Non-implementation of Wild Birds and Habitats Directives.
NEWS
© Copyright 2002 to 2006 Countryside Ireland Ltd.
This page was last updated on Monday, August 20, 2007
Commission acts against ten member states for non-implementation of Wild Birds and Habitats Directives
IP/02/1060 - Brussels, 16 July 2002
The European Commission has decided that Finland is to be the subject of a referral to the Court of Justice and a second written warning or Reasoned Opinion, under Article 226 of the Treaty, in respect of its hunting laws.
Luxembourg is to be referred to the Court for not providing sufficient protection areas for its wild birds and for not adequately safeguarding them.
The Commission has also decided to send France a Reasoned Opinion, under Article 228 of the Treaty, for failing to comply with a 1999 ruling of the Court of Justice requiring the protection of the Marais Poitevin, an important wetland site and natural habitat for wild birds.
The United Kingdom, Finland, Portugal and Italy are all to receive Reasoned Opinions with regard to plans, projects or activities that could potentially threaten important habitats.
Sweden is to be sent a Reasoned Opinion for failing to nominate sufficient habitats for protection under the Habitats Directive.
The Commission is also sending a first warning or Letter of Formal Notice to the Netherlands, Spain, France, Italy and Luxembourg.
This is part of a concerted effort to obtain implementation reports covering the period 1994 to 2000 from all Member States, as required by the Habitats Directive. Commenting on the decisions, Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallström, said: "EU nature legislation must be better implemented if we are really serious about protecting the Community's endangered wildlife."
On 25 November 1999, the Court of Justice ruled against France for its failure to fully designate and protect the Marais Poitevin wetland as a special protection area under the Wild Birds Directive (Case C-1998/096). France has since made some progress towards meeting the ruling. It has increased the designated area and taken steps to improve the protection regime. However, shortcomings still remain. For example, not all the habitats that are important for birds have yet been designated, and there is a lack of information on certain measures, including those required to reverse previous cases of serious habitat damage. The Commission has, therefore, decided to send a Reasoned Opinion, under Article 228 of the Treaty, for non-compliance with the Court ruling.
Together with several other Member States, France is to receive a Letter of Formal Notice for failing to send its first general report on the implementation of the Habitats Directive. This report should cover the period 1994 to 2000, and was due by September 2001.
The Court referral decided against Finland concerns official approval of spring hunting of waterfowl. This contravenes the prohibition in the Wild Birds Directive on hunting during the breeding and rearing seasons. Although the Directive allows exceptions (known as derogations), strict conditions must be respected. The Commission believes that Finland is not fulfilling these. For example, spring hunting is not limited to small numbers of birds.
The Reasoned Opinion on hunting relates to the wolf, the brown bear and the lynx. Hunting of these strictly protected large carnivores is prohibited under the Habitats Directive(1). As with the Wild Birds Directive, derogations are possible, but only if strict conditions are fulfilled. These include an absence of alternative solutions, and evidence that animals cause serious damage. The Commission considers that the practice of granting licences for the hunting of wolf, brown bear and lynx in Finland does not respect these conditions. Licences are regularly granted without a link to individuals causing serious damage and in spite of alternative solutions being available.
Finland is also to receive a Reasoned Opinion for failing to properly apply safeguards required by the Habitats Directive to a power-line project linking Länsikylä with Kymi. The Commission believes that the project will have a negative impact on important natural sites at Pernajanlahti (which is both a special protection area under the Wild Birds Directive and a nominated site under the Habitats Directive) and Ahvenkoskenlahti (which is a nominated site under the Habitats Directive and, partly, a special protection area).
The Commission has decided to refer Luxembourg to the Court over gaps in its network of special protection areas, which are required under the Wild Birds Directive, and because of weaknesses in its legislation for protecting such areas. Luxembourg has made significant progress in designating special protection areas but, in the Commission's view, a limited number of areas of importance to wild birds still need to be designated. Furthermore, Luxembourg has still not developed an adequate legal protection regime for all of its designated areas. Similar action has already been taken against several other Member States with a view to completing the overall EU network.
Together with several other Member States, Luxembourg is to receive a Letter of Formal Notice for failing to send its first general report on the implementation of the Habitats Directive. This report should cover the period 1994 to 2000, and was due by September 2001.
Together with several other Member States, Spain is to receive a Letter of Formal Notice for failing to send its first general report on the implementation of the Habitats Directive. This report should cover the period 1994 to 2000, and was due by September 2001.
