WRITTEN QUESTION E-1047/02

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Extraction of gravel in Area 49 under the Habitats Directive: Nordrügensche Boddenlandschaft (Neuendorfer Wiek) in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Over the next 30 years, 5,1 million tonnes of gravel is to be industrially extracted from a 29 ha site in an inland lagoon on the island of Rügen (Neuendorfer Wiek). The Stralsund

Mining Authority granted authorisation on 12 November 1999 (official approval of the plan). That authorisation failed to take into account the fact that the extraction will take place inside Area 49 under the Habitats Directive: Nordrügensche Boddenlandschaft. The Neuendorfer Wiek will also be damaged through substance input and adversely affected by noise. Habitats such as xeric sand calcareous grasslands (Type 6120) and xeric grassland and dry turf will be directly affected, and salt meadows indirectly affected, as will the habitat of valuable fauna, including the resting grounds of 20 000 migratory birds, a significant feeding area used by three pairs of sea eagles and one of the most important sandwich tern colonies in the unique Baltic Sea population.

1. (a) Is the European Commission aware of this destruction and/or planned encroachment on Area 49 under the Habitats Directive?

(b) Will the Commission initiate proceedings against Germany? If not, how else will it react to the destruction of Europe's nature heritage?

2. (a) Does the Commission take the view that a project, albeit covered by Annex II to the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC(1), must nevertheless be subject to a statutory EIA if an area covered by the Habitats Directive is involved, and does it consider that separate inquiries should be carried out?

(b) Does the Commission take the view that the Land Government and the administrative authorities in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern must protect areas covered by the Habitats Directive and prevent encroachment thereon and the destruction thereof?

(c) Is the Commission aware that, in the approval procedure referred to above, the compilation of environmental data was inadequate and that the data was not evaluated on a scientific basis, with the result that the zero option was not reviewed in sufficient detail? In the Commission's view, what must of necessity be done in this instance?

3. Does the Commission know whether the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Land Government has, directly or indirectly (i.e. via the infrastructure), subsidised this project from the Structural Funds? If so, will the Commission demand repayment of such sums paid from the Structural Funds?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

1. (a) The Commission was informed on the planned gravel extraction project in the context of a complaint.

(b) The Commission requested and received further information from Germany on the planned gravel extraction project. This information is currently under assessment. Following the results of this assessment, the Commission will decide if or not it will open an infringement procedure on this case against Germany.

2. (a) Following Article 6, paragraph 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 the Habitats Directive) any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a site covered by the Habitats Directive, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site, in view of the site's conservation objectives. The Directive does not exclude the possibility to conduct this particular inquiry in the framework of a broader environmental impact assessment (EIA) carried out for example in application of the Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2).

(b) Areas which, under Article 4 (1) of the Habitats Directive, have been proposed as Sites of Community Importance are subject to the protection regime set out in Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive. These provisions notably aim at avoiding the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as the disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of the Habitats Directive. The provisions are applicable to the particular proposed site of Community importance in the Neuendorfer Wieck.

(c) So far the Commission has not yet concluded its evaluation if the protection regime set out in Article 6 (2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive has been correctly applied by the competent authorities or not. An investigation of alternative solutions for the project would in fact be necessary only if the assessment mentioned under 2a. came to the conclusion that the project would have a significant negative impact on the site's conservation objectives.

3. The Commission has been informed by the managing authority in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, that the project described has not been co-funded by the Structural Funds. Neither has there any project been submitted for funding in relation to gravel extraction in the Neuendorfer Wieck so far, nor does the managing authority know about intentions to ask for funding.

Furthermore, the regional authorities have informed the Commission, that such a project proposal would not be eligible under the current selection criteria. In any case, all operations funded through the Structural Funds have to fully comply with the requirements of Community legislation including those set up in the Directives on EIA and on Habitats as referred to above.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.