WRITTEN QUESTION E-1230/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Infringement of European directives by NAM test borings in the de Biesbosch National Park, a Netherlands nature reserve protected by the European Birds Directive

1. Does the Commission recall its answers to Written Questions Nos E-0330/00(1) and P-0179/00(2) on test borings for gas in the De Biesbosch National Park in the Netherlands, according to which:

(a) the Commission has no information about the issue;

(b) De Biesbosch merits designation as a special protection area (SPA) for the conservation of wild birds, but the Netherlands authorities have not yet designated the site;

(c) according to Court of Justice case law, a site that has to be designated as an SPA must be protected in conformity with Articles 6(3) and (4), and Article 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC(3), and the Commission is taking the necessary steps to ensure that Community environmental legislation is fully complied with in this case?

2. Can the Commission confirm that contrary to what is stated in the answers to the above Written Questions E-0330/00 and P-0179/00 the De Biesbosch National Park has meanwhile been registered under the Birds Directive but is not covered by nature protection legislation?

3. In accordance with Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC, an assessment is required in the case of a plan or project that is likely to have a significant effect on an SPA, and approval may only be given after it has been ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned. Does the Commission agree that an overall review in relation to the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, such as that carried out by the Ministry of Economic Affairs (see letter from the Minister, Mr Jorritsma, of 24 January 2000), must be considered as inadequate to meeting the requirement of ascertaining that the integrity of the site will not be adversely affected?

4. Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC also stipulates that the competent authorities must have obtained the opinion of the general public. Objectors were informed in response to the question of the right to inspect data concerning the location of gas borings, that this was a matter of confidential commercial information exclusive to NAM, and the request for a map to be provided showing the proposed locations consequently was turned down. It was only after the licence had been issued that it became known that the location was in the core area of the De Biesbosch National Park. Does the Commission agree that this amounts to a failure to comply with the requirement laid down in Article 6(3) of obtaining the opinion of the general public?

5. Is the Commission prepared to make representations to the competent authority, viz. the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs, in the matter of its continuing failure to implement the above provisions of the said EEC directive?

6. Does the Commission agree that, if it shares my view that the competent authority continues to infringe an EEC directive by failing to provide a careful assessment so as to ascertain that the integrity of the important fresh-water tidal area and nature reserve, the De Biesbosch National Park, will not be adversely affected, then the licence should be revoked? If so, will it be prepared to take the necessary steps to bring that about?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 129.

(2) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 99.

(3) OJ L 206, 22 July 1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

As stated in the reply to the Written Questions P-0179/00 by Mr de Roo(1) and E-330/00 by Mr Meijer(2) the Commission has sent a letter to the Netherlands requesting information about the application of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(3) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna(4) with regard to the Biesbosch. The Biesbosch has been designated as a special protection area (SPA) within the meaning of Directive 79/409/EEC and has been proposed as an area of special Community interest (SCI) within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC as well.

In its letter the Commission asked the Netherlands for information on whether an appropriate assessment as defined in Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC has been made concerning the effects that the project could have on the Biesbosch and if so, what are the results of it. The Commission also asked whether it has obtained the opinion of the general public.

The Commission has not yet received a reply from the Netherlands and it is now overdue. Therefore it has sent a further letter to the Netherlands requesting a reply as soon as possible.

Until the Commission has been informed about the results of the assessment it is not able to judge the applicability of Directive 79/409/EEC and Directive 92/43/EEC, in particular Article 6(4) of the last mentioned Directive, to the project in question.

The application of Directive 79/409/EEC and Directive 92/43/EEC is primarily the responsibility of the Member State that is concerned. The Commission's only responsibility is to check whether the Member State has respected the requirements of those Directives.

The requirements of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC only apply if the results of the assessment that is meant in Article 6(3) of the Directive show that the project will have significant effects on the Biesbosch. At the moment the Commission has no indication that action has to be taken as suggested in the question in advance of receiving the reply from the Netherlands. It has not yet received any indication that an infringement of Directive 79/409/EEC or Directive 92/43/EEC has already taken place.

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 99.

(2) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 129.

(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.