WRITTEN QUESTION E-3920/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Updating of protected areas on the basis of the EU directive on the conservation of birds.
Date: 2000-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, Lower Saxony, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bird, infringement of EU law, protected area, protection of animal life

C 261 E/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

(2001/C 261 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3920/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Updating of protected areas on the basis of the EU directive on the conservation of birds

Lower Saxony is currently updating its protected areas under the EU directive on the conservation of birds.
It is widely felt that this is happening despite the justified concerns of the local population and runs
counter to the spirit of the directive, which requires economic interests to be taken into account.

Would the Commission state:

1. What is the legal basis for the current updating exercise and are there concrete grounds for it?

2. To what extent should the local population be involved in the process?

3.

4.

Is it in keeping with the directive to require valuable and irreplaceable arable land to be converted into
pasture, place severe restrictions on its use or designate whole parcels of such land as nature
conservation areas?

Is it in keeping with the directive for the continued existence of old-established businesses to be placed
in jeopardy?

5. To what extent does the Commission check the import and purpose of the measures taken by the

Member States?

6.

7.

Is the Commission aware that the EU directive is being used as a means of pursuing a policy inimical
to the local population on the pretext that it is imposed by Brussels? What does the Commission think
of the damage that is being done to Europe(cid:146)s standing with the public, and what does it intend to do
about it?

Is it true that the Commission is bringing pressure to bear on the Member States by threatening to
withhold certain forms of aid from the region if the legislation is implemented inadequately or not at
all? Is any such linkage permissible?

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

(7 March 2001)

The Commission has been pursuing since 1992 a complaint and later infringement case about a failure to
fully implement Article 4 of the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
wild birds (1) (the Birds Directive) in Germany due to insufficient designation of (cid:145)Special Protection Areas(cid:146)
for the bird species covered by articles 4(1) and 4(2) and the failure to transmit sufficient
(SPAs)
information concerning the designated SPAs as required under Article 4(3) of the Directive. The respective
court application was decided in summer 2000 and is currently under preparation. Flevoland only (the
Dutch programming document for areas outside Objective 1 is still being negotiated) Sources: single
programming documents and operational programmes 2000 2006

Based on limited knowledge in the Commission about the actual situation in Lower Saxony only the
following response is possible:

1. The Land (cid:145)Lower-Saxony(cid:146) is among the remaining German L(cid:228)nder, which, more than 20 years after
the adoption of the Birds Directive, are considered as not having so far designated sufficient SPAs nor
as having transmitted the respective information. The Commission has neither received from Lower
Saxony nor from Germany information about the scope and the timing of the actual procedure
described by the Honourable Member. It is therefore suggested that the Honourable Member asks this
question directly to Germany or Lower Saxony.

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/15

2. The last sentence also applies to the question of public participation. The Birds Directive itself contains

no provision obliging Member States to consult the public on the site selection process.

3. The Birds Directive does not in general prevent agricultural practices in Special Protection Areas, but it
obliges Member States to respect the conservation objectives of these sites and to prevent deterioration
of these sites.

As regards the change from grassland to arable land, the Commission has only been informed through
complaints, that areas in Germany which merit designation under the Birds Directive have been
destroyed i.e. by change from grassland to arable land. The Court of Justice has recently stated in its
sentence C-96/98 ((cid:145)Marais Poitevin(cid:146)) that in a SPA such detrimental change is illegal.

4.

In the difficult negotiations to reach agreement about subsidies for agriculture in the framework of the
General Agreement on Tariff and Trade ((cid:145)GATT /Urugay-round(cid:146)) (cid:145)green box(cid:146) measures jointly were
accepted by the GATT participants.

The Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999/EC of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development
from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing
certain Regulations (2), allows for Member States to compensate for restrictions arising from Com-
munity environmental legislation, such as the Birds Directive. Lower Saxony has used this opportunity
in its Rural Development Plan and farmers can thus be compensated for such restrictions. This should
guarantee that farms are not endangered.

5. The Commission has indeed checked in detail the purpose and the sufficiency of the Member State
measures to comply with Article 4 of the Birds Directive and has recognised the insufficiency of the
situation. However, the majority of the L(cid:228)nder appear to have in the meantime undertaken significant
efforts to improve the situation.

6. The Commission would regret such statements and would like to remind the Honourable Member that
the Commission according to Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty is obliged to ensure that
Community legislation (including the nature Directives adopted by the Council) is fully and correctly
applied.

7. By letter from the member of the Commission responsible for Agriculture, Member States were indeed
informed that they have to submit lists of the Sites designated in the framework of Natura 2000 as
soon as possible, and within a given deadline. In addition, Member States were asked to inform the
Commission,
in their Rural Development Plans, about the provisions undertaken to ensure that
measures funded under the plans will not lead to deterioration of any areas designated or to be
designated under Natura 2000. The Honourable Member will understand that otherwise the approval
of
the rural
community and agricultural holdings (cid:129) would not have been possible. Otherwise, the Commission
would have been in the situation to approve measures, which might degrade or destroy areas, which
should be protected under European environmental legislation. The same holds true for the Structural
funds, where such commitments by Member States/Regions of objective 1 areas had to be given based
on a similar letter from the members of the Commission responsible for Environment and Regional
Policy.

the Rural Development Plans (cid:129) as an important

to support

instrument

financial

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.