Netherlands rapped over EU birds directive

European Court ruling on "special protection areas" puts other countries in the firing line

The Netherlands has manifestly failed to designate a sufficient number of "special protection areas" for birds as required by the 1979 EU birds directive, the European Court of Justice ruled today. The judgement has been greeted by environmental groups as a major victory which will increase pressure on all EU member states to improve their nature protection policies.

Under article 4 of the birds directive, member states are required to designate special protection areas (SPAs) of a sufficient number and area to ensure the protection of endangered wild bird species. The Netherlands has designated 23 SPAs covering nearly 330,000 hectares. This is under half the 70 sites covering nearly 800,000 hectares identified in a 1989 survey of important bird areas, "IBA '89".

In infringement proceedings opened in 1989, the European Commission alleged that the number and area of SPAs designated by the Netherlands were clearly less than justified by the scientific evidence. The Netherlands denied the allegation on several grounds. These included a counter-allegation that the Commission had not taken account of its reply to the Commission's reasoned opinion - a reply the Commission denied having received.

On all key points at issue, the European Court has now found in the Commission's favour. The Netherlands was not entitled to take economic requirements into account when selecting SPAs and defining boundaries, it has ruled, but should have used exclusively ornithological criteria.

Having "to this very day failed to produce a single document" indicating national scientific criteria for classifying SPAs which might have underpinned the 23 designated sites, the Court ruled, the Netherlands had no choice but to use the IBA '89 survey.

The ruling is a "big victory" for bird protection, according to European environmental group Birdlife International. The case is the first in a series in which the Commission has alleged insufficient designation of SPAs by member states, Nelly Paleologou of the group told ENDS Daily. Germany, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and the UK all now face similar condemnation by the European Court, she said.

According to Birdlife, the case could also have an important bearing on the way that EU structural funds - which support development in poorer EU member states - are spent. The group plans to use the ruling to argue for better protection of birds from development wherever structural funds are being used not only in designated SPAs but also in areas it believes ought to be designated.

Follow Up:
European Court of Justice, tel: +352 43031; Birdlife International, tel: +32 2 280 0830.

Please sign in to access this article. To subscribe, view our subscription options, or take out a free trial.

Please enter your details

Forgotten password?

Having trouble signing in?

Contact Customer Support at
or call 020 8267 8120

Not a subscriber?

Take a free trial now to discover the critical insights and updates our coverage offers subscribers.