WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2061/97 by Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA to the Commission. Problems of transparency, bias and translation in connection with the preparation of Finland's Natura 2000 programme
Date: 1997-06-09
Institutions: ANTTILA, European Parliament
Subjects: Finland, access to EU information, duties of civil servants, environmental policy, environmental protection, fact-finding mission, project evaluation, protected area, protection of animal life, translation













EUR-Lex - 91997E2061 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E2061

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2061/97 by Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA to the Commission. Problems of transparency, bias and translation in connection with the preparation of Finland's Natura 2000 programme  


Official Journal C 060 , 25/02/1998 P. 0087 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2061/97 by Sirkka-Liisa Anttila (ELDR) to the Commission (9 June 1997)Subject: Problems of transparency, bias and translation in connection with the preparation of Finland's Natura 2000 programmeThe Finnish Environment Ministry and regional environment centres have prepared the Natura 2000 programme as required by the EU's nature protection directives. Landowners in particular feel that those preparations have been carried out in an unfair manner.When preparing Finland's Natura 2000 programme the environmental authorities completely ignored the requirements laid down in the EU's wild birds and Habitat directives, with regard to protected areas, that the significance of the protection measures should also be considered from the economic, social and cultural standpoints which are very important for local people. The landowners have first-hand experience of these shortcomings.The translation errors in the Finnish version which alter the substance of the text have also complicated the situation (e.g. Annex III(B)(d): global assessment translated into Finnish as 'yleisarviointi' ('general assessment') instead of kokonaisarviointi; Article 1(g)(iv): endemic translated into Finnish as 'paikallisia' ('local') instead of kotoperäisiä).The central principles guiding the Commission in its work should be those of impartiality and independence. In practice, this should mean that problems of bias do not arise. The person monitoring Finland's Natura 2000 programme on behalf of the Commission is an official in the Finnish Environment Ministry, who may not be impartial.How does the Commission intend to remedy without delay the problems which have arisen in connection with the preparation of Finland's Natura 2000 programme as regards:1. its failure to comply with the EU's wild birds and Habitat directives;2. the translation errors;3. the issue of the possible bias of the official monitoring the programme on behalf of the Commission?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (30 June 1997)The Honourable Member is referring to the first phase of the process set out in Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )) for setting up the Natura 2000 network. Article 4 (1) of the Directive specifies that during this phase each Member State must propose a list of sites based on the scientific criteria laid down in the Directive's Annex III. The Finnish authorities are complying fully with the Directive in drawing up their national list on the basis of the scientific merits of the sites concerned. Only when the necessary conservation measures are being decided on for the selected Natura 2000 sites will economic, social and cultural factors be taken into account, as specified in Article 6.The Directive contains a number of provisions which were difficult to translate accurately into Finnish, due to a lack of necessary expertise prior to Finland's entry into the Community. The Honourable Member cites two such examples. In Annex III B(d), the term 'global assessment' has been translated into Finnish as 'general assessment' instead of 'total assessment'. It has indeed been recognised that greater clarity is needed in translating this term; in fact, the Commission and the Member States already use the term 'kokonaisarviointi', as suggested by the Honourable Member, in the standard form used for recording the details of each Natura 2000 site. In Article 1(g)(iv), the work 'endemic' should also have been translated as suggested by the Honourable Member. However, this error appears to be of minor consequence. The word 'endemic' is only used to describe species already included in the Annexes to the Directive. For this term also, the translation suggested by the Honourable Member is used in the standard form mentioned above.The Community list of Finnish sites to be included in the Natura 2000 network will be approved by the Commission itself. The prior evaluation of national lists will be on a collective basis: for each biogeographical region this will involve the Member States, the Commission, the European Environment Agency (through its nature conservation topic centre), independent scientists and representatives of various specialist non-governmental organisations.There is nothing unusual in a national expert from the Finnish Environment Ministry being on secondment with the Commission. Such experts are used to make up for a lack of specialist personnel in certain areas. The Commission is surprised that the neutrality of the expert concerned should be called into question. Indeed his presence, and that of his colleagues on secondment from other Member States, allows a high level of local knowledge to be brought to bear on the group work being undertaken.