WRITTEN QUESTION E-3696/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Disposal of contaminated mud in sandfill pits ('omputten') and the Birds Directive.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Gelderland, application of EU law, bird, environmental protection, nature reserve, waste disposal

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/117

(cid:1) the new unloading zone which would be part of the extension could bring about the deterioration of

the underwater meadows where the Posidonia oceanica seagrass grows;

(cid:1) the installation of a thermal power station for the Unión Fenosa company will increase the ozone
emissions of the existing port, which, according to a report by the regional environment ministry,
over 1995-2000 exceeded, on 268 occasions, the WHO’s health protection threshold for such
emissions;

(cid:1) the impact assessment is based exclusively on the data supplied by the CEDEX institute, and takes no
account of the opinion produced by the Faculty of Geography of the University of Valencia and
specialists from the Polytechnic University concerning the negative impact of the port extension on
the protected natural area.

Can the Commission guarantee that the scheme for extension of the port of Sagunto, if implemented in its
present form, will not have adverse effects on the site of Community interest and special bird protection
zone known as the ‘Marjal dels Moros’?

Does the Commission consider that, given the complaints lodged by members of
environmental impact assessment has been carried out in compliance with the Community rules?

the public,

the

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

The project has gone through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the Final decision was
published in the Spanish Official Gazette on 14 of August 2001. It can be logically deduced that this
assessment has not considered the last storms, which happened in November 2001.

The EIA has taken into consideration the proximity of the Special Protection Area (SPA) and proposal Site
of Community interest (pSCi) Marjal del Moro, even though the Dirección General de Planificación y
Gestión del Medio on behalf of the Regional Ministry of Environment certifies that it is unlikely that the
project would have a significant effect on the aforementioned site. Nevertheless, the EIA has established
some preventive measures to control
the coastal erosion. For this purpose, a specific monitoring
programme will be established.

In relation to the Posidonia beds, the EIA establishes that all dredging activities will be done up to the
10 meter isobath. Also, in the case of dumping using a marine diffusion outlet pipeline, this has to be
located at least 3,5 and 4,5 kilometres from the posidonia beds.

the Spanish authorities have gone through an environmental
According to available information,
assessment procedure, as Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC
on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) requires for
this type of project. This procedure has included a public participation procedure.

In case the Commission receives new information that might prove that there is an infringement case, the
Commission will not hesitate to take all the necessary steps to ensure full compliance with this legislation.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2002/C 172 E/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3696/01

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

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Disposal of contaminated mud in sandfill pits (’omputten’) and the Birds Directive

The province of Gelderland has earmarked the following seven nature reserves as ‘likely’ sites for deep sand
extraction followed by dumping of contaminated mud in the pits thus created (known in Dutch as
‘omputten’): Heesseltsche Waarden (municipality of Neerijnen), Lobberdensche Waard (municipality of

C 172 E/118

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

Rijnwaarden), Koppenwaard (municipality of Angerlo), Havikerwaard (municipality of Rheden), Dreumel-
sche Waard (municipality of West Maas en Waal), Ochtense Buitenpolder (municipality of Kesteren) and
Oosterhoutse Waarden (municipality of Over-Betuwe). The nature reserves in question lie entirely or for
the most part within the Special Protection Areas of ‘Kil van Hurwenen’, ‘Gelderse Poort’, ‘IJssel’ and ‘Waal’
designated by the State in 2000 on the basis of the Nature Protection Law of 1998 and the EC Birds
Directive.

The 1992 EC Habitats Directive and the habitat assessment framework also apply to the special protection
areas, whereby any alteration to the natural characteristics of these areas is only permitted where there is
no alternative and compelling reasons of major public importance are in play.

On what compelling grounds of major public importance does the province of Gelderland believe it can
ignore its legal obligation to protect these nature reserves and the birds living in them?

Does the Commission agree with me that deep sand extraction and depositing of (contaminated) dredgings
in these areas would have a harmful effect on their natural characteristics and on the birds living in them,
and thus violate the abovementioned legal provisions?

How do these plans tie in with the designation of these nature reserves as ‘A rural areas’ and ‘meadow bird
areas’ and even as ‘strategic action areas’
in the 1996 Gelderland regional plan, and with the nature
development plans of the Department of Waterways and Public Works?

Is it correct that the designation of areas as ‘likely’ for sand extraction and dumping is based mainly on the
support of the local authorities in question and not on its compatibility with the relevant European
directives and other legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Commission has not received any information from the Province of Gelderland nor from the Dutch
government about ‘likely’ plans for sand extraction and subsequent dredging sludge disposal in the Special
Protection Areas (SPA) mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission holds the opinion that the likely effects of deep sand extraction and disposal of sludge on
the conservation status of the birds for which the SPA were designated and the compatibility of such a
project with Community nature protection provisions should be tested by means of an appropriate
assessment of the proposed undertaking in the sense of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

The Commission has no powers to give an opinion about the designation of natural reserves as ‘rural areas
A’, ‘meadow bird areas’ or as ‘strategic action areas’ in regional plans or nature development plans of the
Department of Waterways and Public Works, as such designations are not covered by definitions under
Community law but under the national law of the Netherlands.

The Commission is not aware of a hierarchical order in the criteria for the designation of areas as ‘likely’
for sand extraction and sludge disposal that are mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is currently investigating facts similar to those raised by the Honourable Member under
complaint procedure 2000/5179, regarding a water body named ‘Kaliwaal’ which forms part of the SPA
No NL2000011 ‘Waal’.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.