WRITTEN QUESTION E-2093/01

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Use of European structural funding (ERDF) of DM 500 million to build the motorway A 17 in Saxony, Germany

The European Union is supporting the construction of the motorway A 17 (Dresden Prague) with ERDF funding amounting to DM 500 million (horizontal structural fund programme to improve road infrastructure in East Germany). The construction of this road is endangering European conservation areas defined in accordance with the wild birds directive (79/409/EEC)(1) and the habitats directive (79/409/EEC)(2)..

1.(a) Did the Commission agree to a reduction in the Fürstenau special protection area (EU registration number 435) in 1998, although this could not be justified as far as conservation was concerned, but was designed to make way for planning permission for the A 17?

1.(b) How can the Commission justify approving this, although it meant splitting up the habitat for the black grouse, the eagle owl and the black stork, and hence jeopardising the survival of these species?

2.(a) Is the Commission aware that noise and emissions from the A 17 motorway are damaging the immediately adjacent special protection area (SPA), now of reduced size, and that this fact was not examined and therefore not assessed in the environmental impact assessment?

If it is, does the Commission consider it is justified that the motorway should take priority over the conservation area, and why?

2.(b) How can the Commission justify the fact that a European conservation area (SPA) is being permanently damaged with the help of European funding?

3.(a) Is the Commission aware that again in order to facilitate planning permission for the A 17 habitat areas for species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive (lesser horseshoe bat, lynx, ground-squirrel, bullhead and brook lamprey) have been registered as significantly smaller than the existing habitats? What is the Commission's opinion of this, in view of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 November 2000 (C-371/98) and the fact that the Land of Saxony, with only 3.5 % of its territory registered as SPA areas, has not anywhere near fulfilled its obligations?

3.(b) Is the Commission aware that the effects of the road building project will also jeopardise the reduced SPA in the long term (because of noise and toxic emissions), but that this was inadequately considered and assessed in the environmental impact assessment? If so, why did it nevertheless approve the use of European funding?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1997, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2001)

On 16 March 2001, the Commission approved the operational programme Transport Infrastructure under the Community support framework for the German regions eligible for Objective 1 funding during the 2000-2006 programming period(1). This Operational Programme does not describe individual projects which the German authorities intend to submit at a later stage. These authorities have not yet formally applied for funding for the motorway A17 in Saxony.

1.(a) The Commission has not agreed to a reduction of the Natura 2000-site Fürstenau.

1.(b) In the light of the answer to question 1a., no answer is required.

2.(a) The Commission has been informed by a complaint of possible conflicts of the construction of the motorway A 17 between Dresden and Prague in the Bundesland Saxony both with the Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC(2) and the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC(3). It has recently been decided to send a letter of formal notice to Germany, which addresses the lack of sufficient proposals of Sites of Community Importance (SCI) under Article 4 (1) of the Habitats Directive and the disrespect of the protection regime under Article 6 (3) and (4) of that Directive, also in relation to Special Protection Areas (SPA) designated under Article 4 (1) of the Birds Directive. The relevant sites in the corridor of the planned motorway, including the area Fürstenau, are expressly mentioned in this letter of formal notice. The infringement case also addresses the insufficient assessment of implications of the motorway project under Article 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive with a view to the existing proposed SCIs and SPAs.

The Commission will ensure the respect of the relevant provisions of Community environmental law in this context, in particular of Council Directive 85/337/EEC(4), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC(5), as well as of Article 6 (4) of the Habitats Directive.

According to the latter, a plan or project which is likely to have a significant negative effect on Natura 2000-sites can be justified if:

(i) there are no alternative solutions,

(ii) there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, and

(iii) compensatory measures are taken to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.

If priority habitat types and species are concerned, only considerations related to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest may be raised.

2.(b) In the absence of a formal request for funding, the Commission has not yet approved the project.

According to the Community's financial regulations, the respect of Community environmental policy, including Community environmental law, is a pre-condition for the granting of European funding.

3.(a) See answer to question 2(a).

3.(b) See answers to question 2(a) and 2(b).

(1) C/2001/536.

(2) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora OJ L 206, 22.7.1997.

(4) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(5) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.