EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/281

(2004/C 84 E/0328)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4003/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: Draught in the Vilshofen-Straubing section of the Danube

The Van Miert report calls for a draught of 2,5 metres throughout the whole year in the Vilshofen-Straubing section of the Danube but this cannot be achieved without damming stages that would destroy the most important water meadow ecosystem in southern Germany,

What is the Commission's assessment of the following points:

1. Damning stages on the Vilshofen-Straubing section of the Danube are incompatible with both the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive and are in breach of the ‘no deterioration’ clause in the EU water framework directive;

2. On 7 June 2002, after a wide-ranging hearing of experts, the Bundestag rejected damning stages on environmental and economic grounds and voted by a clear majority for river improvement works in line with Variant A;

3. The recommendations made by the Danube Commission for the section from Vienna to the Black Sea provide merely for a navigable channel of 2,5 m during 94 % of the shipping season;

4. Creating a guaranteed draught of 2,5 m for the whole year in Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria and Romanian would destroy the last natural river landscape?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the area concerned is designated as pSCI (proposed site of Community importance) according to the Habitats Directive (1). The site DE 7142301 ‘Donauauen zwischen Straubing und Vilshofen’ Stretches along the Danube with an area of 4 548 hectares (ha).

Neither the Habitats Directive nor the Birds Directive (2) prohibits projects like water regulating measures. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive provides procedures and conditions for assessing projects that might have an impact on protected areas. For the time being, the Commission has no evidence to suspect that Community legislation has not been respected. It is understood that a number of options have been considered and the variant A supported by the Bundestag is indeed the most sensitive in environmental terms.

As regards the Water Framework Directive (3) (WED), the Commission supports the recent resolution adopted by the Plenary of the International Commission for the Protection of the River Danube (ICPDR) on 1 and 2 December 2003 which states,

that the ICPDR: (a) takes note of the European Commission Proposal on Trans-European Networks (TENs) Guidelines, specifically stressing in its Explanatory Memorandum the need for compliance of TENs projects with EU environmental legislation such as the WFD; (b) stresses that each project has to be subject to a comprehensive integrated environmental impact assessment and a compliance with the WFD, including the non-deterioration principle; (c) invites contracting parties to engage in dialogue with their responsible ministries for transport and ensure agreement on the above.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 91/244/EEC of 6 March 1991, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.

(3) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.