title: Report from the Commission on the application of Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds - Update for 1993-1995 based on information supplied by the Member States on the application of national measures adopted pursuant to the Directive

eurovoc_concepts:
EC Directive
bird
protected area
protected species
wildlife

formats: html pdf

text: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 29. 03. 2000 COM(2000) 180 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ON THE APPLICATION OF DIRECTIVE 79/409/EEC ON THE CONSERVATION OF WILD BIRDS UPDATE FOR 1993-1995 based on information supplied by the Member States on the application of national measures adopted pursuant to the Directive TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2. INTRODUCTION. 3 CONSERVATION STATUS OF SPECIES (ARTICLES 1 AND 2). 4 2. 1. Objectives of these articles. 4 2. 2. Bird population trends and status. 4 2. 3. Information supplied by the Member States in their three-yearly report. 5 3. PRESERVATION OF HABITATS AND NETWORK OF SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS (ARTICLES 3 AND 4). 5 3. 1. Objectives of these articles. 5 3. 2. Establishment of the network of Special Protection Areas, by Member State. 6 3. 3. Coherence of the Special Protection Areas network. 8 4. HUNTING, CAPTURE, KILLING AND SALE (ARTICLES 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9). 9 4. 1. Objectives of these articles. 9 4. 2. New legislation introduced during the period concerned, major amendments to existing legislation. 10 4. 3. Changes in the hunting regimes of the Member States, concerning the number of species hunted, the season opening and closing dates and exclusion zones. 15 4. 4. Major derogations from the system of protection which have appeared during the period in question, or which have disappeared or been amended (Article 9). 20 5. RESEARCH AND ACCOMPANYING MEASURES (ARTICLES 10, 11 (13 AND 14)). 20 5. 1. Objectives of these articles. 20 5. 2. Research and necessary work undertaken by the Commission. 21 5. 3. Research and required work undertaken by Member States. 22 5. 4. Introduction of bird species which do not occur naturally in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States. 25 2 1. INTRODUCTION This report has been drawn up on the basis of the information contained in the national reports sent to the Commission by the Member States pursuant to Article 12 of the Directive. It covers the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 for most of the Member States and 1995 alone for Sweden, Finland and Austria. The report is confined to significant changes as compared with the previous situation (see COM(93)572 final, "Second report on the application of Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (1981-1991)", and 1992 supplement). In addition to the Member States' three-yearly reports, account is also taken of information sent by them to the Commission pursuant to Articles 4 and 9 of the Directive. Directive 79/409/EEC1, as amended by Directives 81/854/EEC2, 85/411/EEC3, 86/122/EEC4, 91/244/EEC5, 94/24/EC6 and the acts relating to the accession of Greece7, Spain and Portugal8, Austria, Sweden and Finland9, establishes a general system of protection for all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States that is covered by the Treaty. The purpose of the Directive is to protect and manage these species and to regulate the hunting and capture of such species. It concerns wild birds as well as their eggs, nests and habitats. Article 1 of Directive 79/409/EEC specifies what the Directive applies to. It concerns species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States (except for Greenland). It applies to birds as well as their eggs, nests and habitats. Article 2 sets the objective of protecting all of these bird species and links this objective with their ecological needs and the scientific, cultural, recreational and economic requirements of the general public. The Directive focuses on two major themes: the protection of habitats as required by Articles 3 and 4 and hunting, capture, killing and sale as regulated by Articles 5 to 9. Article 10 seeks to encourage the development of research into the protection of wild birds by the Member States. Article 11 provides that Member States see that any introduction of non-native species does not prejudice the local flora and fauna. Article 12 requires Member States to forward to the Commission a report on the implementation of national provisions introduced under the Directive. For the period which 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979, p. 1. OJ L 319, 7. 11. 1981, p. 3. OJ L 233, 30. 8. 1985, p. 33. OJ L 100, 16. 4. 1986, p. 22. OJ L 115, 8. 5. 1991, p. 41 OJ L 164, 30. 6. 1991, p. 9. OJ L 291, 19. 11. 1979, p. 17. OJ L 302, 15. 11. 1985, p. 221. OJ L 1, 1. 1. 1995, p. 125. 3 concerns us (1993-1995), several Member States have sent their reports in late, the last one having reached the Commission at the end of April 1999. In no case can the measures taken pursuant to the Directive lead to a deterioration in the situation as regards the conservation of species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States (Article 13) and the Member States may introduce stricter protective measures than those provided for under the Directive (Article 14). Articles 15 to 19 are procedural articles providing in particular for the setting up of an advisory committee for adapting the Directive to technical and scientific progress in order to make possible whatever changes are necessary, lay down procedures and fix reporting dates. 2. CONSERVATION STATUS OF SPECIES (ARTICLES 1 AND 2) Objectives of these articles 2. 1. • Article 1 specifies what It concerns species, the Directive applies to. i. e. whole populations and individuals, whatever their provenance. Excluded are populations of domestic forms easily recognisable as such, even those which have returned to the wild state (e. g. the free populations of feral pigeon), as are species present in the Community only in populations deliberately or accidentally introduced and any individuals found which have clearly escaped from captivity. Also excluded are specimens living in captivity. The list of species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States is naturally built up by the addition of lists accepted by the avifauna committees of the Member States or, failing that, by the compilers of avifauna listings. • Article 2 sets the objective of protecting all the bird species covered by the Directive and links this objective both to their ecological needs and to the public's scientific, cultural, recreational and economic requirements. It explicitly provides for a policy of conservation on the one hand and of management and, if necessary, restoration or limitation on the other. 2. 2. Bird population trends and status An update of the status of European bird species was published by BirdLife International in 1994. This is the best scientific information currently available, as has been recognised by the ORNIS Committee, the steering group for the Directive. This study, the result of four years of data collection and analysis, has for the first time made it possible to document the extent of the population decline for all bird species throughout Europe. The study identifies 514 species of birds regularly observed in Europe. 236 of these have a fairly good conservation status and are widely distributed beyond the frontiers of Europe. Of the 278 others, 83 also have a positive conservation status but their distribution is centred on Europe. Altogether 319 species out of 514 (62%) have a conservation status that is considered to be generally satisfactory. The rest, i. e. 195 species or 38%, have an unsatisfactory status, either because these species are showing a marked decline or because they have a (sometimes very) limited distribution. Almost 25% of species regularly observed in Europe have undergone a substantial decline in numbers over the last 20 years. 4 Since birds generally cope well with environmental changes it is to be feared that their decline mirrors what is happening to many animal or plant groups: a pronounced deterioration in biodiversity in Europe, both in the distribution and the abundance of species. The decline in the case of most diminishing bird populations is the result of changes in land use and management techniques. The intensification of agriculture is the main loss factor, or at least one, for 42% of declining species. Another important factor is destroyed and damaged habitats, especially in wetlands. Hunting, capture, killing and sale sometimes have an adverse effect on these threatened species, but this is more usually of a secondary nature. 2. 3. Information supplied by the Member States in their three-yearly report In their three-yearly report to the Commission under Article 12, Member States are not required to inform the Commission on the implementation of these two articles, which lay down general obligations under the Directive. Nevertheless, the three new Member States describe the state of their legislation and Ireland lists the various amendments to the Wildlife Act 1976 which permit the wild birds Directive to be applied at the national level. 3. PRESERVATION OF HABITATS AND NETWORK OF SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS (ARTICLES 3 AND 4) Objectives of these articles 3. 1. • Article 3 expresses the absolute necessity to preserve or improve bird habitats, a sine qua non for achieving the aims of the Directive. It brings in the ideas of sufficient diversity and size of habitats. It provides for an approach based on two lines of action: creating protected and managed areas and taking general steps to ensure favourable development of habitats. Like Article 2, its approach is one not just of conserving habitats but also of restoring them and even creating new ones. The protection of habitats is an obligation based on formal commitments. • Article 4 is a central element in the Directive. It describes the protective steps to be taken to ensure habitats suitable for a number of particularly vulnerable species listed in Annex I to the Directive and for migratory species. Once again it takes a twin approach, with specific measures taken throughout the territory on the one hand and the establishment of a network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) on the other. These are areas designated by the Member States sufficient in number and size to guarantee favourable conditions for the species in question throughout their territories. The Commission has undertaken to ensure the cohesion and suitability of the network set up. Clearly the network does not have to achieve the protection objective by itself. It does, however, have to achieve a part of it which is the larger the more vulnerable the species is to habitat changes and the less external action is therefore to be expected. During the period in question a fundamental change in the law is to be expected in the area covered by the Directive. The obligations described in the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409/EEC have, according to Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC, been replaced by those of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of this Directive since its implementation in June 1994. Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC reads as follows: 5 1. 2. 3. take appropriate steps to avoid, Member States shall in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of NATURA 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest. 3. 2. Establishment of the network of Special Protection Areas, by Member State Belgium • No new area designated in 1993, 1994 or 1995. Denmark • No new area designated in 1993, 1994 or 1995. • Numerous measures have been taken to avoid the deterioration of habitats or prevent significant disturbance. Germany • The designation of Special Protection Areas is the responsibility of the Länder. • During the period in question (1993-1995) no new Special Protection Area was designated. • Any intended change within the Special Protection Areas is subject to prior approval by the competent authorities. Greece • No new Special Protection Area designated during the period in question. 6 Spain • During the period in question ten new Special Protection Areas were designated in Spain, covering a total of 144 880 ha. At the end of 1995 there were 149 Special Protection Areas covering some 25 338 km² (2 533 790 ha) in Spain. France • Eight new Special Protection Areas were designated during the period in question. Also, seven SPAs which had previously been designated were extended. These designations and extensions gave protection to an additional 46 052 ha. At the end of 1995, 99 SPAs covering an area of 706 992 ha had been designated in France Ireland • Ireland conducted a special designation campaign during the period in question. 