WRITTEN QUESTION E-3210/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Conflict between extending the port of Rotterdam with a second Maasvlakte in the North Sea and application of the bird directive.
Date: 2001-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, environmental protection, harbour installation, national implementing measure, protection of animal life, wildlife

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/29

ring. The OP for roads together with the Cohesion Fund provide for a total expenditure of € 4,6 billion.
This global amount is broken down to € 1,3 billion of Community contributions, € 1,2 billion of national
public subsidy and € 2,1 billion of private investment, in the framework of concession schemes. The
Commission will be informed of the completion of the new sections through the reports that the Greek
authorities are required to submit annually. The expenditure for these projects will be eligible until
31 December 2008.

The total cost of the PATHE axis will be known only when detailed studies, design and construction are
completed for the entire project.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 172 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3210/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Conflict between extending the port of Rotterdam with a second Maasvlakte in the North Sea and

application of the bird directive

1.
Is the Commission aware that, in the 1960s, on the south side of the mouth of the Rhine to the west
of Rotterdam the natural dune coastline, including the De Beer nature reserve with its wealth of birds and
the adjacent shallow area of the North Sea, were replaced by the Maasvlakte, which comprises a port and
industrial area, given over to oil reservoirs, electricity production and container transhipment, and an
adjoining depot for polluted port sludge?

2.
Is the Commission aware that plans are now under way to construct a second Maasvlakte, measuring
in the first instance 500 to 1 000 hectares, by depositing 450 million cubic metres of sea sand, in the sea
to the west of the present Maasvlakte, to assist the further development of the Rotterdam main port?

3. What impact does the Commission expect the second Maasvlakte to have on the flora, fauna and
landscape development of the adjoining nature reserve in the dunes of the former Voorne island and the
courses of the outlets in the Voordelta running to the sea, and what changes may be expected because of
this?

4.
Are you aware that, not only have there been objections in recent years by nature protection
organisations, economic interests are now also at stake because the Dutch fishermen’s association has
invoked the European bird directive as an argument against the second Maasvlakte?

5.
Do you believe it is possible in this case to provide real compensation for the loss of natural assets
along the sea coast in order to comply with the bird directive and, if so, what is required? Will demands
for compensation be satisfied by the plan to establish a nature reserve that is completely different in
character 30 km inland to the south of Rotterdam on the young marine clay land in the polders between
the villages of Rhoon and Barendrecht?

How will it be decided whether the second Maasvlakte is contrary to or compatible with the bird

6.
directive and what impact will this have on the continuation of this project?

Source: Rotterdams Dagblad, 20 October 2001.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2002)

The Commission is aware that the Maasvlakte project, started in 1964, extended the harbour of Rotterdam
into the sea by land reclamation of aproximately 2 000 hectares (ha) south of Hoek van Holland. The
Commission notes that, at that time, no Community legislation on the protection of nature existed.

C 172 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

The Dutch authorities have notified the Commission that they have plans to construct a ‘Maasvlakte 2’ of
approximately 1 000 hectares west of the present Maasvlakte, which is part of a major development
scheme, called ‘Project Mainport Rotterdam’ (PMR), to enable further development of the Rotterdam port.

The Dutch authorities have informed the Commission that they intend to request an opinion in the sense
of Article 6 (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora (1) and have also provided the Commission with a number of studies
concerning the impact on Natura 2000 sites and compensation proposals for loss of natural values
expected to occur by the building of the ‘Maasvlakte 2’.

The Commission has received various documents and studies on potential loss of natural values which
may result from the land reclamation component of PMR and on potential alternative nature development
schemes to compensate for these losses from Dutch conservation non-governmental organisations (NGO’s),
academic sources and the national association of fishermen.

The Commission is currently examining the above mentioned scientific and technical documentation.

The Commission will take a position on this matter in the light of the available evidence.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 172 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3262/01

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Freedom of the media in Georgia

A year ago, the Republic of Georgia’s television channel, ‘Rustavi 2’, broadcast a ’60 Minutes’ programme,
which exposed widespread corruption in the country and pointed an accusing finger at President
Shevardnadze. Since then, the television station claims that it has been subjected to a concerted campaign
of intimidation by state officials, including a string of lawsuits and investigations into alleged financial
irregularities.

Despite this pressure,
Moreover,
independence from the state.

it has reiterated its determination to maintain its current broadcasting policy of

‘Rustavi 2’ has continued to broadcast and still enjoys a large viewing audience.
total

Is the Commission aware of the current difficulties faced by the ‘Rustavi 2’ television channel? Has the
Commission made any representations to the Georgian Government about the importance of free and
independent media in a democratic society?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the situation regarding the Georgian television channel
‘Rustavi 2’,
including the links between recent developments at ‘Rustavi 2’ and street demonstrations in Tbilisi that
culminated in a major political crisis in Georgia on 1 November 2001.

The Commission has already expressed to the President of Georgia the need for the new Government to
conduct reforms and to fight effectively against corruption.

Freedom of the press in Georgia was addressed at Ministerial level on the occasion of the Union-Georgia
Cooperation Council that took place in Luxembourg on 30 October 2001.