91998E1012

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1012/98 by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Natura 2000 - implementation of the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

In its answer to Written Question P-305/98 by Reimer Böge, the Commission made some important comments about taking economic and regional interests into consideration when implementing Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992. Moreover, according to newspaper reports Commissioner Fischler provided further clarification about the directive's recommendation-like character and the room for manoeuvre available to the regions when he visited North Rhine-Westphalia.

Will the Commission therefore answer the following additional questions concerning the practical operation of the directive:

1. According to Article 4(1) each Member State proposes, on the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III (Stage 1) and relevant scientific information, a list of sites indicating which natural habitat types in Annex I and which species in Annex II that are native to its territory the sites host.

Do the Member States have to list all the sites hosting the same natural habitat type, or can they make a choice between the various sites hosting that habitat type?

2. Are the Member States required to list all existing nature reserves as conservation areas under the directive?

3. Does the directive prescribe minimum percentages to be listed?

4. Can the Commission confirm that the purpose of the directive is not to create new nature reserves and that, under Article 6, the conservation measures for special areas of conservation may involve appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures?

Is it necessary to designate special areas of conservation as nature reserves?

5. Can the Commission confirm that, taking into account Article 6, the proposed route of the A-20 motorway is of more than regional economic importance, within the meaning of Article 2 and Article 6(2), and that an overriding public interest has already been established in the decisions on the trans-European networks, including the proposed route shown in the annex of the Piecyk report?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1998)

1. According to 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. )) the so-called habitats Directive, the Member States are not obliged to propose all areas where a habitat type of its Annex I or species of its Annex II is present (Article 3(2) Directive 92/43/EEC). However, Member States have the duty of assessing all these areas according to the criteria in Annex III.

2. There is no obligation according to Directive 92/43/EEC to select all areas which are protected under national nature conservation law given that the criteria for selecting these areas might be different.

3. There is no minimum percentage of national territory for the proposals to be put forward by the Member States. They have rather to propose all appropriate areas.

4. The objective of Directive 92/43/EEC is to set up the Natura 2000 network in order to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest, in accordance with the criteria set up by the Directive. Therefore it might be necessary to designate also those areas which are not yet designated as nature conservation sites at present.

As the Honourable Member points out, Member States, in accordance with Article 6 Paragraph 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC, have to establish appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures for the special areas of conservation. These possible methods are not necessarily linked to an existing national protection category. However, all means guaranteeing a sufficient and permanent protection may be applied.

5. Following a request of the German authorities in accordance with Article 6 Paragraph 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Commission has already expressed its view on the motorway A20 in the framework of the trans European networks (TEN) and imperative reasons of overriding public interest concerning the crossing of Natura 2000 sites in Mecklenburg Vorpommern (opinions of 27 April 1995 ((OJ C 178, 13.7.1995. )) and 96/15/EC of 18 December 1995 ((OJ L 6, 9.1.1996. ))).

These opinions, however, do not concern the section of the motorway A20 crossing the territory of Schleswig Holstein. As regards this section, the Commission considers that the authorities are obliged to respect fully the provisions of Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC, including, as the case may be, the finding of the least damaging alternative and sufficient compensation, in order to avoid adversely affecting Natura 2000 sites.