EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/881

(2004/C 84 E/0975)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0791/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Encroachments on Ria Formosa Nature Reserve (Natura 2000)

In 1999, the Portuguese government designated the Ria Formosa Nature Reserve (to the south of Faro, in the Algarve) as a special protection zone in accordance with Article 4 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC (1)). Under pressure from the advancing tourism industry, Ria Formosa seems fated to become a pawn in the game of project developers who — according to semi-official plans — wish to develop a total of 21 golf courses and 9 marinas, in addition to 10 building sites intended for flats and villas (Source: Expresso, 11 August 2001).

In recent years, some 25 species of brooding migratory birds have wholly or partly disappeared in the area, including the kingfisher, night heron, red-legged partridge, red-crested pochard and purple heron. Birds of prey have also declined dramatically, because rabbits, hares and hedgehogs have already disappeared.

Woodland has been (unlawfully) cleared, and some forest fires appear not to have ignited spontaneously. The Ria Formosa Reserve (a good 23 000 hectares) seems unlikely to be given protection by the authorities, and is being neglected. Unique sand-dune vegetation in marshland areas is dying out owing to pollution from sewerage effluent from streams discharging into the lagoons. The polluted water is increasing the risk of malaria. The Portuguese Office of Statistics (INE) reports that 12 persons died of malaria in Portugal in 2001 (The News, 14 February 2004).

Does the European Commission agree that this unique nature reserve is being sacrificed to economic activities that conflict with the special protection intended to apply to Ria Formosa?

Will the European Commission draw the Portuguese authorities' attention to the inappropriate development taking place in and around the Ria Formosa nature reserve area?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The question describes the threat posed to the Ria Formosa Nature Reserve by the development of tourism facilities and golf courses in particular.

The nature reserve forms part of the ‘Ria Formosa/Castro Marim’ site of Community importance proposed by Portugal under Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2), and the ‘Ria Formosa’ special protection area, designated by Portugal in the framework of Article 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.

Combining Articles 7 and 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Portuguese authorities have a duty to take appropriate steps to avoid, in special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated. Moreover, under the same provisions, any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives.

On several occasions, the Commission has already had reason to contact the Portuguese authorities following complaints about non-conformity with the abovementioned provisions in the protected areas mentioned above, particularly as a result of tourism developments identified by the complainants.

The Honourable Member's written question refers to general reports in the Portuguese press, but does not identify the projects under way in the abovementioned protected zones.

The Commission would therefore ask the Honourable Member to identify the projects in question so that it can contact the national authorities and, if appropriate, consider opening infringement proceedings against Portugal on the basis of the information provided.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.