WRITTEN QUESTION E-1968/02 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Biebrza National Park, Poland.
Date: 2002-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community acquis, EU environmental policy, EU financing, Poland, accession to the European Union, environmental impact, environmental law, national park, road building

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/181

(2002/C 309 E/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Fisheries agreement with the Comoro Isles and the coelacanth

The European Parliament asks that in approving the above agreement, the Commission provide resources
and cooperate with the Comoro Isles Government to look at ways of protecting this unique fish and its
habitat.

What steps has the Commission taken in this regard since the agreement came into force?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The Fisheries Agreement between the Community and the Comoros is not currently being adopted. The
current Protocol, covering the period 28 February 2001 to 27 February 2004, was adopted by Council
Regulation (EC) No 1439/2001 of 10 July 2001 on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing
opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic
Community and the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros on fishing off the Comoros for the period
from 28 February 2001 to 27 February 2004 (1).

The Protocol to the Fisheries Agreement in force stipulates that any coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae)
accidentally caught by a Community vessel authorised to fish in Comorian waters under the Agreement is
the property of the Comoros and must be turned over immediately, without charge, to the port authorities
of Moroni, Mutsamudu or Moheli, in the best state possible.

It is worth pointing out that the fishing activities of the Community’s tuna seiners and longliners do not
usually interfere with the coelacanth or its natural habitat.

(1) OJ L 193, 17.7.2001.

(2002/C 309 E/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1968/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Biebrza National Park, Poland

What assessment has been made by the Commission of the environmental impact of the proposed Via
Baltica motorway on the wetlands of this area?

Is EU funding being sought to support the project, and is the Commission giving its support to the plan?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2002)

The Commission is aware of the recent proposal by the Polish Ministry of Transport to up-grade the
current single-track road crossing the wetlands of Biebrza national park to motorway status as a part of
the Via Baltica. The Commission is also conscious that this site will, with all likelihood, be included in the
list of Natura 2000 network at Poland’s accession to the Union.

The Commission has not carried out an assessment of the environmental impact of this project. However,
it is the position of the Commission that all candidate countries should apply and implement the
provisions of the environmental acquis,
including nature protection, already during the pre-accession
period.

C 309 E/182

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

the Honourable Member

is aware, Community nature protection legislation ensures proper
As
consideration of alternatives of such types of transport projects in case an area out of the Natura 2000
network is affected.

Therefore, the Commission considers that the Polish authorities should apply the principles of Article 6 of
the Habitat Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1)) and fully evaluate, for the expressway though the Biebrza National
Park, all possible alternatives. If no alternative exists, there should be a detailed assessment of the impact
on the natural fauna and flora as well as on the natural value of the site. The national authorities should
agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of
the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. Lastly, the
Polish authorities should ensure that all appropriate mitigation measures are applied to minimise the
impact on the environment. If the analysis shows that the project will have negative effects on these areas,
the project can only be authorised for the reasons set out in Article 6(4) and adequate mitigation and
compensatory measures have to be taken.

The Commission wishes to underline that no PHARE or ISPA funding has been provided for the
construction of the Via Baltica across the Biebrza National Park in Poland. Furthermore, no such project
features in either the ISPA or the PHARE project pipeline. In June of this year, an ISPA application has
been received for adding an additional traffic lane on the section Radzymin-Wyszkow and for the building
of the Wyszkow by-pass on the Via Baltica. In that application, the Polish authorities confirm that no areas
protected under the Polish Act of Natural Protection are crossed by this section. In spite of this declaration
and on the basis of the provisions of Article 6 of the Habitat Directive, the Polish authorities were already
asked by the Commission to provide clear evidence that all alternatives to the proposed project have been
properly assessed as well as a more detailed assessment of the impact of the project on the natural fauna,
flora and the natural value of the site.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 309 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1971/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: End-of-Life Vehicles Directive 2000/53/EC

the Commission confirm that

Will
requirements of the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive 2000/53/EC (1) by Member States was 21 April 2002?

the deadline for transposition and implementation of

the first

How many Member States had informed the Commission by 22 April 2002 that they had in fact complied
with the requirements?

How many Member States had given prior indication to the Commission, or informed the Environment
Council, that they would not be in a position to comply with the Directive in accordance with the
legislative requirements?

In view of the fact that every Member State appears to have failed to meet the requirements of the
legislation, what representations has the Commission made on the subject, and what proposals for reform
of the enforcement procedures is it making?

Given the serious implications of this breakdown in EU law-making procedures, has Commissioner
Wallström or the President of
the Commission raised the issue directly with prime ministers or
environment ministers?

(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.