WRITTEN QUESTION E-2974/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 October 2001)

Subject: Damage to the banks of the Westerschelde Estuary resulting from operations to deepen the waterway without adequate environmental compensation outside the dike

1. Can the Commission confirm the report which appeared in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant on 29 September 2001 according to which the deepening by 1m80 to accommodate tanker traffic of the Westerschelde, the unique tidal estuary located in the Netherlands between the Belgian River Scheldt and the North Sea, breaches the Birds and Habitats Directive and that, prior to the project being drawn up, an agreement was reached that the Netherlands and Belgium would jointly invest EUR 30 million in measures to compensate for the environmental damage in the area between the dikes and the open water?

2. Can the Commission confirm that, in its opinion, the implementation of the current projects in the polders inside the dike does not count as compensation and that it has therefore given the Netherlands a choice between restoring the estuary landscape (by means of de-polderisation) with an area inside the dike and filling in the channel already dredged?

3. Does that also mean that any further deepening of the waterway in the Westerschelde by an extra 1m40 for the benefit of the Port of Antwerp is prohibited? If such additional deepening were to take place, how many hectares or square kilometres, in addition to the area of de-polderisation referred to in Question 2, would have to be restored to the natural environment outside the dike?

4. Does the Commission consider that, in these instances and should there be any further destruction of the banks of the Westerschelde, Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive would be applicable whereby, in the absence of alternative solutions and for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, the Member State is required to take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected?

5. Does the choice set out in Question 2 mean that an action might be brought, where appropriate, against the Netherlands in the Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

The Commission is currently investigating the facts raised by the Honourable Member as the result of a complaint which questions the compatibility between the designation of the Western Scheldt as a Natura 2000 site and dredging activities in the navigation channels to facilitate access to the port of Antwerp, as specified in the Water Treaty of 1995 between Belgium and the Netherlands.

This infringement case was registered by the Commission under no. A-95/4564 on 15 June 1995. On the basis of the replies to a first letter of formal notice, sent to the Netherlands on 19 December 1998, the Commission concluded that the Netherlands had failed to comply with Article 6(3) of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) hereafter called the Habitats Directive, and that the proposed Nature Protection Plan for the Western Scheldt would not adequately compensate for the type of estuarine habitats expected to be lost.

The Commission sent a complementary letter of formal notice to the Netherlands on 7 May 2001 requesting information about the justification for the dredging programme and about the timeliness and the exact nature of the proposed compensation measures.

To date, no reply has been received from the Dutch Government.

In the framework of the handling of this case, the Commission has requested that the Dutch Government applies both Article 6(3) and Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. Should the Dutch Government not respect its obligation under this Directive, the case may be brought before the Court of Justice.

The Commission considers that any new dredging activities that go beyond the framework of the 1995 Water Treaty have to be considered as another project for which the separate application of Article 6(3) and Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive will be necessary. The extent of the compensations related to another dredging programme will have to be judged following an appropriate assessment of its effects on the coherence of the Natura 2000 network.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.