54 new Special Protection Areas were designated in 1994 and 1995 and 34 additional sites were announced. These SPAs cover more than 150 000 ha. A total of 75 SPAs totalling 157 806 ha had been designated in Ireland at the end of 1995. Italy • During the period in question six new Special Protection Areas were designated in Italy, covering a total of 6 000 ha. At the end of 1995 there were 80 SPAs totalling 3 164 km² (316 400 ha) in Italy. Luxembourg • From 1993 to 1995 three new Special Protection Areas were designated in Luxembourg, covering 1 272 ha. Six SPAs had been designated at the end of 1995 covering an area of 1 389 ha. Netherlands • During the period in question 11 new Special Protection Areas were designated. Together they cover a total area of 22 135 ha. Austria • No Special Protection Area was designated during the period in question in Austria (Member State since 1 January 1995). Portugal • No new Special Protection Area was designated during the period in question. Sweden • No Special Protection Area was designated during the period in question in Sweden (Member State since 1 January 1995). However, in a first decision dated 21 December 1995 the Swedish Government signalled its intention to designate around 80 SPAs. 7 Finland • No Special Protection Area was designated during the period in question in Finland (Member State since 1 January 1995). However, survey work started in 1994 and the Finnish Environment Centre was given the task of area selection, scientific direction of the survey work and database management and map production. (The first proposal prepared by the Ministry of the Environment for the NATURA 2000 network on the scale of the whole country was ready in October 1996). United Kingdom • 50 new Special Protection Areas were designated between 1993 and 1995 and one SPA was extended. Some of these new SPAs are particularly important, such as the New Forest, Bowland Fells and the Humber and Severn estuaries. By the end of 1995 this brought the number of SPAs in the United Kingdom to 113, covering a total area of more than 365 000 ha. • Considerable efforts were made in the area of management and designation of new sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs). Environmentally sensitive areas were increased. • Other plans encouraging the restoration of habitats and more nature-friendly management of the environment also received funding. • Measures were taken both in and outside the SPAs to limit lead pollution (pollution due to the use of lead shot in hunting and lead weights in fishing). • Land surveys were carried out during the period in question with the aim of identifying new areas of potential importance for birds which may possibly be included in the network of protection areas. Conclusion: During the period in question, 148 new Special Protection Areas were designated and the area thus protected increased by nearly 5 719 km², i. e. by more than 8. 5% over the previous period. 3. 3. Coherence of the Special Protection Areas network By 31 December 1995 there were 1 247 Special Protection Areas10 covering 71 679 km², i. e. equivalent to the area of Belgium and the Netherlands combined (but also only 3% of the area of the EU). Evaluating the coherence of this network requires figures on the population sizes of Annex I species present in the SPAs. The data supplied by the Member States is often far too incomplete for the Commission to be able to evaluate directly the adequacy of the network for its protection requirements, but there are other ways of evaluating this and in particular assessing how far the network achieves its objectives. As a reminder, Annex I to the Directive contains species with adverse or potentially adverse population dynamics, species which are vulnerable due to intrinsic distribution and population structure characteristics, specialised species and species with precise habitat requirements. 10 271 Special Protection Areas, covering a total area of 86 km², were designated in Baden-Württemberg for nature conservation reasons other than their importance for birds. 8 Most of them have high vulnerability ratings based on distribution data, population dynamics and habitat characteristics. Action which the Member States agree to take in the SPAs is intended to achieve specific conservation objectives and therefore often varies according to these objectives. Measures range from very demanding ones covering small areas like nature reserves to broad-based integrated measures encompassing very large areas and differing from global environmental action only in their geographical confinement and their imperative nature. The 1 247 areas designated form part of the Important Bird Areas in Europe. A complete survey of these areas has been prepared with the financial support of the European Commission and published in 1989 (Grimmet R. F. A. and T. A. Jones, 1989: Important Bird Areas in Europe). Some Member States have since added to this survey. An analysis of how far each country has designated areas of importance to bird conservation has shown that at the end of the period in question only five countries had designated more than half of the IBAs within their territory. Major efforts were still needed in most Member States. 4. HUNTING, CAPTURE, KILLING AND SALE (ARTICLES 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9) Objectives of these articles 4. 1. • Article 5 establishes a general system of protection save where specific provisions are made. It prohibits killing or capturing birds, destroying or damaging their nests and eggs, taking eggs, disturbing birds, and keeping species the hunting of which is prohibited by Article 7 or the capture of which is prohibited by Article 9. • Generally speaking, to prevent commercial interests from exerting a possible harmful pressure on exploitation levels it is necessary to impose a general sales ban and to restrict all derogation to those species whose biological status so permits. Certain species (see Annex III to the Directive) may, however, be sold provided that certain limits are respected. Article 6 therefore prohibits the sale of live or dead birds or any parts of birds of the species covered by the Directive, including those which may be hunted or captured, other than those listed in Annex III. • Article 7 authorises hunting, including falconry. It limits hunting to the species listed in annex II, selected solely on the basis of biological criteria: population level, geographical distribution and reproductive rate. jeopardise conservation efforts elsewhere in the distribution area and that it must comply with the principles of "wise use" and "ecologically balanced control", compatible with the requirements of Article 2. requires that hunting must not It • Article 8 prohibits the use of all means of large-scale or non-selective capture or killing of birds. • Article 9 provides for the possibility of derogation from the articles on hunting, capture, killing and sale, for three types of reason: 9 1. The birds are assumed to have caused a particular problem or a particular kind of damage. This is only applicable "in the interests of public health and safety, in the interests of air safety, to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water, and for the protection of flora and fauna". An exception may therefore be made "where there is no other satisfactory solution" (Article 9(1)(a)). 2. For the purposes of research, teaching, repopulation or reintroduction, but always under strict supervision and where there is no other satisfactory solution (Article 9(1)(b)). 3. ". under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers" may be permitted. "Judicious" means that such use must be conducive to the general objectives of the Directive (Article 9(1)(c)). 4. There can be no exemption either from the formal requirements laid down by the Directive for maintaining bird populations at levels corresponding to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements (Article 2), or from the requirements to maintain habitats and to avoid pollution (Articles 3 and 4). Strict conditions are set for the granting of these derogations, including that there must be no satisfactory alternative and there must always be strict supervision. In the case of the third reason there is also the limitation to "small numbers". This is of course a relative concept and, when the derogation concerns hunting, capture, killing or sale, is best expressed by a comparison between the losses due to these activities and the annual death rate of the populations concerned by the derogation. A derogation involving a loss amounting to less than 1% of the annual death rate for these populations may be considered mathematically as affecting a "small number", since its impact is less than the uncertainty attached to the reproduction and mortality rates. In this case the loss is also "small" by comparison with the typical figures for hunting operations, which is compatible with dealing with hunting by means of a general provision (Article 7) of the Directive and capture, killing and sale by means of a derogation. 4. 2. New legislation introduced during the period concerned, major amendments to existing legislation Article 5: General system of protection for all species of birds covered by the Directive Important changes to the general system of protection for bird species which have entered into force during the three years covered are presented Member State by Member State, and where appropriate region by region. Belgium No change in the Flemish Region. One new decree was issued in the Brussels Region. This decree protects all bird species. The Walloon Region brought itself into line with Directive 79/409/EEC. 10 Denmark Law 209 of 6 May 1993 concerning hunting and the management of hunting resources entered into force in April 1994. Germany No change to the general system of protection. In 1994 an "amendment" to the Bundesartenschutzverordnung (Protection of Species Order) resulted in the addition of a number of species from Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC to the list of species considered to be under threat of extinction in Germany. Greece No change to the general system of protection. Some changes made to the list of species which can be hunted. Details of these are given in the next section. Spain No change to the general system of protection during the period in question. Law 4/89 of 27 March 1989 and Royal Decree 439/1990 of 30 March 1990 continue to be the texts establishing the general system of protection in Spain. During the period concerned certain autonomous regions (Aragon, Castile-Leon, Extremadura, Murcia, Navarre) promulgated regional implementing decrees setting out, amongst other things, regional lists of threatened species and regional plans for their conservation and restoration. France No change to the general system of protection during the period in question. Ireland No change to the general system of protection during the period in question. Italy No change to the general system of protection during the period in question. Law 157 of 1992 remains the key document with regard to wildlife protection and hunting. Luxembourg The report reviews the status of the legislation. The Law of 2 April 1993 amends and supplements Luxembourg legislation on hunting. These changes affect amongst other things the conditions and modalities of awarding hunting rights and the possibility for environmental associations to take legal action. Netherlands During the period in question the following amendments were made to the law: – – the amendments made necessary to the Laws on Hunting and Birds of 1936 by the implementation of the birds Directive entered into force in 1993; the use of lead shot in hunting was banned. 11 Austria Austria acceded to the European Union on 1 January 1995. In Austria the obligations arising out of Directive 79/409/EEC are the responsibility of the Provinces. Vienna The following legislation concerning Directive 79/409/EEC was valid in the Province of Vienna in 1995: 1. 2. 3. 4. the Nature Protection and Management Law of 19 October 1984 (Wiener Naturschutzgesetz 1984) (LGBl. 6/1985); the Wild Plant and Animal Protection Order of 12 February 1985 (Erste Wiener Naturschutzverordnung) (LGBl. 7/1985); the Regulation of Hunting Law (Wiener Jagdgesetz) (LGBl. 6/1948); the Season Closing Dates for Huntable Species Order (LGBl. 26/1975). Lower Austria Directive 79/409/EEC is implemented in Lower Austria by: 1. 2. 3. the Nature Protection in Lower Austria Law (LGBl. 5500); the Wild Plant and Animal Protection Order (LGBl. 5500/2); the Lower Austria Hunting Law (LGBl. 6500) and implementing Orders (LGBl. 6500/1). Burgenland In Burgenland the legislation valid in 1995 comprised: 1. 2. 3. the General Nature Conservation Order of 11 March 1992 covering the preservation of habitats important to wild plants and animals and the conservation of plant and animal species (LGBl. 24/1992); the Burgenland Nature Conservation and Countryside Protection Law of 15 November 1990 (LGBl. 27/1991); the Law of 27 October 1993 amending the Law of 15 November 1990 (LGBl. 1/1994). Upper Austria In Upper Austria the legislation valid in 1995 comprised: 1. the Upper Austrian Nature Conservation and Countryside Protection Law (LGBl. 37/1995); 12 the Implementing Order of the Government of Upper Austria of 11 December 1995 in conformity with the Nature Conservation and Countryside Protection Law (LGBl. 110/1995); the Season Closing Dates for Huntable Species Order of the Government of Upper Austria of 7 May 1990 (LGBl. 30/1990). 2. 3. Styria In Styria the implementation of Directive 79/409/EEC required amendment of the legislation. In June 1995 a new Styrian Nature Conservation Law appeared taking into account the requirements of the birds Directive and of Directive 92/43/EEC. Carinthia In Carinthia the legislation has been brought into line with Directive 79/409/EEC by: 1. 2. 3. the Decree (LGBl. 87/1995) implementing the Carinthian Nature Protection Law (LGBl. 54/1986); the Animal Protection Order (LGBl. 3/1989); the amendment LGBl. 108/1996 to the 1978 Hunting Law. Salzburg In 1995 the legislation connected with nature conservation in Salzburg Province was as follows: the Salzburg Nature Conservation Law (LGBl. 1/1993 and LGBl. 65/1994); the Plant Species Protection Order (LGBl. 46/1994); the Animal Species Protection Order (LGBl. 12/1980, brought up to date by LGBl. 55/1981 and 10/1989); the Hunting Law (LGBl. 100/1993); the Hunting Season Closing Dates Order (LGBl. 33/1987). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Tyrol In the Tyrol the following legislation was in force in 1995: 1. 2. 3. the Tyrol Nature Conservation Law of 18 March 1991 (LGBl. 29/1991); the Tyrol Nature Conservation Order of 22 April 1975 covering the protection of wild plants and non-game animals (LGBl. 29/1975); the Tyrol Hunting Law (LGBl. 60/1983) with its amendments (LGBl. 68/1983) and the implementing Orders (LGBl. 19/1995) with their amendments (LGBl. 30/1996). 