29. 6. 77 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 152/3 
II 
(Preparatory  Acts) 
ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive  on bird  conservation 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 24 of 1 February  1977,  page  3. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 10 January  1977,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  100  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
149th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 May  1977, 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community  and,  in particular, 
Article  100  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities  on 10 
January  1977, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by the Bureau  of 
the Economic  and  Social  Committee  on 25 January 
1977,  instructing  the  Section  for  Protection  of the 
Environment,  Public  Health  and  Consumer  Affairs  to 
draw  up an opinion  and  a report  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the  Section 
for Protection  of the Environment,  Public  Health  and 
Consumer  Affairs  at its meeting  held  on 10 May 
1977, Having  regard  to the report  made  by the rapporteur, 
Mrs Evans, 
Having  regard  to the  discussion  at its 149th  Plenary 
Session  held  on 25 and  26 May  1977  (meeting  of 25 
May  1977), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION, 
unanimously  with  8 abstentions: 
1. General  Comments 
1.1. The  Committee  very  much  welcomes  the 
general  principles  underlying  the  Commission's 
proposals  to achieve  common  regulations  for  the 
protection  of birds  throughout  the  States  of the 
Community  and  believes  this  to be a most  successful 
No C 152/4 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 29. 6. 77 
measure  for  safeguarding  the environment  and  the 
conservation  of the common  heritage  of the birds  of 
Europe  which  will  be welcomed  by the vast  majority 
* in  the EEC  States.  Nonetheless,  it wishes  to draw  the 
Commission's  attention  to a number  of practical 
problems  which  will  arise,  most  particularly  with 
regard  to the  protection  of crops  and  hunting  and 
which  need  attention  if the  Directive  is going  to 
operate  in the best  interests  of all concerned. 
1.2. Attention  was  drawn  to the possible  conflict 
between  economic  developments  such  as 
urbanization,  industrialization,  tourism  and 
recreation,  agricultural  progress  and  rural 
development  and  bird  protection  and  hoped  the 
Directive  would  be  used  so as to achieve  the 
compromise  necessary  in these  instances. 
1.3. The  Committee  hoped  that  the  Commission 
would  continue  to  study  hunting  and  would 
endeavour  to coordinate  where  possible  Community 
legislation  on this  subject,  particularly  hunting  levies, 
hunting  seasons,  methods  of hunting  certain  species 
and the  expertise  of  hunters  including  their 
knowledge  of the  measures  incorporated  in this 
Directive.  The  Committee  was  aware  however  of the 
complexity  of this  subject  and  considered  that  it was 
correct  that  this  was  not  part  of this  Directive  but 
should  form  part  of a further  study. 1.6. It  was  the  Committee's  opinion  that  the 
Directive  should  place  an obligation  on the Member 
States  to institute  an educational  programme  so as to 
inform  their  public  of the Directive  and  in particular 
to involve  young  people  and  those  concerned  with 
hunting,  as it felt  that  only  through  education  could 
the aims  of the Directive  be fully  achieved. 
1.7. It  was  suggested  that  the  preamble  should 
take more  account  of the object  of the Directive,  that 
is the preservation  of overall  stable  populations  as 
well as the  preservation  of species,  and  that  this 
might  well  mean  in some  cases,  regional  control 
measures  within  overall  protection. 
1.8. The  research  work  which  should  be carried 
out by the Commission  in order  to further  the aims 
of the  proposed  Directive  should  include  an 
assessment  of the effects  of agricultural  pesticides  on 
bird life. 
1.9. The  Committee  recommended  that  the 
Commission  examine  this  draft  Directive  and  in 
particular  the Annexes  to the Directive  with  a view  to 
the fact  that  other  countries  might  join  the EEC  at 
some  time  in the future.  It was  important  to ensure 
that the  Directive  was  able  to be applied  to these 
States. 
