WRITTEN QUESTION E-1083/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Prevention of violation of the Habitats, Birds and EIR Directives in connection with recommencement of work on the Deurganck dock

On 14 December 2001 the Flemish Parliament adopted a decree declaring that the works, operations and facilities required to construct the Deurganck dock on the left bank of the Scheldt and bring it into operation were of urgent general and strategic interest (Belgian Official Journal, 20 December 2001). In accordance with Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC(1), the following compensatory measures have been taken: (a) area for meadow birds located in an area of controlled flooding in the Kruibeke-Bazel-Rupelmonde zone; (b) Paardenschor salt marsh; (c) creek at the level of Paardenschor; (d) freshwater creek in the buffer zone (Zuid-West B); (e) Drydijck pool including an environmental buffer zone; (f) areas for meadow birds in Doelpolder noord (V) and in the temporary meadow birds area Putten West (ZTA); (g) improvement of the environmental quality of polders in plots belonging to the Flemish government; (h) temporary and permanent management of lakes in Putten Plas and other lakes in Z2; (i) temporary installation of Zwijnrecht, ex-Doeldok and Z2 discharge areas.

Article 4 of the decree states that the Flemish government must ensure the proper application of the EIR Directive 85/337/EEC(2), Articles 3 and 4 of the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC(3) and Articles 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, before granting the necessary building permits.

In accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC and Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, applicants for urban planning permission are also required to take all the necessary steps to ensure that compensatory measures are carried out and to guarantee that the general environment of Natura 2000 is maintained.

On 29 March 2002 the Flemish Parliament confirmed the planning permissions granted by the Flemish government on 18 March 2002 pursuant to the Decree of 14 December 2001.

Can the European Commission say whether or not, in the light of this new situation, it is prepared to withdraw the notice of infringement of 20 March 2002 on the grounds of infringements of Article 4(1) of the Birds Directive and Article 6(3) and(4) of the Habitats Directive relating to the Flemish government's decision of 8 September 2000 concerning the third amendment to the Sint-Niklaas-Lokeren district plan and the harbour extension measures included therein?

If not, can the Commission say what additional measures of the Flemish Parliament and the Flemish government need to take in order to comply with the requirements imposed by the European Union?

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

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2002)

The Commission has been informed about the facts raised by the Honourable Member during a meeting with the Flemish regional authorities on 26 October 2001 and from documentation received from the Flemish regional authorities after this meeting.

The Commission notes that the compensation programme mentioned by the Honourable Member is related to the infringement procedures that were started after complaints were received concerning the building of two docks in the Special Protection Area (SPA) Schorren en Polders van de Beneden-Schelde, the Verrebroeck-dock (case A-98/4669) and the Deurganck-dock (case A-98/5005).

The Commission wishes to point out that the Letter of formal Notice of 20 March 2002 mentioned by the Honourable Member concerns a separate infringement case (A-00/2212) relating to the Flemish government's decision of 8 September 2000 concerning the second revision of the Sint-Niklaas-Lokeren zoning plan and the harbour extension measures included therein. The subject matter of this case is the long term objective of the Flemish authorities to convert the entire SPA to portuary and other infrastructure, as laid out in the revised zoning plan.

Given the above mentioned elements, the information about the compensation plans related to the docks cases has no influence on the status of the cases concerning the zoning plan.