WRITTEN QUESTION E-1278/02 by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission. Evaluation of implementation of directives on wild birds and habitats.
Date: 2002-05-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Netherlands, environmental protection, job cuts, leisure, national law, protected area, tourism

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/177

In the specific situations referred to by the Honourable Member, Council Directives 76/464/EEC of 4 May
1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the
Community and 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment constitute the
possibly relevant Community law.

As it has not previously been aware of
the
Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure,
within the limits conferred on it by the EC Treaty, the compliance with Community law.

the situation described by the Honourable Member,

it will not hesitate, as the Guardian of the Treaty,

Should the Commission come to the conclusion that Community law is being breached in the specific
case,
including
infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty,
in order to ensure the compliance with
relevant Community law.

to take all necessary measures,

(2002/C 277 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1278/02

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Evaluation of implementation of directives on wild birds and habitats

According to MKB-Nederland (which represents the interests of SMEs in the Netherlands) and sectoral
business associations, the survival of at least a thousand recreation businesses in rural areas in the
Netherlands is directly threatened. Nearly 10 000 jobs are at risk as a result. The main culprits are stringent
planning measures and the Netherlands Government’s policy on nature, which are making it impractical to
pursue recreational businesses.

Particularly in areas covered by the directives on wild birds and habitats, additional obstacles are being
placed in the way of recreation, or it is even being made completely impossible. Over the years, various
rules and regulations have been tacked onto these directives, with the result that the effect originally
intended is being overshadowed by unintended and undesirable obstacles to existing recreational activities
and tourism.

Consequently, current trends in land management and nature policy in the Netherlands are incompatible
with European initiatives and guidelines in the field of
recreation, social cohesion and
revitalisation of rural areas, such as the subsidy programme for rural areas under Objective 2 and the
central economic role which the Commission assigns to tourism cf. COM(2001) 665 final.

tourism,

1.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Will the Commission evaluate the implementation of the directives on wild birds and habitats in the
Netherlands to identify any undesirable and unintended side-effects, so that the recreation industry can
continue to develop in harmony with nature?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2002)

The Commission is aware that several economic sectors have made it known that they expect the
designation of Natura 2000 areas to have an impact on their activities.

The management in and around sites in the Natura 2000 network is not prescribed in detail by the nature
protection Council Directives 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1)
(‘Birds Directive’) and 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora (2) (‘Habitats Directive’). It is for the Member States to decide on the most appropriate
measures for the management of these areas, while ensuring that they maintain their nature conservation
values.

C 277 E/178

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

Natura 2000 should allow sustainable use of natural resources to go hand in hand with the conservation
of nature. Any presumption of a complete ban on tourism in designated areas cannot be justified on the
basis of Community Directives. Compatibility of conservation objectives with other activities, which may
affect Natura 2000 areas, should be assessed on a case by case basis.

Member States have the right
framework conditions and
conservation measures than what is requested by Community Directives, as may be the case when
incorporating existing nature reserves in Natura 2000.

to impose more stringent environmental

it would be
The Commission does not believe, with respect
appropriate to call for the evaluation suggested by the Honourable Member, since it has no competence to
limit the power of Member States to decide about management measures for Natura 2000.

for the principle of subsidiarity,

that

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 277 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1279/02

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Satellite reception

I have been hearing from people who are affected that it is not possible for EU nationals residing in
a Member State other than that where they were born to obtain equipment to decode encrypted satellite
TV broadcasts from a third Member State. In this way countries are prevented from receiving satellite TV
programmes from abroad, while no arrangements exist for securing access to them in return for payment.

For example, a German living in Belgium cannot receive Dutch commercial satellite TV programmes
because the requisite equipment is unobtainable in Belgium and its sale to foreigners is not permitted in
the Netherlands.

This approach to the distribution of TV programmes by satellite contravenes the principle of
free
movement of goods and services in the EU. Moreover, commercial TV broadcasters seem to be seeking to
strictly delimit markets by means of it.

1.

2.

Is the Commission aware of the above distortion of internal market principles?

Is this violation of the principle of free movement of goods and services justified?

3. Will the Commission take measures to tackle this situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2002)

The Commission has been informed on a number of occasions of the difficulties encountered by some
citizens who wish to receive satellite TV programmes broadcast from a Member State other than that in
which they are resident.

It appears from the information at the Commission’s disposal that even if the viewer is prepared to make
the necessary payment, he/she very often receives a negative response from the broadcasting body, as the
latter does not hold either the copyrights or related rights for distribution in Member States other than that
in which it is established. The non-transfer of such rights may be due to a lack of economic interest on the
part of a broadcasting body in disseminating its programmes beyond its national market or may be
explained by an unwillingness on the part of the right-holders to transfer intellectual property rights.