13 Vorarlberg The following legislation was in force in Vorarlberg in 1995: 1. 2. 3. the Vorarlberg Nature Conservation Law of 26 August 1969 (LGBl. 36/1969), as amended on 18 May 1988 by the Law (LGBl. 23/1988); the Vorarlberg Wild Plant and Non-Game Animal Conservation Order (10/1979), as amended by Order LGBl. 41/1988); the Vorarlberg Countryside Protection Order (LGBl. 1/1982), as amended by Order LGBl. 22/1988). Portugal Decree-Law No 224/1993 transposes the amendments to Annex I (see 91/244/EEC) to the birds Directive into national law. The transpositions necessary following amendment of Annex II (see 94/24/EEC) to the birds Directive are in preparation. Sweden Sweden joined the European Union on 1 January 1995. Work to prepare Swedish legislation to meet the environmental requirements of Community law had been started some years previously. As regards the provisions of Directive 79/409/EEC, the Swedish authorities consider that they have already to a large extent been implemented in Swedish law by existing statutory the bird protection provisions. Work to supplement Directive began in 1994. The following are the most important Swedish provisions in this area: • Nature Protection Law and Nature Protection Decree; the legislation taking into account • Hunting Law and Hunting Decree; • Farmland Cultivation Law; • Forest Protection Law; • Natural Resources Management Law; • Nature Protection Administration Decree, containing provisions on hunting (SNFS 1994:3); • Animal and Plant (Protected Species) Measures Law. Finland Finland became a member of the European Union on 1 January 1995, from which date the provisions of the birds Directive 79/409/EEC and of Directive 94/24/EEC amending Annex II to Directive 79/409/EEC became mandatory. The birds Directive 79/409/EEC served as a basis for the preparation of Finnish legislation even before Finland actually joined. 14 On 1 January 1995 the Nature Protection Law (Finnish Law Gazette 71/23), as amended and partially revised on numerous occasions, was in force. The task of the working party on this Law, set up by the Ministry of the Environment on 17 March 1993, was to prepare a proposal for a full revision of the Nature Protection Law. Since at that time no final decision had been made on Finland's accession to the European Union, the working party's mandate was to consider the obligations arising out of possible accession under Finnish nature conservation law. On 29 December 1994 the working party delivered its report containing a proposal for a law to implement Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. United Kingdom No new legislation introduced during the period in question. At European Union level it should be mentioned that the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) was prepared during the period in question. This Agreement falls under the Bonn Convention and was initialled in June 1995 by 53 countries in the distribution area of migratory waterbirds, including the countries of the European Union and the Community. 4. 3. Changes in the hunting regimes of the Member States, concerning the number of species hunted, the season opening and closing dates and exclusion zones Not all of the species are concerned by all of the provisions of Article 5 of the Directive. By virtue of their population level, geographical distribution and population dynamics throughout the Community, 24 species (Annex II/1) may be hunted in accordance with the legislation of the Member States. 56 other species (Annex II/2) may be hunted only in certain countries. However, none of these species may be hunted during the various stages of reproduction. In the case of migratory species this prohibition also includes the period when the birds are returning to their rearing grounds. the European Union level At (see Directive 94/24/EEC11) to the birds Directive. Certain corvids, gulls and terns and the starling have been added to Annex II/2. it became necessary to adapt Annex II introduced by Directive 94/24/EC amending Directive Following the amendments 79/409/EEC, consolidated Annexes II/1 and II/2 to the Directive appeared as follows at the end of the period in question: Table 1. Annexe II. 1 as amended Species Anser fabalis Anser anser Branta canadensis Anas penelope Anas strepera Anas crecca Anas plathyrhynchos Anas acuta Anas querquedula Anas clypeata Aythya ferina * * BE DK DE GR ES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 OJ L 164, 30. 6. 1994, p. 9. LU NL AT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PT * * * * * * * * * * SE * * * * * * * * * * * FI * * * * * * * * * * * UK * * * * * * * * * * * FR IE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IT * * * * * * * * * * 15 Aythya fuligula Lagopus l. scoticus Lagopus mutus Alectoris graeca Alectoris rufa Perdix perdix Phasianus colchicus Fulica atra Lymnocryptes minimus Gallinago gallinago Scolopax rusticola Columba livia (1) Columba palumbus * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (1) * The populations considered here are the wild populations of the species Columba livia and not populations derived from domestic pigeons The species is found in the Member State and may be hunted there pursuant to Article 7(3) Species for which there is a hunting season in the Member State at the end of the period in question Table 2. Annexe II. 2 as amended Species Cygnus olor Anser brachyrhynchus Anser albifrons Branta bernicla Netta rufina Aythya marila Somateria mollisima Clangula hyemalis Melanitta nigra Melanitta fusca Bucephala clangula Mergus serrator Mergus merganser Bonasa bonasia Lagopus l. lagopus Tetrao tetrix Tetrao urogallus Alectoris barbara Alectoris chukar Coturnix coturnix Meleagris gallopavo Rallus aquaticus Gallinula chloropus Haematopus ostralegus Pluvialis apricaria Pluvialis squatarola Vanellus vanellus Calidris canutus Philomachus pugnax Limosa limosa Limosa lapponica Numenius phaeopus BE DK DE GR ES * FR IE IT LU NL AT * PT SE FI UK * * * * * *M *M * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *M *M * * * * * * * * * * * * 16 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Numenius arquata Tringa erythropus Tringa totanus Tringa nebularia Larus ridibundus Larus cachinnans Larus canus Larus fuscus Larus argentatus Larus marinus Columba oenas Streptopelia decaocto Streptopelia turtur Alauda arvensis Turdus merula Turdus pilaris Turdus philomelos Turdus iliacus Turdus viscivorus Sturnus vulgaris Garrulus glandarius Pica pica Corvus monedula Corvus frugilegus Corvus corone * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * In accordance with Article 7(3) Member States may authorise hunting of these species *M Males only Species for which there is a hunting season in the Member State at the end of the period in question Article 6: Authorisation of marketing activities in respect of the species mentioned in Annex III/2, part 2 The required conditions are still met in all of the Member States and there has been no amendment of the law during the period in question. In the United Kingdom the control rules were examined in 1993 and 1994 and it was concluded that the control objectives (protecting wild species and upholding the rights of persons legally trading in dead birds) would be achieved more effectively by a system of generalised licensing. In Sweden, article 1 of the Law (SFS 1994:1818) contains a provision enabling the Government to issue the necessary orders, but these were not issued until after the period in question. In Finland the native game species in Annex III to the Directive may be marketed, with the exception of Anser albifrons, Aythya marila, Melanitta nigra, Pluvialis apricaria, Lymnocryptes minimus and Gallinago gallinago. Article 7: Taking, means of hunting and methods of capture The substantial changes in the list of huntable bird species and in the hunting seasons which entered into force during the three years covered are present Member State by Member State, and for the new Member States the state of legislation is shown. 17 Belgium No major change compared with the previous period. Denmark No information on this point in the report. Germany No change compared with the previous period. Greece Every year, usually in July, the Ministry of Agriculture publishes the "Annual Hunting Rules", which lay down the hunting seasons at the national level. In 1993 all species of geese (Anser spp. and Branta spp. ) were taken out of the list of huntable species in Greece. This meant in effect the removal of Anser fabalis and Anser albifrons from the list, the other species of geese regularly observed in Greece already being protected. In 1994 the main change concerned the reduction in the hunting season, closing on 28 February and not on 10 March as before. Also in 1994 the duck Anas strepera was taken off the list of huntable species. Four species were added to the list (Pica pica, Corvus monedula, C. Corone and Sturnus vulgaris) following the amendment of Annex II (see Directive 94/24/EEC) of the birds Directive. Spain No major change at Member State level compared with the previous period. France Two substantial changes during the period in question: • The procedure for implementing Directive 79/409/EEC in France is based on a staggering of season closing dates during the month of February. After this procedure had been disputed on a number of occasions a bill was placed before the French Parliament on 15 July 1994 (Law No 94/591). • Following the amendment of Annex II to Directive 79/409/EEC by Directive 94/24/EEC, Article R. 227-27 of the rural code was repealed in 1994. The species Sturnus vulgaris, Pica pica, Corvus frugilegus, Corvus corone and Garrulus glandarius which were the subject of this article are now considered to be huntable species and as such are covered by the decrees on hunting. Ireland No change compared with the previous period. Italy No major change compared with the previous period. 18 Luxembourg No change compared with the previous period. Netherlands No change compared with the previous period. Austria Austria joined the European Union on 1 January 1995. The state of legislation, in particular as regards hunting practice, is shown in point 4. 2 above. Portugal Decree-Law No 224/1993 of 18 June amends the list of species contained in the list of huntable species and thereby transposes into national law the amendments made to Directive 79/409/EEC by Directive 91/244/EEC. Sweden Sweden acceded to the European Union on 1 January 1995. The National Hunting Order lays down the periods during which hunting is authorised in the different regions of the country. As regards birds a distinction is made between "general hunting" and "protected hunting". The periods during which general hunting is permitted are shown in Annex 1 to the Order. The periods for protected hunting, intended to prevent damage caused by game, are set out in Annex 4. As a consequence of Sweden's accession to the EU, Annex 1 to Article. of the Hunting Order has been amended as follows: summer hunting of Scolopax rusticola is now banned and its opening put back to 21 August; the opening of hunting of Columba palumbus is postponed from 1 August to 1 September; Corvus Corone, Corvus monedula and Pica pica, which could previously be hunted all the year round can now be hunted only between 1 August and 15 April; the opening of the hunting season for Corvus frugilegus is postponed from 10 May to 1 August; the general hunting season for Phalacrocorax carbo and Corvus corax has been abolished. Finland Finland joined the European Union on 1 January 1995. The new Finnish Hunting Law (Finnish Law Gazette 615/93) entered into force on 1 August 1993 and in preparing it account was taken of the birds Directive. Of the species listed in Annex II/1 to Directive 79/409/EEC, Alectoris graeca and Alectoris rufa do not exist in Finland, Anas strepera, Lymnocryptes minimus and Gallinago gallinago are protected in Finland. United Kingdom No major change compared with the previous period. A survey has been carried out to measure the impact which implementation of the Commission's proposed amendment to Article 7 of the Directive might have had. This amendment sought to allow the hunting season to be extended (by putting back the closing date). The JNCC and the DOE have shown before an ad hoc Committee of the House of 19 Lords that this proposal might have had harmful effects on the British populations of some migratory bird species. The report of the House of Lords Committee repeats the conservation arguments and recommends that the Community proposal be withdrawn. September 1995 marks the start of the Government initiative to ban the use of lead shot for hunting in all wetlands for September 1997. Article 8: State of legislation as regards Annex IV to the Directive On the whole the Member States have adopted the necessary measures, often ahead of the Directive's entry into force. No major changes have been mentioned in the Member States' reports. It should, however, be noted that the provisions of Article 8 were formally brought into the German legislation in July 1994. 4. 4. Major derogations from the system of protection which have appeared during the period in question, or which have disappeared or been amended (Article 9) An annual compilation of the reports delivered by the Member States under Article 9 has been put together for the three years concerned. Table 3. Number of derogations per Member State BE (Belgium) DK (Denmark) DE (Germany) GR (Greece) ES (Spain) FR (France) IE (Ireland) IT (Italy) LU (Luxembourg) NL (Netherlands) AT (Austria) PT (Portugal) SE (Sweden) FI (Finland) UK (United Kingdom) 1993 21 12 99 4 51 39 18 5 4 29 * 7 * * 13 1994 20 12 118 4 58 34 22 25 0 31 * 7 * * 13 1995 19 17 169 4 72 33 23 33 0 27 7 17 32 4 13 * All the Member States sent their reports to the Commission on an annual basis. Austria, Sweden and Finland became Member States in 1995. Efforts have been made to simplify and standardise the procedure for communicating the derogations provided for in Directive 79/409/EEC. An information system has been developed, with a financial contribution from the Commission, by the JNCC Support Unit12. This collection and display system has a database containing all the derogations sent to the European Commission by the Member States. 