WRITTEN QUESTION E-1230/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Infringement of European directives by NAM test borings in the de Biesbosch National Park, a Netherlands nature reserve protected by the European Birds Directive.
Date: 2000-04-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Netherlands, North Brabant, environmental impact, gas industry, protection of animal life

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/109

(2001/C 53 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1230/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Infringement of European directives by NAM test borings in the de Biesbosch National Park,

a Netherlands nature reserve protected by the European Birds Directive

Does the Commission recall its answers to Written Questions Nos E-0330/00 (1) and P-0179/00 (2) on

1.
test borings for gas in the De Biesbosch National Park in the Netherlands, according to which:

(a)

the Commission has no information about the issue;

(b) De Biesbosch merits designation as a special protection area (SPA) for the conservation of wild birds,

but the Netherlands authorities have not yet designated the site;

(c) according to Court of Justice case law, a site that has to be designated as an SPA must be protected in
conformity with Articles 6(3) and (4), and Article 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC (3), and the Commission is
taking the necessary steps to ensure that Community environmental legislation is fully complied with
in this case?

Can the Commission confirm that (cid:129) contrary to what is stated in the answers to the above Written
2.
Questions E-0330/00 and P-0179/00 (cid:129) the De Biesbosch National Park has meanwhile been registered
under the Birds Directive but is not covered by nature protection legislation?

In accordance with Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC, an assessment is required in the case of a
3.
plan or project that is likely to have a significant effect on an SPA, and approval may only be given after it
has been ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned. Does the
Commission agree that an overall review in relation to the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive,
such as that carried out by the Ministry of Economic Affairs (see letter from the Minister, Mr Jorritsma, of
24 January 2000), must be considered as inadequate to meeting the requirement of ascertaining that the
integrity of the site will not be adversely affected?

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC also stipulates that the competent authorities must have obtained
4.
the opinion of the general public. Objectors were informed in response to the question of the right to
inspect data concerning the location of gas borings, that this was a matter of confidential commercial
information exclusive to NAM, and the request for a map to be provided showing the proposed locations
consequently was turned down. It was only after the licence had been issued that it became known that
the location was in the core area of the De Biesbosch National Park. Does the Commission agree that this
amounts to a failure to comply with the requirement laid down in Article 6(3) of obtaining the opinion of
the general public?

5.
Is the Commission prepared to make representations to the competent authority, viz. the Netherlands
Ministry of Economic Affairs, in the matter of its continuing failure to implement the above provisions of
the said EEC directive?

6.
Does the Commission agree that, if it shares my view that the competent authority continues to
infringe an EEC directive by failing to provide a careful assessment so as to ascertain that the integrity of
the important fresh-water tidal area and nature reserve, the De Biesbosch National Park, will not be
adversely affected, then the licence should be revoked? If so, will it be prepared to take the necessary steps
to bring that about?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 129.
(2) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 99.
(3) OJ L 206, 22 July 1992, p. 7.

C 53 E/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

As stated in the reply to the Written Questions P-0179/00 by Mr de Roo (1) and E-330/00 by Mr Meijer (2)
the Commission has sent a letter to the Netherlands requesting information about the application of
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (3) and Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (4) with
regard to the Biesbosch. The Biesbosch has been designated as a special protection area (SPA) within the
meaning of Directive 79/409/EEC and has been proposed as an area of special Community interest (SCI)
within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC as well.

In its letter the Commission asked the Netherlands for information on whether an appropriate assessment
as defined in Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC has been made concerning the effects that the project
could have on the Biesbosch and if so, what are the results of it. The Commission also asked whether it
has obtained the opinion of the general public.

The Commission has not yet received a reply from the Netherlands and it is now overdue. Therefore it has
sent a further letter to the Netherlands requesting a reply as soon as possible.

Until the Commission has been informed about the results of the assessment it is not able to judge the
applicability of Directive 79/409/EEC and Directive 92/43/EEC,
in particular Article 6(4) of the last
mentioned Directive, to the project in question.

The application of Directive 79/409/EEC and Directive 92/43/EEC is primarily the responsibility of the
Member State that is concerned. The Commission(cid:146)s only responsibility is to check whether the Member
State has respected the requirements of those Directives.

The requirements of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC only apply if the results of the assessment that is
meant in Article 6(3) of the Directive show that the project will have significant effects on the Biesbosch.
At the moment the Commission has no indication that action has to be taken as suggested in the question
in advance of receiving the reply from the Netherlands. It has not yet received any indication that an
infringement of Directive 79/409/EEC or Directive 92/43/EEC has already taken place.

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 99.
(2) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 129.
(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 53 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1231/00

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Hydroelectricity production in the Ulla river basin (Galicia)

The Galician regional government, through its autonomous body Aguas de Galicia,
is studying the
application made by the electricity company Uni(cid:243)n Fenasa S.A. for authorisation to exploit the entire
Ulla river basin. The project submitted by the electricity company entails the construction of 12 dams
which would seriously alter the natural features of the river basin, if authorisation is granted. In some
cases, the linking of marshland areas could lead to the complete disappearance of large stretches of the
river bed (dams 1, 2 and 3 on the river Ulla). In other cases, the project entails diverting the river bed
through channels (dam 14 on the river Deza). The project is opposed by local people, who have submitted
5 000 complaints to Aguas de Galicia calling for it to be rejected.