WRITTEN QUESTION E-2165/01 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Planning conflicts between support for border regions and European nature protection in the Hohenwutzen-Süd — Güstebieser Loose area (Brandenburg).
Date: 2001-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU law, Germany, Poland, competence of the Member States, environmental impact, environmental protection, frontier region, protected area, road network, town and country planning

C 134 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

energy sources and energy efficiency. Funds allocated to renewable energy sources and energy efficiency
measures will account for approximately 80 % of the total budget. However, the Commission promotes a
balanced approach to the promotion of innovative energy technology and therefore the remaining 20 % of
support could be allocated to conventional energy sources, such as oil, gas and coal.

It should be noted, that in the selection of proposals elegible for Community support, one of the key
criteria was the environmental benefit associated with the projects. Therefore, in the selection of proposals,
priority was given to projects that reduce the environmental impact related to oil and gas exploitation.

In relation to the consistency of the support to oil and gas technology and the Kyoto target, it should be
remembered that the increased utilisation of natural gas in substitution of more carbon-intensive fuels is
one of the key elements for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In that respect, support to
innovative gas technology can contribute to the achievement of the Kyoto target.

It should be added that, in addition to financial support for renewable energy sources, the Commission
promotes an increased penetration of renewable energy sources through a series of other policy measures,
such as the recently adopted Directive on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy
sources in the internal electricity market (1). The strategic objective of
the Directive is to create a
framework for the medium-term significant increase of electricity from renewable energy sources. The
Directive abstains from proposing a harmonised Community-wide support scheme for electricity from
renewable energy sources. This is to allow Member States to gain further experience with the application
of their national support schemes. The Commission will follow the developments in Member States closely
to gain further insight into the practical merits of each national support scheme. In Article 4, the Directive
obliges the Commission to issue a report assessing the different national support schemes no later than
four years after its entry into force. The report should give a clear picture of the effectiveness, including
if
cost-effectiveness, of each national support scheme. Under the terms of Article 4, this report shall,
necessary, be accompanied by a proposal
for a harmonised Community-wide support scheme for
electricity from renewable energy sources. Such a proposal could be necessary inter / alia to establish a
real level playing field with electricity produced from conventional energy sources.

The Commission’s Green Paper on the security of energy supply has launched a debate on the future of
European energy policy including the issue of support to different energy sources. In this context, the
Commission has raised the question whether sectors which have received public support in the past, such
as oil, should not contribute financially to the development of renewable energy sources. More generally,
in its proposal for a European sustainable development strategy (2), the Commission has proposed to phase
out subsidies to fossil fuel production and consumption by 2010.

(1) COM(2001) 445 final.
(2) COM(2001) 264.

(2002/C 134 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2165/01

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Planning conflicts between support for border regions and European nature protection in the

Hohenwutzen-Süd / Güstebieser Loose area (Brandenburg)

The study area for the construction of the new German-Polish road border Hohenwutzen-Süd contains
conservation sites covered by the Fauna/Flora/Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) (1) and the Birds Directive
(79/409/EEC) (2). The areas concerned are the flora/fauna/habitat
‘Sonnenburger Wald und
Ahrenskehle’ (No 392) and ‘Oderwiesen Neurüdnitz’ (No 387), which were notified by Germany and
fixed by the Land of Brandenburg, and the special protection area ‘Odervorland Gieshof’ (No 111).

sites

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/17

Does the Commission take the view that areas with European nature protection status or sites in the

1a.
immediate vicinity of such areas are suitable for cross-border road connections?

If so, how does the Commission justify this view and under what conditions can European funds be

1b.
used for such projects?

1c. With regard to the use of European funding, what is the significance of the fact that, when the
decision was taken on the study area for the new Hohenwutzen-Süd border crossing, the lower nature
protection authority expressed serious concerns regarding the negative impact of the new road on
European protection areas?

