6. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 31/1 
II 
(Preparatory Acts) 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the protection of natural and semi-
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora i1) and on the Supplementary Annexes (2) 
(91/C 31/01) 
On 26 September 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 130S of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal and on the supplementary Annexes. 
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 
adopted unanimously the following Opinion. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The EEC environmental action programmes 
make provision for measures regarding nature conser­
vation, of which the protection of habitats and wild 
fauna and flora forms a part. 
1.2. The primary aim of the present proposal is to 
provide a legal requirement for the protection of the 
habitats of the rare, endangered and threatened species 
in the Community. The specific object of the proposal 
is to establish by the year 2000 a network of protected 
wildlife areas throughout the Community, thus ensur­
ing a more effective implementation of the Berne Con­
vention on wildlife and natural habitats. The proposal 
seeks to achieve this objective by: 
i) providing a general framework of Community law 
to require Member States to take the necessary meas­
ures to maintain species and habitats. The effect 
would be to require the ratification and adoption of 
the Berne Convention through Community law. The 
details of implementation are to be left to the Mem­
ber States, following the principle of 'subsidiarity'. 
(!) OJ No C 247, 21. 9. 1988, p. 3. 
(2) OJ No C 195, 3. 8. 1990, p. 1. ii) identifying, within a series of Annexes, those species 
and habitats which should be protected; 
iii) providing, within the Annexes, some general prin­
ciples of wildlife management; 
iv) requiring, where habitat safeguard is essential for 
threatened habitats or the habitats of threatened 
species, environmental impact assessment of SPA 
(Special Protection Areas under Article 5(2) of the 
Commission's proposal). 
1.3. While the Committee approves of the principle 
aim of the Directive, it considers that the present pro­
posal is not well-designed to achieve its aims and objec­
tives. It is essential that a revised text is produced, 
together with a more precise set of annexes which 
would more clearly define the precise scope of the 
Community's role and the role of the Member States 
in nature conservation. The revised text should clearly 
identify the European dimension of habitat and species 
conservation. It should also be more precisely worded, 
clearly defining terms, so as to avoid the many areas 
of legal uncertainty which could arise were the present 
proposal to be adopted unamended. These require­
ments are essential if the proposed Directive is to be 
effectively implemented. Furthermore, the lack of any 
estimates of the costs of implementation (which will 
have to be borne by the taxpayers, farmers and industri­
alists of the Member States), is a serious shortcoming. 
No C 31/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 2. 91 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Economic and Social Committee supports 
the aim of protecting habitats of endangered fauna and 
flora of European importance. It believes that Com­
munity action in this sphere is desirable. 
2.2. The Committee is mindful of the Convention 
on the conservation of migratory species of wild ani­
mals (Bonn Convention), the Convention on the conser­
vation of European wildlife and natural habitats (Berne 
Convention) and the Convention on wetlands of inter­
national importance especially as waterfowl habitat 
(Ramsar Convention) (*). It notes with regret that some 
Member States have failed to ratify the Berne Conven­
tion or fully to implement its provisions. 
2.3. The Committee is mindful of the Directive on 
the conservation of wild birds (2). It notes with regret 
that the Directive is not fully implemented in the 
majority of Member States and urges that full 
implementation is achieved by 1 January 1993. 
2.4. Bearing these facts in mind the Committee has 
serious reservations about the form and content of 
the proposed Habitats Directive. It would help if the 
proposed Directive contained a clear statement of aims 
from which operational objectives could be derived. It 
would further help if the proposed Directive defined 
more clearly the operational limits of subsidiarity with 
respect to the roles of the European Community and 
the Member States in habitat and species conservation. 
As it is presently drafted the proposed Directive is too 
vague and unfocussed. 
2.5. The proposed Directive should be clearly direct­
ed to the conservation of habitats of European signifi­
cance together with their threatened species. The 
appendices should therefore be as short as possible and 
very clearly focussed on the European significance of 
the habitats and species listed. 
