No C 31/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 2. 91 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on action by the Community 
relating to nature conservation (ACNAT) (1) 
(91/C 31/02) 
On 1 June 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 130S of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-
mentioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 
4 September 1990. The Rapporteur-General was Mrs Robinson. 
At its 280th plenary session (meeting of 18 October 1990) the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2242/87 (the 
Community action on the environment (ACE) Regu­
lation) allows the Community to grant financial support 
for a wide variety of actions in the environmental 
sphere. Among them are included demonstration pro­
jects for developing techniques for pollution control and 
waste disposal, schemes for the protection of seriously 
threatened biotopes, etc. 
1.2. In 1988, the Commission presented a proposal 
for a Council Directive on the protection of natural 
and semi-natural habitats of wild fauna and flora (2). 
The Commission had intended to present a proposal 
for financing this Directive following its adoption. 
1.3. The Regulation referred to in paragraph 1.1 
above was adopted by the Council in 1987 for a four-
year period and is therefore shortly due for renewal. 
Because the Directive referred to in paragraph 1.2. 
above has not yet been adopted, the Commission feels 
obliged to propose financial measures extending the 
ACE Regulation. It has therefore decided to separate 
out the different elements in the ACE Regulation and 
to propose a measure to provide funding relating to 
the Birds Directive (3) and to the proposed Habitats 
Directive. 
1.4. The object of this proposal is to provide for 
specific Community action relating to nature conser­
vation 'with a large enough appropriation to enable 
financial support to be granted to the most urgent 
projects'(4). 
1.5. The action taken under Regulation (EEC) No 
2242/87 and its predecessor, Regulation (EEC) No 
1872/84, has been restricted, due to the inadequacy of 
resources to meet actual needs. The Commission states 
that applications from Member States in the year 
(!) OJ No C 137, 6. 6. 1990, p. 6. 
(2) OJ No C 247, 21.9. 1988, p. 3. 
(3) Directive 79/409/EEC (OJ No L 103, 25. 4. 1979, p. 1. 
(4) Doc. COM (90) 125 final, explanatory memorandum, para­
graph 6.3. 1987/8 amounted to more than five times the budget 
for the entire four-year period,. 
1.6. The Commission therefore asks for a larger 
budget for the new Regulation 'in view of the success 
of ACE so far'(5). The success has not been substan­
tiated in the proposed Regulation by facts other than 
by the rate of application for funds. 
2. General comments 
2.1. Funding under ACE was divided into: 
— demonstration projects for a variety of objectives 
with respect to the environment, and 
— incentive schemes to encourage maintenance and 
protection of threatened biotopes. 
The Economic and Social Committee supports the sep­
aration of these two functions. The separation will 
ensure clearer objectives and better management of the 
projects. 
2.2. It would be helpful if the Commission could 
indicate in its explanatory memorandum how successful 
the funding has been in meeting conservation objectives. 
It would also be helpful if the Commission could pro­
vide a guide to the total likely costs of implementing 
the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive so that 
the amount of funding under ACNAT, and the purpose 
of ACNAT, could be seen in context of the issue to 
which it is addressed. 
2.3. The text of the Regulation refers quite explicitly 
to the concept of 'subsidiarity' by saying that 'the 
Community shall take action relating to the environ­
ment to the extent to which the objectives of this action 
(5) Doc. COM(90) 125 final, explanatory memorandum, para­
graph 7.1. 
6. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 31/9 
can be attained better at Community level than at the 
level of the individual Member States, and, without 
prejudice to certain measures of a Community nature, 
the Member States shall finance and implement other 
measures'. The Committee welcomes this statement 
of the principle of subsidiarity in the environmental 
sphere. 
2.4. For this principle to be operational it is necessary 
to define those actions better taken at Community level. 
There is no doubt that Community action should be 
directed towards those biotopes and habitats listed in 
Annex IV of the proposed Habitats Directive as well 
as the habitats of those species listed in Annex I of the 
Birds Directive and Annex I of the proposed Habitats 
Directive. 
2.5. The Committee notes that funding is in relation 
to the implementation of Directive 79/409/EEC (the 
Birds Directive) and the proposed Habitats Directive. 
2.5.1. The total Community funding proposed by 
the Commission is 160 million ECU over the five-year 
period 1991-95, or an average of 32 million ECU per 
annum. This represents 50 % of the expenditure envis­
aged, the other 50% being provided by the Member 
States. 
2.5.2. The non-governmental organizations (NGO) 
have estimated that the cost of implementing fully the 
Birds Directive and the Habitats Directives in all Mem­
ber States could be in the order of 3 200 million ECU 
per annum, or 100 times the annual average of 32 
million ECU provided in the Commission's proposal. 
