WRITTEN QUESTION E-3477/00

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Cable pipes through the Brabantse Wal special protected zone

In July of this year 24 cable pipes were laid in the frontier park De Zoom Kalmthoutse Heide (part of the Brabantse Wal). They are to be used as protective sheaths for optical-fibre cables which have still to be installed. Heavy equipment was used in the laying, with the result that substantial areas of greenery were destroyed and the peace of the area was disturbed. The Brabantse Wal is designated a special protected zone under the Wild Birds Directive. The role of the local authority of Woensdrecht appears to be confined to ex post monitoring of the work carried out.

Does the Commission share the view that the cable pipes in question should not have been laid through the frontier park, particularly as bordering the park there is a paved path which could have been used as an alternative route for the pipes?

Does the Commission also think that the local authority of Woensdrecht should at least indicate a form of compensation to restore the damage caused?

Does the Commission share the view that the Dutch authorities should improve the way in which they communicate to local authorities the significance and the substance of the Wild Birds Directive to prevent a repetition of this sort of incident?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

The Commission was not aware that 24 cable pipes had been laid in the frontier park De Zoom Kalmthoutse Heide (part of the Brabantse Wal) in July 2000.

The Brabantse Wal was designated as a special protection area (hereafter SPA) under the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1) (hereafter Directive 79/409/EEC).

Pursuant to Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna(2) (hereafter Directive 92/43/EEC) the obligations under Article 6(3) and 6(4) of that Directive apply to SPAs.

According to Article 6(3) any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a SPA shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site. The national authorities shall agree to the project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the site and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.

According to Article 6(4) if, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, the project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.

The cable pipes as such are not likely to have significant effects on the SPA. The destruction of greenery could have had significant effects within the meaning of Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC. This depends on the circumstances of the case. However, the Commission has not received specific information about this. If there were no significant effects the authorities are neither obliged to consider alternatives nor to demonstrate that there were imperative reasons of overriding public interest nor to take compensatory measures under Article 6(4).

In first instance it is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that Community law is complied with at all levels. Since compliance is a matter for the Member States the Commission is unable to recommend how this should be done.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.