# CE2004065EN.01008401.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/84

---

(2004/C 65 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1515/03

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject:   Extensive clearing of trees and bushes in FFH areas in the Elbe-Elster district, Brandenburg, Germany

Subject:

For some time now extensive clearing of trees and bushes has been taking place on the rivers Schwarze Elster, Pulsnitz and Röder (Elbe-Elster district, Brandenburg). The competent authority (Brandenburg Regional Environment Office) has justified this work on the grounds of the necessary renovation and maintenance work on the dykes.

These operations have been or are being carried out in the following designated FFH areas:

| — | FFH area 509 ‘Pulsnitz and flood plains’; |
| --- | --- |

—

FFH area 509 ‘Pulsnitz and flood plains’;

| — | FFH area 495 ‘Middle reach of the Schwarze Elster’; |
| --- | --- |

—

FFH area 495 ‘Middle reach of the Schwarze Elster’;

| — | FFH area 231 ‘Arnsnestea flood plains’; |
| --- | --- |

—

FFH area 231 ‘Arnsnestea flood plains’;

| — | FFH area 498 ‘Kleine Röder’. |
| --- | --- |

—

FFH area 498 ‘Kleine Röder’.

The Brandenburg Regional Environment Office takes the view that this constitutes maintenance work (for urgent flood-protection reasons), even though there was no acute threat on these rivers during the floods of August 2002 or during those of January 2003. The extensive clearance of trees and bushes in these FFH areas is having a considerable impact on protected habitats and animal species.

Can the Commission say:

| — | whether it has already been informed of this work? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it has already been informed of this work?

| — | whether it is prepared to verify if this clearing operation is simply renovation or maintenance work (as claimed by the Brandenburg Regional Environment Office)? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is prepared to verify if this clearing operation is simply renovation or maintenance work (as claimed by the Brandenburg Regional Environment Office)?

| — | whether it is prepared to investigate (perhaps on the spot) the possibility that the work may be in breach of EU directives (FFH Directive)? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is prepared to investigate (perhaps on the spot) the possibility that the work may be in breach of EU directives (FFH Directive)?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

(18 September 2003)

The Honourable Member is aware that under Article 6 (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a Site of Community Importance shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. Where there is a negative assessment, a project may only be authorised if there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest and no alternative solutions exist. In such a case the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.

1

In the present case the Commission has not been informed of the developments described by the Honourable Member. However, based on the documents received from the Honourable Member the Commission has gathered additional information on these developments.

According to this information the situation appears to be as follows:

| — | The clearing of trees and bushes described by the Honourable Member was authorised by the competent German authorities (Kreisverwaltung). These authorisations were based on an assessment of the implications of the treecutting on the conservation objectives of the sites. The assessment arrived at the conclusion that there would be significant impacts on the sites and that therefore compensatory measures were necessary. In spite of the significant impacts the measures were authorised for reasons of public security, namely flood prevention. However, it is not clear whether compensatory measures have been defined or implemented. |
| --- | --- |

—

The clearing of trees and bushes described by the Honourable Member was authorised by the competent German authorities (Kreisverwaltung). These authorisations were based on an assessment of the implications of the treecutting on the conservation objectives of the sites. The assessment arrived at the conclusion that there would be significant impacts on the sites and that therefore compensatory measures were necessary. In spite of the significant impacts the measures were authorised for reasons of public security, namely flood prevention. However, it is not clear whether compensatory measures have been defined or implemented.

| — | To determine whether the requirements of Article 6 (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC have been complied with, in particular with regard to compensation measures, the Commission, therefore, will open an own initiative investigation into this case and contact the German authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

To determine whether the requirements of Article 6 (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC have been complied with, in particular with regard to compensation measures, the Commission, therefore, will open an own initiative investigation into this case and contact the German authorities.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

1

---