12 The Joint Nature Conservation Committee is the reference body for the birds Directive in the United Kingdom. 20 5. RESEARCH AND ACCOMPANYING MEASURES (ARTICLES 10, 11 (13 AND 14)) Objectives of these articles 5. 1. • The protection of wildlife species very often involves management of their habitats. This management assumes a good knowledge of the factors which influence or sometimes determine the presence of a species or group of species in a given habitat. This knowledge, the result of spot observations and methodical research, still very often contains gaps or imperfections. Against such a background the scientific research which forms the basis of purposive management of bird populations and habitats is one of the pillars of the general system of protection of wild birds. There is therefore a need to stimulate its development and coordination between Member States. Article 10 of the Directive requires the Member States to carry out research work for the protection, management and exploitation of bird populations. Annex V to the Directive establishes a list of priorities for this. • Member States must see that any introduction of bird species which do not occur naturally in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States does not prejudice the local flora and fauna. Member States have to consult the Commission on any introduction project. Article 11 thus protects wild flora and fauna as a whole against unregulated introductions of species of bird that are not native to the European Union. 5. 2. Research and necessary work undertaken by the Commission Encouragement of research and of the work necessary for the protection, management and use of all the species of bird covered by Article 1. At the Community level, during the period in question and thanks to the financial support of a three-year LIFE Nature project, BirdLife International in partnership with Wetlands International has drawn up action plans for the 23 globally threatened species present in Europe. These plans were published by the Council of Europe in October 199613. The action plans supply information on their status, their ecology, the threats and the conservation measures in progress. They make it possible to define the conservation objectives clearly and to establish a priority action programme for each species. The 23 species concerned are also among the species given priority status in the LIFE Nature financial instrument. 25 projects focusing on actions identified as the most urgent for these species have already received financial support from the LIFE fund and its predecessors (see Table 4). Table 4. Financial support for the 23 globally threatened bird species in Europe under LIFE14 and its predecessors ACE and ACNAT15 (from "Action plans for Europe's globally threatened bird species" in NATURA 2000 Newsletter No 2, December 1996). Species Acrocephalus paludicola Number of projects - EC contribution in euro - - Country involved 13 14 15 Heredia B. , L. Rose and M. Painter (Eds. ) Globally threatened birds in Europe - Action plans. Council of Europe publications, Strasbourg 1996. LIFE Nature is the financial instrument supporting the European Union's environmental protection policy. ACE (Action by the Community relating to the Environment) and ACNAT (Action by the Community relating to Nature Conservation) were the financial instruments which preceded LIFE Nature. 21 Aegypius monachus Anser erythropus Aquila adalberti Aquila heliaca Branta ruficollis Chlamydotis undulata Columba bollii Columba junoniae Fringilla teydea Columba trocaz Crex crex Falco naumanni Larus audouinii Marmaronetta angustirostris Numenius tenuirostris Otis tarda Oxyura leucocephala Pelecanus crispus Phalacrocorax pygmaeus Pterodroma feae Pterodroma madeira Pyrrhula murina 1 1 1 - - 1 3 2 2 - 1 1 3 5 1 1 - 1 1 135. 000 Spain 400. 000 Greece 9. 157. 000 Spain - - 170. 000 Spain 1. 580. 000 Spain - - 950. 000 Portugal 1. 182. 000 Belgium, France, Ireland, UK - - 494. 000 Greece 300. 000 Spain 494. 000 Belgium, Greece, Italy 3. 649. 000 Portugal, Spain 20. 800 Italy 120. 000 Greece - - 800. 000 Portugal 350. 000 Portugal N. B. : Some species will have also benefited from LIFE funds through projects which had other species or habitats as their principal objective. During the period in question the ORNIS Committee also decided that management plans were a priority for huntable species with a poor conservation status. The first elements for these plans were put together during this period. 5. 3. Research and required work undertaken by Member States Information supplied by Member States is summarised below: Belgium • Long-term research continued (ringing especially). • The research agreement aimed at drawing up recommendations for more rational rearing of bird species subject to trapping in order to improve these species' reproduction in captivity and thereby cut down the numbers of wild specimens captured was extended during the period in question. Germany The work and research were being carried out at Land level (see Annex 4 to Germany's report), and included: • • conservation and important habitat restoration programmes for Annex I species (e. g. Wadden Sea National Park); rescue plans for threatened species (e. g. Ciconia ciconia); 22 • the continuation of longer-term research programmes, such as the ringing of birds. Greece • Continuation of long-term research programmes (including ringing and midwinter waterfowl censuses); • Scientific studies on the ecology and conservation of threatened species such as Pelecanus crispus and P. onocrotalus, Falcio eleonorae, Puffinus yelkouan, Calonectris diomedea. • Population survey of Falco naumanni. • Emergency measures to protect Numenius tenuirostris. Spain Numerous bird population studies and monitoring efforts were carried out in Spain between 1993 and 1995, at the level both of the Directorate-General for Nature Conservation and of the autonomous regions: • • • • • • • study of the impact of influenza on rabbit populations, the main food of numerous bird of prey; dispersal of young Aquila adalberti; dispersal of Hieraaetus fasciatus; lead poisoning in waterfowl; conservation plan for Gypaetus barbatus; reproduction strategy of Otis tarda and Tetrax tetrax; analysis of the status of Pterocles sp. in Spain. France The actions undertaken consist of: • • • • studies of population status and movements of threatened species (e. g. Ciconia negra, Ciconia ciconia, Phoenicopterus ruber, Lanius minor, Branta bernicla, Crex crex, Grus grus); programmes for reintroducing and increasing the populations of birds of prey, especially vultures and Neophron percnopterus), but also preparation of a project for reproduction in captivity of Hieraaetus fasciatus; fulvus, Aegypius monachus (Gypaetus barbatus, Gyps area surveillance programmes for threatened birds of prey in general and monitoring and rescue of broods of Circus spp. in agricultural environments; habitat management measures for Grus grus, Sterna spp. , Crex crex; establishing an action plan for Athene noctua; 23 • • • • scaring or impact Brittany, Branta bernicla; limitation measures for Phalacrocorax carbo, Larus argentatus in censuses of wintering Anatidae and waders. For Anatidae an analysis of the reproduction chronology has also been set up; censuses of breeding populations of Scolopax rusticola and Alaudidae, Colombidae and Turdidae; for various species of Gallinaceous birds (Alectoris graeca, Perdix perdix pyrenaica) and Tetraonidae (Tetrao urogallus, Tetrao tetrix, Bonasa bonasia and Lagopus mutus) action plans to maintain and conserve the populations are under way. Ireland Specific measures were carried out in Ireland during the period 1993-1995 concerning: • • • • the conservation of terns, especially the roseate tern (Sterna dougallii) whose numbers in Ireland (616 pairs in 1995) are of international importance; setting up an emergency rescue plan for the corncrake (Crex crex); the control of disturbance factors and improvement of feeding habitats for the white- fronted goose (Anser albifrons flavirostris), together with the designation of SPAs in County Wexford and the upholding of the hunting ban, have brought about an increase in the population of this species; the grey partridge (Perdix perdix) of which there are only two viable cores still existing in Ireland, has been the subject of state-subsidised research. On the basis of this study a national conservation strategy has been developed. Luxembourg The actions undertaken consist of: • • • • • ringing operations and surveys (on a voluntary basis: spot surveys of native and migratory species and continuation of field studies for the purpose of revising the Atlas of Breeding Birds, the first version of which dates back to 1984); subsidies for land purchase (120 ha bought between 1993 and 1995) and management of reserves; drawing up a red list for birds; pilot project to protect wetlands: compensation for farmers participating; pilot project, action plans and protection programme for threatened species (Perdix perdix, Ciconia nigra, Crex crex). • measures for the management and protection of habitats (coppices for Bonasa bonasia and holes in trees for Picidae and other tree-dwelling species). 24 Netherlands • A contribution, chiefly financial, was made to projects for management of species in Annex I to the Directive. the conservation and • In 1994 a new red list for birds was started. • The programmes for monitoring populations of breeding and migratory birds and research programmes using ringing of birds continued. Finland • A study of the development of all species of birds, including by ringing, has been organised by the National Natural History Museum. • A threatened species register is kept by the Finnish Environment Centre. Amateur birdwatchers associations are contributing to these programmes. They are also operating about ten birdwatching stations where migration is studied and birds are ringed. • Surveying of Important Bird Areas began in 1995 in the union of amateur birdwatchers' societies. • Monitoring of populations of gamebird species and wide-ranging research on their ecology are being carried out by the Hunting Resources Research Institute. • Programmes monitoring specific threatened species (Haliaeetus albicilla, Falco peregrinus, Dendrocopos leucotos and Anser erythropus) are being conducted by several groups, coordinated by the Finnish section of the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF). • The agency responsible for forests is keeping an annual record of the reproductive success of Aquila chrysaetos. • Ecotoxicological studies of wild birds are being carried out by the Veterinary College and the Institute of Veterinary Research. United Kingdom The JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee) and the three regional agencies have continued their research projects on the conservation and management of bird populations. • These projects include long-term monitoring of bird populations (including in particular the Common Bird Census, the Waterways Birds Survey, waterbird counts, monitoring of rare breeding birds, ringing of birds, etc. ). • “The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland : 1988-1991” was published in 1993. This uses the same 10 x 10 km grid squares as the 1968-1972 atlas, so that the situations in these two periods can be compared revealing significant changes in numbers and distribution areas between the two periods. • A seabird population monitoring programme continued throughout the period. • Numerous other specific studies on ecology and population dynamics and analyses of the conservation needs of the species were also carried out. 25 5. 4. Introduction of bird species which do not occur naturally in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States Information supplied by Member States is summarised below: Germany No non-native bird species were deliberately introduced into Germany between 1993 and 1995. Greece No exotic species were deliberately introduced into Greece between 1993 and 1995. Spain Various species were introduced for hunting purposes. These were in particular Phasianus colchicus and Coturnix japonica in numerous regions, but also Francolinus francolinus, Lophoryx californica and Colinus virginianus in the Balearic Islands and Perdix perdix (increasing the population) in the Basque Country. A South American species of parrot, Myopsitta monachus, has established itself accidentally without being deliberately introduced. It seems to be posing some problems, especially in the Balearics and Catalonia. Sweden No deliberate introductions of exotic species into Sweden during the period are mentioned (1995). Finland The law prohibits the introduction either of gamebird species or of protected species without the authorisation of the competent authorities. No such authorisation for the period concerned (1995) is mentioned in the report. United Kingdom No exotic species were deliberately introduced into the United Kingdom during the period. A study of the potential ecological impact of Branta canadensis on native flora and fauna has been carried out by the DOE. A feasibility study of methods to be used for controlling populations of Oxyura jamaicensis was financed. This study showed that various means were available for doing this and that the most effective were population controls in the breeding season. The most effective methods were tested at the regional level in 1995. The need to collect data on exotic species was taken into account and the JNCC is trying to gather such information via the national ornithological bodies. The results of these surveys will make it possible to comply better with Article 11 of the Directive. 26


