WRITTEN QUESTION P-0839/01

by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Mühlenberger Loch

The Mühlenberger Loch, near Hamburg, Germany, the largest freshwater tidal mudflat in the European Union, is designated a Natura 2000 site under (a) Council Directive 79/409/EEC(1) on the conservation of wild birds and (b) Council Directive 92/43/EEC(2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

Is it true that the German Federal Chancellor wrote a letter dated 15 March 2000 to the President of the Commission, requesting as a matter of urgency that the Commission give its approval to the proposed Airbus project involving developments liable to damage the ecological status of the Mühlenberger Loch?

Is it true that, shortly after the arrival of this letter, the Commission lifted its objections to development of the site based on Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive?

Is the Commission entirely satisfied that all the requirements under Article 6(4) specific to a priority habitat have been fulfilled?

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

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

In case of certain plans or projects, which have according to a nature assessment pursuant to Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC(1) (Habitats Directive) negative implications for a Natura 2000 site (i.e. significant adverse effects in view of the site's conservation objectives), the plan or project concerned may despite of the negative result be carried out only under the following conditions set out in Article 6(4) of the Directive, which are resumed as follows:

a) Absence of alternative solutions.

b) Existence of imperative reasons of overriding public interest, i.e. in case the site hosts priority natural habitat types and/or priority species, those interests must be related to human health or public safety considerations, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, or, further to an opinion of the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

c) Need to take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure the overall coherence of Natura 2000 and to inform the Commission thereof.

Since the project was according to the technical assessment i.a. likely to significantly affect the priority plant species Oenanthe conioides of Annex II of the Habitats Directive, Germany asked by letter of 25 October 1999 for an opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive.

The Commission has accepted that there were no feasible alternatives for the project and that there was indeed an overriding public interest due to the European economic importance of this project being an asset in the highly competitive international market of airliner production.

After having examined the fulfilment of the conditions set out in Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive and having received in particular the assurance from Germany that more sites for this species Oenanthe conioides would be proposed in 2000, the Commission was satisfied that the provisions of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (see above) had been respected by Germany and therefore granted a favourable opinion on 19 April 2000.

The Commission confirms having received inter alia a letter from the German Chancellor of 15 March 2000.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.