WRITTEN QUESTION P-0952/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Schloen shooting range.
C 374 E/192 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 by helping to establish alternative financial solutions like public-private partnerships. The Commission has previously supported upgrading and construction on several sections of the E6 and E18 within the Nordic Triangle. (1) Report on progress and implementation of the 14 Essen projectsí (COM(98) 356 final) and 1998 Annual report on the Trans-European Networksí (COM(99) 410 final). (2000/C 374 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0952/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Schloen shooting range Reports from the local citizensí action group and the Bündnis 90/Grünen group in the district (Kreis) of Mütitz indicate that the Land government has so far failed to take effective action to halt the Schloen shooting range project (24 stands). According to a study carried out by the University of Greifswald for the municipality of Schloen and in the opinion of the Vice-President of the Nature Conservation Federation (NABU), Professor Succow, the area concerned is the habitat of an extremely wide range of species, including priority species, which means that its designation as an FFH or EU bird conservation area would be justified. This has also been put to the Land government through the Association for Nature and Environmental Protection Germany (BUND). Is the Commission aware that the notified FFH protected area designations by Mecklenburg-Western 1. Pomerania have thus been incomplete? 2. Does the Commission agree that this designation as a protected area within the meaning of the EC bird protection directive needs to be undertaken and notification as an FFH area given without delay? Is the Commission aware that, although the appropriate ministry knows of the adverse consequences 3. (including the abandonment of a sea eagleís nest, a breeding ground for cranes and a colony of corncrakes and the sustained disturbance of movements of migratory birds between the Mütitz National Park and the Torgelower/Varchentin Lakes area), it is not giving the municipality of Schloen enough support in preventing the construction of the shooting range? Is the Commission aware that a number of other, ecologically safe sites for the project have been 4. proposed to the shooting club, but have always been rejected? Is the Commission aware that the authorising agency has made serious errors in the authorising 5. procedure and that these have not yet been duly corrected? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (27 April 2000) The Commission considers that there is a lack of sufficient Natura 2000 sites under Council Directive 92/ 43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) not only in Mecklenburg ü Vorpommern, but also more generally in Germany. As a result the Commission brought the matter before the Court of justice already one year ago and it awaits the judgement. Likewise, there is a legal action against Germany for its failure to classify sufficient areas under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (2). The Commission has decided to bring this matter too before the Court of justice. The Commission does not have the necessary information to establish if the area at Schloen qualifies for inclusion in Natura 2000. Nor is it able to answer the specific questions concerning this project in or close to Schloen, when no detailed information is presented. If there is evidence to show that there is an infringement of European law the Honourable Member is invited to provide more detailed information pursuant to the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC or Directive 79/409/EEC. That would include an evaluation of the importance of the site for different species and habitats of Community interest in accordance with the requirements of the directives. As regards the 28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/193 project, the significant effect on the site would have to be established as well as the existence of specific alternative solutions. Furthermore, information would be needed on the geographical location, delimitation and Natura 2000 value, compensation measures already foreseen, and other details that are of importance to investigate the case. (1) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992. (2) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979. (2000/C 374 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0961/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: A favourable climate for EU inventors (29 March 2000) One of the most productive features of our economy is that of invention. However, inventors are not only faced with multiple challenges relating to their own inventions: they have to confront a veritable forest of red tape. At a moment when the Community is endeavouring to take a major step forward to catch up on lost ground in the technological field at planetary level, it is essential that inventors should be offered a new climate enabling them to develop their inventions in comfort and patent them in secure and reliable conditions, without being overwhelmed by bureaucracy. Can the Commission state whether it believes it should promote an in-depth study to ascertain the real situation of inventors in the Community, the nature of their concerns, their difficulties in relation to the two poles of Munich and The Hague, and, in general, all the factors that can make the difference between success or failure, across the range of activities in which inventors can contribute to the Communityís economic activity as a whole? Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (3 May 2000) The Commission agrees with the honourable Member regarding the need to ensure that inventors in the Community benefit from a climate conducive to the development of their activities. Innovation has, prosperity for society as a whole. indeed, become a major vector of lasting growth for businesses and of economic With a view to defining the suitable framework for the development of inventions and innovative actions in Europe, the Commission has consulted a number of interested circles, especially through its Green Papers on Innovation in Europe (1) and on the Community patent and the patent system in Europe (2). Following these consultations, it submitted ambitious action plans containing concrete measures in order to meet the needs of industry and independent inventors. initiatives, Among the more important it would make legislative proposals for creating a Commuity patent, producing the same effects throughout the Community, which would be simple to administer, easily accessible and reasonably priced. The Community patent was also described by the Commission, in its January 2000 communication entitled Towards a European Research Areaí (3), as a powerful lever for the development of research in Europe. the Commission announced that Furthermore, innovation should also be boosted thanks to other measures, such as the development of the role of national patent offices towards encouraging innovation, improving access to patent information or introducing the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Help Desk, which is a service designed to help those involved in innovation and to familiarise them with intellectual property. (1) COM(97) 736 final. (2) COM(97) 314 final. (3) COM(2000) 6 final