WRITTEN QUESTION E-0309/02

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

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Environmental directives and outermost regions

The considerable deterioration of the world's natural heritage is being accompanied by an alarming impoverishment of biodiversity. Despite our responsibility to future generations, the irreversible disappearance of certain species of flora and fauna is in danger of compromising economic development in certain countries and also medical research.

The outlying areas of certain Member States are of considerable value to the European Union in terms of biodiversity and natural resources.

However, the Community environmental directives concerning habitats, birds and the Life programmes do not apply to these territories.

How can the Council explain and justify this legal discrepancy within the Community which is seriously undermining the natural heritage in these areas, making it impossible to ensure the conservation of biodiversity in the European Union Member States as a whole?

Is it possible for a Member State to obstruct Community legislation by failing to implement European directives without undermining the spirit of cohesion in the Community, creating legal precedents and detracting from the credibility of action taken by the Council and indeed its very purpose?

Will the Council examine the natural heritage of outlying areas in preparation for the implementation of a Community policy based on coherent objectives in this respect?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

1. The Council notes Mrs Béguin's concerns for biodiversity in the outermost regions of the European Union.

2. In responding it may be useful to further identify the various outermost regions as they are not all dealt with in the same way under Environmental Directives. The Council assumes that the Honourable Member is referring to the French overseas departments, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands (the areas covered by Article 299 of the Treaty). In practice these areas are dealt with differently.

3. The most relevant pieces of Community environmental legislation in this regard are:

- the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn, 1979);

- the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 1979);

- the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio, 1992);

- the Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds;

- the Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats of Wild Fauna and Flora;

- the Regulation 3528/86 on the Protection of the Community's Forests Against Atmospheric Pollution;

- the Regulation No 2158/92 on Protection of the Community's Forests Against Fire;

- the Regulation No 1973/92 Establishing a Financial Instrument for the Environment, as amended by Regulation No 1404/96 (the LIFE Regulation); and

- the Regulation No 938/97 implementing Regulation No338/97 on the Protection of Species of Wild Fauna and Flora by Regulating Trade Therein (the CITES Regulation)

4. In biogeographical terms the Continental part of Europe, Canary Islands, Azores and Madeira are included in the Western Palearctic region. On the other hand, territories such as French Guyana are included in the Neotropics biogeographical region. Each biogeographical region has its own characteristics regarding flora, fauna and habitats. Therefore, the Bern Convention, the Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive, the regulation on forests pollution and the LIFE-Nature programme reflect an ecologically consistent approach to address Western Palearctic conservation concerns, which under the scope of these instruments are better addressed through a biogeographical approach. These characteristics may not be the same in other biogeographical regions such as the Neotropics. Therefore, the Directives which the Honourable Member refers to do not apply to the French overseas departments, or Greenland.

The Regulation on Forests Fires could apply to outermost regions but the French authorities have never designated territories such as the French Guyana as an area at risk.

5. Other pieces of Community environmental legislation such as the Bonn Convention, the CITES Regulation and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) address broader issues such as the conservation of migratory species across their range of distribution, trade in wildlife, and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. Therefore, instruments in place for implementing this legislation at Community level are not restricted to specific biogeographical zones such as the Western Palearctic and the Neotropics. In this regard it is worth mentioning, for example the European Community Biodiversity Strategy(1) and its Sectoral Action Plans(2) developed in line with Article 6 of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. The scope of this strategy and action plans therefore covers the outermost regions and complements the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans developed by the Member States.

6. The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity meets every two years and provides further guidance to its Parties on how to implement the Convention. The Member States and Community are working hard to ensure that the upcoming sixth Conference of the Parties to the CBD, to take place in the Hague from 8 to 19 April, is a success. In particular to ensure that the Conference adopts a strategic plan for the implementation of the Convention during the coming ten years. The proper implementation of this Convention will be a major step to ensuring the conservation of biodiversity in the EU Member States as a whole.

7. Regarding the issue of the actual implementation of Community legislation (paragraph five of the question) it is not for the Council, but for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaty, to verify the proper implementation of Community legislation by Member States.

8. Concerning specifically the natural heritage of outlying areas, it is up to the Commission to examine this question in relation to existing Community policy, which is based on coherent objectives and to report to Council and, if appropriate, to come forward with a concrete proposal.

(1) COM(42) 1998.

(2) COM(162) 2001.