WRITTEN QUESTION E-2219/03 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Deurne Airport and European environmental impact assessments.
Date: 2003-07-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, airport, environmental impact, environmental protection, exchange of information, impact study, project evaluation, protected area

C 51 E/224

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

(2004/C 51 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2219/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Deurne Airport and European environmental impact assessments

Article 7 of Directive 85/337/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2), lays down that Member States
carrying out or authorising projects such as those listed in Annexes I and II must always hold in-depth
consultations with the other Member States where such projects are ‘likely to have significant effects on
the environment in another Member State’. By contrast, Article 2(3) lays down that Member States may
take an independent decision, ‘in exceptional circumstances, [to] exempt a specific project in whole or in
part from the provisions laid down in this Directive.’ However, if a Member State does take a decision of
that nature, it is obliged to notify, inter alia, the Commission thereof.

Can the Commission indicate whether the 300-metre extension of the runway at Deurne Airport, near
Antwerp, (from 1 510 to 1 810 metres), proposed with a view to meeting ICAO safety standards, falls
under point 13 of Annex II in the knowledge that:

(a)

the increase in air traffic thereby facilitated will have a substantial impact on man and nature in the
vicinity of the airport;

(b) a new access road will have to be constructed, with the same impact on man and nature;

(c)

the construction work involved will destroy an area, covered by the Habitats Directive, which is home
to a large number of (rare) bats?

Can the Commission indicate whether, in this instance, Belgium is entitled to invoke Article 2(3), i.e. that it
is not obliged to conduct the impact assessment provided for in Articles 5 to 10 inclusive of the Directive?

Can the Commission indicate whether, on the other hand, Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/42/EC (3) is
applicable in this instance?

If the Deurne Airport extension does go through, is the Commission planning (cid:1) as it did, after the event,
in the case of the extension to the airport in Malpensa, Italy (cid:1) to scrutinise the project in a proactive
manner and very closely and to demand comprehensive information from the Belgian authorities?

Can it indicate how many times over the last five years Belgium and the other Member States have invoked
the provisions of Article 2(3) of this Directive? In so doing, can the Commission give details of the projects
in respect of which specifically Belgium has used that opportunity?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment (EIA Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March
1997 (1) provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely
to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are
made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. These projects are defined in Article 4 that
refers to Annex I and II of the Directive.

The 300-metre extension of the runway at Deurne airport seems to be covered in Annex II point 13.
For Annex II projects, Member States have to determine, either through a case by case examination or
according to thresholds or criteria, whether the project is to be made subject to an assessment because of
its likely significant effects on the environment taking into account the relevant selection criteria set out in
Annex III of the Directive. This criteria includes the potential significant effects as regards the extent of

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/225

impact (geographical area and size of affected population) as well as the environmental sensitivity of areas
likely to be affected and in particular special protection areas designated by Member States pursuant to the
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (the ‘Habitats Directive’). In the case where the Member State decide that the project will have
significant effects on the environment an environmental impact assessment has to be carried out.

The project is situated in the direct neighbourhood of the ‘Ring of historical forts around Antwerp as an
habitat for bats’. This site was proposed as a Site of Community Importance according to Article 4,
paragraph 1 of the Habitats Directive. Increased air and ground traffic, as well as the construction of a new
road in the direct neighbourhood of that site might possibly have negative effects on the conservation
status of the site and on the two bats species for which the site was proposed.

The Commission intends to ask the Belgian authorities to provide it with detailed information about the
proposed works at Deurne airport in order to enable it to determine whether the authorities have
complied with the EIA and Habitats Directives.

The Honourable member asks if Belgium can invoke Article 2(3) of the EIA Directive in this particular
case. The EIA Directive provides that Member States, may, in exceptional cases, exempt a specific project
in whole or in part from the provisions of the EIA Directive.

In such a case the following obligations have to be fulfilled:

(a)

consider whether another form of assessment would be appropriate and whether the information thus
collected should be made available to the public,

(b) make available to the public concerned the information relating to the exemption and the reasons for

granting it, and

(c)

inform the Commission, prior to granting consent, of the reasons for justifying the exemption granted,
and provide it with the information made available, where applicable, to their own nationals.

The Commission therefore, cannot pronounce itself in this respect, as Belgium has not informed the
Commission of any intention to apply this exemption. On the basis of information already provided
Article 2(3) of the Directive has been invoked seven times by Member States. None of these cases involved
Belgium.

Directive 2001/42/EC (3) applies to certain plans and programmes. It is not clear whether the proposal
referred to by the Honourable Member could be classed as a plan or programme as defined by the
Directive. In any case, the obligation referred to in Article 4(1) of that Directive applies (with limited
exceptions) only in the case of plans or programmes of which the first preparatory act is subsequent to
21 July 2004.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the

effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

(2004/C 51 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2225/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Financing of eco-label scheme

The EU’s eco-labelling scheme (cid:1) in common with several national schemes (cid:1) is in many cases a success.
However, the EU scheme could be more widespread and, apparently, the financing model might possibly
be better designed.