WRITTEN QUESTION E-0815/03 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Incorrect application of the habitats directive in Zeeland.
Date: 2003-03-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, harbour installation, protected area

C 268 E/136

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

(2003/C 268 E/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0815/03

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

Subject: Incorrect application of the habitats directive in Zeeland

(17 March 2003)

The province of Zeeland has made out a case for building a container terminal (WCT (cid:1) Westerschelde
Container Terminal) for maritime and inland shipping in the port area of Vlissingen-Oost. In order to build
this terminal the promoter Zeeland Seaports needs approximately 20 million m3 of infill sand, to be
extracted from the North Sea. The Ministry of Transport and Public Works has therefore launched an
environmental impact assessment.

On 21 February 2003 the Council of State ruled that the WCT plans were incompatible with certain
provisions based on, or contained in, the habitats directive, because in the regional plan review adopted by
the Provincial States a 141,72-hectare nature area (with a pilot function in environmental development)
would become seaport territory.

It is claimed that the policy decision violates the rules, because the use of agricultural land as natural
compensation for the construction of the WCT is not equivalent to compensation in a wet area outside the
dike.

The nature area where the projected WCT would be located, which includes the fossil beach ‘De Kaloot’,
should be conserved, given that the building of the WCT on this land is incompatible with Article 6(4) of
the habitats directive.

The Council of State has temporarily suspended the implementation of the WCT plans.

Does the Commission agree that, until the procedure is complete, all parallel activities (EIA and application
for a licence to extract sand for the WCT) should be suspended?

Does the Commission intend to take steps to prevent this threatened violation of the habitats directive?

Does the Commission intend to look more carefully at the natural compensation measures envisaged, inter
alia as regards drylands being used as compensation for wetlands?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

(WCT) near Vlissingen. The complaints question the compatibility of

The Commission has received two complaints about the construction of the Westerschelde Container
Terminal
the proposed WCT
construction with the Nature Protection Directives: Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds (1) (Birds Directive) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) (Habitats Directive).

The Westerschelde has been designated by the Netherlands as a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the
Birds Directive and has been put forward as a proposed Site of Community Importance (pSCI) under the
Habitats Directive.

The Commission is currently investigating the complaints. In this respect, Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the
Habitats Directive seem relevant. According to Article 6(3), a plan or project that is likely to have
significant effects on the site must be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site. If
there are negative implications for the site, and if the plan or project,
in the absence of alternative
solutions, must be carried out
imperative reasons of overriding public interest, appropriate
for
compensatory measures must be taken according to Article 6(4). The Commission will take the necessary
steps to see to it that the relevant provisions of both Directives are complied with.

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/137

The Commission is further aware of a ruling of the Dutch Council of State (Raad van State) in this context
of 21 February 2003. However, the Commission is currently not in a position to comment on the
consequences of this ruling on the parallel activities mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2003/C 268 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0829/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme to promote civil protection by the City of Frosinone

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report
on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by
some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been
echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the City of Frosinone, urgently need to use European
funds for the civil protection of persons and goods, whether by preventing, or at least dealing with,
potential natural disasters or even so-called technological and industrial disasters, can the Commission
state:

1. whether the City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the action programme to support civil

protection?

2. whether the City of Frosinone has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

(2003/C 268 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0889/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme to promote civil protection by the municipality of

Fiumicino

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report
on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by
some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been
echoed by the Commission.