WRITTEN QUESTION P-1027/04 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Respect for Community environmental legislation.
Date: 2004-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, impact study, motorway, principle of subsidiarity, protected area

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/273

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What measures can be taken to increase the funding of the MARE Programme, with a view to

supporting the existing projects in the fishing ports of the Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take in collaboration the Portuguese Government, to
support the modernisation of the fishing fleet and the building of new canning factories in the area,
given the rising unemployment and the fact that some 50 % of the vessels belonging to these fishing
ports are already elderly?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region is receiving transitional
level support under Objective 1 and is
therefore subject to the Berlin profile ceiling for the Structural Funds at Community support framework
level. This means that any increase in funding for the region under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries
Guidance (FIFG) must be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in assistance from the other Funds.

FIFG support for the region, which was set at EUR 32 988 million for the period 2000-2006, is channelled
exclusively through the MARE Operational Programme. Commitments to date amount to EUR 30,2 million,
and the projects submitted up to the date of publication of Portaria No 252/2004 corresponded to three
times the level of available appropriations.

Under Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the
detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (1), public
aid for the renewal of fishing vessels will no longer be authorised after 31 December 2004.

To meet the increased need for FIFG appropriations, under the mid-term programming adaptations
provided for in Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down
general provisions on the Structural Funds (2), FIFG funding is to be increased by allocating part of the
performance reserve to this and by minor transfers of appropriations from the European Regional
Development Fund. This additional funding may prove inadequate to cope with the volume of projects
submitted, but the Berlin profile ceiling for the regions receiving transitional level support prevents any
further increase.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2004/C 88 E/0278)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1027/04

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

Subject: Respect for Community environmental legislation

(26 March 2004)

The conservation and restoration of biodiversity are stated objectives of the Commission. The Community
sphere has the à priori wherewithal to meet these challenges, including ‘inter alia’ the Birds and Habitats
Directives, and the Directive on Environmental Impact Studies. The Member States have incorporated the
main provisions of this Community framework within their own national legislation.

However, the balance sheet for the transposition of these directives, particularly in France, is unfortunately
less than satisfactory. Since territorial development programmes are a major source of adverse impact on
biodiversity, the prior legal conditions which have to be met before implementing any structural project,
above all, affecting Natura 2000 sites, should correctly incorporate the conservation imperative.

C 88 E/274

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

impact remains in full

The cases of the A831 in the marshlands of Poitiers or the A28 motorway in Sarthe demonstrate that the
implementing procedures come nowhere near meeting the objectives of the texts in question. The sectoral
approach to environmental
thus allowing the schemes to minimise
environmental damage and benefit from the obligation to choose the least harmful solutions in terms of
impact in Natura 2000 sites. This means that the investigative procedures are virtually no different from
traditional impact studies, which de facto neglect the strict protection status of certain species or habitats,
by the direct destruction or fragmentation of biotopes. Furthermore, the fact that those promoting the
damaging work have recourse to provisions permitting derogations is becoming a rule, and helping to
deprive the Directives in question of any force at the very time when conservation of biodiversity should
be being integrated into public policies.

force,

1. What steps does the Commission intend to take to give these Directives their real force, both within
a general framework and in the specific instances cited, in order properly to reflect the account taken of
biodiversity in European policies?

2. What inspection procedures does the Commission plan to introduce in order to bring this glaring
sideways slippage under control?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

With regard to the general framework the Honourable Member refers to, the Commission would point out
that Council Directives 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and 92/43/EEC
of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) are designed to
ensure the conservation of bird species, natural habitats and wild fauna and flora in order to contribute to
the general objective of biodiversity.

Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC are based on the principle of subsidiarity. As a result, Member
States have a wide margin of manoeuvre in their practical implementation of specific measures to manage
and protect sites in the Natura 2000 network. Each Member State is thus responsible for implementing
Community law through its national legislation. However, even if Member States are free to choose their
preferred method of implementing practical measures, the measures must comply with the Directive’s
general objective and with the specific objectives of its various provisions.

The Commission, which pursuant
the EC Treaty is responsible for seeing that
Community law is properly applied, intervenes with a Member State whenever a report indicates failure to
meet the requirements of Community legislation.

to Article 211 of

Regarding the particular cases cited by the Honourable Member, the Commission has addressed several
requests for information to the French authorities in the course of its examination of a complaint
concerning the A831 motorway project in the ‘Marais poitevin’, a project which has yet to receive the final
go-ahead. The Commission is currently examining this dossier. The Commission has also sent the French
authorities a reasoned opinion for their failure to comply with the provisions of Council Directive 85/337/
EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (3), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (4), and Directive 92/43/EEC
in respect of reparcelling operations connected with construction of the stretch of the A28 motorway
between Le Mans and Tours.

The Commission will take all necessary steps to safeguard the integrity of Natura 2000 sites and the
coherency of the network, if necessary by instituting infringement procedures.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.