WRITTEN QUESTION E-0076/98 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Adaptation of Directive 92/43/EEC on natural habitats and wild fauna and flora

On 28 May 1997 the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive adapting to technical and scientific progress Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (COM(97)195 final). The proposal aimed, according to point 7 of the Explanatory Statement, to 'remove the habitat sub-types (e.g. 'grey dunes') which are now described in the Interpretation Manual EUR 15 version'. The proposal was adopted by the Council on 27 October 1997 (Directive 97/62/EEC ((OJ L 305, 8.11.1997, p. 42. )).

1. How is it being ensured that each of the specific habitat subtypes which were included in the original classification of certain habitats (Annex I to Directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. ))) is adequately represented in the Natura 2000 network?

2. Leaving aside the previous question, are the Member States also required under Directive 92/43/EEC to designate a selection of areas such that sufficient variation within the different kinds of habitat is ensured?

3. What is the legal status of the 'Interpretation Manual of European Habitats, version EUR 15', which is referred to in the proposal and in the Annex to Directive 97/62/EEC, in comparison with an annex to a directive enacted by the Council?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (2 March 1998)

1. The newly adopted Annex I to Council Directive 97/62/EC of 27 October 1997 adapting to technical and scientific progress Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 305, 8.11.1997. )) has not changed the obligations with regard to the habitat type 'grey dunes'.

The original Annex included an obligation for Member States to propose sites for this priority habitat type. The newly adopted annex maintains the same obligation.

Confusion has been created by mentioning sub-types in the original version. However these sub-types should be understood as having been mentioned only for information.

In contrast to other sub-types listed, thus creating specific obligations for Member States, these sub-types were neither individually numbered in the first column of the Annex nor given a star to indicate their priority character. Moreover in-depth analysis showed that one of them (16-224) does not even occur on the Atlantic coast. It was therefore wrongly mentioned in the original Annex.

To clarify this situation, the Commission suggested to the Council to withdraw from the Annex this unique case of listing of sub-types for information purposes.

2. Member States are required to propose sites corresponding to each of the items listed in Annex I or II, and corresponding only to these items. These are usually habitat types or species; in a few cases, they may be sub-types or sub-species listed.

However this obligation should be understood as a way 'to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status', habitats and species as required in Article 2(2). According to Article 1(e) conservation status is favourable if 'the natural range and areas a habitat covers within that range are stable or increasing'.

Sufficient spatial variation should therefore be guaranteed when Member States propose sites for one specific habitat type. This ensures a sufficient variation too within one habitat type, including potential sub-types.

3. The Annex should be seen as the only legally binding text. The 'Interpretation manual of European Union habitats' is a scientific reference document.

In contrast to species, natural habitat types did not benefit from an unequivocal definition when Directive 92/43/EEC was first adopted. Therefore the Commission and the Member States agreed on the necessity to produce a common reference to be regularly adapted according to scientific progress and the addition of new natural habitats incorporated into the annex (such as the recently included boreal habitat types).