Poland Could Lose EU Funds for Environment Breaches

In April 2006, Natura 2000, a branch of the EU Directorate-General for the Environment, undertook legal action against Poland for failing to protect areas of significant biodiversity.

According to Nicholas Hanley, head of communications for the EU Directorate-General for the Environment, the infringement procedure was filed against Poland because it had been ''significantly inefficient'' in designating areas for biodiversity protection as stipulated by EU guidelines.

''It was made clear to those 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004, they were joining a community and they would have to abide by the rules of the community,'' he said.

Poland's failure to designate sufficient biodiversity areas could jeopardize some of the 59.7 billion euros ($75 billion) allocated to Warsaw for 2007 to 2013, if the funds are to be used for projects seen to be threatening areas of important biodiversity. There is also the possibility of a court case.

Biodiversity protection obligatory for EU members

The purpose of the Natura 2000 European ecological network program is working with EU member states to protect their most important wildlife areas and species.

The program falls under the Birds Directive and the Habitat Directive laws which require the designation of ''special protection areas'' for birds and ''special areas of conservation.''

Poland proposed creating 72 special protection areas, but the commission recommended the designation of 140.

But Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski has said site designation makes it ''practically impossible to build anything," according to news reports.

In a meeting with environmental groups Kaczynski said the number of habitats protected under the EU’s Natura 2000 conservation network should be cut because they hampered vital projects such as motorways.

Andreas Baumueller, European Biodiversity Policy Officer for the World Wildlife Fund, thinks the Polish government may have misunderstood the purpose of Natura 2000's site designation.

''There is a perception that once the site has been designated you lose control of these areas, which is simply not true,'' Baumueller said. ''If people understand their obligations, they will know that an area of biodiversity does not mean the land cannot be used at all.''

Conflicting information coming from Warsaw

Hanley claims the Polish Environment Ministry conducted an inventory to decide how much space should be set aside under the Natura 2000 program, which they initially proposed would be 13 percent of the country.

However, when Poland submitted their report to Brussels, the government designated only 3 percent of land for site protection.

''The insufficiency of their proposal was totally flagrant, there were gaping holes in it geographically, based on inventory they did themselves,'' Hanley said.

Slawomir Mazurek, a spokesman for the Polish Environment Ministry, told media sources there had been disagreements by local governments as to which areas were to be designated for protection.

Mazurek added: “Some areas have been appointed without a detailed knowledge of what is in them.”

Recent discussion with Poland about Natura 2000

Poland held discussion about Natura 2000 from Aug. 25 to 27 in Tuczno, Poland. One of the issues addressed was the size and number of protected sites for the 10 new EU member states.

According to Ladislav Miko, Director for the EU Environment Directorate who attended the conference, Poland was eager to discuss Natura 2000 sustainble development programs.

The WWF says Poland is home to rare species such as bison, wolves, bear, snakes and eagles living in river valleys, wetlands and primeval forests.

Baumueller explained the WWF was ''quite happy'' with the compliance of other EU member states, but Poland was one exception.

''The other 24 member states that have been involved and signed up to protect areas of significant biodiversity have done a good job,'' Baumueller said. ''If it is possible for 25 member states to do this, it is possible for Poland.''