title: QUESTION ÉCRITE E-0939/00 posée par Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) à la Commission. Législation belge en matière de laboratoires de biologie clinique.

eurovoc_concepts:
Belgium
application of EU law
medical diagnosis
right of establishment

formats: html pdf print

text: 28. 12. 2000 FR Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes C 374 E/189 En effet, les programmes-cadres de l(cid:146)Union europØenne ne s(cid:146)Øtendent pas (cid:224) ces pays. En d(cid:146)autres termes, des partenaires d(cid:146)Afrique du Nord, par exemple, ne peuvent pas participer (cid:224) des projets scientifiques et technologiques touchant (cid:224) l(cid:146)environnement. Certes, rien ne les empŒche d(cid:146)engager des recherches, mais ils ne disposent pas de possibilitØs de financement, Øtant donnØ qu(cid:146)ils ne peuvent pas prendre part (cid:224) des consortiums destinØs (cid:224) lever des capitaux. Pourquoi leur participation n(cid:146)est-elle pas possible, alors que, par exemple, les possibilitØs pour la Russie de s(cid:146)associer (cid:224) de telles structures ont ØtØ accrues? La question a-t-elle ØtØ envisagØe notamment en fonction des rØpercussions pour l(cid:146)Union europØenne des problŁmes de dØsertification en Afrique du Nord et des problŁmes du bassin mØditerranØen? L(cid:146)Union europØenne est-elle disposØe (cid:224) donner davantage de responsabilitØs, au titre des modalitØs de financement, aux chercheurs locaux, afin d(cid:146)assurer la perennitØ des actions dŁs lors que le financement vient (cid:224) expiration, et (cid:224) veiller (cid:224) ce que des projets ne puissent pas voir le jour sans la participation de chercheurs locaux? RØponse donnØe par M. Busquin au nom de la Commission (14 avril 2000) La Commission partage pleinement le point de vue de l(cid:146)Honorable Parlementaire quant au r(cid:244)le de la recherche pour le dØveloppement des pays en dØveloppement (PED) ainsi que de faire en sorte que la recherche soit pilotØe par la demande et ciblØe sur la problØmatique du dØveloppement de ces pays. Il est vrai que les programmes thØmatiques du 5e programme-cadre permettent la participation des PED, sans possibilitØs de financement communautaire (la situation est la mŒme pour la Russie) mais cette ouverture reprØsente un progrŁs par rapport au 4e programme-cadre qui ne leur Øtait que partiellement ouvert. Par contre deux possibilitØs leur sont spØcialement rØservØes dans le cadre du programme horizontal INCO; l(cid:146)action INCO-DEV qui vise spØcifiquement (cid:224) promouvoir la coopØration scientifique et technique entre la CommunautØ et tous les PED et l(cid:146)action INCO-MED qui concerne uniquement les pays mØditerranØens associØs dans des domaines caractØristiques (cid:224) cette rØgion. La totalitØ de la problØmatique de l(cid:146)eau, y compris les problŁmes de dØsertification est un des thŁmes central d(cid:146)INCO-MED. Ces deux actions, gr(cid:226)ce (cid:224) un dialogue permanent avec des reprØsentants de ces rØgions, les associent non seulement (cid:224) la dØfinition du champ de coopØration (cid:224) promouvoir mais aussi au processus de sØlection des propositions notamment en ce qui concerne la pertinence des projets pour le dØveloppement de la rØgion. les modalitØs de mise en (cid:156)uvre des programmes INCO-DEV et INCO-MED non seulement En outre, autorisent les initiatives venant des pays en dØveloppement mais les encouragent mŒme. En tout Øtat de cause, la participation de scientifiques de ces pays sur une base Øquitable est une condition d(cid:146)ØligibilitØ des propositions re(cid:231)ues dans le cadre de ces programmes. Un des objectifs est en effet d(cid:146)aider au renforcement des capacitØs de recherche de ces pays tiers, au travers d(cid:146)un travail de recherche rØalisØ conjointement entre eux et la CommunautØ afin de leur permettre d(cid:146)Œtre en mesure, au-del(cid:224) du projet, de prendre de plus en plus de responsabilitØs dans le processus de leur dØveloppement. (2000/C 374 E/222) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-0939/00 posØe par Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) (cid:224) la Commission (29 mars 2000) Objet: LØgislation belge en matiŁre de laboratoires de biologie clinique En Belgique le dØcret royal no 143 du 30 dØcembre 1982 interdit tout type de contr(cid:244)le en matiŁre de laboratoires de biologie clinique par toute personne qui n(cid:146)est pas habilitØe dans le mŒme temps (cid:224) effectuer des analyses mØdicales. C 374 E/190 Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes FR 28. 12. 2000 Le 17 dØcembre 1999 la Commission a ØtØ saisie d(cid:146)un recours (COMP/37. 7. 754), qui conteste cette rØglementation concernant notamment la libertØ d(cid:146)Øtablissement (article 43 du traitØ CE). En 1987, (cid:224) la suite d(cid:146)un recours de la Commission, la Cour de justice avait jugØ cette rØglementation compatible avec la libertØ d(cid:146)Øtablissement, celle-ci n(cid:146)ayant pas ØtØ considØrØe discriminatoire, sans pour autant vØrifier son caractŁre proportionnel (arrŒt du 12 fØvrier 1987, affaire 221/85, Commission contre Belgique, recueil 1987, p. 719). Cependant, depuis 1995 (arrŒt du 30 novembre 1995, affaire C-55/94, Gebhard, recueil 1995, p. I-4186) la Cour considŁre que toute mesure nationale, mŒme si elle est indistinctement applicable aux rØsidents communautaires, comme la rØglementation belge en question, mais qui est «susceptible de gŒner ou de rendre moins attrayant» l(cid:146)exercice d(cid:146)une profession ou l(cid:146)accŁs (cid:224) celle-ci par un citoyen d(cid:146)un autre (cid:201)tat membre, peut Œtre incompatible avec l(cid:146)article 43 du traitØ CE si elle n(cid:146)est pas justifiØe par une raison impØrieuse d(cid:146)intØrŒt gØnØral ou si elle n(cid:146)est pas proportionnØe. Dans ce contexte, comment la Commission envisage-t-elle d(cid:146)appliquer cette nouvelle jurisprudence qui a reconnu comme fondØe la thŁse qu(cid:146)elle dØfendait il y a encore huit ans? La Commission voudrait-elle vØrifier (cid:224) ce stade la proportionnalitØ des mesures en cause, ce que la Cour avait refusØ de la faire en 1987, considØrant qu(cid:146)(cid:224) ce jour les rŁgles en matiŁre de contr(cid:244)le des laboratoires de biologie clinique sont tellement divergentes entre les diffØrents (cid:201)tats membres de la CommunautØ? RØponse donnØe par M. Bolkestein au nom de la Commission (10 mai 2000) Comme le souligne l(cid:146)Honorable Parlementaire, la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice, en matiŁre de libertØ d(cid:146)Øtablissement, a ØvoluØ. De plus, le recours mentionnØ contient un certain nombre d(cid:146)ØlØments nouveaux par rapport au recours qui avait conduit (cid:224) l(cid:146)arrŒt de la Cour du 12 fØvrier 1987. La Commission procŁde dŁs lors, (cid:224) un examen approfondi de la lØgislation belge sur les laboratoires d(cid:146)analyses mØdicales. (2000/C 374 E/223) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-0946/00 posØe par Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) (cid:224) la Commission Objet: Restitution de biens culturels volØs ou exportØs illØgalement (29 mars 2000) Les Nations unies proposent l(cid:146)adoption d(cid:146)une nouvelle convention sur la restitution des biens culturels volØs; ce texte prØconise l(cid:146)ouverture, en pareil cas, de nØgociations entre les parties intØressØes. 1. 2. La Commission a-t-elle marquØ son soutien (cid:224) la convention en question? A-t-elle proposØ aux (cid:201)tats membres de la signer? RØponse donnØe par M. Bolkestein au nom de la Commission (12 mai 2000) (cid:192) la connaissance de la Commission, il n(cid:146)y a pas de propositions Ømanant des Nations Unies pour l(cid:146)adoption d(cid:146)une nouvelle convention sur la restitution de biens culturels volØs, cette matiŁre faisant dØj(cid:224) l(cid:146)objet de la Convention Unidroit de 1995 sur les objets culturels volØs ou illicitement exportØs. La Commission a participØ aux travaux d(cid:146)Ølaboration de cette Convention en tant qu(cid:146)observateur. La Commission partage l(cid:146)objectif gØnØral de lutte contre le trafic illicite des biens culturels qui inspire la Convention Unidroit. Or, compte tenu des compØtences de la CommunautØ en la matiŁre dans l(cid:146)Øtat actuel de dØveloppement du droit communautaire, elle n(cid:146)a pas encore marquØ son soutien (cid:224) la convention en proposant aux (cid:201)tats membres de la signer


