WRITTEN QUESTION E-1294/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. EU plan to designate the Severn estuary as a Special Area of Conservation.
Date: 2001-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, South West (England), competence of the Member States, economic consequence, environmental protection, protected area

C 350 E/112

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2001)

Community exports of live cattle reach approximately 100 000 animals for breeding and 200 000 animals
for slaughter per year. Concerning the mistreatment of animals during transport, Commission Regulation
(EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund
arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (1) stipulates that the payment
of export refunds for live bovine animals is subject to compliance, during the transport of the animal up to
the first place of unloading in the country of final destination, with the welfare provisions of Council
Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending
Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (2) and Regulation (EC) No 615/98.

Regulation (EC) No 615/98 provides measures to ensure that an official veterinarian at the point of exit of
the Community carries out systematic checks on all consignments with regards to all aspects of the
journey which can possibly be verified at this stage (in particular, fitness of the animals, means of transport
complying with the provisions of the Directive 91/628/EEC and that provisions have been taken to feed
and water the animals). Furthermore, specific checks may be carried out in third countries under the
provisions laid down in Articles 3 and 4 of this Regulation. As a result of the checks, the payment of
export refunds was refused for 3 150 animals during the period 1 September 1998 to 30 June 2000.
Moreover, the Commission is currently undertaking an inquiry in several Member States regarding the
implementation of the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98. Its results may lead to
financial corrections following the clearance of accounts procedure.

The Commission has a proactive attitude in the multilateral field and has been sustaining efforts to
promote acceptance of animal welfare at the international level. Within the context of on-going World
Trade Organisation (WTO) agricultural negotiations, the Community has addressed animal welfare in its
negotiating proposal as an important non-trade concern. The Commission co-operation with the candidate
countries to enlargement resulted in enhanced adoption of the Community acquis in this field. Multilateral
activities are pursued also in other fora (e.g. Council of Europe).

With regards to payment of export refunds for the cattle trade (animals for slaughter and breeding), the
total amount paid in 2000 (10 months) was € 110,8 million. During the last year subsidies paid for cattle
exported for slaughter were reduced significantly from € 60,50/100 kilogramme (kg) to € 41,00/100 kg,
following the development of export refunds for meat.

Regarding the possibility of ending the payment of export refunds in order to discourage this trade,
experience following the first bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis (1996) has shown that there
would not be any decrease as importing countries have immediately found alternative suppliers in other
export countries, often requiring even further journies than is required for imports from the Community.

(1) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.
(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2001/C 350 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1294/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: EU plan to designate the Severn estuary as a Special Area of Conservation

Could the Commission explain why it is planning to designate the entire Severn estuary in the south west
of England as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive?

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/113

This could have a major impact on the continued development of the port of Bristol, which lies on the
Severn estuary. In other EU Member States, only specific parts of estuaries are designated as SACs, and the
navigation channels are excluded, allowing ports to cater for larger ships.

Will the Commission confirm that it will treat the port of Bristol in the same way as other EU ports?

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

(20 June 2001)

The designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) is a matter that is under the competence of the
Member States. The procedure leading to site designation is described in Article 4 of Council Directive 92/
43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). Each
Member State must propose a list of sites for protection under the Directive. The Commission then
establishes a list of sites of Community importance in agreement with the Member States. Member States
then designate these sites as Special Areas of Conservation. Therefore, the proposal and, if included on the
Community list, ultimate designation of the Severn Estuary as a Special Area of Conservation falls under
the responsibility of the United Kingdom.

The selection of Natura 2000 sites, including the definition of site boundaries, is exclusively based on
scientific criteria. Economically sensitive areas, such as navigation channels, should not be excluded if they
form part of a site on the basis of scientific evidence. In cases where the Commission receives complaints,
with clear evidence that these provisions have not been respected by a Member State, it will carry out the
necessary investigations.

The management and protection of sites in Natura 2000 is undertaken in accordance with the
requirements of Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC. The Directive provides clear procedures for dealing
with proposed plans and projects, not necessary to the management of the Natura 2000 site, but that are
likely to have a significant effect on it. These provisions apply to developments in any port that may
adversely affect a Natura 2000 site, even if they take place outside the site.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 350 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1295/01

by Ky(cid:246)sti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Compensation for predator damage in reindeer preserves

(3 May 2001)

In Finland there are some 200 000 reindeer living in the reindeer preserve of Lapland and Northern
Finland. Of these, some 2000 to 2500 animals fall victim to predators (bears and wolves) every year. This
is a significant level of damage, because there are some 800 households dependent on full-time reindeer
herding, in addition to over 500 families for whom reindeer herding is economically important.

Predator damage to reindeer is on the increase. The Finnish authorities are blaming the EU for not being
able to restrict predator numbers.

In the light of the above:

(cid:129) Is the Commission preventing the rational restriction of the bear and wolf population?

(cid:129) What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that reindeer herding remains an attractive way
of life, and that reindeer herders do not find themselves paying the price for the protection of
predators?

(cid:129) Does the Commission feel responsible for ensuring that this ancient way of life is preserved in

Europe(cid:146)s northernmost regions?