WRITTEN QUESTION E-3793/02 by Dorette Corbey (PSE)and Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Annual report on Europe's nature and biodiversity.
Date: 2003-01-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EP resolution, European Environment Agency, European organisation, activity report, biodiversity, environmental law, environmental policy, environmental protection, international cooperation, international organisation

C 222 E/108

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

As stated in answer to the previous question on this subject, the Council is not in a position to comment
on, or enter into, allegations concerning a criminal case. The Council has not received any detailed
information concerning the progress of enquiries. The Council places its faith in the Italian, French and
Georgian authorities to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of Antonio Russo. Questions
concerning the investigation should be addressed to the relevant authorities.

(2003/C 222 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3793/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE)
and Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject: Annual report on Europe’s nature and biodiversity

On 14 March 2002 the European Parliament (cid:1) with a majority of 370 votes in favour, 8 against and 14
abstentions (cid:1) approved the resolution on biodiversity (1). In point 13 Parliament asks for an annual report
on Europe’s nature and biodiversity. Information on the state of Europe’s biodiversity is still fragmented
and uncoordinated. An annual report would enable Parliament, Council and Commission to monitor the
state of Europe’s biodiversity and to develop timely measures if necessary and appropriate. An annual
report would also motivate and inspire those who make the efforts: progress would be visible (cid:1) and
regression would be met with new or additional protection measures. It would be a useful addition to the
evaluation of the effectiveness of existing protection directives and policies.

Is the Commission prepared to fulfil Parliament’s request and to take the initiative for an annual

1.
report on Europe’s nature and biodiversity?

2.
To draw up an annual report, a series of indicators and network of reporters are needed. Will the
Commission make use of the European Centre for Nature Conservation and build on the progress that was
made at this centre in coordinating and developing monitoring methods? How will the Commission
involve the European Environment Agency?

(1) European Parliament resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament on the biodiversity action plans in the areas of conservation of natural resources, agriculture, fisheries,
and development and economic cooperation (COM(2001) 162) (cid:1) C5-0467/2001 (cid:1) 2001/2189(COS)).

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Members that it agrees that information on the state of Europe’s
biodiversity is still fragmented and recognises the value of regular reporting in enabling the Parliament, the
Council and the Commission to monitor the state of Europe’s biodiversity and to develop timely measures
if appropriate.

While at present no annual report exists which comprehensively meets the aim of the Biodiversity
Resolution, point 13, a number of current reporting processes involving the Commission, Member States
and/or European agencies go some way towards meeting this aim. These include: general annual reports
(e.g. the Spring Report, Annual Survey on the Implementation and Enforcement of European Environ-
mental Legislation, and potentially the Annual Environment Policy Review); regular (but not annual)
reports on nature and biodiversity required under the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans and under the
Birds and Habitats Directives (1); and various reports of the European Environment Agency (EEA).

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/109

The current three- and six-year periods for reporting provided for under the nature and biodiversity acquis
reflect consensus at the time of the adoption of each instrument as to what period of reporting is
appropriate and feasible. Consequently,
it may be questionable whether and to what extent annual
reporting on nature and biodiversity is appropriate and feasible, and the extent to which consensus exists
on this issue among the Member States and Community institutions.

The issues of monitoring and indicators underpin reporting and there is considerable ongoing work on
these issues. In particular, the EEA is preparing for the Commission a set of biodiversity indicators against
which to monitor progress under the Biodiversity Action Plans. It might be feasible to identify a sub-set of
these for which data might be collected and analysed on an annual basis. The EEA (with its European
Topic Centre) has also contracted the European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC)
to review
monitoring methods for nature conservation. The Commission, EEA (with its ETC), UK Joint Nature
Conservation Committee, ECNC and United Nations Environment Programme (cid:1) Regional Office for
Europe (UNEP-ROE) are active in other related initiatives including: monitoring for Natura 2000 sites;
monitoring and assessment of conservation status in relation to Community nature directives; an
international working group on monitoring and indicators (Bio-MIN); a European Biodiversity Monitoring
and Indicator Framework (EBMI-F); the development of agri-environment indicators (under the IRENA
project) and the development of indicators (including on nature and biodiversity) for the monitoring of
rural development programmes. The Commission expects to continue to seek support from the EEA and
suitably qualified contractors such as ECNC on these issues.

In conclusion, the Commission believes that, while it is appropriate and feasible to report annually on
selected aspects of those issues identified in the Resolution point 13, it is not at this time appropriate or
feasible to produce an annual report which comprehensively addresses those issues. However,
the
Commission would be pleased to review the extent to which these issues are adequately covered by
existing reporting, the extent to which it may be appropriate and feasible to address any gap, and the
extent to which rates of change in biodiversity, rates of progress on programmes and projects and the
availability of data merit annual reporting. This review would take into account ongoing work on
monitoring and indicators which might provide a suitable basis for selective annual reporting on nature
and biodiversity. The Commission suggests that the forthcoming review of the Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plans provides a most appropriate vehicle within which to conduct this review of reporting on
nature and biodiversity.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (cid:1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979 and
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (cid:1)
OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2003/C 222 E/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3808/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(7 January 2003)

Subject: Enlargement of the EU to include the Balkan and Caucasus countries

The Heads of State of Macedonia, Yugoslavia, Croatia, Albania and Bosnia sent a joint letter to the EU
authorities calling on the European Union to give a clear, concrete response, at the Copenhagen Summit,
to their efforts to join the European Union. The Presidents of these five countries wrote: ‘We wish to make
known our expectation that the final document of the Copenhagen Summit will contain a reference to the
proposals regarding accession of our countries in the form of a message of strong encouragement to
continue along our path towards membership of the EU (…). While being fully aware of the hard work
that lies ahead of us in order to arrive at this goal, we are convinced that our common objective will work
in favour of the achievement of our noble aim (cid:1) the unification of Europe. (…) The prospect of our
accession to the European Union is of major importance to deepening the ongoing process of democratic
reform and to strengthening stability in the region’.