Italy is to receive a Reasoned Opinion as a result of its approval of a development plan for tourism and sport centres, holiday villages and hotel complexes in the municipality of L'Aquila. This plan could affect a designated special protection area under the Wild Birds Directive, the Parco Nazionale Gran Sasso Monti della Laga, as well as twenty-two sites nominated for protection under the Habitats Directive within the area. The Commission is concerned that no proper environmental impact assessment was first carried out or considered before the plan was approved, and that appropriate steps were not taken to avoid damaging sensitive habitats.
Together with several other Member States, Italy is to receive a Letter of Formal Notice for failing to send its first general report on the implementation of the Habitats Directive. This report should cover the period 1994 to 2000, and was due by September 2001.
The United Kingdom is to receive a Reasoned Opinion for allowing environmentally damaging dredge fishing operations to take place in Carmarthen Bay without having carried out a prior environmental impact assessment. This important natural site is also inadequately designated under the Wild Birds Directive, as no special protection area has been declared for the common scoter .
Portugal is to receive a Reasoned Opinion for two reasons: firstly, because it failed to fully designate Moura/Mourão/Barrancos as a special protection area under the Wild Birds Directive. Secondly, because it approved the siting of a paper production plant in the area in spite of the negative effects that this would have on wild birds and their habitats.
Together with several other Member States, the Netherlands is to receive a Letter of Formal Notice for failing to send its first general report on the implementation of the Habitats Directive. This report should cover the period 1994 to 2000, and was due by September 2001.
Sweden will receive a Reasoned Opinion because the list of sites that it has nominated as part of the Natura 2000 network under the Habitats Directive is inadequate. The complete list was due by 1 January 1998, but certain important habitats still do not feature on it.
Legislation
The Wild Birds Directive is the Community's oldest piece of nature conservation legislation. It creates a comprehensive scheme of protection for the Community's wild bird species. There are a number of separate but related components to this scheme. One relates to habitat conservation, and includes a requirement to designate Special Protected Areas (SPAs) for migratory and other vulnerable wild bird species. A second consists of a series of bans imposed on activities that directly threaten birds (such as the deliberate destruction of nests and the taking of eggs) and associated activities such as trading in live or dead birds. A third component establishes rules that limit the number of species that can be hunted and the periods during which they can be hunted (hunting seasons should not include periods of greatest vulnerability such as return from migration, reproduction and the raising of chicks). Rules also define certain permitted methods of hunting (for example, non-selective hunting methods). For the second and third components, derogations can be granted provided that strict requirements are met and provided that no other satisfactory solution is possible.
The Habitats Directive provides a comprehensive protection scheme for a range of animals and plants, as well as for a selection of habitat types. It provided for the creation, by June 1998, of a network of protected sites known as Natura 2000, which embrace SPAs designated under Wild Birds Directive and sites proposed by Member States under the Habitats Directive. The sites proposed by Member States must be based on scientific criteria and scientific information. All sites in the network must respect the stipulated safeguards. These include the prior assessment of potentially damaging plans and projects, the requirement that these plans and projects be approved only if they represent an overriding interest and only if is no alternative solution exists, and measures for fixing compensation in the event of damage. Once fully in place, this network should ensure that the best examples of EU natural habitats, and areas hosting rare and endangered plant and animal species, are properly conserved and protected. The Habitats Directive is the Community's flagship contribution to safeguarding global bio-diversity.
Delays in the submission of site proposals by Member States (which were originally due by June 1995) have meant that the completion of the Natura 2000 network has fallen seriously behind schedule. In addition to providing for the creation of Natura 2000, the Habitats Directive provides for a ban on the downgrading of breeding and resting places for certain animal species. Derogations can be granted, but only under strict conditions.
As guardian of the EC Treaty, the Commission must ensure that the legal requirements of the Treaty and legislation adopted under the Treaty are respected by Member States.
Article 226 of the Treaty gives the Commission powers to take legal action against a Member State that is not respecting its obligations.
If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of Community law that warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a "Letter of Formal Notice" to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date, usually two months.
In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a "Reasoned Opinion" (or second written warning) to the Member State. This clearly and definitively sets out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of Community law and calls upon the Member State to comply within a specified period, usually two months.
If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the Court of Justice.
For current statistics on infringements in general see:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm
Wolves in the reindeer herding area of Northern Finland are not covered by the prohibition.
Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild
birds
Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild flora and fauna