title: Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, for the sixth time, the system of aid for cotton introduced by Protocol 4 annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece', and the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation on production aid for cotton'

eurovoc_concepts:
European Union
cotton
production aid

text: 18. 5. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 140/33 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: — the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, for the sixth time, the system of aid for cotton introduced by Protocol 4 annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece’, and — the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on production aid for cotton’ (2000/C 140/09) On 24 January 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposals. The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on the 14 March 2000. The rapporteur was Mr Fakas. At its 371st plenary session (meeting of 29 March 2000), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 21 votes to five with two abstentions. 1. General comments aimed at improving quality further by means of specific additional incentives. 1. 1. The ESC applauds the Commission’s intention to simplify the current scheme, bringing together in a single Council Regulation the general principles of Protocol 4 annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece and provisions in support of cotton production. All the rules of the market will be encapsulated in the same regulation so that, in legal terms, cotton will be treated in the same way as other CAP commodities, having its own Common Market Organization. This simplification must not, however, entail the removal of important provisions aimed at achieving the objectives of Protocol 4. 1. 2. The Committee welcomes the Commission’s intention to maintain the current system of aid for cotton production, which plays a major role in the agricultural sector in some regions of the EU (Greece and Spain). In the ESC’s view, any move away from a system of 1. 2. 1. aid based on deficiency payments (the difference between the guide price and the world price) would — in view of haphazard fluctuations in world prices — be disastrous for cotton production in the EU and for the incomes of cotton producers, and would lead to a decline in the quality of cotton. Cotton is the most important textile fibre of plant 1. 3. origin, which should progressively gain ground over synthetic fibres. The cotton produced is of good quality, although there is room for further improvement, as European textile manufacturers require cotton of the highest quality to be able to compete internationally. The ESC would like to see proposals from the European Commission as soon as possible 1. 3. 1. The ESC feels that a positive contribution towards improving quality would be for the Commission to introduce a legal provision under these regulations imposing the use of a table to determine variations in the prices of teased cotton according to the quality. Something of this kind is needed both to improve quality and to make sure that the minimum price is paid to the producer. 1. 4. The ESC believes that the supplementary environmen- tal programmes which may be implemented by Member States in addition to compulsory horizontal provisions on environmental protection with the aim of limiting eligibility for aid in certain sensitive areas will be of benefit in the effort to monitor production as well as helping to protect the environment. When designating the surface areas eligible for aid, account should be taken of the socio-economic characteristics of producers in addition to the other criteria. 1. 5. Cotton is grown on irrigated land, and has in recent years replaced other similar irrigated crops, such as maize, sugar beet, tobacco and industrially-produced tomatoes, of which there is a surplus in the EU, thereby reducing production of these. Cotton cultivation methods, using fertilizers and plant health products, generate fewer environmental problems than other comparable intensive crops. Moreover, the increas- ing use of new and advanced irrigation technology has cut water consumption. Indeed, cotton offers an environmental benefit, in that it is the main textile fibre of plant origin competing with synthetic fibres. C 140/34 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 5. 2000 1. 5. 1. However, in order to minimise the environmental problems of cotton cultivation, the ESC considers that biologi- cal production should be encouraged and supported, even though this is more labour intensive than traditional methods. The EU should provide further incentives through special financial support to those producers who switch to biological production. 2. Specific comments Under Protocols 4 and 14 on cotton, annexed to the 2. 1. Acts of Accession of Greece and Spain respectively, a system was established with the aim of: — supporting the production of cotton in areas where it is an important element in the agricultural economy; — ensuring a fair income for producers; — stabilising the market by improving supply and disposal structures for the product. 1 550 000 tonnes of unginned cotton, distributed as a guaran- teed national quantity (GNQ) of 1 200 000 tonnes for Greece, 350 000 tonnes for Spain and 1 500 tonnes for each of the other Member States, the latter quantity, if not produced, being redistributed proportionately between Greece and Spain. 2. 5. Bearing in mind all the factors mentioned above which point to the need to adapt cotton production in the EU, the ESC feels that the Commission proposal to increase the level of co-responsibility by 20 % (from 0,5 % to 0,6 %) cannot be accepted as it aims to discourage production and control expenditure. Furthermore, it is well known that the increase in budgetary expenditure is a cyclical phenomenon and does not justify an increase in co-responsibility. The increased expenditure is due to the fall in world prices which, from an average of EUR 35,498/100 kilos in 1995-1996, fell to EUR 19,7/100 kilos in 1999-2000. Recently, world prices have started to rise again, especially since China exhausted its stocks. In any event, the ESC feels it is unthinkable that EU cotton producers should be penalised because of the trade policy of third countries, just as it is unthinkable that the EU should propose a structural reform to tackle a cyclical blip. 2. 2. The cotton sector is of considerable socio-economic importance in certain EU regions. It provides employment for some 300 000 families in the primary sector and for more than 100 000 individuals in the secondary sector. Cotton’s share of final agricultural production in Greece was, in 1998, of the order of 10 %. The proportion is up to 4 % in some areas of Spain (Andalusia). 2. 5. 1. By proposing an increase in co-responsibility, the Commission is seeking to shift the impact of this short-term external factor onto cotton producers, even though the system of deficit payments was set up to protect producers from such short-term occurrences. Once the world market has recovered, the increased co-responsibility proposed by the Commission will continue to restrict the incomes of cotton producers. 2. 3. There is a major shortage of cotton in the EU. The annual demand for teased cotton in the EU is 4,5 million tonnes, which corresponds to 1,5 million tonnes of ginned cotton. Most of this demand (around 2/3) is met by imports from third countries. 2. 4. In the ESC’s view, the enormous shortfall in EU cotton production, its major socio-economic importance to certain regions, the fact that the product is not a foodstuff, as well as increasing demand for cotton on world markets, necessitate bringing EU cotton production into line with current pro- duction criteria, with a parallel adjustment in budgetary expenditure. The Committee feels that the total maximum be guaranteed per marketing quantity should year Brussels, 29 March 2000. The ESC welcomes the Commission’s intention that 2. 6. aid be paid in full to the beneficiaries. The ESC feels that the proposed addition of 15 % to 2. 7. the estimated production referred to in Article 13(3) should be removed. The ESC feels that an advance payment should be made to cotton producers based on the estimated quantity to be produced and that final settlement should be made towards the end of April at the latest. 2. 8. The ESC feels that the reactivation of producer groups and promotion of inter-branch organization in the sector by means of institutional consolidation, as in other sectors of the CAP, will help to solve the sector’s problems. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI 18. 5. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 140/35 APPENDIX to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee The following amendments, which received more than a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the debate: Point 1. 4 Delete the final sentence of this point: ‘When designating the surface areas eligible for aid, account should be taken of the socio-economic characteristics of producers in addition to the other criteria. ’ Result of the vote For: 8, against: 10, abstentions: 3. Point 1. 5. 1 Replace the word ‘biological’ with ‘integrated’. Result of the vote For: 8, against: 19, abstentions: 2


title: SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-0951/00 van Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) aan de Commissie. Doelstelling 2-gebied Hainaut.

eurovoc_concepts:
EU regional policy
Province of Hainault
Province of West Flanders
aid to undertakings
regional aid
regional development
transfer of businesses

text: C 330 E/220 Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen NL 21. 11. 2000 (2000/C 330 E/256) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-0933/00 van Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) aan de Commissie (29 maart 2000) Betreft: Onderzoek van de Commissie inzake de Duitse deelstaat Th(cid:252)ringen 1. Welke onderzoeken in verband met steunverlening aan de deelstaat Th(cid:252)ringen uit hoofde van EU- programma(cid:146)s en richtlijnen heeft de Commissie uitgevoerd respectievelijk voert zij momenteel uit, en sinds wanneer? 2. Welke resultaten hebben de reeds afgesloten mededingingsonderzoeken opgeleverd? Wat financiºle omvang van de onderzochte procedures en op welke speciale gebieden hebben zij betrekking? is de Is de deelstaatregering bij het onderzoek betrokken en van de resultaten op de hoogte gesteld en/of 3. zijn er concreet veranderingen geºist op bepaalde concrete punten? Zo ja, wanneer en welke? 4. Wat zijn de mogelijke gevolgen voor de deelstaat Th(cid:252)ringen en hoe beoordeelt de Commissie deze? 5. Welke onderzoeken zijn nog niet afgerond, wanneer zal dat naar verwachting wel het geval zijn en waarop hebben zij betrekking? 6. Moeten de in de deelstaat Th(cid:252)ringen gebruikelijke procedures bij de uitvoering van EU-programma(cid:146)s en richtlijnen worden aangepast? Zo ja, in welke zin en op welke terreinen? Antwoord van de heer Prodi namens de Commissie (5 mei 2000) De Commissie is doende de ter beantwoording van de vraag nodige gegevens te verzamelen. Zij zal de resultaten van haar onderzoek zo spoedig mogelijk mededelen. (2000/C 330 E/257) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-0951/00 van Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) aan de Commissie (29 maart 2000) Betreft: Doelstelling 2-gebied Hainaut De toekenning van Doelstelling 2-steun aan de Waalse provincie Hainaut leidt tot de delocalisatie van ondernemingen die reeds jarenlang zijn gevestigd in de aangrenzende provincie West-Vlaanderen. De betrokken bedrijfsleiders erkennen dat de verhuizing van hun activiteiten naar Hainaut volledig afhankelijk is van het al dan niet verwerven van Doelstelling 2-subsidies. Indien de bedrijfsleiders geen Europese steun krijgen, blijven ze actief in West-Vlaanderen. Om in aanmerking te komen voor deze subsidies moeten ze een maatschappelijke zetel hebben in Hainaut. Hoeveel en welke aanvragen werden sinds 1 januari 2000 ingediend voor Doelstelling 2-ondersteu- 1. ning van nieuwe economische activiteiten in Hainaut? 2. Wanneer en waar werden de maatschappelijke zetels van deze ondernemingen geregistreerd? 3. a) Hoeveel van deze ondernemingen waren in het verleden actief in de provincie West-Vlaanderen? b) Hoeveel van deze ondernemingen zijn actief in de provincie West-Vlaanderen? 21. 11. 2000 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen C 330 E/221 4. Wordt de betrokken ondernemingen uitdrukkelijk gevraagd of hun delocalisatie van West-Vlaanderen naar Hainaut afhankelijk is van het al dan niet toekennen van Doelstelling 2-steun? a) Zo ja, hoeveel (cid:132)West-Vlaamse(cid:148) bedrijfsleiders verkiezen zonder Doelstelling 2-steun activiteiten te ontplooien in Hainaut? b) Zo neen, zal de Commissie de bedrijfsleiders alsnog vragen in hoeverre hun delocalisatie afhankelijk is van Doelstelling 2-steun? Is de Commissie bereid maatregelen te nemen om de delocalisatie van West-Vlaamse ondernemingen 5. naar Hainaut te voorkomen? a) Zo ja welke? b) Zo neen, waarom niet? Antwoord van de heer Barnier namens de Commissie (12 mei 2000) De Commissie is doende de ter beantwoording van de vraag nodige gegevens te verzamelen. Zij zal de resultaten van haar onderzoek zo spoedig mogelijk mededelen. (2000/C 330 E/258) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG P-1027/00 van Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE) aan de Commissie (29 maart 2000) Betreft: Programma voor de bestrijding van werkloosheid en uitsluiting uit de arbeidsmarkt Van de kredieten van het Sociaal Fonds die zijn opgenomen in het tweede communautair bestek voor Griekenland, dat nu ten einde loopt, waren oorspronkelijk 230 miljoen € uitgetrokken voor het Programma voor de bestrijding van werkloosheid en uitsluiting van kwetsbare sociale groepen zoals gehandicapten, drugsverslaafden en migranten. Dit bedrag werd met 60 miljoen € verminderd omdat de uitvoering van het programma waarvoor het bestemd was, vertraging opliep. Deze 60 miljoen € werd overgedragen naar een ander programma, zonder dat het echter helemaal zeker was dat dit bedrag daar wel zou worden gebruikt. Het geld moet dringend naar die kwetsbare sociale groepen gaan waarvoor het is bestemd, namelijk naar gehandicapten, drugsverslaafden en migranten, zodat deze groepen kunnen worden ge(cid:239)ntegreerd in de arbeidsmarkt. Hoe denkt de Commissie in het licht hiervan deze kwestie aan te pakken en hoe komt het volgens haar dat de uitvoering van het programma in vergelijking met de doelstellingen zoveel vertraging heeft opgelopen (al te gering gebruik van de middelen)? Antwoord van mevrouw Diamantopoulou namens de Commissie (28 april 2000) Volgens recente informatie van de Griekse autoriteiten was het benuttingspercentage voor de periode 1994-1999 ongeveer 55 % van de uitgaven. Alle programmakredieten waren eind december 1999 vastgelegd en de kredietopname zal naar verwachting 100 % zijn binnen de deadlines van de bestaande financiºle verordeningen. Het zeer lage benuttingspercentage gedurende, met name, de periode 1994-1997 had voornamelijk te maken met de vernieuwende aanpak van het programma, de niet-toereikende administratieve en beheer- structuren, de afwezigheid van geschikte uitvoeringsstructuren en tekortkomingen op het vlak van de accreditering. Ondertussen is er aanzienlijke vooruitgang geboekt in vergelijking met de periode 1994-1997. Het nationaal bureau voor acrreditering is geherstructureerd en functioneert op dit moment op zeer bevredi- gende wijze. Ook zijn er verbeteringen aangebracht aan de controle op het programma