2.6. The importance of establishing clear aims and 
objectives cannot be overestimated. Without such aims 
and objectives the Directive may suffer from a fate 
similar to that of the Birds Directive. An ineffective 
Directive is worse than no Directive at all. The Directive 
must be capable of being made to work, and of being 
seen to work. It should be integrated with the work of 
the European Environment Agency to ensure a strong 
monitoring system and any lack of progress should be 
widely publicised. A realistic time limit should be set 
on implementation and achievement of objectives (ref­
erence to comments on the Birds Directive in paragraph 
(*) See 'The State of the Environment in the European Com­
munity 1986' (ISBN 92-825-6973-X, catalogue number: CL-
NO-10-633-EN-C). 
(2) Directive 79/409/EEC (OJ No L 103, 25. 4. 1979). 2.3 above). The implementation and operation should 
be overseen by an Advisory Committee which is able 
to recommend clear action should the objectives not be 
fulfilled. 
2.7. There are many terms used in the proposal 
which require definition to provide for legal certainty. 
For example, the term 'wild' itself requires definition 
as does 'Protected' and 'Management Plan'. An extra 
Annex should be provided containing the definition of 
terms used in the instrument. 
2.8. The adoption of the proposed Directive will 
have implications for the operation of a number of the 
Community's financial instruments. It will also have 
implications for a number of major Community policy 
areas such as agriculture, regional policy, transport and 
industry. A statement of the full implications of the 
proposed Directive on other policies of the Community 
is necessary for the Committee to take a favourable 
view of the proposal. 
2.9. The proposal has no financial statement 
attached to it. However, if it is to be effective it will 
require substantial funding. It would be appropriate to 
find funds for many of the rural habitats from the 
funding of the Common Agricultural Policy (for farmers 
who would be obliged by the Directive to protect 
insects, etc.) and for the urban habitats from the Com­
munity's development funds (for industry whose plans 
for development and expansion may be adversely affec­
ted by the adoption of the Directive). At all events, the 
funding of all development schemes by the European 
Community must contain a reference to the effect on 
habitats of wild fauna and flora {cf. Article 7 of Regu­
lation (EEC) No 2052/88 which states that all measures 
financed by the Structural Funds or receiving assistance 
from the European Investment Bank must be 'in keeping 
with ... Community policies, including those concerning 
... environmental protection'). 
2.10. In view of the geographical location of many 
habitats and species, the Committee believes that the 
Directive should be amended so that it can be used 
throughout the wider Europe. This is particularly 
important for alpine habitats, for virgin and near-virgin 
forests and for wetlands and clean fresh water. 
3. Detailed comments 
3.1. Structure of comments 
The proposal consists of a number of Articles grouped 
into sections. The Committee's detailed comments are 
therefore directed to the sections of the proposal rather 
than to its specific Articles. 
6. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 31/3 
3.2. General provisions (Articles 1-3) 3.3. Protection of Habitats (Articles 4-9) 
3.2.1. Articles 1 and 2 
For the purpose of this Directive, it needs to be made 
clear that wild fauna and flora are taken to refer only to 
species or subspecies in the plant or animal kingdoms. 
Species and subspecies are important as they are scien­
tifically recognized units incorporating considerable 
genetic diversity. It should be explicitly stated that the 
Directive does not relate to species of micro-organisms, 
including bacteria, viruses or most species of fungi 
(these may be protected in individual Member States). 
3.2.2. Article 3 General 
The Committee believes that this element of the pro­
posal is vitaily important because it is in the conser­
vation of habitats where the major problems in the 
implementation of the Birds Directive and of existing 
international conventions occur. 
3.4. Environmental Impact Assessment (Articles 10-
11) 
It is important to define clear objectives for this Direc­
tive. The purpose of the proposal is in part to implement 
the Berne Convention (1). Accordingly, a satisfactory 
definition of the 'conservation status' of habitats should 
be given, and it is proposed that this should be based 
on the wording used in Article 1 of the Bonn Conven­
tion (2). 
