WRITTEN QUESTION P-3859/02 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Incomplete implementation of the Habitats Directive.
Date: 2003-01-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, national implementing measure, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life, rodent, wildlife

C 11 E/60

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Article 4 of Directive 90/220/EEC required that Member States shall ensure that their competent authority
organises inspection and other control measures, as appropriate, to ensure compliance with the Directive.
This is again, similarly reflected in Directive 2001/18/EC.

Consequently, it is the competent authorities of Member States that control site inspections of GM crop
trials and hold the relevant
the
Community.

information. Such inspections are not undertaken at

the level of

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.
(2) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.

(2004/C 11 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3859/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Incomplete implementation of the Habitats Directive

(6 January 2003)

The Hamsterwerkgroep (Hamster Working Party), Limburg, Foundation has received a letter from the
Director of the Avantis cross-border Industrial Park (GOB Aachen Heerlen BV) informing it that is not
welcome to visit the Avantis Park in order to investigate trends in the hamster population.

Avantis claims that there are no hamster colonies in this area. Official inspections are carried out by the
General Inspectorate (AID) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries (LNV).

The Hamsterwerkgroep (Hamster Working Party), Limburg, Foundation has serious doubts about the
deployment of the AID with regard to this matter. During a joint inspection on 15 December 1998,
carried out together with two LNV officials and one from the AID, various hamster colonies were
discovered on what is now the Avantis site. One week later, they had been deliberately destroyed by
bulldozers.

The fact that hamster colonies had been sighted until late 1998 must constitute a reason for the situation
to be restored.

In an effort to remedy and compensate for the damage, a hamster protection plan was drawn up in which
11 core areas were designated as a new hamster biotope. The Avantis Park does not figure among them. In
the meantime, these core areas are also under threat, especially near Margraten and Maastricht, where
sports grounds and golf courses are likely to encroach on the areas set aside for hamsters.

The Netherlands Government is still not properly implementing Article 12(4) of the Habitats Directive (92/
43/EEC) (1), despite the entry into force of the Flora and Fauna Act of 1 April 2002.

Does the European Commission agree with me that, in late 1998, deliberate and wilful action was taken
against the letter of the Habitats Directive and that the Netherlands has still not implemented Article 12(4)
of the Habitats Directive?

Does the European Commission agree with me that the Netherlands is also in breach of its obligations
with regard to compensatory measures (in this instance the hamster protection plan)?

What will the European Commission do to have the situation which has thus arisen remedied and the
original situation restored?

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

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/61

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

As regards the reference of the Honourable Member to the alleged deliberate destruction of hamster
colonies, the Commission considers such a practice in principle to be contrary to Council Directive 92/43/
EEC of 21 May 1991 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the ‘Habitats
Directive’). This Directive prohibits the deliberate disturbance of these species and the deterioration or
destruction of breeding sites or resting places.

The issue of the protection of the hamster in the Netherlands is the object of an ongoing infringement
procedure. Within the context of
the Netherlands have communicated the hamster
protection plan for the period from 2000-2004. This plan includes an annual survey of hamster
land in the most
populations,
important hamster areas, as well as management agreements promoting hamster friendly cultivation
methods.

information and communication measures, the purchase of agricultural

this procedure,

Article 12, Article 4, of the Habitats Directive provides for the monitoring of the incidental capture and
killing of animals and the need to take measures to ensure that this does not have a significant negative
impact on the species concerned. Article 16, Article 1, allows for derogations from the obligation to
establish a system of strict protection for species like the hamster as provided for in Article 12. In this
context, the Commission considers it permissible to take compensatory measures if a habitat is destroyed
or if its quality deteriorates, provided there is no satisfactory alternative and that it is in one of the interests
listed in Article 16, Article 1 (for example, in the interest of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving
natural habitats).

With a view to determine the further possible course of action, the Commission is currently examining the
information provided by the Netherlands in reply to the additional letter of formal notice in which it
concluded,
inter alia, that the Netherlands had failed to properly apply the provisions of Article 12,
Article 4, and 16, Article 1, of the Habitats Directive.

(2004/C 11 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3869/02

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Territory of the Madeira archipelago

The 18 December 2002 edition of the Portuguese daily ‘Diário de Notícias’ reported that the maps of the
European Union produced by the Commission’s cartography department represent the ‘Ilhas Selvagens’,
which belong to the Portuguese autonomous region of Madeira, as being part of the Spanish territory of
the Canary Islands. That report includes an official EU website reference (http://www.europa.eu.int/abc/
maps/regions/spain/canarias_en.htm), a visit to which confirms this decidedly anomalous circumstance.

According to the same source, this is not the first time that the EU’s official maps have contained an error
of this kind concerning the exact location of the Portuguese/Spanish border.

The Commission:

1. Can it explain how such a serious error was allowed to appear on the EU’s official maps, and indicate

those responsible? Can it state when the error will be corrected?

2. Can it confirm that the relevant official in the cartography department in which the maps were,

presumably, prepared is of Spanish nationality?

3. What action does it consider should be taken to ensure that errors of this nature will not occur in the

future?