WRITTEN QUESTION P-3859/02

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

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Incomplete implementation of the Habitats Directive

The Hamsterwerkgroep (Hamster Working Party), Limburg, Foundation has received a letter from the Director of the Avantis cross-border Industrial Park (GOB Aachen Heerlen BV) informing it that is not welcome to visit the Avantis Park in order to investigate trends in the hamster population.

Avantis claims that there are no hamster colonies in this area. Official inspections are carried out by the General Inspectorate (AID) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries (LNV).

The Hamsterwerkgroep (Hamster Working Party), Limburg, Foundation has serious doubts about the deployment of the AID with regard to this matter. During a joint inspection on 15 December 1998, carried out together with two LNV officials and one from the AID, various hamster colonies were discovered on what is now the Avantis site. One week later, they had been deliberately destroyed by bulldozers.

The fact that hamster colonies had been sighted until late 1998 must constitute a reason for the situation to be restored.

In an effort to remedy and compensate for the damage, a hamster protection plan was drawn up in which 11 core areas were designated as a new hamster biotope. The Avantis Park does not figure among them. In the meantime, these core areas are also under threat, especially near Margraten and Maastricht, where sports grounds and golf courses are likely to encroach on the areas set aside for hamsters.

The Netherlands Government is still not properly implementing Article 12(4) of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)(1), despite the entry into force of the Flora and Fauna Act of 1 April 2002.

Does the European Commission agree with me that, in late 1998, deliberate and wilful action was taken against the letter of the Habitats Directive and that the Netherlands has still not implemented Article 12(4) of the Habitats Directive?

Does the European Commission agree with me that the Netherlands is also in breach of its obligations with regard to compensatory measures (in this instance the hamster protection plan)?

What will the European Commission do to have the situation which has thus arisen remedied and the original situation restored?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

As regards the reference of the Honourable Member to the alleged deliberate destruction of hamster colonies, the Commission considers such a practice in principle to be contrary to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1991 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive). This Directive prohibits the deliberate disturbance of these species and the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.

The issue of the protection of the hamster in the Netherlands is the object of an ongoing infringement procedure. Within the context of this procedure, the Netherlands have communicated the hamster protection plan for the period from 2000-2004. This plan includes an annual survey of hamster populations, information and communication measures, the purchase of agricultural land in the most important hamster areas, as well as management agreements promoting hamster friendly cultivation methods.

Article 12, Article 4, of the Habitats Directive provides for the monitoring of the incidental capture and killing of animals and the need to take measures to ensure that this does not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned. Article 16, Article 1, allows for derogations from the obligation to establish a system of strict protection for species like the hamster as provided for in Article 12. In this context, the Commission considers it permissible to take compensatory measures if a habitat is destroyed or if its quality deteriorates, provided there is no satisfactory alternative and that it is in one of the interests listed in Article 16, Article 1 (for example, in the interest of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats).

With a view to determine the further possible course of action, the Commission is currently examining the information provided by the Netherlands in reply to the additional letter of formal notice in which it concluded, inter alia, that the Netherlands had failed to properly apply the provisions of Article 12, Article 4, and 16, Article 1, of the Habitats Directive.