WRITTEN QUESTION E-0518/98

by Elisabeth Schroedter (V) to the Commission

(2 March 1998)

Subject: Diversion of European regional development resources to the A20 in Mecklenburg- Western Pomerania

1. Is the Commission aware that the government of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania intends to spend ERDF resources on feeder roads to the A20, since the adjoining municipalities are unable to raise the money?

2. How can this diversion of regional development resources be reconciled with the Commission's concern to use European structural funds more efficiently for the creation of jobs during the current planning period? Does the Commission consider it appropriate in this context for the money for the feeder roads to be withdrawn from other regional projects (for which it was originally intended)?

3. Does the Commission give the financing of feeder roads to the A20 priority over the direct promotion of SMEs in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (on which far less has so far been spent)?

4. What does the Commission think of the attempt to spend European money in the five new Länder in sectors which are shown in the planning document as being of secondary importance?

5. Does the Commission believe that the Community's principles, especially that concerning the preservation of the environment, are being observed if the construction of feeder roads to the A20 begins before the full environmental impact assessment has been made and without it having been clarified whether the measure can be financed?

6. Does the Commission believe that biospheres designated in accordance with the FFH directive and forming part of the Natura 2000 network of protected biospheres (in this case, the estuary of the River Peene near Jarmen) are protected even if measures are not taken to avoid and reduce the effects of the construction work? How does the Commission obtain information on the compliance of the measures proposed by the Federal Government?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 1998)

1. to 4. The Commission has no information that the authorities of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania intend to use European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) money to part-finance access to the A 20 motorway during the current programming period.

In the case of the Objective 1 regions of Germany, it was agreed in the Community support framework, negotiated between the Commission and the federal and Land authorities within the framework of the partnership, that ERDF funds for investment in infrastructure connected to economic activity would be granted in accordance with the national provisions on subsidies under the joint scheme (Gemeinschaftsaufgabe) for "Improvement of the regional economic structure". This does not permit grants for general infrastructure measures at federal or Land level. Furthermore, the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania authorities have not asked for a partial derogation from the joint scheme to part-finance projects of this kind during the current programming period. This means that current rules make it impossible for the ERDF to contribute to the construction of access roads to the A 20 motorway.

5. The Member States are required to ensure that Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) is respected. This implies that permission to construct a project falling under the scope of this Directive can only be granted upon the completion of the procedure according to the said Directive, which includes also public consultation. The Commission has no information suggesting that this is not the case for the works on the A 20 motorway in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

6. As for the protection of classified special protection areas under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2) (habitats Directive), which applies to the construction measures on the A 20 motorway, the Commission has made clear - in its opinion 96/15/EC of 18 December 1995 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(3) in accordance with the habitats Directive Article 6(4) - that protective and compensatory measures are required for limiting unfavourable effects on the Natura 2000 zone which is affected by the crossing of the Peene river basin area. These measures must be taken in parallel with the construction works on the road. The Member State has to inform the Commission about the measures taken by it in this context.

So far the Commission has no indication that the measures limiting environmental damage are not being fully applied. In this context, however, the Commission has recently received a complaint and has asked the Member State for its detailed comments. Apart from this, the German authorities have reported to the Commission on the measures taken following the said opinion. The Commission will assess this information together with the reply of the German authorities which is expected concerning the complaint.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(3) OJ L 6, 9.1.1996.