# CE2004084EN.01088401.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/884 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/884

---

(2004/C 84 E/0978)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0818/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Sludge storage in Ingensche Waarden

Subject:

Gelderland Province in the Netherlands intends to grant licences for the storage of 11 million cubic metres of sludge in a sand-recovery area near Ingen. The project provides for putting two suction-pump extractors to work to deepen the existing sand pit from 25 to about 40 metres.

The intention, for an expected period of some 15 to 20 years, is to store (dredger) sludge, much of it removed from river beds. Class 3 and 4 sludge contains heavy metals, in particular.

The outer limits of the Ingensche Waarden are — as part of the Lower Rhine — designated as a special protection area (SPA) under Natura 2000. The area is well-known as a wintering habitat for Bewick's swan and the white-fronted goose, and as a brooding habitat for the cornkrake.

According to the compulsory environmental impact report (EIR) there will — as a result of the storage — be no significant disruptive impact.

The EIR fails, even so, to consider any alternative to storing the sludge, such as processing as clinker or brick, or as road-building material.

Nor is there any mention of offsetting (natural) measures. The rural EIR committee notes that there is no mention in the EIR of the gap in knowledge surrounding expectations of the actual effects of concentrations on pollution of flora and fauna.

During and after storage of the dredged sludge, local water quality can be expected to deteriorate temporarily. For some substances a temporary overshoot of the maximum permitted risk level (MPR) cannot be excluded. The potential eco(toxico)logical risks of such situations for specified guide species are not quantified in the EIR.

Special protection areas are subject to the Habitats Directive and the Habitats Assessment Framework, which stipulate that encroachment on the natural characteristics of such areas is only permitted if there are no alternatives and there are urgent reasons of overriding public interest.

Does the Commission consider that the intended action is in conflict with the principles underlying the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive and Natura 2000?

Will the Commission arrange to screen all activities in special protection areas, not least the Waal and Lower-Rhine basin area?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

(29 April 2004)

Following Article 6, § 3, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), which, pursuant to its Article 7, also applies to Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2), any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of such a site but likely to have a significant effect thereon shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives.

1

2

The SPA ‘Neder-Rijn’ has a total area of ca. 2 900 hectares (ha). According to the information provided by the Honourable Member, the planned sludge storage project might locally and temporarily affect the water quality within that area. It appears from the information provided that an assessment of the project has been done which shows that there are no significant effects on the site. There is no further information that would suggest a violation of the procedure of Article 6, § 3, of Directive 92/43/EEC. The issue of alternatives is mentioned in Article 6, § 4, of Directive 92/43/EEC which only applies if the project is likely to have significant effects on the site, but must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Since the information from the Honourable Member refers to an assessment concluding that there are no significant effects, it seems at first sight that the provisions of that Directive have been respected. The issue of the need to consider alternatives is further addressed in Article 5 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (3), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (4). From the information provided, however, it is not evident that this provision is contravened.

3

4

It is the responsibility of Member States and not of the Commission to screen activities in special protection areas in order to make sure that the protection regime under Article 6, § 2, 3 and 4 is being respected. For activities where convincing evidence is provided to the Commission that the EU nature protection legislation has been infringed, the Commission has the possibility to open infringement procedures against the Member State responsible.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

1

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

2

(3)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, as amended by Commission Directive 91/224/EEC of 6 March 1991, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.

3

(4)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

4

---