WRITTEN QUESTION P-0837/99

by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission

(22 March 1999)

Subject: Damage caused to a Natura 2000 area by the construction of Vuosaari harbour

Ecological studies carried out into the Helsinki city council's major harbour project in Vuosaari have shown that the organisation of land transport links will probably cause significant damage to the neighbouring Natura 2000 listed area known as the Mustavuori/Östersundom waterfowl preserve. Under the terms of the directive, the possible negative impact of the project on a Natura 2000 area should be assessed in advance.

If no overall assessment is carried out, with the assessment being split up into the various stages of the authorisation procedure, and if, for example in the case of Vuosaari, no overall inspection is carried out when a permit is applied for from the water management authority - which is the first stage to be decided on - the authorisation procedure may reach an advanced stage without anyone being aware of the overall effects of the project.

Does the Commission consider it important that an assessment of a project's impact should really focus on the impact of the project as a whole? If, for example, the planning of transport links forms an integral part of the plan for a harbour, should the environmental impact of the project be assessed as regards not only the building of the harbour itself but also, for example, the whole complex of necessary work involving the redevelopment of wetlands and the organisation of transport links within the immediate vicinity of the harbour, i.e. the roads and railways leading from the harbour area?

Is it possible by means of plans relating to exploitation and conservation of a Natura 2000 area to circumvent the requirement for an exceptional authorisation procedure even when, regardless of such plans, the project nevertheless further reduces the conservation value of the Natura 2000 area?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 1999)

As the Honourable Member refers to a specific project concerning the new port of Helsinki in Vuosaari, the Commission replies to the questions in the light of this project. The port project affects the site Mustavuori-Östersundom which Finland has recognised as a special protection area (SPA) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1) and which also is proposed as site of Community interest (SCI) under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2).

Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive provides that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. This provision is already in force as regards the SPAs under the Birds Directive and thus applicable also in the subject case.

While it is ultimately for the Court of justice to interpret what is an "appropriate assessment", the Commission considers that the primary obligation under Article 6(3) is to assess the impacts of the project itself. However, it is reasonable to consider that there is a secondary obligation to take into account impacts of other closely related projects in the assessment.

The Vuosaari port involves several plans and sub-projects, which include the port itself, the sea traffic route and land traffic connections. In Finland, these are dealt with in separate authorisation procedures. According to the information available to the Commission, all relevant projects seem to have been the subject of an environmental impact assessment. These assessments seem to cover also relevant aspects of all projects and the impacts of the harbour are quite appropriately assessed.

The assessment of the sea traffic route concluded that the ship traffic route and filling of the sea area do not directly have an adverse effect on the SPA-site Mustavuori-Östersundom. Thus, it would not seem necessary to apply Article 6(4) for this project. However, it is clear that authorising this one sub-project may not prejudice in any way the decision-making in the other related projects. If the construction of the port itself or of land traffic connections will affect adversely the SPA-site, the Member State must either not give its approval or else ensure that the procedure under Article 6(4) is followed. On the basis of available assessments, this would seem to be the case at least as regards the land traffic connections.

As regards the question concerning the relation between the management plans and the derogation procedure, the Commission's opinion is that a Member State cannot avoid its obligations under Article 6(4) even if it has established a management plan for the site under Article 6(1). The link between these two issues is in Article 6(3), which the Member State has to apply even for management plans if these include measures affecting the site other than purely positive conservation measures. Thus, at least non-conservation measures need to be assessed in the sense of Article 6(3), and depending on the results of this assessment, the derogation procedure of Article 6(4) might be triggered.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.