title: SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-0937/00 van Bernard Poignant (PSE) aan de Commissie. Procedures voor de toekenning van EFRO-kredieten in de lidstaten.

eurovoc_concepts:
EU Member State
Structural Funds
domestic policy

text: 20. 2. 2001 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen C 53 E/43 Antwoord van de heer Fischler namens de Commissie (10 mei 2000) De Commissie is op de hoogte van het probleem en deelt de bezorgdheid van het geachte parlementslid over de bijvangsten van dolfijnen bij bepaalde vormen van pelagische visserij. Er zij echter eerst en vooral op gewezen dat op grond van de Spaanse wetgeving de Spaanse vissersvaar- tuigen geen gebruik mogen maken van pelagische trawlnetten. De bijvangsten van walvisachtigen als gevolg van het gebruik van pelagische trawlnetten zijn niettemin een bron van zorg voor de Commissie. Het betreft bijvangsten door verscheidene andere lidstaten, vooral in Noord-Europa en ook Frankrijk. Om deze reden heeft de Commissie verscheidene onderzoeksprojecten en studies gesteund naar de effecten van de visserij op zeezoogdieren (vooral walvisachtigen) in de Atlantische Oceaan, de Noordzee en in de Middellandse Zee. Een van de meest recente door de Commissie gefinancierde studies (cid:132)Automated detection of dolphins around pelagic trawls(cid:148) (Automatische detectie van dolfijnen rond pelagische trawlnetten) wordt door de (cid:132)Royal society for nature conservation(cid:148) uitgevoerd en zal naar alle verwachting tegen juli 2001 voltooid zijn. Onderzoek en studies alleen volstaan niet. De Commissie zal op grond van de resultaten van de boven- vermelde studies en van alle andere beschikbare informatie nagaan welke mogelijkheden er zijn om dit probleem efficiºnt aan te pakken. Daartoe behoren onder andere de co(cid:246)rdinatie van het beleid van de lidstaten, uitbreiding van de wetenschappelijke kennis en een voorstel voor betere maatregelen inzake de controle op bijvangsten. (2001/C 53 E/050) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-0937/00 van Bernard Poignant (PSE) aan de Commissie (29 maart 2000) Betreft: Procedures voor de toekenning van EFRO-kredieten in de lidstaten In het kader van de structuurfondsen dienen de lidstaten van de Europese Unie na overleg met de bevoegde plaatselijke autoriteiten bij de Commissie hun dossiers in om voor cofinanciering in aanmerking te komen. Deze dossiers moeten beantwoorden aan de criteria die in de uniforme regionale programmeringsdocu- menten zijn neergelegd en moeten vervolgens door de Europese Commissie worden goedgekeurd. Bij deze procedure legt de Commissie de nadruk op de beginselen van co(cid:246)rdinatie en partnerschap, die de basis van het communautair regionaal beleid vormen. Ook de transparantie van het beheer van de subsidies vormt een fundamenteel aspect van de erkenning van de rol die de Europese Unie bij de regionale ontwikkeling speelt. Deze transparantie wordt vertaald in de jaarlijkse publicatie van het verslag over de structuurfondsen, het opstellen van een balans per doelstelling en regelmatige publicatie van de nieuwsbrief-(cid:132)Inforegio(cid:148). Desalniettemin kan onbekendheid met de interne procedures die in de lidstaten van kracht zijn als het gaat om de verdeling van de kredieten per in aanmerking komende zone en het beheer van deze kredieten tot problemen leiden bij de globale aanpak van het communautair regionaal beleid. Het is dan ook noodzakelijk een document op te stellen en te publiceren waarin een overzicht wordt gegeven van de interne procedures op grond waarvan gebieden voor EFRO-kredieten in aanmerking kunnen komen en de middelen van de structuurfondsen in de Europese Unie worden toegewezen en beheerd. Kunnen de leden van het Europees Parlement dit document, dat onontbeerlijk is om de door de lidstaten toegepaste procedures te leren kennen en te vergelijken, ontvangen, zodat zij de bevolking beter kunnen uitleggen wat het belang van de structuurfondsen is? C 53 E/44 Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen NL 20. 2. 2001 Antwoord van de heer Barnier namens de Commissie (22 mei 2000) In het jaarverslag over de Structuurfondsen in 1999 zal nog eens worden aangegeven hoe de Commissie, overeenkomstig artikel 7 van Verordening (EG) nr. 1260/1999 van de Raad van 21 juni 1999 houdende algemene bepalingen inzake de Structuurfondsen (1), de voor de periode 2000 tot en met 2006 voor de verschillende doelstellingen van de Structuurfondsen beschikbare kredieten over de lidstaten heeft verdeeld. Verder is een verklaring van de Commissie betreffende artikel 7 van de algemene verordening betreffende de Structuurfondsen aan de notulen gehecht van de zitting van de Raad Algemene Zaken, waarin de verordening in kwestie met instemming van het Parlement is goedgekeurd. De tekst van deze verklaring wordt rechtstreeks aan het geachte parlementslid en het Secretariaat-generaal van het Parlement toegezon- den. Verordening (EG) nr. 1260/1999 van de Raad verleent de Commissie niet de bevoegdheid om de steun te verdelen over de voor Doelstelling 1 of Doelstelling 2 in aanmerking komende regio(cid:146)s of gebieden binnen eenzelfde lidstaat. De Commissie heeft echter aan alle lidstaten indicatieve voorstellen toegezonden voor de verdeling van de in het kader van de bovengenoemde doelstellingen toegekende steun over de betrokken regio(cid:146)s of gebieden. Deze voorstellen zijn gebaseerd op de methodes die door de Commissie zijn gebruikt bij de verdeling over de lidstaten van de kredieten die voor beide doelstellingen beschikbaar zijn. De lijst van de onder Doelstelling 1 van de Structuurfondsen vallende regio(cid:146)s voor de periode van 2000 tot en met 2006 is door de Commissie op 1 juli bij beschikking vastgesteld (2). Voor Doelstelling 2 heeft de Commissie op 1 juli 1999 per lidstaat een bevolkingsplafond (3) volgens de regels die zijn aangegeven in de reeds genoemde verklaring van de Commissie. Na deze beschikking van de Commissie is elke lidstaat gevraagd bij de Commissie een lijst in te dienen van de in aanmerking komende regio(cid:146)s, daarbij rekening houdend met de volgende voorwaarden: het aantal inwoners in de betrokken gebieden mag niet groter zijn dan het door de Commissie voor de betrokken lidstaat vastgestelde bevolkingsplafond; de voorgestelde gebieden moeten voldoen aan de subsidiabiliteits- criteria zoals bedoeld in lid 5 tot en met lid 9 van artikel 4 van de algemene verordening houdende algemene bepalingen inzake de Structuurfondsen; als het objectief gezien mogelijk is, moet in de gebieden die aan de subsidiabiliteitscriteria voldoen ten minste 50 % van de totale voor Doelstelling 2 in aanmerking komende bevolking van de lidstaat wonen. In de verordening houdende algemene bepalingen inzake de Structuurfondsen wordt een onderscheid gemaakt tussen twee soorten criteria om voor Doelstelling 2 in aanmerking te komen. De zogenaamde communautaire criteria, zoals bedoeld in lid 5 en lid 6 van artikel 4 van de bovengenoemde verordening: deze criteria hebben betrekking op gegevens die bij Eurostat beschikbaar zijn. Voor alle lidstaten zijn dezelfde statistische reeksen gebruikt, opdat alle lidstaten gelijk zouden worden behandeld. De Commissie heeft deze gegevens op 23 juni 1999 aan alle voor Doelstelling 2 in aanmerking komende lidstaten toegestuurd. De Commissie zal deze gegevens ter informatie rechtstreeks aan het geachte parlementslid en het Secretariaat-generaal van het Parlement toezenden. De zogenaamde nationale criteria zoals bedoeld in lid 7 tot en met lid 9 van artikel 4 van de algemene verordening: deze criteria hebben betrekking op de statistische gegevens van de lidstaten zelf. Om uniform ingediende voorstellen van alle lidstaten te krijgen, heeft de Commissie standaardtabellen opgesteld waarin de voorstellen voor de gebiedsindeling voor Doelstelling 2 moesten worden opgegeven. Alle betrokken lidstaten hebben gebruik gemaakt van deze tabellen. Zo heeft de Commissie vooral kunnen controleren of de voorgestelde regio(cid:146)s daadwerkelijk de ergst getroffen gebieden waren. Een kopie van deze tabellen wordt rechtstreeks aan het geachte parlementslid en het Secretariaat-generaal van het Parlement toegezonden. (1) PB L 161 van 26. 6. 1999. (2) Beschikking 1999/502/EG van de Commissie van 1 juli 1999 tot vaststelling van de lijst van de onder doelstelling 1 van de structuurfondsen vallende regio(cid:146)s voor de periode van 2000 tot en met 2006. PB L 194 van 27. 7. 1999. (3) Beschikking 1999/503/EG van de Commissie van 1 juli 1999 tot vaststelling van een bevolkingsplafond per lidstaat voor doelstelling 2 van de structuurfondsen voor de periode 2000 tot en met 2006. PB L 194 van 27. 7. 1999


