WRITTEN QUESTION E-0309/02 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Environmental directives and outermost regions.
Date: 2002-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU act, EU programme, application of EU law, environmental law, environmental protection, peripheral region

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/71

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

The letter that appeared in the Greek press on 26 January 2002, was a letter sent on 4 October 2001 from
the Director-General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional Policy (DG REGIO) to the
Greek authorities, via the Greek permanent representation in Brussels, informing the Greek government of
the outcome of an inquiry carried out in Greece from 11 to 15 June 2001 concerning the management
and control system put in place under the Community support framework (CSF) for the 2000-2006
programming period.

When the Commission, on 18 January 2002, indicated in its reply to Written Question E-3377/01 asked
by the Honourable Member (1) that it was generally satisfied with the initial results, it took account of the
progress made by the Greek authorities in establishing the managerial and organisational structures
necessary to implement the programmes and also of the follow-up the Greek authorities had given in the
meantime to the conclusions and recommendations of DG REGIO’s audit mission in Greece from 11 to
15 June 2001.

At this stage it would be premature for the Commission to conclude on the quality of the systems put in
place by any Member State. In parallel with the system audits in Member States, the Commission is
carrying out desk audits of all programmes on the basis of the system descriptions sent by Member States.
The results of these analyses coupled with audit findings on the ground and the subsequent dialogue with
CSF : and programme authorities should further help eliminate the flaws in the systems. Reviews of the
operation of the systems will be undertaken by the Commission on a regular basis and in co-operation
with the Member State throughout the 2000-2006 programming period.

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 162.

(2002/C 229 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0309/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Environmental directives and outermost regions

The considerable deterioration of the world’s natural heritage is being accompanied by an alarming
impoverishment of biodiversity. Despite our
the irreversible
disappearance of certain species of flora and fauna is in danger of compromising economic development
in certain countries and also medical research.

responsibility to future generations,

The outlying areas of certain Member States are of considerable value to the European Union in terms of
biodiversity and natural resources.

However, the Community environmental directives concerning habitats, birds and the ‘Life’ programmes
do not apply to these territories.

How can the Council explain and justify this legal discrepancy within the Community which is seriously
undermining the natural heritage in these areas, making it impossible to ensure the conservation of
biodiversity in the European Union Member States as a whole?

Is it possible for a Member State to obstruct Community legislation by failing to implement European
directives without undermining the spirit of cohesion in the Community, creating legal precedents and
detracting from the credibility of action taken by the Council and indeed its very purpose?

Will the Council examine the natural heritage of outlying areas in preparation for the implementation of a
Community policy based on coherent objectives in this respect?

C 229 E/72

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council notes Mrs Béguin’s concerns for biodiversity in the outermost regions of the European

1.
Union.

In responding it may be useful to further identify the various ‘outermost regions’ as they are not all
2.
dealt with in the same way under Environmental Directives. The Council assumes that the Honourable
Member is referring to the French overseas departments, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands (the
areas covered by Article 299 of the Treaty). In practice these areas are dealt with differently.

3.

The most relevant pieces of Community environmental legislation in this regard are:

: the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn, 1979);

: the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 1979);

: the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio, 1992);

: the Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds;

: the Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats of Wild Fauna and Flora;

: the Regulation 3528/86 on the Protection of the Community’s Forests Against Atmospheric Pollution;

: the Regulation No 2158/92 on Protection of the Community’s Forests Against Fire;

: the Regulation No 1973/92 Establishing a Financial Instrument for the Environment, as amended by

Regulation No 1404/96 (the LIFE Regulation); and

: the Regulation No 938/97 implementing Regulation No338/97 on the Protection of Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora by Regulating Trade Therein (the CITES Regulation)

4.
In biogeographical terms the Continental part of Europe, Canary Islands, Azores and Madeira are
included in the Western Palearctic region. On the other hand, territories such as French Guyana are
included in the Neotropics biogeographical region. Each biogeographical region has its own characteristics
regarding flora, fauna and habitats. Therefore, the Bern Convention, the Birds Directive, the Habitats
Directive, the regulation on forests pollution and the LIFE-Nature programme reflect an ecologically
consistent approach to address Western Palearctic conservation concerns, which under the scope of these
instruments are better addressed through a biogeographical approach. These characteristics may not be the
same in other biogeographical regions such as the Neotropics. Therefore,
the Directives which the
Honourable Member refers to do not apply to the French overseas departments, or Greenland.

