WRITTEN QUESTION P-2409/03 by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission. Natura 2000 — local opposition.
Date: 2003-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: consultation procedure, decision-making, environmental protection, local government, project management, project of common interest, protected area

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/167

(2004/C 58 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2409/03

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Natura 2000 (cid:1) local opposition

Notification of numerous Natura 2000 sites took place without official prior consultation of the users and
managers of the land concerned; furthermore, when consultation had taken place, as in France, with local
authorities only,
in most cases the latter expressed broad opposition to the classification (e.g. 84 %
opposition in Loire-Atlantique).

However, none of the Member State government departments in charge of this procedure took any notice
of this opposition.

Can the European Commission still take account of this opposition, in the light inter alia of the newly
adopted Aarhus Convention, as part of the ongoing selection procedure for Natura 2000 sites, and if so,
how?

Will the Commission include a site in the list of sites of Community importance despite clear opposition
on the part of local actors?

If so, by what legal means can the latter contest the classification?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

for managing them,

Directive 92/43/EC (1) clearly makes the Member States responsible not just for designating Natura 2000
sites, but
too. The Commission is working to encourage the development of
management plans as tools for suitable protective site management, as a framework for assessing whether
different types of use are compatible with conservation objectives and as a means of ensuring that the
main interest groups affected by a site’s designation participate actively in management decisions, as
provided for by the Aarhus Convention. Considerable progress has been made in this respect during the
implementation of the Natura 2000 network. There are many positive instances of the initial concerns of
local communities, notably owners and users, being settled thanks to the formulation of management
plans based on broad dialogue at local level.

Member States’ proposals are examined in a transparent manner at scientific seminars organised by the
Commission and supported by the European Environment Agency. Member States, experts representing
the interests of owners and users, and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) all take part
in these seminars, thus providing input into the Commission’s decision-making.

As the Commission sees it, the Aarhus Convention’s obligations regarding public participation do not
extend to the decisions taken in adopting site lists. Article 8 of the Convention, using non-binding
language, recommends that the Parties strive ‘to promote effective public participation at an appropriate
stage, and while options are still open, during the preparation by public authorities of executive
regulations and other generally applicable legally binding rules that may have a significant effect on the
environment.’

The process described above helps prepare the ground for the Commission’s decision in terms of factual
analysis, but, by its very nature, the decision the Commission has to take regarding sites of Community
importance has to be based on the selection criteria laid down in Annex III to the Habitats Directive and
on relevant scientific information. No provision is made for public participation.

The Directive does not specify what form of consultation Member States are to adopt when selecting the
sites they intend to propose. Accordingly, procedures have varied considerably from one Member State to
another depending on their constitutional and administrative arrangements. In some cases, identification of

C 58 E/168

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

sites has gone hand in hand with a detailed discussion of management measures with owners and users,
while in others there has been virtually no consultation of interested parties. This has caused much
controversy in some Member States, prompting a series of administrative and legal difficulties which have
delayed the submission of proposals.

It should nonetheless be noted that landowners and local representatives inevitably consider the local
interests of a site, or even interests not directly related to the conservation of habitats. Community lists, on
the other hand, are compiled with an eye to the European conservation interest, which may be different
from the local interest. It falls primarily to the authorities of the Member States to strike a balance between
what are sometimes divergent interests. The Commission, meanwhile, is obliged by Directive 92/43/EC to
refer solely to the criteria specified in that Directive.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 58 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2417/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Banning the use of tar

There has been a big debate in the Finnish media concerning a matter which as far as I know does not
even fall within the Commission’s competence. It has been alleged that the Commission is banning the use
of tar. Tar is a natural product which at one time was an important source of prosperity and wellbeing for
many people in Finland and which is prepared using long-standing traditional methods. On what grounds
does the Commission propose to ban the use of tar for any purpose (including caulking boats, etc.) and
what is the legal basis for the proposed ban?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that there are
different types of tar including coal tar and wood tar, which are produced by distillation of coal and wood
respectively. It is therefore, strictly speaking, not correct to refer to them as natural products. In addition,
it is well known that tars contain a large number of very dangerous substances, in particular carcinogenic
substances, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).

In his question, the Honourable Member is probably referring to wood tar, and more specifically pine tar,
which is produced by dry distillation of pine wood and is used for the purpose of wood preservation.

Wood preservatives are regulated by Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 16 February
1998 on the placing of biocidal products on the market (1). Among other things, the Directive establishes
that only authorised biocidal products may be placed on the market and used and that only products
containing active substances listed in Annex I or IA of the Directive can be authorised. For an active
substance to be listed, a comprehensive dossier has to be submitted that allows the evaluation of all risks
to human health and the environment posed by the substance.

The Directive foresees that during a 10-year transition period, all existing active substances (i.e. those
already on the market in biocides at the date of entry into force of the Directive) will have to be evaluated
with regard to their safety for human health and the environment. According to Regulation (EC) No 1896/
2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive
98/8/EC (2), existing active subtances had to be identified by 28 March 2002, and those which operators
would like to have included in Annex I or IA of the Directive had to notify them by the same date.
Altogether about 950 substances have been identified (among them also pine tar) and about 400 notified.