WRITTEN QUESTION E-3532/03 by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Protection of the Caretta caretta tortoise.
Date: 2003-11-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ionian Islands, application of EU law, environmental monitoring, marine life, protected area, protection of animals, reptile

C 78 E/818

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0870)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3532/03

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Protection of the Caretta caretta tortoise

Reliable sources indicate that no progress is being made with the measures to protect the Caretta caretta
tortoise, nor those to protect the Zakynthos Maríne Park, although the Commission has negotiated and
funded such measures, and that on the contrary, the measures are in difficulties due to opposition, at both
local and Greek governmental level.

Is this true?

What were the results of the Commission’s recent on-the-spot inspections?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3475/03, E-3507/03, E-3528/03 and E-3532/03
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

In its Judgement delivered on 30 January 2002 (1), the Court declared that ‘by failing to take, within the
prescribed time-limit, the requisite measures to establish and implement an effective system of strict
protection for the sea turtle Caretta caretta on Zakinthos so as to avoid any disturbance of the species
during its breeding period and any activity which might bring about deterioration or destruction of its
breeding sites, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (2).’

In July 2002, the Greek authorities notified the Commission that measures had been taken to comply with
the Judgement. Following a visit in September 2002, the Commission ascertained that the legal framework
for the protection of the sea turtle was insufficient and that the necessary specific measures, on the ground,
for the protection of the species were not effectively implemented. Considering that the Greek authorities
had not taken all the requisite measures to comply with the Court Judgement, the Commission addressed a
228 letter of formal notice to Greece in December 2002. In their reply of March 2003, the Greek
authorities described the measures taken and enclosed a detailed calendar for the remaining actions.

In order to check whether all necessary measures had been taken to protect the sea turtle Caretta caretta
and comply with the above-mentioned Court judgment, a Commission delegation visited the island of
Zakynthos from 7 to 9 September 2003. The delegation met with all the authorities and stakeholders
concerned and visited the breeding beaches of Caretta caretta.

the actions announced in 2002 have been put

It can be concluded that substantial progress has been made towards the establishment and effective
implementation of a system of strict protection for the sea turtle Caretta caretta on Zakynthos. The
in place, while the adoption and
majority of
implementation of the remaining measures are ongoing. This progress is due,
to the
operation of the National Maríne Park of Zakynthos (NMPZ) and the good collaboration with the
competent local authorities. However, the Commission delegation noted that no surveillance takes place at
Daphni beach because of local opposition.

in particular,

It should also be stressed that some measures, such as information/awareness actions, a monitoring and
surveillance programme, environmental management systems on economic activities and delineation and
marking of the NMPZ marine area, are co-financed by a LIFE project. In relation to this, a Commission
delegation visited the island of Zakynthos on 20 October 2003 to verify the progress of these co-financed
measures. The Commission delegation also noted the absence of surveillance at Daphni and requested that
the competent local authorities and the beneficiary of the LIFE project (NMPZ) intensify their efforts to
resolve the problem.

In addition, the infringement formed part of the agenda of the meeting between the Commission and
Greek authorities on the implementation of Community environmental law in Greece, which took place
on 30/31 October 2003. The Greek authorities announced a short-term calendar for the adoption of the

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/819

remaining actions. For the most part, these actions involve the financing of the NMPZ, the supervision of
the marine area, the adoption of the ‘Regulation of Administration and Management of the NMPZ’ and the
definitive delineation of the high water mark (‘αιγιαλο΄ς’) and of the coastline (‘ακτογραµµη΄’) on all the
nesting beaches. The latter is expected to resolve the property conflicts. The written notification of this
information to the Commission is underway.

The Commission will assess this additional information and will not hesitate to take appropriate measures
to ensure that Greece complies with the Court Judgement of 30 January 2002.

Judgment of 30 January 2002, Commission v. Hellenic Republic, Case C-103/00, ECR 2002, p.1 147.

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

(2004/C 78 E/0871)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3481/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:

‘Valdastico Sud’ motorway

Is the Commission aware of the proposed ‘Valdastico Sud’ motorway that the Italian Government proposes
to build through from Vicenza to Badia Polesine, near Rovigo, with devastating effect on a World Heritage
site?

Does the Commission consider that European legislation on environmental impact assessment has been
complied with in this case? Is it aware that the original assessment of the Italian Environment Commission
was negative, following which Mr Berlusconi’ government, by decree of 19 September 2002, replaced 23
of its 36 members, leading to a positive assessment of the plan on 18 December 2002?

Finally can the Commission confirm that the project has no interest from the perspective of trans-
European transport networks?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment (EIA Directive) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (1)
provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have
‘inter alia’, of their nature, size or location are made
significant effects on the environment by virtue,
subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. These projects are defined in Article 4, which refers
to Annexes I and II to the Directive. The construction of motorways appears in Annex I point 7(b), which
means that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) must be carried out.

impact
In such a case, the Italian authorities should take measures to ensure that an environmental
assessment procedure is carried out which includes (a) a description of the aspects of the environment
likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project, such as archaeological heritage,
landscape,
population (as per Article 5 and Annex IV),
(b) consultations with the public and other competent
authorities responsible for the environment and (c) publication of the decision containing conditions
attached to the development consent, the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based
and a description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major
adverse effects. The result of the consultations and the information gathered pursuant to Articles 5 and 6
must be taken into consideration in the development consent procedure.

The fact that the project in question is likely to have a negative impact on the environment (including
landscape and historic heritage)
is not, under the Directive, an obstacle to granting the development
consent, provided the procedural requirements of the Directive are complied with. Once an environmental
impact assessment has been carried out in accordance with the Directive, the decision as to whether to
grant development consent is at the discretion of the competent authority of the Member State.