WRITTEN QUESTION P-0584/01 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Aquaculture developments at Lough Swilly, Co Donegal, an SAC and an SPA, and at Kenmare Bay, Co. Kerry, an SAC.
Date: 2001-02-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: FIFG, Ireland, application of EU law, aquaculture, complaint to the Commission, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, operational programme, protected area

C 261 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

The Socrates programme(cid:146)s Arion action enables education professionals to travel abroad to study other
countries(cid:146) educational systems and approaches to common issues. In 2000-2001, 15 Arion study visits
addressing some 180 education specialists and decision makers were scheduled. A similar number of
events will take place in 2001-2002.

(1) DG EAC 66/00.

(2001/C 261 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0584/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Aquaculture developments at Lough Swilly, Co Donegal, an SAC and an SPA, and at Kenmare Bay,

Co. Kerry, an SAC

Referring to complaints P20/4543 and 2000/5032, SG(2000) A/13568 concerning the potential negative
environmental impacts arising from aquaculture expansions within the Lough Swilly and Kenmare Bay
areas protected under EU law: Habitats (92/43 (1)) and Wild Birds (79/409 (2)) Directives. Does the
Commission consider such developments in protected areas to be in breach of the Habitats and Wild
Birds Directives?

What has the Commission done to rectify the situation or what does it intend to do?

Ireland has been given substantial EU structural funds to expand its aquaculture/fisheries industry, and
applicants can also avail themselves of an EU aquaculture grants scheme. Could the Commission state how
much EU money has been earmarked for developments at Lough Swilly and in the Kenmare Bay area?

Does the Commission intend to put pressure on and/or suspend payments relating to these developments?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

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

(30 March 2001)

Aquaculture per se is not prohibited within Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under Directive 79/409/EEC of
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds or within areas proposed for protection under Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. However,
these Directives set out a number of procedural and other safeguards which must be respected where
aquaculture has or is likely to have significant effects.

The Commission has received detailed information from complainants in relation to aquaculture expansion
in Lough Swilly, and this information is currently under consideration. Pending the conclusion of the
Commission(cid:146)s consideration, it would be premature to outline what action the Commission intends to take.

As regards Kenmare Bay,
the Commission has recently requested the complainant to furnish more
information under a standard request for supplementary information employed in relation to complaints
concerning threats to SPAs and sites proposed under Directive 92/43/EEC. The response of the complai-
nant is awaited.

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/153

In the operational programmes for the period 2000-2006 for the Border, Midland and Western region
(which includes Lough Swilly) and the Southern and Eastern region (which includes Kenmare Bay), the
contributions from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) for aquaculture are € 16,07 mil-
lion and € 9,61 million respectively.

Both programmes detail their commitment to respect national and Community environment legislation (cid:129)
including Directives 79/409/EEC (conservation of wild birds) and 92/43/EEC (conservation of natural
habitats) (cid:129) and intend to vet projects by means of Environmental Impact Assessments.

Promotors seeking FIFG funding submit their requests to the Irish authorities which select those that meet
the criteria laid down in the programmes and programme compliments for the period 2000-2006
(including compliance with environmental regulations). These projects are then submitted to a selection
board appointed by the minister for final approval. The monitoring committees, with representatives from
both national and regional authorities, (including environmental ones) as well as from the fisheries and
aquaculture sectors, are informed of the projects selected for financing and supervise the implementation
of the programmes.

As implementation of the programmes has only recently started, it is too early to determine yet whether
aquaculture projects in the Lough Swilly and Kenmare Bay areas will be financed by the FIFG.

(2001/C 261 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0587/01

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Refusal to let property to foreign nationals in Berlin

The Gemeinn(cid:252)tzige Siedlungs (cid:129) und Wohnungsbauesellschaft Berlin (Berlin Community Residence and
Building Association), belonging to the Land of Berlin, has rejected an application for a flat by an Iranian
couple on the grounds that it only concludes long-term leases and is unable to consider applicants who
have only limited term-residence permits for the Federal Republic of Germany.

Does the Commission consider that it is compatible with the principle of freedom of movement in the
European Union for citizens of other countries holding a valid residence permit to be denied the right to
accommodation in Germany because they are only in the country for a fixed period?

If not, what will the Commission propose that the German government do to ensure that the principle of
freedom of movement is fully implemented in the Federal Republic of Germany?

Does the Commission consider that it is compatible with Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the
European Union to deny the right of accommodation to persons holding a lawful residence permit in an
EU Member State?

If so, on what grounds?

Does the Commission consider it compatible with Articles 21 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union to deny the right of accommodation to persons holding a lawful residence
permit in an EU Member State?

If so, on what grounds?