2. Specific  comments 
1.4. The  Committee  expressed  the opinion  that  the 
Directive  should  not prohibit  the sale  of young  birds 
on Annex  III such  as young  pheasants  (Phasianus 
colchicus,  Faisan  de chasse,  Fasan)  or partridges 
(Perdix  perdix,  Perdix  grise,  Rebhuhn)  which  had 
been  reared,  often  commercially,  for release  into  the 
wild to increase  wild  stocks  for hunting  purposes. 2.1. Article  1 
2.1.1.  It  was  suggested  that  Article  1 should  be 
redrafted  so as to make  it clear  that  the  Directive 
applied  to all wild  birds,  both  resident  and  migrant 
and including  vagrants  which  had  found  their  way 
naturally  to the countries  of the EEC. 
1.5. While  it was  accepted  that  the  Directive 
referred  to free  and  wild  birds  only,  the object  of the 
Directive  was  to protect  wild  birds  in the  EEC 
countries.  It was  considered  that  this  should  be 
clarified  in the Directive  so as to make  it clear  that 
the Directive  referred  to resident  species,  migrants 
and species  which  occurred  occasionally  but 
naturally,  including  species  which  occurred  naturally 
for the  first  time.  Equally,  however,  the  Directive 
should  make  it clear  that  it excluded  exotic  species 
imported  by man  from  elsewhere  or domesticated 
species. 2.2. Article  3 
2.2.1.  It  was  considered  that  the  word  'restore' 
might  be too strong  as it could  lead  to a conflict  with 
agricultural  or other  interests.  It was  suggested  that 
'maintain  or restore'  would  be better  expressed  as 
'preserve  and  promote'.  The  interpretation  of this 
Article  depended  on the interpretation  of what  was  a 
'sufficient  diversity'.  The  Committee  considered  that 
somewhere  in the Directive  the compromise  that  was 
evidently  necessary  here  and  which  was  envisaged  by 
all concerned  should  be referred  to, so as to ensure 
there  could  be no misunderstanding  in the future. 
29. 6. 77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 152/5 
2.2.2.  The  Article  should  make  reference  to the 
desirability  of  involving  young  people  in the 
maintenance  of habitat  and  research  on  projects 
connected  with  birdlife. 
2.3. Article  4 
The Committee  was  concerned  in sub-section  (2) by 
the obligation  on Member  States  to take  requisite 
measures  to  preserve  recognized  wetlands  of 
international  importance.  It was  considered  that  this 
obligation  should  be qualified  so as to make  it clear 
that 'recognized  wetlands'  referred  to wetlands 
meeting  the  criteria  agreed  at the  International 
Conference  on the  Conservation  of Wetlands  and 
Waterfowl  held  in Heiligenhafen,  Federal  Republic  of 
Germany,  for  identifying  wetlands  of international 
importance  to be preserved  under  the Convention  on 
Wetlands  of International  Importance  especially  as 
Waterfowl  Habitat  (Ramsar)  1971. 
2.4. Article  S 
2.4.1.  In  sub-section  (b) a prohibition  of the taking 
of nests  and  eggs  as well  as their  destruction  was 
suggested. 
2.4.2.  The  Committee  was  of the  opinion  that  in 
sub-paragraph  (c)  the  collection  of young  birds 
should  be prohibited,  as well  as egg-collecting. 
2.5. Article  6 
2.5.1.  It  was  the  opinion  of the  Committee  that 
Article  6 was  too restrictive  with  regard  to the sale  of 
dead  birds  (including  their  products  such  as pates), 
and that  Annex  III should  be re-examined  by the 
Commission,  to establish  if there  were  any  other 
species  or populations  which  could  be commercially 
exploited  without  detriment  to their  numbers  or 
protection  of other  populations. 