title: QUESTION ÉCRITE E-0934/00 posée par Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) à la Commission. Responsabilité de la Commission dans le contrôle du transport de grandes quantités de déchets dangereux de la Hongrie vers des pays de l'Union européenne.

eurovoc_concepts:
EU environmental policy
Hungary
competence of the Member States
hazardous waste
transport of dangerous goods

text: C 46 E/82 Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes FR 13. 2. 2001 Le nouveau rŁglement du Conseil du 21 juin 1999, (CE) no 1260/1999 portant dispositions gØnØrales sur les fonds structurels (1) pour la pØriode de programmation 2000-2006 prØvoit en effet plusieurs instru- ments qui pourront Œtre utilisØs afin d(cid:146)apporter une aide dans la reconstruction des infrastructures, des potentiels et des outils de production essentiels pour le dØveloppement Øconomique des rØgions de la CommunautØ. Les zones qui seront retenues dans le nouveau zonage objectif 2 pour l(cid:146)Italie pourront bØnØficier du concours des fonds structurels; les zones sinistrØes qui ne feront pas partie de ce nouveau zonage mais qui Øtaient prØcØdemment Øligibles aux anciens objectif 2 et 5b, pourront Øgalement obtenir des crØdits au titre du soutien transitoire. Les zones sinistrØes qui ne sont pas Øligibles ne pourront pas recevoir de soutien au titre de l(cid:146)objectif 2 des fonds structurels. Dans le cadre de cette rØglementation, la Commission examinera avec le plus grand soin toute demande Ømanant des autoritØs nationales et rØgionales. (1) JO L 161 du 26. 6. 1999. (2001/C 46 E/086) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-0934/00 posØe par Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) (cid:224) la Commission (29 mars 2000) Objet: ResponsabilitØ de la Commission dans le contr(cid:244)le du transport de grandes quantitØs de dØchets dangereux de la Hongrie vers des pays de l(cid:146)Union europØenne Dans la rØponse qu(cid:146)elle a donnØe le 11 janvier 2000 (cid:224) ma question sur la destination de 14 000 tonnes de dØchets contenant des PCB provenant de Hongrie (E-2824/99) (1), la Commission a expliquØ que le rŁglement (CEE) no 259/93 (2), en son article 4, paragraphe 9, transpose la Convention de B(cid:226)le en mettant en regard l(cid:146)objectif de la proximitØ lors de l(cid:146)Øvacuation des dØchets et la nØcessitØ de les traiter selon des mØthodes Øcologiquement saines. Entre-temps, fØdØrale d(cid:146)Allemagne) et que les transports passent par consØquent par l(cid:146)Autriche et/ou la TchØquie. l(cid:146)on a appris qu(cid:146)une partie des dØchets est transportØe vers la Saxe-Anhalt (RØpublique Cela Øtant: 1. Comment la Commission peut-elle juger s(cid:146)il est opportun, dans le cas d(cid:146)espŁce, de dØcider contre le principe de la proximitØ et de tolØrer des trajets aussi longs, alors qu(cid:146)elle ne dispose pas des informations lui permettant d(cid:146)envisager un stockage des dØchets plus proche et Øcologiquement plus sain? 2. Que pense la Commission de son r(cid:244)le de garante de la mise en (cid:156)uvre correcte du rŁglement (CEE) no 259/93 dans les (cid:201)tats membres? 3. La Commission estime-t-elle que, dans un cas comme celui-ci, qui laisse appara(cid:238)tre des doutes quant au respect du rŁglement, elle devrait obtenir des instances chargØes, dans les (cid:201)tats membres, d(cid:146)autoriser le transport transfrontalier de dØchets dangereux toutes les donnØes nØcessaires (cid:224) la vØrification d(cid:146)une transposition correcte du rŁglement? a) Dans l(cid:146)affirmative, procØdera-t-elle (cid:224) pareille vØrification dans le cas des dØchets contenant des PCB venant de Gare (Hongrie), et a-t-elle dØj(cid:224) pris des initiatives dans ce sens? b) Dans la nØgative, pourquoi estime-t-elle superflu ce type de vØrification? 4. La Commission dispose-t-elle de davantage d(cid:146)informations dans le cas de Gare? a) Dans l(cid:146)affirmative, quelles sont-elles? b) Dans la nØgative, pour quelles raisons n(cid:146)a-t-elle pas encore ØtØ en mesure de les recueillir, comme elle le constate elle-mŒme dans sa rØponse (cid:224) la question E-2824/99? (1) (2) JO C 280 E du 3. 10. 2000, p. 139. JO L 30 du 6. 2. 1993, p. 1. 13. 2. 2001 FR Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes C 46 E/83 RØponse donnØe par Mme Wallstr(cid:246)m au nom de la Commission (15 mai 2000) Comme indiquØ dans la rØponse (cid:224) la question Øcrite E-2824/99 (1) de l(cid:146)Honorable Membre, la Commission n(cid:146)exerce aucune fonction de contr(cid:244)le concernant des transferts de dØchets spØcifiques en vertu du rŁglement (CEE) 259/93 du Conseil, du 1er fØvrier 1993, concernant la surveillance et le contr(cid:244)le des transferts de dØchets (cid:224) l(cid:146)entrØe et (cid:224) la sortie de la CommunautØ europØenne. Les procØdures de supervision et de contr(cid:244)le Øtablies par le rŁglement, qui sont directement applicables dans les (cid:201)tats membres, sont appliquØes par les autoritØs dØsignØes par les (cid:201)tats membres conformØment (cid:224) l(cid:146)article 36 du rŁglement. Ce sont les (cid:201)tats membres qui doivent demander (cid:224) la Hongrie de fournir les informations requises conformØment (cid:224) l(cid:146)article 19, paragraphe 3, du rŁglement et, plus gØnØralement, dØcider d(cid:146)autoriser ou d(cid:146)interdire un transfert de dØchets dØterminØ sur la base des circonstances spØcifiques en question. La Commission prend note de l(cid:146)information fournie par l(cid:146)Honorable Membre, selon laquelle le transfert de dØchets en question a eu lieu apparemment (cid:224) destination de l(cid:146)Allemagne en vue d(cid:146)une Ølimination dØfinitive. Jusqu(cid:146)(cid:224) prØsent, elle n(cid:146)a re(cid:231)u aucune indication sur le fait qu(cid:146)en autorisant le transfert, les autoritØs allemandes auraient agi en violation de la lØgislation communautaire et notamment du rŁglement (CEE) 259/93 du Conseil. La Commission invitera les autoritØs allemandes (cid:224) fournir des informations complØmentaires, sur la base desquelles elle dØterminera s(cid:146)il est nØcessaire qu(cid:146)elle engage des actions supplØmentaires. (1) JO C 280 E du 3. 10. 2000, p. 139. (2001/C 46 E/087) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-0938/00 posØe par Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) (cid:224) la Commission (29 mars 2000) Objet: Aide communautaire (cid:224) la transformation de jus de raisin (DG Agriculture) Dans le contexte de la rØforme de l(cid:146)OCM dans le secteur vitivinicole (rŁglement CE 1493/1999) (1), qui entrera en vigueur le 1er aoßt 2000, et conformØment (cid:224) l(cid:146)article 35 de ce rŁglement, l(cid:146)aide communautaire (cid:224) la transformation de jus de raisin (cid:224) partir de raisin de table (son utilisation est de toute fa(cid:231)on interdite pour la vinification) sera supprimØe. Cette suppression entra(cid:238)nera une augmentation des coßts de production de 11 986 lires par hectolitre pour le producteur de jus de raisin italien, sans oublier les tensions sociales qui s(cid:146)ensuivront surtout dans les rØgions Øconomiquement dØsavantagØes. La Commission pourrait-elle dŁs lors indiquer si les rŁglements d(cid:146)application de l(cid:146)OCM du vin, qui sont en cours de rØvision, pourraient prØvoir le maintien des aides pour les jus de raisin de table afin de garantir des chances Øgales pour tous les producteurs de l(cid:146)UE? (1) JO L 179 du 14. 7. 1999, p. 1. RØponse donnØe par M. Fischler au nom de la Commission (3 mai 2000) La Commission, rappelle (cid:224) l(cid:146)Honorable Parlementaire que le Conseil a adoptØ en date du 17 mai 1999 le rŁglement (CE) no 1493/1999 du 17 mai 1999, sur la nouvelle organisation commune de marchØ (OCM) du secteur viti-vinicole. Le rŁglement sus-mentionnØ entrera en application le premier aoßt 2000. L(cid:146)article 35, paragraphe 3, de ce rŁglement, prØcise que les aides aux raisins, aux moßts de raisin et moßts de raisin concentrØs utilisØs pour l(cid:146)Ølaboration de jus de raisin ou autres produits comestibles ØlaborØs (cid:224) partir des jus de raisin, sont rØservØs aux produits provenant de variØtØs classØes en tant que variØtØs (cid:224) raisin de cuve, qui peuvent donc produire du vin pour le marchØ. Compte tenu de ce qui prØcŁde, aucune aide ne sera payØe pour l(cid:146)Ølaboration des jus de raisin et d(cid:146)autres produits comestibles dØrivØs, dans le cas d(cid:146)utilisation de raisins de table, provenant de variØtØs non classØes en tant que raisins de cuve