WRITTEN QUESTION P-3527/02 by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Biebrza National Park, Poland.
Date: 2002-12-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Poland, accession criteria, environmental impact, exchange of information, motorway, national park, project evaluation, protected area, road building

C 222 E/80

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Commission is aware that Mr Khiari is forbidden to leave Tunisian territory and that he wishes to
travel to France to defend his doctoral thesis for his Ph.D. However, the Commission does not know the
exact reason for the ban, nor the legal grounds cited by the Tunisian authorities to justify it.

With regard to the second point raised by the Honourable Member, once the Commission has more
complete information, it will be able to assess the nature of the Tunisian arguments and examine whether
they comply with the association agreement.

The Commission will use all available channels, in particular political dialogue coordinated by the EU
presidency, to raise specific instances of human rights abuse with the Tunisian authorities.

The Commission would like to be informed of
Honourable Member may take through the inter-parliamentary dialogue with Tunisia.

the outcome of any additional measures that

the

(2003/C 222 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3527/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 December 2002)

Subject: Biebrza National Park, Poland

What consideration has been given to the environmental
impact of routing the Helsinki to Warsaw
motorway (the Via Baltica) through the Biebrza National Park in north eastern Poland, and the risk posed
to the unique ecosystems of this area? To what extent has the Commission been involved in determining
the proposed route of this important transport link and the decision to change the original plans which
would have taken the motorway to the west of this national park? Finally, how does the consequential loss
of flora and fauna in the Biebrza National Park tie in with the EU’s commitment to preserving natural
habitats and the need for Poland, as an applicant country, to comply with such legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

It is the position of the Commission that all candidate countries should apply and implement the
provisions of the environmental acquis, including 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) (the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive) and the Council Directive 92/43/
EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats
Directive) (2), and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (Birds
Directive) (3), already during the pre-accession period. This is of particular relevance for large-scale
infrastructure investments such as the Via Baltica.

The Commission understands that the voivodship authorities of Podlaskie have recently made a decision
on the alignment of Via Baltica (TINA Corridor No1) in north-east Poland. According to this proposed
alignment, the Via Baltica expressway would affect the Biebrzañski National Park.

According to the EIA Directive the construction of an express road (4) falls under Annex I point 7 point b.
In this case Article 4 paragraph 1 applies and provides that projects listed in Annex I should be made
subject to an assessment in accordance with the procedures of Articles 5 to 10. Therefore a mandatory EIA
must be carried out.

The Biebrza National Park is clearly of outstanding natural value. In addition, it seems more than likely
that Biebrza will be identified as a Natura 2000 site at accession. This implies that strict conservation rules
apply. According to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, investments that are likely to have a significant
effect on a Natura 2000 site need to be subject to an appropriate assessment of their implications. If there

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/81

are negative implications, the investment can only be allowed in the absence of alternative solutions and
for imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

The Commission has written to the Polish authorities to draw their attention to these matters and to seek
assurance that the requirements set out in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive have been applied in this case.
The Polish authorities have stated that a prognosis of the environmental impact of the proposed route has
been prepared by the two municipalities concerned. A decision on the conditions for land development
and use, determining the location of the road, has not yet been taken. They have undertaken to keep the
Commission informed about further developments.

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 projects pipeline. In cases where Union pre-accession funding of
large infrastructure developments is involved ‘similar standards’ as set by Community environmental
legislation need to be applied before any Commission funding is given to the candidate countries. This
would include the application of the EIA Directive. Also the candidate country would have to investigate
whether environmentally sensitive areas are affected which might fall in future under the protection of the
Habitats or the Birds Directives.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(4) Express roads means a road which complies with the definition in the European Agreement of Main International

Traffic Arteries of 15 November 1975.

(2003/C 222 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3528/02

by Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Council

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Indirect funding for the Burmese government

British American Tobacco, an international company operating in the tobacco sector and based in London,
is one of the largest British investors in Burma (Myanmar). It controls Rothmans, which in turn is a 40/
60 % joint venture with Economic Holding Myanmar, a company belonging to the military government,
which is unfortunately notorious for persistent violations of human rights. Since 1962 there has been a
military dictatorship in Burma responsible for torture, ill-treatment, imprisonment, forced labour and the
deaths of a shockingly large number of men, women and children.

Burma is also the country with the largest number of child soldiers in the world.

British American Tobacco, via its investments, is aiding and abetting the dictatorship by strengthening it
and helping to keep it in power.

What steps will the Council take in response to this financial support for a regime which is universally
considered as guilty of crimes against humanity, involving one of the Member States and hence the Union
as a whole?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

1.
Since 1996, the Council has adopted a series of Common Positions on Burma. Essentially, this means
Common Position 96/635/CFSP of 28 October 1996 (1) as extended and amended by Common
Position 2000/346/CFSP of 26 April 2000 (2) and by Common Position 2002/831/CFSP of 21 October
2002 (3).