2.5.2.  It  was  considered  that  the  Article  was  too 
restrictive  in relation  to the sale  of live  birds.  While  it 
was fully  accepted  that  the object  of the prohibition 
was to stop  birds  being  trapped  from  the wild,  the 
Committee  felt  that  it was  unreasonable  to restrict 
the sale  of birds  reared  in captivity  as cage  birds  or 
species  such  as pheasants  (Phasianus  colchicus,  Faisan 
de chasse,  Fasan)  or partridges  (Perdix  perdix,  Perdix 
grise,  Rebhuhn)  which  had  been  reared  for release  on 
a commercial  scale.  It was  the Committee's  opinion 
that Article  6 should  be re-examined  in the light  of 
this, so as to ensure  these  legitimate  activities  could 
continue  to take  place. 2.6. Article  7 
2.6.1.  The  Committee  urged  that  Annex  II, which 
did not  appear  to have  been  studied  in sufficient 
depth,  be re-examined  by a panel  of experts  taking 
account  of  varying  regional  situations  and 
populations.  Some  populations  could  be harvested 
without  detriment  to the  species  in certain  areas, 
whereas  elsewhere  they  were  rarer  and  should  be 
stringently  protection.  The  object  of the  Directive 
must  be  maintenance  of stable  populations  in 
harmony  with  the environment. 
2.6.2.  It  was  considered  that  the  exemption 
mentioned  in Article  7 (5) for  species  in Annex  II, 
part 3, to be excluded  from  the provisions  of Article 
5 (a) and  (b),  should  be extended  so that  the eggs  of 
these  species  might  be legitimately  harvested.  It was 
the Committee's  opinion  that  it was  wasteful  to allow 
the destruction  of the  eggs  or of the  adults,  but  to 
ban the harvesting  of eggs  when  the harvesting  of the 
eggs might  be  the  most  humane  and  practical 
solution  to population  control  and  would  ensure  the 
eggs were  used  usefully  as had  been  the tradition  in 
many  areas  of the  Community.  The  Committee 
accepted  that  the  collecting  of eggs  for collections 
should  continue  to be banned,  but  considered  a 
differentiation  should  be made  between  this  and  the 
harvesting  of eggs  of pest  species  for consumption  or 
other  useful  purposes. 
2.7. Article  8 
2.7.1.  The  Committee  recommended  the  addition 
to the list of banned  articles  — electronic  devices  and 
tape-recordings  for hunting  — as this  method  was  as 
effective  as live  birds  used  as decoys,  and  could  thus 
be used  as an instrument  of mass  destruction.  The 
Committee  appreciated  these  devices  had  a legitimate 
use for bird  scaring  and  therefore  they  should  only  be 
banned  when  used  for  hunting  and  should  be 
allowed  for bird  scaring  to protect  crops,  etc. 
2.7.2.  It  was  noted  that  under  Article  9, derogation 
from  the provisions  of Article  8 could  be obtained  for 
certain  reasons.  It was  the opinion  of the Committee 
that it should  not be possible  to use some  methods  of 
catching  birds,  for  example  bird  lime  under  any 
circumstances,  and  therefore  it was  recommended 
that the Commission  should  draw  up two  lists  under 
Article  8. The  first  list  consisting  of methods  of 
trapping  birds  which  could  be banned  under  all 
circumstances  and  secondly  a list  of items  which 
No C 152/6 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 29. 6. 77 
might  be used  under  special  circumstances  if a 
derogation  for this  was  requested  under  Article  9. 
2.7.3.  The  Committee  drew  the  attention  of the 
Commission  to the words  'fire  traps'  in the English 
language  text  and  pointed  out these  had  no meaning 
and that  translators  should  look  at this. 
2.7.4.  In  Article  8 (2) that  the  word  'capturing' 
should  be replaced  by the word  'pursuing',  so as to 
make  the paragraph  more  explicit. 
2.8. Article  9 
2.8.1.  The  absence  of the possibility  of derogating 
in order  to take  birds  of prey  for falconry  was  noted. 
