WRITTEN QUESTION P-2659/99 by Othmar Karas (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Impact on hunting of the designation of the Hohe Tauern (A) National Park as a Natura 2000 site.
Date: 1999-12-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, EU law, biotope, competence of the Member States, environmental impact, environmental protection, hunting, hunting regulations, interpretation of the law, national park

C 225 E/188

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The Commission is not currently financing any projects specifically benefiting the Indian leather industry,
nor has it done so in recent years; nor are there any plans for financing such projects.

The Commission regrets the error it made in its answer to written question E-3822/98 by the Honourable
Member, referring him to a previous answer to his written question P-3790/98, which included informa-
tion on aid to the Catalan leather industry (point 4.6).

(2000/C 225 E/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2659/99

by Othmar Karas (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Impact on hunting of the designation of the Hohe Tauern (A) National Park as a Natura 2000 site

The Hohe Tauern National Park in Austria has been designated a Natura 2000 site. In the Natura 2000
Newsletter No 5 of February 1998 the competent Directorate-General (XI) expressly states that hunting in
the designated sites is not automatically prohibited under the Directive.

Is it true that the Habitats Directive 92/43 (1) will have no impact on hunting in the Hohe Tauern National
Park? In this area hunting has always played a considerable role in protecting and conserving species and
biotopes and should continue to do so. Does the Commission agree that hunting is not to be interpreted as
one of those disruptive factors which are prohibited under the Directive by reason of their significantly
negative impact on the environment?

The Commission has drafted guidelines for the application and interpretation by the Member States of
Article 6 of the Directive. Why have these guidelines, which have been under discussion for over six
months, still not been submitted to the European Parliament for its assessment and opinion? Do these
guidelines contain any clarification regarding hunting in Natura 2000 areas?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The inclusion of areas in Natura 2000 is not intended as a block on human activities (e.g. hunting). The
emphasis is on ensuring that human activities are sustainable and not damaging to conservation values.
in a Natura 2000 site, any
Member States are responsible for taking appropriate steps to avoid,
deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as significant disturbance of the species
for which a site was designated. This corresponds to provisions laid down in Article 6(2) of Directive 92/
43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the (cid:145)Habitats
Directive(cid:146)). They concern both sites to be designated under the Habitats Directive, and sites designated
under Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild birds (1) (the (cid:145)Birds Directive(cid:146)).

In this framework the question of hunting within Natura 2000 sites must be addressed on a case by case
basis. How far restrictions on hunting in the national park of (cid:145)Hohe Tauern(cid:146) are necessary or not, is to be
determined by the Austrian authorities.

Although not obligatory, the Habitats Directive identifies management plans, specifically designed for
Natura 2000 sites or integrated into other development plans, as a valuable tool in providing a framework
in which the different interests influencing such sites (e.g. hunting) can be adequately addressed.

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/189

in co-operation with Member States nature authorities, a
The Commission is currently preparing,
document called (cid:145)Interpretation guide to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (cid:129) 92/43/EEC(cid:146).
Its main
purpose will be to suggest a legal interpretation of terms and concepts used in this article. This document
will reflect only the views of the Commission and will not be of a binding nature. As soon as the
document is finalised, it will be available to all interested parties.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2000/C 225 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2666/99

by Francis DecourriŁre (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Directive 92/43/EEC

With regard to the application of Annex III of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992, Stage 2,
paragraph 2(b) provides that the assessment of the Community importance of a site shall take account of
the (cid:145)geographical situation of the site in relation to migration routes of species in Annex II and whether it
belongs to a continuous ecosystem situated on both sides of one or more internal Community frontiers(cid:146).

Socio-economic activities on either side of a frontier are sometimes completely different, since frontiers are
governed by national law. For example, hunting and fishing are lawful and traditional activities in France
in publicly-owned coastal land, whereas they do not exist on the other side of the frontier, in Belgium.

1.
Since economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics have to be
taken into account (Article 2 of the directive), how does the Commission intend to reconcile managing
these border sites of great ecological value (classified as nature reserves or biogenetic reserves), linked with
an Annex II species (Phoca vitulina), with such variations in activity?

2.

Should these sites be managed by a single body?

3. Will these cross-border sites benefit from special conditions, particularly financial conditions, in the
introductory phase of Directive 92/43/EEC and in the context of its main application in 2004?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Site management is the responsibility of the Member States, under the terms of Article 6(1) of Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
It
is for each country to establish the conservation measures which correspond to the ecological
requirements of the Annex II species present on the sites. The Commission is involved in the selection of
sites but not their management.

The Directive does not provide that cross-border sites should be managed by a single body. Each Member
State and its neighbours must assess the degree of cooperation necessary to ensure that the Directive(cid:146)s
objective is achieved.

Under Article 8 on the cofinancing of conservation measures for sites hosting priority habitats or species,
the Directive does not give priority to cross-border sites. However, several Community instruments enable
special attention to be given to these sites. The Commission encourages the Member States to use these
instruments for Natura 2000 cross-border site management.