WRITTEN QUESTION E-2165/01

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Planning conflicts between support for border regions and European nature protection in the Hohenwutzen-Süd Güstebieser Loose area (Brandenburg)

The study area for the construction of the new German-Polish road border Hohenwutzen-Süd contains conservation sites covered by the Fauna/Flora/Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC)(1) and the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)(2). The areas concerned are the flora/fauna/habitat sites Sonnenburger Wald und Ahrenskehle (No 392) and Oderwiesen Neurüdnitz (No 387), which were notified by Germany and fixed by the Land of Brandenburg, and the special protection area Odervorland Gieshof (No 111).

1a. Does the Commission take the view that areas with European nature protection status or sites in the immediate vicinity of such areas are suitable for cross-border road connections?

1b. If so, how does the Commission justify this view and under what conditions can European funds be used for such projects?

1c. With regard to the use of European funding, what is the significance of the fact that, when the decision was taken on the study area for the new Hohenwutzen-Süd border crossing, the lower nature protection authority expressed serious concerns regarding the negative impact of the new road on European protection areas?

2. Does the Commission take the view that European protection areas can be reduced or divided in order to build a new road crossing and that this can be made good with compensatory measures elsewhere?

3a. Does the Commission take the view that joint overall planning is a prerequisite for EU financial support for cross-border infrastructure on the German-Polish border?

3b. If so, do European nature protection areas have priority in such plans?

3c. What role is played by cross-border environmental impact assessments, proof that border crossings are necessary, a study of the alternatives and zero options (the latter in the sense of enlarging existing crossing points)?

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

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

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

1a. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that any decision to create cross-border road links must be taken at the regional or supra-regional level. The Commission ensures that, in any regional or structural development project, the Member State respects Community law, in particular as regards the environment, and more specifically in this case Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

1b. In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(2) any project whatever the area it crosses which is part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund has to comply with Community law, including environmental protection. In the area quoted by the Honourable Member, no project for a cross-border road link costing more than 50 million has yet been submitted to the Commission for part-financing.

1c. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity included in the above regulation, the selection of projects is not a matter for the Commission but for the Member State acting through a Monitoring Committee comprising representatives of the regional and local authorities, the economic and social partners and non-governmental organisations, including environmental protection organisations. If a project for a cross-border road link costing more than 50 million were submitted to the Commission for part-financing, the Commission would consider the results of the environmental impact statement which must accompany any such request.

2. Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora requires the Member State to take appropriate measures for the conservation of the areas concerned and to carry out an assessment of the effects of the project on the site after having sought, if necessary, the public's opinion before approval of any project and irrespective of the programme which would part-finance it. If, in spite of negative conclusions of the assessment of the impact on the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a project has nevertheless to be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State must take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected and inform the Commission of the measures adopted. The Commission can take action only if these conditions are not observed.

3a. In the case of the area referred to by the Honourable Member, the Interreg IIIA PHARE CBC II joint programming document Development of the German-Polish frontier region in Land Brandenburg and the province of Lubuskie sets out priorities and development measures drawn up jointly by the German and Polish authorities which mean that this area may be regarded as a single socio-economic entity.

3b. The first objective of the Interreg Community Initiative is to ensure that national borders do not obstruct the balanced development and integration of the European territory. This also presupposes the coherent management of ecosystems and encourages the promotion of environmental protection and extension of the European Natura 2000 network by linking up regional, national, transnational and Community protection areas.

3c. The joint planning framework referred to above means that it is up to the authorities of Land Brandenburg and of the province of Lubuskie to carry out the cross-border environmental impact assessments, which must, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, include the points mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.