It was  pointed  out to the Commission  that  this  was  a 
legitimate  and  ancient  sport  which,  if properly 
controlled,  harmed  neither  the  birds  of  prey 
population  nor  the  populations  of birds  pursued  in 
the course  of falconry.  Some  provisions  should  be 
made  therefore  to allow  the continuation  of this  on a 
controlled  basis. 
2.8.2.  It  was  the  Committee's  view  that  in 
operating  this  Directive  account  should  be taken  of 
the need  to fit special  circumstances  to special  cases, 
and that  the  aim  should  be to control  or protect 
populations  and  not  just  species.  This  should  be 
taken  into  account  in the drafting  of this  Article. 
2.8.3.  It  was  considered  that  it was  important  to 
manage  populations  at a suitable  level  and  thereby 
prevent  damage.  It should  not  be necessary  to have 
to wait  until  serious  damage  was  caused  since  wise 
management  could  prevent  this.  Derogation  should 
Done  at Brussels,  25 May  1977. therefore  be allowed  for  such  routine  management 
only however,  if there  was  no alternative  solution. 
2.9. Article  10 
2.9.1.  It  was  the Committee's  opinion  that  Article 
10 should  have  a reference  to the  duty  of the 
Member  States  to institute  educational  programmes 
in particular  the  production  and  distribution  of 
hunting  codes  and  general  educational  material  for 
hunters,  with  the  aim  of bringing  the contents  and 
benefits  of the  Directive  to the  attention  of their 
inhabitants. 
2.10.  Article  13 
2.10.1  The  Committee  considered  that  the 
Annexes  should  take  more  account  of locally 
common  populations.  It might  well  be possible  to 
exploit  a population  in one  part  of the  EEC's 
territories,  but  a need  to protect  it elsewhere.  The 
Commission  should  take  technical  advice  on this  so 
as to achieve  a realistic  protection  policy  for the EEC 
as a whole. 
3. Annexes 
3.1. The  Committee  recommended  that  a further 
examination  of the Annexes  was  needed  in the light 
of the comments  made  on the various  Articles.  Most 
particularly  the  need  perhaps  to protect  certain 
populations  while  allowing  exploitation  of other 
populations;  the  possibility  of  allowing  the 
commercial  exploitation  of dead  birds  of species 
designated  in Article  II part  III as pests;  and  the 
possibility  of  allowing  egg  harvesting  of  pest 
populations  and  the sale  of the eggs.  All these  it was 
considered  would  improve  the  Directive  and  allow 
legitimate  exploitation  of common  and  harmful 
species,  but in no way  lessen  protection  of useful  or 
rare species. 
The Chairman 
of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
29. 6. 77 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 152/7 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and Social  Committee 
The following  text  of the  Section's  opinion  has  been  deleted  following  the  acceptance  of an 
amendment  proposed  during  the  debate: 
Paragraph  2.1.1.  — Last  sentence 
'The  Directive,  however,  should  exclude  exotic  species  imported  from  outside  the  EEC 
countries', 
Voting 
For:  24, against:  16, abstentions:  19. 
The following  text  of the  Section's  opinion  has  been  modified  following  the  acceptance  of an 
amendment  proposed  during  the debate: 
Beginning  of point  2.6.1. 
'The  Section  was  of the  opinion  that  Annex  II should  be re-examined  .. 
Voting 
Adopted  unanimously. 
Opinion  on  the  implementation  and  development  of the  Community's  consumer 
protection  and  information  programme 
The opinion  of the Committee  is not based  on any  text. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 28 October  1975  the  Bureau  of the  Committee  decided,  under  the  third  paragraph 
of Article  20 of its Rules  of Procedure,  to deliver  an additional  opinion  on the  above-
mentioned  subject. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
J49th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 May  1977. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
28 October  1975,  under  the  third  paragraph  of Article  20 of the  Rules  of Procedure,  instructing  the 
Section  for  Protection  of the  Environment,  Public 
Health  and  Consumer  Affairs  to draw  up  an 
additional  opinion  and  an additional  report  on the