WRITTEN QUESTION P-1934/03 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Prospects for LIFE.
Date: 2003-06-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU financing

C 33 E/190

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

The existence of two parallel network structures in Flanders (cid:1) one Flemish and one European (cid:1) causes a
great deal of unnecessary confusion and complication. In practice it seems that an excessively large part is
incorporated in the VEN,
Integrated
Interrelation and Support Network) or the nature association areas. In implementing the Nature Decree
of late 1997 the Flemish government therefore took care to ensure that the two types of area overlapped
as much as possible. Is it sensible for two different types of policy to be implemented in areas where there
are overlaps?

the IVON (Integraal Verwevings- en Ondersteunend Netwerk,

The result is that there is confusion among the Flemish public and great dissatisfaction among the rural
population, who associate Natura 2000 with the patronising policy of the Flemish government in the VEN.

What is the Commission’s view of the compatibility of the Flemish policy on environmental networks with
the Natura 2000 directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Both Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora (1)
(‘Habitats Directive’), and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds (2) (‘Birds Directive’) aim at ensuring the conservation of natural habitats and
species at European level. The creation of ‘Natura 2000’, a coherent European ecological network of special
areas of conservation, is an important tool to achieve this objective.

National or regional networks of protected areas such as the Flemish Environmental Network represent
important complements to the European ‘Natura 2000’ network, as they allow to integrate more local and
regional aspects of nature conservation. Neither the ‘Habitats Directive’ nor the ‘Birds Directive’ foresee any
restrictions as to Member States introducing stricter protective measures than those provided for under
these Directives.

The provisions of the Habitats Directive clearly make Member States responsible for the management of
Natura 2000 sites. The responsibility for the management of regional and national networks is a fortiori a
matter of national or regional competence.

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

(2004/C 33 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1934/03

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

(5 June 2003)

Subject: Prospects for LIFE

The Directorate-General for Environment recently published on its website (1) the final report of the Expert
Group on the financing of the Natura 2000 network (Article 8 of the Habitats Directive). The cost estimate
may well be adjusted, but the major institutional guidelines have been set down with a request that, after
2006, the cost be shared between the various Community funds (ERDF, EAGGF, etc.) and a separate
financial instrument. That concept needs to be introduced into the various frameworks provided to that
end and, in particular, into that of the major policy and budgetary reviews envisaged after 2006.

On the other hand, the report neatly sets out the problem of the link between the current LIFE financial
instrument, which comes to an end in 2004, and the findings of the debate on Natura 2000 which will be
implemented after 2006. LIFE-Nature is, currently, the only Community financial
instrument which is
exclusively dedicated to one of the objectives of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme (cid:1) halting the
decline in biodiversity in the Union between now and 2010.

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/191

Given the time required at institutional level to put in place a new Regulation, the Commission needs to
submit a proposal by early September 2003 at the latest. After that date, it would be too late to select new
projects in 2005 (cid:1) as was the case in 2000 between LIFE II and LIFE III. Nature conservation experts
seriously fear that the instrument will be purely and simply abandoned. Several recent meetings about
Natura 2000 have prompted doubts about the Commission’s willingness to pursue its short-term funding
policy for LIFE-Nature.

What plans does the European Commission have in this respect?

Is a two-year renewal along the lines of the current Regulation a possible option?

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/natura_articles.htm.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the important role that the LIFE-Programme plays in supporting Community
nature conservation policy.

Since the new financial perspectives will not come on stream until 2007, consideration is now being given
to a proposal to extend the LIFE-Programme for three years in an adapted form. The objective is to bridge
the gap in co-funding from 2004 until 2007.

Rapid adoption by the Parliament and Council of such a Proposal would be required to avoid any
interruption in the present scheme of financing.

(2004/C 33 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1938/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Illegal employment in the fisheries sector

It has recently been reported that up to 50 per cent of workers employed in UK fish processing plants are
employed illegally. Many endure deplorable working conditions, working double shifts and seven-day
weeks, and are paid less than the minimum wage. During recent raids, the UK Department of Work and
Pensions and the police found that half of the workers gutting, filleting and packing fish were foreign and
that a third of them had entered the country illegally.

What measures does the Commission propose to protect such workers? Does the Commission have any
plans to regulate the labour agencies known as ‘gangmasters’ which are responsible for checking the status
of the workers in law and which are now shown to have exploited some of the most vulnerable people?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission does not have any information concerning the facts described by the Honourable
Member. Although it regrets that such situations can occur, it can intervene only where a principle or
provision of Community law is contravened.