WRITTEN QUESTION E-3577/02 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Destruction of the Lacoma wetlands and the Hammergraben (Brandenburg), potentially an FFH area of considerable size.
Date: 2002-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Brandenburg, environmental impact, environmental protection, impact study, inland waterway, lignite, mining operation, national implementing measure, protected area, stagnant water

C 161 E/108

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

The Commission appreciates the importance and political sensitivity of this issue in the global Chinese
context. However, as the consultation document was drafted in general terms, it will only be possible to
make an accurate assessment on its likely effects in relation to human rights and fundamental freedoms,
including the freedom of religion, once the draft bill is submitted to the Legislative Council. This should
take place in February 2003. Meanwhile, the Commission will monitor the issue and will encourage the
Hong Kong Government to take the views of the Hong Kong population into account.

So far, the Commission is of the opinion, as expressed in its fifth annual report on Hong Kong adopted on
5 August 2002 that the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle continues to work reasonably well, and that
Hong Kong, in general, preserved its rule of law, human rights, civil liberties and free and open society.

However, the report also acknowledges that the actual implementation of these principles has given rise to
some debate and uncertainty, notably in relation to Article 23. Therefore, the Commission will continue to
follow further evolutions in this regard very closely.

(2003/C 161 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3577/02

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Destruction of the Lacoma wetlands and the Hammergraben (Brandenburg), potentially an FFH

area of considerable size

The German Bundesland of Brandenburg has plans to irrevocably destroy the Lacoma wetlands and the
Hammergraben, a potential FFH area of 380 hectares, for mining purposes. For this reason, Brandenburg
has not proposed to the Commission, in accordance with the FFH Directive, that this area be designated a
site of Community importance.

1.
Is the Commission aware that this area is essential in ensuring overall coherence in the Natura 2000
network of conservation areas, as it is home to the largest population of fire-bellied toads (Annex II to the
FFH Directive) in Brandenburg, and there is no comparable area of interconnecting sites anywhere in
southern Brandenburg?

2.
Does the Commission realise that there is no sufficiently large compensation area in southern
Brandenburg comprising waters that are shallow and rich in nutrients, providing a haven for otters, resting
migratory birds and breeding aquatic birds (the majority of which are protected under Annex I to the EU
Bird Directive)?

Is the Commission of the opinion that the Bundesland Brandenburg should have registered the

3.
Lacoma wetlands and the Hammergraben with the Commission as an FFH area?

4.
Does the Commission consider that a project for which the application for approval was received
after 3 July 1988 (or 3 October 1990 in the case of the new Bundesländer) and which has far-reaching
effects on the environment should be subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA)?

5.

If not, under what circumstances is an EIA not necessary?

6.
Is the Commission aware that, in accordance with the Court of Justice ruling C-301/95 and the
BbergG, the application for approval of the outline business plan for an open pit in Cottbus-Nord
constitutes an application for initial authorisation of a project as defined in the EIA Directive, which was
submitted on 1 December 1992, and is it aware that brown coal mining has not previously been
authorised in the proposed area?

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/109

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission has received a complaint concerning the possible destruction of the site ‘Lacomaer
Teichgebiet’ by open-cast lignite mining. After having received additional information from the German
Government, the Commission decided to ask the Federal Republic of Germany under Article 226 of the EC
Treaty to submit its observations. In this letter, the Commission expressed the opinion that, by not
proposing the site ‘Lacomaer Teiche und Hammergraben’ as a Site of Community Importance, the Federal
Republic of Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and Annex III (Stage 1) of
Directive 92/43/EEC (1). The observations of the Federal Republic of Germany have arrived recently. The
German Government argues that the discretion enjoyed by the Member States would justify not proposing
this site because a sufficient number of sites of comparable quality has been proposed to the Commission.
These arguments are currently being assessed by the Environment Directorate General.

The applicability of Directive 85/337/EEC in its original (2) or in its amended form (3) depends upon the
date on which the procedure for development consent was initiated. Therefore, provided the project in
question meets the other criteria in the Directive, in particular the criteria in Article 4, an environmental
impact assessment needs to be conducted if the procedure for development consent was initiated after
3 July 1988. In respect of the territory of the former German Democratic Republic, this date is 3 October
1990.

The Commission had already investigated in 1996 whether Directive 85/337/EEC had been respected with
regard to another open-cast lignite mining project in the former German Democratic Republic: the
neighbouring Jänschwalde project. The Commission arrived at the conclusion that this project had received
authorisation before Community law first became applicable. Therefore, no infringement of Directive 85/
337/EEC was found.

As for the open-cast mining project Cottbus-Nord, the assessment is similar. Moreover, according to the
information available to the Commission, the failure to conduct an environmental impact assessment with
regard to this project was unsuccessfully contested in the German courts. Assessment of these court
decisions has confirmed that no environmental impact assessment was necessary.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private

projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3) 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, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2003/C 161 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3586/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Location of the European Maritime Safety Agency

A large part of the intercontinental maritime traffic to and from Europe passes near the Galician coast. The
‘Prestige’ tanker disaster has tragically confirmed that Galicia is, therefore, the area of the world with the
highest relative incidence of accidents of this type. Will the Commission now propose locating the
European Maritime Safety Agency in a Galician city? If not, on what grounds? Has any proposal been
submitted by the government of the Spanish state, and has it proposed locating the agency in Galicia?