WRITTEN QUESTION E-1644/01

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Habitats Directive and proposed Key Planning Decision for the Wadden Sea

On 19 January 2001, the Netherlands Council of Ministers drew up its draft Key Planning Decision (KPD) for the Wadden Sea (Third Policy Document). The KPD contains the main outlines of national government policy for the Wadden Sea. It includes provisions that are directly binding on other authorities. It also contains an assessment framework based partly on the European Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive, against which new activities and the expansion of or changes to existing activities in the Wadden Sea must be evaluated. The KPD encompasses a variety of activities in the Wadden Sea, including military activities and sea-bed fishery. Sea-bed fishery is regarded by experts as very damaging to the coastal ecosystem. In the Wadden Sea the mussel beds have disappeared and there has been a steep decline in the eider duck population.

1. How does the Commission assess Netherlands fisheries policy as described in the draft KPD for the Wadden Sea in the light both of the Habitats Directive, in particular the precautionary principle laid down therein, and of the biodiversity action plan for fisheries(1), and does it consider that policy as sufficient for enabling sea-grass and mussel beds in the Wadden Sea to recover?

2. How does the Commission assess the continuation of current military activities in and around the Wadden Sea, as provided for and described in the Wadden Sea KPD, in the light of Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, which lays down a preventive approach to deterioration of habitat or the endangering of a species in a designated special area of conservation?

3. Does the Commission consider the assessment framework included in the KPD as adequate both for accurately assessing the possible cumulative impact of a combination of plans and projects and for evaluating new activities - such as transferring the Valkenburg naval airbase to Den Helder - in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, and if not how should the Wadden Sea KPD be adjusted?

4. Does the Commission agree that the reference to compelling social interest in the assessment framework is compatible with the reference in Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive to imperative reasons of overriding public interest? Will it consider its answer in the light of the infringement proceedings that it has itself brought against the Netherlands government for inadequate incorporation of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive into Netherlands environment protection law?

(1) COM(2001) 162.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the draft Key Planning Decision (KPD) for the Wadden Sea (Third Policy Making Document). For this reason the Commission is not in a position to answer the questions raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission has launched an investigation in order to assess whether permits for shellfish-fisheries and military activities in the Wadden Sea that have been granted by the Dutch authorities are in conformity with Community law, in particular Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

As far as the fourth question is concerned the Commission is of the opinion that the reference to compelling social interest in the assessment framework is not necessarily compatible with the reference in Article 6(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC to imperative reasons of overriding public interest since the Dutch criterion seems to be less strict than the criterion of the Directive. This question is already the subject of an investigation concerning the conformity of the transposition of Directive 92/43/EEC into Dutch law.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.