En En Notice to Members
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
European Parliament 2014-2019 Committee on Petitions 28.2.2017 NOTICE TO MEMBERS Subject: Petition No 2335/2014 by Antonio Martínez Lago (Spanish) on the consequences of the designation of SCI, SPA and SAC protected areas for landowners. Petition No 2337/2014 by Raquel González Fernández (Spanish) on the designation of protected areas by the Principality of Asturias Petition No 2476/2014 by Manuel Meléndez Alfonso (Spanish), on behalf of the association ASPROCORO, accompanied by 44 signatures, on the consequences of the designation of SCI, SPA and SAC protected areas for landowners Petition No 2710/2014 by Leandro Álvarez Arguelles (Spanish) on the consequences of the declaration of SCI, SPA and SAC protected areas for landowners in the Ubiñas-La Mesa park in Asturias 1. Summary of petition 2335/2014 The petitioner complains that the designation and planning of protected natural areas in Spain, and particularly in Asturias, amounts to land-use management and hidden expropriation from landowners. According to the petitioner, 90 % of land in Asturias, much of it privately owned, is designated as protected. The petitioner says there are no approved management plans and no enforcement budgets, and he suspects these designations are intended not to protect natural spaces but to secure European funding. He gives examples of poor management, including the case of the capercaillie in Tarna, the Fuentes de Narcea, Degaña and Ibias SAC and the Muniellos Biosphere Reserve. The petitioner says that conservation orders restrict owners’ freedom of movement, as well as traditional agricultural, hunting, forestry, industrial and fishing activities, and are leading to economic strangulation of the area. He is therefore calling for better control and auditing of European funding for the Integrated Management Instrument of the Fuentes de Narcea, Degaña and Ibias area. CM\1118785EN.docx PE575.034v04-00 EN United in diversity EN Summary of petition 2337/2014 The petitioner complains that the designation and planning of protected natural areas in Spain, and particularly in Asturias, amounts to land-use management and hidden expropriation from landowners. According to the petitioner, 90 % of land in Asturias, much of it privately owned, is designated as protected. The petitioner says there are no approved management plans or enforcement budgets, and she suspects these designations are intended not to protect natural spaces but to secure European funding. She gives examples of poor management, including the case of the capercaillie in Tarna, the Fuentes de Narcea, Degaña e Ibias SAC and the Muniellos Biosphere Reserve. Summary of petition 2476/2014 The petitioners complain that the designation and planning of protected natural areas in Spain, and particularly in Asturias, amounts to land-use management and hidden expropriation from landowners. According to the petitioner, 90 % of land in Asturias, much of it privately owned, is designated as protected. The petitioner says there are no approved management plans and no enforcement budgets, and he suspects these designations are intended not to protect natural spaces but to secure European funding. He gives examples of poor management, including the case of the capercaillie in Tarna, the Fuentes de Narcea, Degaña and Ibias SAC and the Muniellos Biosphere Reserve. The petitioner says that conservation orders restrict owners’ freedom of movement, as well as traditional agricultural, hunting, forestry, industrial and fishing activities, and are leading to economic strangulation of the area. He is therefore calling for better control and auditing of European funding for the Integrated Management Instrument of the Fuentes de Narcea, Degaña and Ibias area. Summary of petition 2710/2014 The petitioners complain that the declaration and planning of natural spaces requiring protection in Spain, and particularly in Asturias, constitutes land-use planning and the back-door expropriation of land from landowners. According to the petitioner, in Asturias, 90 % of land has been declared an area requiring protection, this land being privately owned. The petitioner states that there are no approved management plans and no budgets for implementation of these plans, and suspects that the purpose of these declarations is not to protect natural spaces but to gain European funding. The petitioner provides examples of poor management, such as the capercaillie centre in Tarnas, and the SACs of Aller-Lena, Caldoveiro, and Montovo-La Mesa. The petitioner states that the conservationist declarations limit landowners’ freedom of movement, limit traditional agricultural, hunting, forestry, industrial and fish-farming activities, and are strangling the area’s economy. He therefore calls for improved control and auditing of European funds used in the Integral Management Instrument of “Las Ubiñas-La Mesa” natural spaces. 