WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3084/97 by Doeke EISMA to the Commission. Removal of the cormorant (continental race) from Annex I of the Directive on the conservation of wild birds
Date: 1997-10-02
Institutions: EISMA, European Parliament
Subjects: EC Directive, bird, classification, protected species, protection of animal life, wildlife













EUR-Lex - 91997E3084 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3084

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3084/97 by Doeke EISMA to the Commission. Removal of the cormorant (continental race) from Annex I of the Directive on the conservation of wild birds  


Official Journal C 134 , 30/04/1998 P. 0075 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3084/97 by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission (2 October 1997)Subject: Removal of the cormorant (continental race) from Annex I of the Directive on the conservation of wild birdsOn 29 July 1997 the Commission decided (Directive 97/49/EC ((OJ L 223, 13.8.1997, p. 9.))) to remove the cormorant (continental race), Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis, from Annex I of the Directive on the conservation of wild birds 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.)). With regard to this decision and any possible future removal of species from this annex:1. What grounds led the Commission to conclude that 'this species had reached a favourable conservation status' in Europe? What role was played by the criteria (a) to (d) listed in Article 4(1) of the Directive?2. Does the Commission also share the view that the special protection measures adopted for the species removed from Annex I should not be reversed so that the conservation of these species is assured in the longer term?3. Can it confirm that the removal of a species from Annex I has no effect on the legal status of existing designated special protection areas and in particular areas which were designated solely for the species concerned? If not, how does the Commission intend to ensure that the intended coherence of protected areas, as referred to inter alia in Article 4(3) of the Directive, is not lost?4. To what extent, in the Commission's view, is there a difference in application, scope and legal effect between Article 4(1) and Article 4(2), and also with regard to the ninth recital of the preamble of the Directive?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (31 October 1997)1. Scientific information, particularly relating to trends and variations in population levels, provided the basis for the Commission's conclusion that the great cormorant (phalacrocorax carbo) has reached a favourable conservation status. This conclusion is in accordance with Recommendation 4.1 of the Convention on the conservation of migratory species (Bonn Convention), adopted by its Parties in June 1994, in which it is noted inter alia that the population trend of the sub-species phalacrocorax carbo sinensis is increasing strongly in both numbers and range, and which recommended to maintain this favourable conservation status.The Parliament, in its Resolution of 15 February 1996 also recognised this increase in numbers and distribution area. Given its favourable conservation status, the considerations (a) to (d) of Article 4(1) of Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds ((OJ L 103, 25.04.1979, as lastly amended by Directive 97/49/EC, OJ L 223, 13.08.1997. )) no longer provide a justification for the continued listing of phalacrocorax carbo sinensis in Annex I of the Directive.2. The Commission considers that the Member States must take the necessary measures to ensure that the species is maintained at a favourable conservation state. This may require the maintenance of existing measures or new measures as appropriate.3. The removal of the great cormorant from Annex I has no effect on the legal status of special protection areas which were classified for the habitats of other bird species as well as the great cormorant. Special protection areas classified exclusively for the sub-species phalacrocorax carbo sinensis would have been classified on the basis of its inclusion in Annex I, and the Commission considers that the effect of its removal from Annex I is that the obligations of Directive 79/409/EEC in respect of special protection areas no longer apply to the areas concerned in the absence of some new basis for classification. Such a basis might lie in Article 4(2) of the Directive, which requires the classification of areas for migratory species not included in Annex I. As a migratory species no longer included in Annex I, the great cormorant qualifies for protection under this provision. The Commission considers that there is no risk to the coherence of special protection areas as a whole.4. The same legal conservation and protection regime applies to areas classified under Article 4(1) and areas classified under Article 4(2) of Directive 79/409/EEC. The difference between the two provisions lies in the species for which habitat conservation measures are required to be classified. Article 4(1) exclusively addresses the habitats of Annex I species whereas Article 4(2) addresses the habitats of non-Annex I migratory species, with a particular accent being placed on wetlands. The same site may qualify for classification under both provisions.