Therefore, insert an additional Article 3(f) in Article 3 
of the proposal, as follows: 
'(f)'satisfactory conservation status' of a species is 
defined as follows: 
'Conservation status' means: 
the sum of the influences acting on the species that 
may affect its long-term distribution and abun­
dance. 
'Conservation status' will be taken as 'satisfactory' 
when: 
(1) population dynamics data indicate that the speci­
es is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a 
viable component of its ecosystems; 
(2) the geographical range of the species is neither 
currently being reduced, nor is likely to be reduced 
on a long-term basis; 
(3) there is, and will be in the foreseeable future, 
sufficient habitat to maintain the population of the 
species on a long-term basis. 
'Conservation status' will be taken as 'satisfactory' 
if all three conditions in sub-paragraphs (l)-(3) are 
met; and as 'unsatisfactory' if any, one or more, of 
the conditions set out in sub-paragraphs (l)-(3) is 
not met.' 
(*) Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and 
natural habitats — 1979 (OJ No L 38, 10. 2. 1982). 
(2) Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (OJ No 
L210, 19.7. 1982). 3.4.1. Article 10 
It is not only the policies which affect the habitats of 
flora and fauna but also the methods and procedures 
of government at all levels (EC, national, regional and 
local). For example, in many Member States agricul­
tural and forestry activities are either excluded or 
relieved from normal planning control of land use. 
Methods of planning procedures and control of land 
use may have as significant consequences as overall 
policies. This may be particularly disadvantageous for 
habitats, e.g. a small stream in which wild watercress 
grows can be destroyed by a farmer who uses the 
adjacent land for a crop for a single year. There are 
many larger-scale examples such as lack of adequate 
control measures to ensure appropriate forms of re­
afforestation or the permitted installation of drainage 
for agriculture or other economic purposes which 
severely degrade many wetland habitats. Development 
controls and planning procedures are dealt with in 
different ways in Member States. 
A particular problem may arise from conflict of aims 
between this Directive, which seeks to protect habitats, 
and other Community instruments which seek to pro­
mote economic development, e.g. the European inte­
grated programmes. 
Environmental protection needs to run through plan­
ning and development procedures at all levels of govern­
ment including decisions regarding the use of land for 
the needs of national security. 
The Habitats Directive will impose new constraints 
upon land use and planning decisions. These con­
straints, particularly in respect of practices which are 
environmentally sensitive (e.g. limitation of fertilizer 
use), should be compensatable through Community 
financial instruments. There should be mechanisms to 
ensure that financing for habitat protection does not 
duplicate other compensation schemes. 
No C 31/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 2. 91 
3.4.2. Article 11 
Because the Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) 
scheme is already running in a number of Member 
States, it is important that this Directive should work 
in concert with existing ESA schemes for habitat and 
species protection and not in competition with or 
against them. 
3.5. Protection of species (Articles 12-18) 
3.5.1. Articles 12 and 13 
Provision needs to be made in this Article for the 
periodic review in Annexes I, II and III, and habitats 
listed in Annex IV. The Committee recommends that 
this be done at least on a quinquennial basis. 
3.5.2. Article 14 
Add to Articles 14.3 and 14.4: 
'the need to guard against the taking of seeds in the 
wild, or trade in wild-taken seed, of plants listed 
in the Annexes (except by licensed conservation 
organizations)'. 
3.5.3. Article 15 
In the Annex listing prohibited weapons, a specific 
exclusion should be made for those authorized for 
veterinary purposes. The aim of the Annex should be 
to prevent indiscriminate methods of killing whereby a 
protected species is killed accidentally when an unpro­
tected species is being killed legally. 
3.6. Information (Article 19) 
Article 19 
Article 19 (2) says: 
'The final version of the report shall be published 
by the Commission and forwarded to the Member 
States, the Parliament and the Council.' 
The Economic and Social Committee should be added 
to this list. 
3.7. Research (Article 20, together with Article 24) 
The Committee considers that the Articles on Research 
and Monitoring should be combined into one section. 
