Constructii ilegale in arii protejate-18 octombrie 2007

Aseara a avut loc in sala de conferinte a Centrului Ceh, prima manifestare a seriei Focus: Ecology din acest semestru.

Discutiile s-au purtat pe marginea problematicii CONSTRUCTIILOR ILEGALE IN ARII PROTEJATE, , avind invitati pe:

Doina CIOACA - Agentia Nationala pentru Protectia Mediului
Gabriel PAUN - Greenpeace
Dumitru PISTOL - Garda Nationala de Mediu

discutiile s-au purtat cu ajutorul publicului, alcatuit din: reprezentanti ai ministerelor direct implicate in problematica (Ministerul Mediului si Dezvoltarii Durabile, Ministerul Agriculturii si Dezvoltarii Rurale, studenti si reprezentanti ai sectorului ONG (ASPSE, EGEA, Tineretul Ecologist din Romania, Fundatia Terra Mileniul III, Fundatia Actiunea Civica, KOGAYON).

Scopul dezbaterii a fost acela de a informa publicul asupra urmatoarelor puncte:

1. baza legala care interzice construirea de cladiri in ariile protejate: OUG 57/2007 privind regimul ariilor naturale protejate, conservarea habitatelor naturale, a florei si faunei salbatice; OUG 195/2005 privind protectia mediului, modificata si completata de L 265/2006. Alte acte normative: L 1/2000 pentru reconstituirea dreptului de proprietate asupra terenurilor agricole si a celor forestiere etc)

2. modul in care apar constructii in ariile protejate - ilegal, incepind cu complicitatea autoritatilor locale din zonele respective

3. cine este sesizat in momentul in care se constata o astfel de infractiune: Garda de Mediu (al carui personal este insuficient pentru acoperirea intregii suprafete a tarii si, implicit, a ariilor protejate)

4. cine are drept deplin de constatare, penalizare si sistare a lucrarilor la o constructie ilegala:
- in cazul parcurilor nationale - administratia parcului
- in cazul rezervatiilor naturale (care nu beneficiaza de o administratie, ci de un custode) - GNM, care, in urma a doua penalizari succesive, constata infractiunea penala, paseaza cazul ministerului de interne, care actioneaza proprietarul respectivei constructii in justitie...de aici, situatia devine neclara, "gratie" birocratiei romane bine cunoscute...daca rezolutia juridica este data intr-un termen dat, din motive incerte, nu este facuta cunoscuta, deci nu poate fi atacata...astfel ca dosarul se considera inschis, de cele mai multe ori, fara o hotarire de stopare a lucrarilor la respectiva constructie ilegala...si treaba merge mai departe (vezi largirea ilegala a stabilimentului mitropoliei Moldovei si Bucovinei in Parcul National Ceahlau)...

intrebare: dispune GNM de un inventar al tuturor acestor situatii (cazuri de revazut pe teren, cazuri in justitie, cazuri clasate? exista un feedback pe care GNM il primeste in urma cazurilor a caror rezolvare nu tine de competenta sa?

4. cite infractiuni de acest gen sint instrumentate juridic: din investigatiile MADR, rezulta ca numai 2% din acestea ajung in instanta...de aici...ceata...

5. cu toate acestea exista vreun caz solutionat?
DA. In urma demersurilor Greenpeace, sprijiniti de mass media, in iunie a.c., GNM a sistat lucrarile la DN 66A Petrosani Baile Herculane...ramine de vazut ce se va intimpla mai departe

6. cum poate fi evitata aparitia constructiilor de acest gen? simplu. in primul rind, respectind mediul natural protejat prin legi care trebuie, de asemenea, cunoscute si respectate.

cam acesta este rezumatul dezbaterii de ieri...
multumesc invitatilor si tuturor celor care au participat la dezbatere!

Nicoleta MARIN
Coordonatoare proiecte

ASOCIATIA KOGAYON
0727 748 353
http://www.kogayon.ro/

Nerespectarea legislatiei comunitare de biodiversitate atrage procedura de infringement pentru Romania

The European Commission is taking legal action against Romania for infringing biodiversity legislation. Romania has failed to designate any Special Protected Areas for migratory and vulnerable wild birds, violating the EU's directive on the conservation of wild birds.
EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "Member States must urgently complete their networks of Special Protection Areas for migratory and vulnerable bird species, and Sites of Community Interest to conserve wild flora and fauna. This obligation is crucial if we are to meet the EU target of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010."
Special protection areas
Under the Birds Directive[1], Member States are obliged to designate suitable sites as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) to conserve wild bird species, and to provide wintering areas and staging posts along the migration routes. These designations are made using objective, verifiable scientific criteria, and the Commission uses the best available ornithological information to assess whether Member States have complied with their obligation to classify Special Protection Areas. The first written warning to Romania is a consequence of the country's failure to designate areas both for conservation of wild birds and for breeding and wintering on migration routes.
Legal basis
Under its Accession Treaty, which entered into force on 1 January 2007, Romania was obliged to put into effect the measures necessary to comply with the provisions of directives and decisions within the meaning of the EC Treaty from the date of accession. No transition period was granted to Romania regarding the designation of Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive.
Legal Process
Article 226 of the Treaty gives the Commission powers to take legal action against a Member State that is not respecting its obligations. If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of EU law that warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a "Letter of Formal Notice" (first written warning) to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date, usually two months. In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a "Reasoned Opinion" (final written warning) to the Member State.
This clearly and definitively sets out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of EU law, and calls upon the Member State to comply within a specified period, usually two months. If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the Court of Justice. Where the Court of Justice finds that the Treaty has been infringed, the offending Member State is required to take the measures necessary to conform.
Article 228 of the Treaty gives the Commission power to act against a Member State that does not comply with a previous judgement of the European Court of Justice. The article also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned.For rulings by the European Court of Justice see:
http://curia.eu.int/en/content/juris/index.htm

Sursa articol
Green-Report , Revista presei

Green-Report revista de mediu

Revista verde.