EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/182

(2004/C 78 E/0189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2865/03

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) and Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject: Destruction of unique parts of the European natural heritage in Brandenburg, Federal Republic of Germany

In its answer to Elisabeth Schroedter's question (E-3577/02 (1)) of 27 January 2003 and in the answer to complaint 2000/4731, the Commission indicates that the Lacoma wetlands should have been proposed as a site of Community importance pursuant to Article 4(1) and Annex III of the FFH Directive (92/43/EEC (2)on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) because of its exceptional natural beauty and its large population of fire-bellied toads (Bombina bombina), which is possibly unique in Europe. The German Government, however, did not prompt the Land of Brandenburg to do so. Once the approval procedure is concluded, therefore, the area is in danger of being completely drained so that lignite can be mined for the generation of electricity by the Swedish firm Vattenfall.

1. Following its assessment (see the answer to question E-3577/02), has the Commission reached the conclusion that the German Government did not need to propose the Lacoma wetlands, despite the fact that the Commission itself had noted their importance to the European natural heritage? Does it also consider that their destruction was inconsequential in relation to the objectives of Natura 2000, even though the unusually large population of fire-bellied toads probably represents a source population for other smaller populations?

2. Does the Commission adhere to its view expressed in the answer to complaint 2000/4731 that, in a liberalised European energy market, Vattenfall's lignite mining constitutes ‘imperative reasons’ even though those reasons must relate to ‘human health’ and ‘public safety’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the FFH Directive owing to the presence of the priority species Osmoderma Eremita, and despite evidence that conditions in the Lacoma wetlands are favourable for the development of Osmoderma Eremita and other species listed in Annex II of the FFH Directive? If so, how does the Commission justify its view in the context of the FFH Directive (92/43/EEC) and its responsibility to reveal hidden distortions of competition on the European market?

3. Does the Commission intend to abandon the proceedings for infringement of the Treaty even though there is as yet no guarantee, in legal or financial terms, that compensatory measures will be forthcoming? If so, why?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

The Commission was made aware by means of a complaint of the natural values of the site ‘Lacomaer Teiche und Hammergraben’, which is likely to be significantly affected by the impending implementation of a lignite mining project. The complainant considered that this site should have been proposed as a Site of Community Importance under Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). The Commission, after a preliminary assessment, shared this view. This view of the Commission was based in particular on the presence of an important population of the Fire-bellied toad (Bombina bombina), which, however, is not a priority species under the above Directive.

As a result of its investigation of the complaint, the Commission came to the conclusion that even if the site had been proposed by the German authorities, this would not have provided any added value for the Natura 2000 network in the long term since the mining project could be implemented in compliance with Article 6(4) 1st sentence of the Directive (absence of alternatives, overriding public interest and compensation).

There is no viable alternative to the lignite mining project intended to be implemented on that site. This project is of huge importance for the regional economy and energy security. It is worth noting that mining enterprise promoting the project enjoys legal protection as the mining project was, in principle, authorised before the German reunification. Finally, substantial compensation measures are being designed.

Since the Commission has received subsequent information indicating that a priority species listed in the Annexes of the Directive, namely osmoderma eremita, a wood beetle, has been found at the site, the Commission has again made representations to the German Government in order to gather information with a view to deciding on further steps to be taken to ensure appropriate compliance with Community environmental law. Until now the Commission has not taken any decision on this case.

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 108.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.