WRITTEN QUESTION E-3590/01 by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Obligation for the Netherlands government to carry out an environmental impact assessment as a consequence of the Commission's reasoned opinion of 18 July.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, engineering structure, environmental impact, environmental protection, impact study, infringement procedure (EU)

C 172 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

(2002/C 172 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3590/01

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Obligation for the Netherlands government to carry out an environmental impact assessment as a

consequence of the Commission’s reasoned opinion of 18 July

The Commission recently decided to take action against the Netherlands on the grounds of infringement of
the European directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment.
the
Netherlands had not fulfilled the obligations deriving from Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive as regards
a number of dyke projects in the district of Sliedrecht not yet carried out (dyke sections 10-15).

In its reasoned opinion of 18 July,

the Commission stated that

the Kingdom of

In a letter of 11 October replying to the reasoned opinion, the Netherlands government stated that it could
not accept the Commission’s position that it had failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to the EIA directive
with regard to dyke sections 10-15 in the district of Sliedrecht. It was also unable to agree with the
Commission’s opinion that there was still scope for alternatives or even a study of alternatives.

Does the Commission consider that the interests of the environment and quality of life, which are the

1.
basis of the EIA directive, must be safeguarded at all times?

Does the Commission consider that, in this matter, the Netherlands government has to date taken

2.
inadequate account of these interests?

Does the Commission stand by its opinion that an EIA requirement exists with regard to this project,

3.
and that an EIA must therefore at all events be carried out?

If so, what means does the Commission envisage using in order to force the Netherlands government

4.
to carry out an EIA of this project?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2002)

Community Law is meant to be applied in practice by the authorities of the Member States. It is the duty
of the Commission, pursuant to Article 211 of the EC Treaty to ensure that Member States comply with
the obligations lying upon them under EC Law. In this context, compliance with the provisions of Council
Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’) (1) can not be an exception. It is worth noting that
the Directive aims at both preventing/minimising damage to the environment and at giving the public
adequate information on the likely effects of the projects on the environment and the possibility to
participate in environmental decision making.

Since dykes belong to one of the types of projects listed in Annex II of the Directive (2), the authorities of
the Netherlands should have considered whether or not the Sliedrecht dykes were likely to have a
significant effect on the environment, by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location with a view to
make them eventually subject to an environmental assessment with all the guarantees set out in Articles 5
to 10 of the Directive (including public consultation).

In the light of the information available the Commission is of the opinion that the authorities of the
Netherlands have not complied with the above provisions of the Directive in the case of the Sliedrecht
dykes.

In order to ensure compliance in this case with the provisions of the Directive, the Commission initiated
an infringement proceeding pursuant to Article 226 of the EEC Treaty in the framework of which a
reasoned opinion has already been issued.

The reply of the Government of the Netherlands to this reasoned opinion is currently under assessment.

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/95

If the ongoing assessment confirms that the Netherlands has not taken the measures necessary to comply
with the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission, the latter will consider whether this case should be
brought before the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ L 216, 3.8.1991.
(2) Point 10(e) of Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC.

(2002/C 172 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3602/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Funding for water-treatment plants in more than 200 Andalusian villages

Around 200 villages in Andalusia, Spain, representing around 30 % of Andalusia’s total population, are
seeing the 2005 deadline for waste water treatment approach without work having been started on the
necessary facilities.

Work on these facilities has been blocked until now by the lack of funds available to local councils, and
little is being done at regional level other than seeking formulae which might make it possible to meet the
2005 commitment laid down by the EU.

Can the Commission offer any ideas regarding schemes used in other parts of the Community in order to
tackle the issue of funding for water treatment plants, with a view to removing the obstacles affecting
Andalusian councils in general and speeding up the construction of the installations required in line with
the Community commitment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Possibilities for financing water-treatment plants vary from one Member State to another as they depend
on whether or not the regions concerned are eligible for objective 1 of the Structural Funds or whether or
not the Member State is a member of the Cohesion Fund.

Furthermore, the Commission has provided for a Community framework for State aid for protection of the
environment (1). This ‘public-private partnership’
(PPP) enables private undertakings to receive public
concessions for both the construction and the operation of water-treatment plants.

Andalusia is able to benefit both from a PPP and from co-funding under the Structural Funds and the
Cohesion Fund. For both these funds, the Commission would point out that the choice of individual
projects is always at the discretion of the regional and national authorities.

For the Structural Funds, cofunding can be requested under the third priority ‘Environment, natural
framework for Spain during the
surroundings and water
programming period 2000-2006. About 15 % of projects currently being cofinanced for Spain concern
this measure.

the Community support

resources’ of

With regard to the Cohesion Fund, waste-water treatment, water supply and waste treatment are priorities
currently being undertaken. However, this does not ensure that the proposed investments will completely
fill all current gaps and deficiencies in this area. In this context it has to be mentioned that gaps still exist
in Spain regarding waste-water treatment
facilities for large agglomerations. As deadlines for these
agglomerations (in sensitive areas with more than 10 000 population equivalent (p.e.) and in normal areas
it is at present a major priority to support these
with more than 15 000 p.e.) have already expired,
projects, rather than projects for agglomerations with less 10 000 p.e., which will have to set up a
treatment plant by 2005.

(1) OJ C 37, 3.2.2001.