional Policy.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.