2.
Does the Commission take the view that European protection areas can be reduced or divided in
order to build a new road crossing and that this can be ‘made good’ with compensatory measures
elsewhere?

Does the Commission take the view that joint overall planning is a prerequisite for EU financial

3a.
support for cross-border infrastructure on the German-Polish border?

3b.

If so, do European nature protection areas have priority in such plans?

3c. What role is played by cross-border environmental impact assessments, proof that border crossings
are necessary, a study of the alternatives and zero options (the latter in the sense of enlarging existing
crossing points)?

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

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

1a.
In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission would remind the Honourable
Member that any decision to create cross-border road links must be taken at the regional or supra-regional
level. The Commission ensures that, in any regional or structural development project, the Member State
respects Community law,
in particular as regards the environment, and more specifically in this case
Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the
1b.
Structural Funds (2) any project / whatever the area it crosses / which is part-financed by the European
Regional Development Fund has to comply with Community law, including environmental protection. In
the area quoted by the Honourable Member, no project for a cross-border road link costing more than
€ 50 million has yet been submitted to the Commission for part-financing.

1c.
In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity included in the above regulation, the selection of
projects is not a matter for the Commission but for the Member State acting through a Monitoring
Committee comprising representatives of the regional and local authorities, the economic and social
If a
partners and non-governmental organisations,
project for a cross-border road link costing more than € 50 million were submitted to the Commission for
part-financing, the Commission would consider the results of the environmental impact statement which
must accompany any such request.

including environmental protection organisations.

2.
Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
requires the Member State to take appropriate measures for the conservation of the areas concerned and to
carry out an assessment of the effects of the project on the site after having sought, if necessary, the
public’s opinion before approval of any project and irrespective of
the programme which would
part-finance it. If, in spite of negative conclusions of the assessment of the impact on the site and in the
absence of alternative solutions, a project has nevertheless to be carried out for imperative reasons of
overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State must take all
compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected and
inform the Commission of the measures adopted. The Commission can take action only if these conditions
are not observed.

C 134 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

In the case of the area referred to by the Honourable Member, the ‘Interreg IIIA / PHARE CBC II
3a.
joint programming document / Development of the German-Polish frontier region in Land Brandenburg
and the province of Lubuskie’ sets out priorities and development measures drawn up jointly by the
German and Polish authorities which mean that this area may be regarded as a single socio-economic
entity.

3b.
The first objective of the Interreg Community Initiative is to ensure that national borders do not
obstruct the balanced development and integration of the European territory. This also presupposes the
coherent management of ecosystems and encourages the promotion of environmental protection and
extension of the European Natura 2000 network by linking up regional, national, transnational and
Community protection areas.

The joint planning framework referred to above means that it is up to the authorities of Land
impact
include the points

in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999,

the province of Lubuskie to carry out

the cross-border environmental

3c.
Brandenburg and of
assessments, which must,
mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 134 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2204/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Subject: International agreements on tuna

In its conclusions of 30 October 1997 the Council of Ministers of Fisheries noted that the Commission
would have to consider how far it was possible to develop the network of agreements on tuna.

Nearly four years after the Council meeting was held, has any action been taken to this end?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The Commission continues to work towards developing networks of tuna fisheries agreements in the
Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Since October 1997 the Commission has concluded a new agreement on tuna
with Gabon and preliminary talks are under way with Ghana and Mozambique.

In June 2001 the Commission also received a new negotiating brief from the Council to conclude tuna
fisheries agreements with the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) States of the western central Pacific.

(2002/C 134 E/019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2240/01

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE), Rosa Díez González (PSE)
and Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Suspension of international adoptions in Romania

(26 July 2001)

In 1999 almost 100 Spanish couples started proceedings to adopt a child in Romania through the
Asociación para la Adopción Internacional de Baleares-ADIB (Balearics Association for International
Adoption) and the international adoption organisation Interadop / Alternativa Familiar de Castilla y León.