WRITTEN QUESTION E-2055/01

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Natura 2000 network - application of Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (habitats-fauna-flora directive) - concept of significant disturbance

At the moment of transcription by decree into national law of Directive 79/409/EEC(1) of 2 April 1979 (the wild birds directive) and Directive 92/43/EEC(2) of 21 May 1992 (the habitats directive), the French implementing law lays down a general principle, namely that fishing, hunting and other similar activities practised in the conditions and on the land areas authorised by the laws and regulations in force should not constitute disturbing activities or activities having such effects (Article 3(6)).

The European Court of Justice, in its judgment of 19 January 1994, stated: Any hunting activity is liable to disturb wildlife and may in many cases affect the state of conservation of the species concerned, independently of the extent to which it depletes numbers Those disturbances are reported to have an adverse impact on the level of energy of each individual and the mortality rate of all the populations concerned.

The Commission, in its reasoned opinion of 13 September 1994, took the view that Article 7 does not authorise hunting within a special protected area and that hunting activities inevitably affect the life of birds, even if guarantees are made that those birds will not be killed. It added that beating, gun-shots and the presence of hunters with dogs are incompatible with the objectives of reproduction and survival laid down in Article 4.

Is the text of the French implementing law compatible with Article 6(2) of the habitats directive which replaces Article 4 of the wild birds directive and with the judgment of the European Court of Justice, as well as with the Commission's interpretations in its reasoned statements and in its guide to the management of Natura 2000 sites (especially paragraphs 3.2 and following?).

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

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the texts transposing Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora into French law are currently being examined for conformity by the Commission.

Hunting is a legitimate activity in accordance with Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and does not have to be outlawed a priori from Natura 2000 sites. As far as sites protected under Directive 92/43/EEC are concerned, game hunting is highly unlikely to cause a problem, except for a small number of species. As far as sites protected under Directive 79/409/EEC are concerned, the question is more complex. In numerous cases, properly managed hunting is not incompatible with maintaining species of birds in a good state of conservation. That is why a human activity such as hunting has to be carried out under strict conditions in order to ensure a balance between the activity in question and the long-term conservation interest of the species of birds likely to be hunted. The most appropriate framework for defining such conditions on a case by case basis is a site management plan which involves the parties concerned.

As the Commission makes clear in the guide Managing Natura 2000 sites - the provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, conditions governing the concepts of disturbances have to be assessed in the light of the general state of conservation of the species or habitats concerned and in the light of local conditions. At a particular site, disturbances are generally appraised on a case by case basis. The Commission considers that a species is being disturbed when the data relating to the population dynamic of that site show that, compared with the initial situation, the species in question might no longer constitute a viable element of the site concerned. This appraisal is carried out in accordance with the site's contribution to the coherence of the Natura 2000 network.

Incidentally, as far as the Honourable Member's reference to the Commission's reasoned opinion of 13 September 1994 is concerned, the Commission's position in this matter reflected an extreme situation at the site in question, where the pressure of hunting on the fauna present was unusually severe.

Finally, it must be pointed out that, in accordance with Article 220 (formerly Article 164) of the EC Treaty, the Court of Justice has the sole power to interpret Community law.