WRITTEN QUESTION E-2244/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Construction of the A73 South.
Date: 2001-07-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental protection, impact study, motorway, road building

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/137

Sometimes it is possible by means of national funding to keep projects going for some time and thus to
improve the result. Generally, however, local authorities(cid:146) funding opportunities are limited.

It might therefore be useful for any aid to businesses to come with an employment requirement attached.

Even though the implementation of structural fund actions is the responsibility of the Member State, the
Commission ought to take up a position on this matter.

What does the Commission propose to do to improve the results of projects, inter alia from the point of
view of employment levels?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2001)

The creation and maintenance of employment in the regions of the Community, both directly and
indirectly, is one of the principal aims of the programmes supported by the European Union under the
Structural Funds. The conditionality of support on the number jobs created, and the optimum duration of
projects, are, as the Honourable Members suggest, important considerations. But it is important that these
considerations are adapted to the different fields of intervention under the Structural Funds, respectively,
productive investment, infrastructure and training.

One of the principal vehicles for job creation under the Structural Funds is through the support given to
productive investment, especially to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Commission(cid:146)s
evaluation of the impact of the Structural Funds on SMEs, completed in 1999, found that between 1994
and 1999 2,3 million gross jobs were created or 2 million jobs in net terms. Where possible, support is
linked to new jobs created. However, such an approach cannot be universally applied, for example, in
circumstances where support
is granted in order to improving competitiveness of SMEs through
encouraging innovation or improving the skills of the workforce.

Support for infrastructure investment is also a major priority under the Structural Funds, especially in the
Objective 1 regions (least developed areas). The employment directly associated with this investment is by
definition of short duration, linked to the construction phase. At the same time, the existence of transport,
telecommunications and energy infrastructures is essential for the long-term competitiveness and for the
sustainability of employment in any region.

With regard to training supported under the European Social Fund (ESF), actions are aimed at job creation
and to the realisation of the priorities contained in the European Employment Strategy. The Strategy is
designed to support greater employability, entrepreneurship, workforce adaptability and equal oppor-
tunities as part of general effort to create permanent jobs. In practice, there are considerable variations in
the duration of the actions supported by the ESF. These variations, which reflect the pattern of projects
selected for support by the partners on the ground, generally aim to take account of the very different
needs of social groups concerned.

The Commission remains open to any suggestion, which could help to raise the effectiveness of its efforts
under the Structural Funds with regard to employment creation.

(2002/C 81 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2244/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Construction of the A73 South

Construction of the controversial eastern section of the A73 South highway is apparently being delayed by
measures to protect species of animals0 and plants in the area. Reports in the Dutch media suggest that an

C 81 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

exemption is being considered to speed up the construction of this road in a simpler and cheaper way.
This plan could pose a direct threat to the survival of species such as the bluethroat, kingfisher, honey
buzzard, moor frog and floating water plantain.

Is it true that the Netherlands is also investigating to what extent an exemption under the Nature
conservation law would permit the destruction of the habitats of red-listed species to be found on the
eastern section?

To what extent is the construction of this road in breach of the European Habitats Directive?

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

(5 October 2001)

The Commission is currently investigating the facts raised by the Honourable Member as a result of a
complaint, which questions the compatibility of the proposed A73 motorway on the East bank of the river
Meuse between Roermond and Venlo and the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

This complaint concerns the question of the extent to which species listed in annexes II and IV of the
Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and annex I of the Birds Directive, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) could be affected by the East bank route of the proposed A73.

On 9 July 2001, a delegation of officials from several Dutch institutions and administrations involved in
the A73 project visited the General Directorate Environment to brief Commission officials on the actual
state of the project with regard to its effects on the nature interests concerned and on the proposed
mitigation and compensation measures. From this exchange, the Commission has learned that the decision
on the actual location was taken on the basis of a debate in Parliament in 1995 and that, since then, a
number of studies on the impacts of the A73 project on the area(cid:146)s nature interest have been carried out by
well-known environmental consultancies.

The Commission will pursue this complaint case by asking the Dutch Government to give a formal reply
to a series of questions regarding the likely effects of the A73 project on the state of conservation of the
species and habitats listed in the two Community Nature Protection Directives referred to above and by
requesting details of compensation measures envisaged.

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

(2002/C 81 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2245/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Continuing threat to the environment and public health in the French village of Bourg FidŁle

posed by the processing of Dutch lead waste

1.
Is the Commission aware that large quantities of Dutch lead batteries are still being shipped to the
firm Metal Blanc in the French village of Bourg FidŁle in the Department of the Ardennes, that the lead is
being melted down in an open system, that the staff still have to work with face masks both inside and
outside the factory, that lead emissions are continuing into the outside atmosphere and that the ban
imposed in 1997 on the consumption of vegetables from gardens around the plant is still in force?