Habitatrichtlijn: Commissie neemt actie tegen Oostenrijk en Portugal (en)

The European Commission has sent final written warnings to Austria and Portugal for failing to improve the way they implement EU nature conservation legislation. Austria has failed to correctly incorporate certain obligations required under EU nature conservation legislation into its regional legislation. Portugal has failed to safeguard the Campo Maior, a special protection area (SPA) for wild birds, from the damaging effects of irrigation works linked to the Abrilongo dam project. The decision to launch infringement proceedings highlights the need for nature conservation goals to be underpinned by adequate national legislation, designations and good practice. Without these, the future of Europe's natural heritage is less secure.

Commenting on the decision, Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallström, said: "Member States have committed themselves to halting loss of bio-diversity in the EU by 2010⁽¹⁾. If this objective is to be achieved Austria and Portugal need to reinforce their efforts "

Austria

In Austria, responsibility for implementing the EU's Wild Birds and Habitats Directives lies with the nine Austrian regions ("Länder"). The Commission examined regional nature conservation laws to see if they complied with the requirements of the Directives. This analysis revealed many shortcomings and the Commission took the matter up with the Austrian authorities. Some changes to the laws were then made. However, significant shortcomings still remain, so the Commission has sent Austria two final written warnings: one addressing failures with regard to the Wild Birds Directive and the other failures relating to the Habitats Directive. In the case of the Wild Birds Directive, the failures mainly relate to provisions banning certain harmful activities and provisions governing hunting. The case concerning the Habitats Directive concerns both the site protection and species protection provisions of the Directive.

Portugal

The final written warning sent to Portugal relates to irrigation works linked to the Abrilongo dam project. They threaten the Campo Maior special protection area (SPA) that was set up under under the Wild Birds Directive, thereby endangering wild bird species like the Crane.

The area is also one of the two most important wintering areas in Portugal for these species, as well as for steppic species like the Little Bustard and the Great Bustard. The Commission considers that the Portuguese authorities have failed to take appropriate steps to safeguard the site from deterioration.

Background

Wild Birds Directive

The Wild Birds Directive⁽²⁾ is the EU's oldest piece of nature conservation legislation. It creates a comprehensive scheme of protection for the EU's wild bird species. There are a number of separate but related components to this scheme. One relates to habitat conservation and includes a requirement to designate Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for migratory and other vulnerable wild bird species. These areas enjoy several safeguards. The Court of Justice has ruled that important bird sites that merit SPA status should also benefit from protection. A second component of the Directive's conservation scheme consists of a series of bans imposed on activities that directly threaten birds (such as the deliberate destruction of nests and the taking of eggs) and associated activities such as trading in live or dead birds. A third component establishes rules that limit the number of species that can be hunted and the periods during which they can be hunted (hunting seasons should not include periods of greatest vulnerability such as return from migration, reproduction and the raising of chicks). Rules also define certain permitted methods of hunting (for example, non-selective hunting methods). For the second and third components, derogations can be granted provided that strict requirements are met and provided that no other satisfactory solution is possible.

Habitats Directive

The Habitats Directive⁽³⁾ is the EU's flagship contribution to safeguarding global bio-diversity. It provides a comprehensive protection scheme for a range of animals and plants, as well as for a selection of habitat types. It provided for the creation, by June 1998, of a network of protected sites known as Natura 2000, which embrace SPAs designated under the Wild Birds Directive and sites proposed by Member States under the Habitats Directive. The sites proposed by Member States must be based on scientific criteria and scientific information. All sites in the network must respect the stipulated safeguards. These include the prior assessment of potentially damaging plans and projects and the requirement that these plans and projects be approved only if they represent an overriding interest and only if is no alternative solution exists. The safeguards also include measures for providing alternative habitats in the event of damage. Once fully in place, this network should ensure that the best examples of EU natural habitats, and areas hosting rare and endangered plant and animal species, are properly conserved and protected. Delays in the submission of site proposals by Member States (which were originally due by June 1995) have meant that the completion of the Natura 2000 network has fallen seriously behind schedule. In addition to providing for the creation of Natura 2000, the Habitats Directive has also led to a ban on the downgrading of breeding and resting places for certain animal species. Derogations can be granted, but only under strict conditions.

Legal Process

Article 226 of the Treaty gives the Commission powers to take legal action against a Member State that is not respecting its obligations. If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of EU law that warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a "Letter of Formal Notice" (or first written warning) to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date, usually two months.

In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a "Reasoned Opinion" (or final written warning) to the Member State. This clearly and definitively sets out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of EU law and calls upon the Member State to comply within a specified period, usually two months.

If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the Court of Justice.

Article 228 of the Treaty gives the Commission power to act against a Member State that does not comply with a previous judgement of the European Court of Justice. The article also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned.

For current statistics on infringements in general see:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm#infractions

^{(1)The Commissioner is referring to the Decision of the European Council in Göteburg in June 2001 to halt biodiversity decline within the EU by 2010}

^{(2) Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds}

^{(3) ;Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna}