WRITTEN QUESTION E-2975/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Further damage to the Westerschelde Estuary as a result of the construction of a container terminal in the De Kaloot area near Flushing (Vlissingen).
Date: 2001-10-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, complaint to the Commission, environmental impact, estuary, exchange of information, harbour installation, protected area

C 134 E/162

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

The Commission considers that any new dredging activities that go beyond the framework of the 1995
‘Water Treaty’ have to be considered as another project for which the separate application of Article 6(3)
and Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive will be necessary. The extent of the compensations related to
another dredging programme will have to be judged following an appropriate assessment of its effects on
the coherence of the Natura 2000 network.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 134 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2975/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 October 2001)

Subject: Further damage to the Westerschelde Estuary as a result of the construction of a container

terminal in the De Kaloot area near Flushing (Vlissingen)

1.
Is the Commission aware that, following dredging operations to deepen the river estuary, further
damage will be caused to the north bank of the Westerschelde if the planning application, submitted under
the Netherlands Land Reclamation Act and in the light of the redrafting of the Regional Plans of Zeeland
Province and of the Flushing and Borssele Municipal Councils, for authorisation to build the ‘Westerschelde
Container Terminal’ east of the access to the Sloehavens is approved, with the current shallow tidal flats
(De Kaloot), which has a beach and verdant sea dike with drift dunes, being replaced by a deep-water
wharf with tall cranes?

Is the Commission aware that De Kaloot is a unique site for finding shell fossils and sharks’ teeth,

2.
that sea thistles grow there and that seals use it as a resting-place?

Has the Commission read the report on this matter drawn up by the Environmental Biology

3.
Department of the Institute for Evolutionary and Ecological Science?

Can the Commission confirm that, if the project goes ahead, virtually the entire Rammekensschoor
4.
on the western side of the Sloehavens, currently protected as a nature reserve, will disappear and that the
requisite environmental compensation will be sought inside the sea dike,
in the exceptionally pretty
Welzingepolder to the east of Oost-Souburg, which has been able hitherto to repel the advances of
industrialisation and urbanisation?

5.
Can the Commission take account of the increase in environmental damage and the lack of genuine
compensation described above in the proceedings it is currently preparing for submission to the Court of
Justice with regard to the Netherlands environmental compensation policy along the Westerschelde instead
of bringing separate proceedings at a later date, since that would entail the risk of a fait accompli being
created as a consequence of the destruction of the current landscape?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2001)

The Commission has been informed from press reports that there is a plan to build a new container
terminal on the Western Scheldt at Vlissingen. Given the fact that the Western Scheldt has been designated
as a Natura 2000 area, the Commission will ensure that the Dutch Government complies with its
obligation under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora (1).

The Commission is aware of the natural value of the ‘Kaloot’ site close to Borssele, because under the LIFE-
Nature project B4-3200/94/729 ‘Marsh amelioration along the River Scheldt’ (MARS), important measures
to increase the conservation value of this site have been co-financed.

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/163

The Commission is not aware of the report from the University of Leiden to which the Honourable
Member refers. The Commission has received, however, several studies about actual and future ecosystem
management
in the Western Scheldt which have been jointly published by the Belgian and Dutch
authorities.

Furthermore, the Commission recently received a complaint which alleges that the environmental impact
assessment procedure concerning the Container Terminal Project at Vlissingen has failed to make a correct
assessment of potential damage to the natural values of the Western Scheldt estuarine environment,
notably with regard to some of the sites mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission will send a request for information on the application to this project of Article 6(3) and
Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC to the Dutch Government

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 134 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2978/01

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Discrimination against visually handicapped people on public transport in Portugal

At the end of September and the beginning of October this year a Finnish national was on a walking
holiday in the hills of Northern Portugal (the national park of Peneda-Gerês). The person in question is
visually handicapped and is unable to walk without his Translator’s note: Or ‘her’. Since Finnish makes no
distinction between masculine and feminine pronouns, it is not clear from the original whether the person
in question is a man or a woman guide dog. The attitude taken to the guide dog on the aeroplane (Luxair),
on the Airbus at Porto Airport, on the Portuguese railways and in taxis was very good, but on 4 October
2001 the company operating the coach between Porto and Braga (a major university town) and from
Braga to Gerês (an important tourist centre) refused to let the guide dog on to the vehicle. The railways
were on strike and the only alternative was to make the 100 km journey by taxi. The ban on dogs in
Braga coaches is absolute and also applies to guide dogs, and the managers of the bus station do not make
any exceptions even if the dog is muzzled. It should be recalled that this was a guide dog specially trained
for visually handicapped people, with the proper documentation to prove it. Such dogs are the eyes of
visually handicapped people.

Is the Council aware that visually handicapped people are discriminated against in Portugal by being
refused access to public transport (coaches) with their guide dogs? Has the coach company been guilty of
discrimination in contravention of Portuguese and Community legislation? What does the Council propose
to do to put an end to this type of discrimination against visually handicapped people in Portugal and in
the Member States generally?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

The Council would like to remind the Honourable Parliamentarian that the Council is due to adopt a
Council decision on the European Year of People with Disabilities 2003 with a view, inter alia, to raising
awareness of
the rights of people with disabilities to protection against discrimination and to full
enjoyment of their rights, and to promoting the exchange of best practices and effective strategies at local,
national and European level.

A situation such as the one described by the Honourable Parliamentarian where a general rule, when
applied to people with disabilities, becomes a form of discrimination is one that could best be remedied by
the type of action that will be promoted by the European Year of People with Disabilities, because
experience shows both that it is not possible to legislate in all the areas where discrimination is likely to
occur and that raising awareness can prove a very effective way of combating discrimination.