WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1539/99 by Wolfgang KREISSL-DÖRFLER Promoting the 'Königsbrücker Heide' and 'Am Spitzberg' nature conservation areas (in Saxony, Germany) in the context of the Community's Konver initiative
C 27 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29. 1. 2000 projects to be monitored and can be consulted by promoters on the Europa server (http://europa. eu. int/en/ comm/dg22/leonardo. html). The same site also contains a chart giving complete and up-to-date informa- tion on the position of the Baden- Württemberg projects has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and the European Parliamentís Secretariat. In addition, a table summarising the position of the projects. To sum up, the delays in paying promoters are due to quite exceptional circumstances. The Commission, since February 1999, has done everything possible to guarantee the smooth completion of the 1999 call for proposals, has prepared contracts and effected payments for the 1998 projects, and has evaluated the interim and final reports and paid out the second advances and final balances on the 1995, 1996 and 1997 projects. The situation should have returned to normal by October 1999, and certainly by the end of 1999, thanks to the cooperation of the promoters, the national coordination units and the Commission. (2000/C 27 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1539/99 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Council (8 September 1999) Subject: Promoting the Königsbrücker Heideí and Am Spitzbergí nature conservation areas (in Saxony, Germany) in the context of the Communityís Konver initiative As part of the Konver initiative the Community has given financial aid to the Königsbrücker Heideí and Am Spitzbergí nature conservation areas in Saxony: Can the Council answer the following: 1. What is the amount of subsidies and loans, what are they for and what specific measures have they been used to support? 2. Have the measures resulted in the protected status of the areas being impaired (e. g. as a result of destruction of biotopes, afforestation of open areas or provision of firebreaks in woodland areas)? 3. Have the measures jeopardised the areasí suitability as natural habitats (Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora)? 4. To what extent do the measures supported contradict environmental or nature conservation legislation in force or violate the provision in the Community initiative Konver that measures supported must be such as to improve the environment? 5. Is the Council aware that for the purpose of applying for more money from Konver an application has been made to remove the protected status of the Am Spitzbergí conservation area? (1) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 7. Reply (8 November 1999) The Council is not in a position to respond to the questions put by the Honourable Parliamentarian on the situation of the Köningsbrücker Heideí and Am Spitzbergí nature conservation areas in the context of the Konver Communityís initiative, since the implementation, management and follow-up of this Community initiative in the Free State of Saxony is not within the competence of the Council, but the responsibility of Germany, the Free State of Saxony and the Commission