# CE2004088EN.01027301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/273 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/273

---

(2004/C 88 E/0278)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1027/04

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Respect for Community environmental legislation

Subject:

The conservation and restoration of biodiversity are stated objectives of the Commission. The Community sphere has the à priori wherewithal to meet these challenges, including ‘inter alia’ the Birds and Habitats Directives, and the Directive on Environmental Impact Studies. The Member States have incorporated the main provisions of this Community framework within their own national legislation.

However, the balance sheet for the transposition of these directives, particularly in France, is unfortunately less than satisfactory. Since territorial development programmes are a major source of adverse impact on biodiversity, the prior legal conditions which have to be met before implementing any structural project, above all, affecting Natura 2000 sites, should correctly incorporate the conservation imperative.

The cases of the A831 in the marshlands of Poitiers or the A28 motorway in Sarthe demonstrate that the implementing procedures come nowhere near meeting the objectives of the texts in question. The sectoral approach to environmental impact remains in full force, thus allowing the schemes to minimise environmental damage and benefit from the obligation to choose the least harmful solutions in terms of impact in Natura 2000 sites. This means that the investigative procedures are virtually no different from traditional impact studies, which de facto neglect the strict protection status of certain species or habitats, by the direct destruction or fragmentation of biotopes. Furthermore, the fact that those promoting the damaging work have recourse to provisions permitting derogations is becoming a rule, and helping to deprive the Directives in question of any force at the very time when conservation of biodiversity should be being integrated into public policies.

| 1. | What steps does the Commission intend to take to give these Directives their real force, both within a general framework and in the specific instances cited, in order properly to reflect the account taken of biodiversity in European policies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to give these Directives their real force, both within a general framework and in the specific instances cited, in order properly to reflect the account taken of biodiversity in European policies?

| 2. | What inspection procedures does the Commission plan to introduce in order to bring this glaring sideways slippage under control? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What inspection procedures does the Commission plan to introduce in order to bring this glaring sideways slippage under control?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

(21 April 2004)

With regard to the general framework the Honourable Member refers to, the Commission would point out that Council Directives 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) are designed to ensure the conservation of bird species, natural habitats and wild fauna and flora in order to contribute to the general objective of biodiversity.

1

2

Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC are based on the principle of subsidiarity. As a result, Member States have a wide margin of manoeuvre in their practical implementation of specific measures to manage and protect sites in the Natura 2000 network. Each Member State is thus responsible for implementing Community law through its national legislation. However, even if Member States are free to choose their preferred method of implementing practical measures, the measures must comply with the Directive's general objective and with the specific objectives of its various provisions.

The Commission, which pursuant to Article 211 of the EC Treaty is responsible for seeing that Community law is properly applied, intervenes with a Member State whenever a report indicates failure to meet the requirements of Community legislation.

Regarding the particular cases cited by the Honourable Member, the Commission has addressed several requests for information to the French authorities in the course of its examination of a complaint concerning the A831 motorway project in the ‘Marais poitevin’, a project which has yet to receive the final go-ahead. The Commission is currently examining this dossier. The Commission has also sent the French authorities a reasoned opinion for their failure to comply with the provisions of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (3), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (4), and Directive 92/43/EEC in respect of reparcelling operations connected with construction of the stretch of the A28 motorway between Le Mans and Tours.

3

4

The Commission will take all necessary steps to safeguard the integrity of Natura 2000 sites and the coherency of the network, if necessary by instituting infringement procedures.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

1

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

2

(3)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

3

(4)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

4

---