2.5.3. The Economic and Social Committee would 
like to see: 
a) a proper business plan; 
b) full consideration of whether the average of 32 
million ECU per annum is really adequate. 
2.6. The Committee is concerned that 'projects pro­
viding an incentive towards the protection or resto­
ration of soils threatened or damaged by fire, erosion 
and desertification' (*) appear no longer to be an objec­
tive to be included in Community funding proposals. 
The Committee understands that the Commission is 
now preparing another Regulation under which this 
objective would be covered. This point should have 
been clarified in the explanatory memorandum. 
(*) Doc. COM(90) 125 final, explanatory memorandum, para­
graph 2 (f) 3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1 
The Committee notes that paragraph 1(a) relates to 
habitats, and paragraph 1(b) relates to species; both 
refer specifically to the proposed Habitats Directive as 
well as to the existing Birds Directive. If the proposed 
Regulation is adopted prior to the adoption of the 
proposed Habitats Directive, it is understood from the 
Commission that the references to the Habitats Direc­
tive will be omitted. 
3.2. Article 2 
Article 2(1) is too vague. Almost any project could be 
'of interest to the Community'. This article should be 
focussed on the objectives of ACNAT with respect to 
the Birds Directive and the proposed Habitats Directive. 
The second paragraph of Article 2(1) is therefore 
equally obscure and open to a variety of interpretations. 
Article 2(2) is also vague. It is not clear whether more 
money will be provided to poorer regions or what links 
will be established with other regional aid programmes. 
One set of Commission funds should not be permitted 
to undo the good done by another set. Any given area 
of land or seashore receiving project aid from ACNAT 
should only be eligible for aid from other Community 
funds where the objectives to be achieved and the 
methods to be employed are compatible. 
3.3. Article 3 
3.3.1. The requirement that the applications for 
financial support for projects shall be sent to the Com­
mission by the Member States is inappropriate since 
the objective is to conserve biotopes and habitats of a 
Community interest. The proposal should be amended 
to provide for direct application by the parties propos­
ing to carry out the work (e.g. NGO). 
3.3.2. Article 3(l)appears to be incorrectly worded 
and could, if adopted without amendment, give rise to 
lax management. Application for funding of projects 
related to species conservation, Article l(l)(b), needs 
as much detailed supporting information as projects 
related to habitat conservation, Article 1(1)(a). See also 
paragraph 4.2 below. 
3.3.3. The Commission itself is an inappropriate 
body to take the initiative to propose measures. Con­
sideration should be given to the role of the European 
Environment Agency (2) which should have the neces-
(2) ESC Opinion : OJ No C 56, 7. 3. 1990, p. 20. 
No C 31/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 2. 91 
sary information and should be given the role of propos­
ing projects. 
3.4. Article 4 
3.4.1. The Advisory Committee should also contain 
representation from the European Environment 
Agency. 
3.4.2. It is important that the Commission consults 
the Advisory Committee [Article 4(2)], but it is also 
important that the Commission and the Advisory Com­
mittee both consult the European Environment Agency. 
The machinery for consultation between the Com­
mission, the Advisory Committee and the European 
Environment Agency needs to be formalised as a matter 
of urgency before ACNAT is adopted by the Council 
of Ministers. This also relates to Article 5(1). 
3.5. Article 6 
It must be made clear that there will be a contract 
between the Commission and the partner carrying out 
the project. 
3.6. Article 7 
Article 7 should be amended so that the periodic reports 
include information on 'the progress of work in relation 
to achieving the aims and objectives of the project'. 
4. Annex 
4.1. In general the Annex provides a good checklist 
of the information required from applicants for project 
funding. It would be improved by two modifications. 
Done at Brussels, 18 October 1990. 4.2. First, some wording will need to be changed so 
that the Annex can apply to applicants, for project 
funding of both species and habitat conservation (see 
paragraph 3.3.2 above). 
4.3. Secondly, the penultimate requirement relates to 
information about the protection provided for the site, 
either a habitat or the location of an endangered species. 
Before funding for a project is made available, there 
must be an agreed plan for the future long-term man­
agement of the site. 
5. Conclusions 
5.1. The Committee welcomes the general approach 
taken by this proposed Regulation, subject to clarifi­
cation as outlined in sections 2-4 above. 
5.2. The Committee believes that there is a role for 
European funding for projects related to matters of 
general Community interest, many of which will tran­
scend national boundaries. 
5.3. The Committee, however, deplores the fact that 
there was no financial memorandum attached to the 
original text of this proposed Regulation (1). No Mem­
ber State should be asked to write a blank cheque. The 
Committee, however, has noted the addendum 'Fiche 
financiere' (2) which was subsequently submitted by the 
Commission. 
(*) Doc. COM(90) 125 final, explanatory memorandum, para­
graph 8. 
(2) Doc. COM(90) 125 final 2 dated 27. 8. 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN