WRITTEN QUESTION E-0679/99

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 1999)

Subject: Evaluation of the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment

Where the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC(1) requires an Environmental Impact Assessment wherever there is a "likelihood" that a development might damage a protected area, it is necessary for an initial assessment to be made as to whether there is any such likelihood. In these circumstances, what is the Commission's view of the situation arising when a development takes place without even such an initial assessment having been carried out or where it is carried out only after the development in question? Is the Commission aware of the case of the upgrading of the bridges on the Southport Coastal Road which developed the capacity of the road to take traffic through a protected area? Is the Commission aware that the assessment carried out by the responsible agency, English Nature, that this development would have no negative impact on the protected areas, was not given until several months after the event, and even then, only in response to persistent questioning by environmental groups? Does the Commission feel that the letter and the spirit of the Habitats Directive have been fully applied in this case?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 1999)

The Honourable Member refers to Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ("the Habitats Directive"). The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's reply to his previous written questions E-2868/98 and E-2869/98(2) that set out the wording of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive and made it clear that the article is concerned with "a plan or project" which is "likely to have a significant effect" on a designated site (Special area of conservation (SPA) or Special protected area (SAC). Any such plan or project "shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation interests".

The Commission is aware of the complaint in relation to the upgrading works to two existing bridges on the Southport coast road. The Commission has been actively investigating the complaint since its receipt in June 1998. The Commission is not aware of any relevant scientific evidence that has been supplied by the complainants or the United Kingdom that demonstrates there is likely to be a significant effect on the site's conservation interests, as a result of the works to the bridges. The Commission notes that the Southport coast road has been present since the 1960s.

The Commission is aware that the British authorities are currently consulting on a draft conservation strategy for the Sefton coast candidate SAC that has been prepared by the relevant British authorities. This demonstrates that they are aware of their obligations under the Habitats Directive. If the Honourable Member is concerned about the procedural aspects of this case at the national authority level, he is reminded that there may be national remedies available.

Only the Court of justice can give a definitive interpretation of the Directive, and the Commission regrets that it cannot give more guidance to the Honourable Member than that contained in its previous answer.

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

(2) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 50.