WRITTEN QUESTION E-2974/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Damage to the banks of the Westerschelde Estuary resulting from operations to deepen the waterway without adequate environmental compensation outside the dike.
Date: 2001-10-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, engineering structure, environmental impact, estuary, exchange of information, project evaluation, protected area

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/161

(2002/C 134 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2974/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 October 2001)

Subject: Damage to the banks of the Westerschelde Estuary resulting from operations to deepen the

waterway without adequate environmental compensation outside the dike

Can the Commission confirm the report which appeared in the Dutch newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’ on
1.
29 September 2001 according to which the deepening by 1m80 to accommodate tanker traffic of the
Westerschelde, the unique tidal estuary located in the Netherlands between the Belgian River Scheldt and
the North Sea, breaches the Birds and Habitats Directive and that, prior to the project being drawn up, an
agreement was reached that the Netherlands and Belgium would jointly invest EUR 30 million in measures
to compensate for the environmental damage in the area between the dikes and the open water?

2.
Can the Commission confirm that, in its opinion, the implementation of the current projects in the
polders inside the dike does not count as compensation and that it has therefore given the Netherlands a
choice between restoring the estuary landscape (by means of de-polderisation) with an area inside the dike
and filling in the channel already dredged?

3.
Does that also mean that any further deepening of the waterway in the Westerschelde by an extra
1m40 for the benefit of the Port of Antwerp is prohibited? If such additional deepening were to take place,
how many hectares or square kilometres, in addition to the area of de-polderisation referred to in Question
2, would have to be restored to the natural environment outside the dike?

Does the Commission consider that, in these instances and should there be any further destruction of
4.
the banks of the Westerschelde, Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive would be applicable whereby, in the
absence of alternative solutions and for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, the Member State
is required to take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura
2000 is protected?

Does the choice set out in Question 2 mean that an action might be brought, where appropriate,

5.
against the Netherlands in the Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

The Commission is currently investigating the facts raised by the Honourable Member as the result of a
complaint which questions the compatibility between the designation of the Western Scheldt as a Natura
2000 site and dredging activities in the navigation channels to facilitate access to the port of Antwerp, as
specified in the ‘Water Treaty’ of 1995 between Belgium and the Netherlands.

This infringement case was registered by the Commission under no. A-95/4564 on 15 June 1995. On the
basis of the replies to a first letter of formal notice, sent to the Netherlands on 19 December 1998, the
Commission concluded that the Netherlands had failed to comply with Article 6(3) of the Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1)
hereafter called the ‘Habitats Directive’, and that the proposed ‘Nature Protection Plan for the Western
Scheldt’ would not adequately compensate for the type of estuarine habitats expected to be lost.

The Commission sent a complementary letter of formal notice to the Netherlands on 7 May 2001
requesting information about the justification for the dredging programme and about the timeliness and
the exact nature of the proposed compensation measures.

To date, no reply has been received from the Dutch Government.

In the framework of the handling of this case, the Commission has requested that the Dutch Government
applies both Article 6(3) and Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. Should the Dutch Government not
respect its obligation under this Directive, the case may be brought before the Court of Justice.

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.