2. Admissibility Petitions 2335/2014 and 2337/2014 declared admissible on 13 July 2015. Petitions 2476/2014 declared admissible on 20 July 2015. Petitions 2710/2014 declared admissible on 2 September 2015 Information requested from Commission under Rule 216(6). PE575.034v04-00 2/6 CM\1118785EN.docx EN 3. Commission reply, received on 18 December 2015 Petitions 2335/2014, 2337/2014, 2476/2014 and 2710/2014 The Petitioners consider that there is an over designation of protected areas in the region of Asturias (Spain) and complain about the limitations and restrictions to landowners as a result. They also raise concerns about the use of EU funds by the region of Asturias. These petitions concern particularly the Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) Fuentes del Narcea, Degaña e Ibias and Muniellos, as petitioners consider that the instruments and procedures for their designation and management would breach the Habitats Directive1 and the Directive 2003/4/CEE2. The Petitioners claim that 90% of the surface of Asturias is protected and considers that this is disproportionate. The Birds3 and Habitats Directives do not specify how much surface needs to be included in Natura 2000, but the selection of these sites shall be based exclusively on scientific criteria and the surface protected under Natura 2000 in each region may therefore depend on its biological richness. The Commission would like to clarify that the region of Asturias has designated 49 sites of Community importance (SCIs) and 13 Special Protection Areas for Birds (SPAs), which cover all together 27% of its surface. The information addressed in these Petitions does not provide any evidence to conclude that the Natura 2000 sites of the region of Asturias would not fulfil the relevant scientific criteria. As regards the protection and management of sites under national or regional legislation, such as natural parks or reserves as well as Biosphere Reserves, the Commission would like to clarify that these are exclusive competences of the Member States. The Commission cannot therefore intervene in these matters. As regards the designation and management of Natura 2000 sites in particular, Article 4(4) of the Habitats Directive requires Member States to designate SCIs as a Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) as soon as possible and within six years at most. Moreover, in accordance with Article 6(1), Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites. According to the information available to the Commission, the region of Asturias has currently designated all the SCIs of its territory as SACs and has adopted integrated management instruments for all of them. The issues raised by the petitioners concerning the integrated management instrument adopted for the sites Fuentes del Narcea, Degaña e Ibias and Muniellos do not provide any evidence of incompliance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive. As regards the lack of compensation for the limitations imposed, the Commission notes that the integrated management instrument of concern includes, under section 4.4, a Plan of Sustainable Development, aiming at promoting the economic development of the area. Moreover, the instrument establishes in section 6 a budget for its implementation, which 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992). 2 Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ L 41, 14.2.2003, p. 26). 3 Council Directive 79/409/EC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. OJ L 103, 25.4.1979 CM\1118785EN.docx 3/6 PE575.034v04-00 EN includes compensation payments and aids under the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development Fund (EAFRD), as well as actions for the promotion of economic activities and activities for the promotion of sustainable tourism in the area. The Petitioners claim that this EAFRD fund should not be used for Natura 2000 financing. On this regards, the Commission would like to clarify that this fund aims at promoting sustainable rural development throughout the Union, including contributing to priorities such as restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry. The use of this EU fund for financing Natura 2000 priorities and needs is therefore in line with the objectives and principles for the use of these funds. Directive 2003/4/EC1 concerns public access to environmental information. This access could be obtained either upon request to public authorities to make available environmental information held by or for them (Article 3) or through active dissemination, in particular by means of the electronic technology (Article 7). Active dissemination should be reached progressively taking into account of human, financial and technical resources involved. The information has to be regularly updated. Directive obliges Member States to ensure that public authorities make available at least the information mentioned in paragraph 2. For all other items each public authority has a margin of manoeuvre in choosing the information to disclose and its timing.