Article 24 should therefore be brought forward and 
incorporated with Article 20. Research priorities should include the identification of 
ecologically key species (species that many other species 
depend on) and the monitoring of indicator species 
(species that indicate the 'health' of wildlife in Europe). 
3.8. Amendment procedure (Articles 21-23) 
With reference to the Advisory Committee referred to 
in Article 23, a copy of the draft measures submitted 
by the Commission to the 'Section 23 Committee' 
should, at the same time, be sent to the Economic and 
Social Committee for an Opinion. 
3.9. Supplementary provisions (Articles 25-27) 
3.9.1. General 
Reference needs to be made to the CITES Conven­
tion f1). It is important in the supplementary provisions 
to clarify the relationship between the Habitat Directive 
and the CITES Convention on the trade in endangered 
species. 
Non-governmental organizations historically have had 
a leading role in the formulation of conservation policy 
within Member States and currently are active in 
implementation. The Committee considers that their 
role in relation to the Habitats Directive should be 
made explicit. 
3.9.2. Article 25 
A definition of 'native species' needs to be given. The 
Committee considers that a time-scale is an important 
ingredient in such a definition, since many species have 
altered their geographical ranges since the last ice age. 
The Committee advises that the procedures relevant 
to the release of genetically engineered organisms be 
considered. 
4. Comments arising from the Annexes 
4.1. Annex I lists species whose habitats are threat­
ened; the Committee believes that a preparatory note 
should be included giving the criteria used to compile 
this list. Annex II lists species which are themselves 
threatened; again the criteria used in the compilation 
of this list should be made explicit. The Committee 
believes that logically all species included in Annex I 
should also be included in Annex II. Annex II should 
therefore have a prefatory statement indicating that it 
(*) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 
Wild Fauna and Flora (Reg. 3626/82). 
6. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 31/5 
includes all Annex I species together with extra species 
listed in a revised Annex II. 
The Annexes do not yet provide an adequate analysis 
of the species actually threatened in Europe and the 
countries in which they are threatened. 
The Economic and Social Committee understands that 
further work is underway to define the scope of the 
Annexes (see also 3.5.1) and welcomes this development 
as necessary for the effective implementation of the 
Directive. 
4.2. The animals listed in Annex I do not have full 
names as do plants in Annex II. The Committee rec­
ommends full naming, notwithstanding the precedent 
of the Berne Convention. 
4.3. Since the proposal is based upon the principle 
of 'subsidiarity', the practical use of including this term 
'Management Plan' in Annex III is not clear. The term 
'Management Plan' will mean different things in differ­
ent Member States. 
4.4. Some species listed in Annex III are extremely 
common, or even invasive, in some parts of the Com­
munity and are in no need of management plans in 
those areas. Examples of this are Ilex aquifolium (holly) 
in Ireland and the United Kingdom and Tamus commu-
Done at Brussels, 18 October 1990. nis (black bryony) in the southern part of the United 
Kingdom (see the illustrations attached; these are copied 
from Perring & Walters, 1962). Similar comments 
would also apply to species of wild animals, such as 
the lynx and the polecat, that are traditionally hunted 
in some Member States. Species included in Annex III 
need to be regionalized, the Annex giving information 
on where in Member States the management plans are 
required. 
4.5. It is necessary to amend the text of the Directive 
(see 4.4 above) to ensure legal certainty with respect to 
the local duty of protection. Annex IV is to be wel­
comed, but it is not clear what 'protected' means. 
4.6. Terms in Annex VII such as 'bodies of water' 
are extremely vague. This Annex should be rewritten 
with greater precision to make it clear that the Annex 
refers to areas of natural and semi-natural habitat that 
provide corridors between special protected areas. 
4.7. Since this Directive is primarily concerned with 
flora and fauna (excluding birds), the logo showing 
only birds is particularly inappropriate. Should a sym­
bol such as a tree be added ? The logo should be 'down 
to earth rather than up in the sky'. 
4.8. In Annex XI (point 10) 'teledetection' should be 
replaced by 'remote sensing'. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis STAEDELIN 
No C 31/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 2. 91 
6. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 31/7 
1 
£3 
\