The Regulation on Forests Fires could apply to outermost regions but the French authorities have never
designated territories such as the French Guyana as an area at risk.

Other pieces of Community environmental

legislation such as the Bonn Convention, the CITES
5.
Regulation and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) address broader issues such as the
conservation of migratory species across their range of distribution, trade in wildlife, and the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the
utilisation of genetic resources. Therefore,
instruments in place for implementing this legislation at
Community level are not restricted to specific biogeographical zones such as the Western Palearctic and
the Neotropics. In this regard it is worth mentioning, for example the European Community Biodiversity
Strategy (1) and its Sectoral Action Plans (2) developed in line with Article 6 of
the United Nations
Convention on Biological Diversity. The scope of this strategy and action plans therefore covers the
outermost regions and complements the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans developed by the
Member States.

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/73

The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity meets every two years and
6.
provides further guidance to its Parties on how to implement the Convention. The Member States and
Community are working hard to ensure that the upcoming sixth Conference of the Parties to the CBD, to
take place in the Hague from 8 to 19 April, is a success. In particular to ensure that the Conference adopts
a strategic plan for the implementation of the Convention during the coming ten years. The proper
implementation of this Convention will be a major step to ensuring the conservation of biodiversity in the
EU Member States as a whole.

7.
Regarding the issue of the actual implementation of Community legislation (paragraph five of the
question) it is not for the Council, but for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaty, to verify the proper
implementation of Community legislation by Member States.

8.
Concerning specifically the natural heritage of outlying areas, it is up to the Commission to examine
this question in relation to existing Community policy, which is based on coherent objectives and to
report to Council and, if appropriate, to come forward with a concrete proposal.

(1) COM(42) 1998.
(2) COM(162) 2001.

(2002/C 229 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0317/02

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Preparations for the European Council meeting in Barcelona

The 2000 Lisbon European Council Council called for agreement on the European Social Agenda at the
Nice European Council in December. Now that the European Social Agenda has indeed been approved,
how does the Commission believe that it will be able to reverse the rising trend of unemployment, and
does the Commission specifically agree or disagree that the structure of EU labour markets is currently still
too rigid?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2002)

The Social Policy Agenda (SPA) which the Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000 asked the
Commission to prepare, has been adopted by the Nice European Council of 7 and 9 December 2000. The
most recent report about progress made in implementing the SPA so far has been adopted by the
Commission on 19 February 2002 (1). It concludes that work is well under way and that commitments are
increasingly transposed into concrete action. Furthermore, new challenges are taken up and new initiatives
are planned, e.g. with the proposed Action Plan on Skills and Mobility or the impact evaluation of the
European Employment Strategy.

The SPA Scoreboard has to be seen in the wider context of the Lisbon strategy and the Commission’s
spring report for Barcelona. That report, the Commission’s key contribution to the Barcelona European
Council (The Lisbon Strategy : Making change happen (2)), provides a basis for the assessment of progress
made towards the Lisbon objectives, including the goal of full employment. Although it recognizes that the
four-year fall in unemployment has been interrupted and that job creation has slowed considerably, the
communication expresses cautious optimism that the current economic downturn will be short-lived, and
that the current conditions do not call into question the basically sound economic fundamentals, or the
need to pursue the Lisbon strategy.

The Lisbon strategy aims at increasing the coherence and mutually reinforcing character of economic,
employment and social policies.