WRITTEN QUESTION E-3061/03 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Threat to the FFH protected area Falkenseer Kuhlaake (No 537) from a road-building project to be carried out with assistance from the European Structural Funds.
Date: 2003-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Brandenburg, European Regional Development Fund, eligibility criteria, environmental impact, environmental protection, protected area, road building

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/773

In the wake of EEA Enlargement negotiations, there have already been renewed calls for complete tariff
suspensions for fresh herring and mackerel, on the one hand, and announcements of opposition to any
further tariff alleviation for the said products, on the other. It also appears that it is not so much the
present tariff situation, which exacerbates the supply needs of the processing industries of certain Member
States, but rather the practice of many Community fishing vessels to land their catches of herring into
Norwegian ports. This is due to the geographical particularities of the fisheries on Atlanto-Scandian
herring in the Northeast Atlantic. One might query whether tariff policy is the appropriate tool to cope
with that.

Another aspect of interest is a greatly improved stock situation of North Sea herring. The emergency
measures, to which this stock has been subject over many years, are now paying off. Thus, huge quantities
of herring will become available for the Community in the years to come. This might induce certain
Member States to argue that the quantities of herring now available to the Community are of such a
magnitude that adequate supplies of the Community’s processing industries are ensured.

It is clear that ongoing World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations on market access and tariffs will
lead to overall tariff reductions eventually. In the meantime, exploratory talks with Member States on a
new multi-annual tariff quota system for the period 2004 to 2006 to address short-term needs are under
way. The Commission approaches this with an open mind and hopes that this exploratory process will
yield results which would allow to come forward with operative proposals capable of mustering the widest
possible support from Member States.

(2004/C 78 E/0823)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3061/03

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Threat to the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ (No 537) from a road-building project to be

carried out with assistance from the European Structural Funds

In spring 2000 the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ was not notified to the Commission as a
single natural habitat, but rather, on the basis of scientific findings concerning the spread of the species in
need of protection (CJEC judgment of 7 November 2000, Case C-371/98 (1)), as two separate sites.
A roughly 50-metre-wide corridor runs through the middle of the protected area. The German Land
Brandenburg intends to use the corridor as the route of the northern section of the Falkensee by-pass
(L20). The decision to exclude the strip of land in question cannot be justified on nature conservancy
grounds,
in particular because this area forms, along with the FFH protected area ‘Spandauer Forst’
(No 3445-301), a natural whole.

1.

(a) Does the Commission share the view taken by the Brandenburg Land Government that the
decision to divide and thus dismember the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ is consistent with
the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) and that the excluded strip need not also be identified as a
protected area, however logical such a move would be on nature conservancy grounds? If so, why
does the Commission take the view that the by-pass must be routed through the protected area and
why, in its view, does the road-building project take priority over nature conservancy? If not, what
steps has the Commission taken, or will it take, in order to safeguard the protected status of the area
as a whole?

(b) Does the Commission share the view of the Brandenburg Land Government that the planned road will
have little impact on the neighbouring FFH protected areas ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ and ‘Spandauer
Forst’?

If so, what arguments can it put forward to substantiate that view?

C 78 E/774

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

If not, will it call on the Brandenburg Land Government to carry out a detailed FFH impact study and to
revise its plans on the basis of the findings of that study?

2.
Is the Commission aware that the Brandenburg Land Government is considering using resources
from the European Structural Funds for this road-building project? Does the Commission approve of this
plan and does it take the view that such a decision would be consistent with the regulation governing the
Structural Funds and the horizontal task ‘protecting and improving the natural environment’ laid down in
that regulation?

(1) OJ C 28, 27.1.2001, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2003)

The Commission has not received a complaint, or any other information, on the planned construction of
the by-pass ‘L 20’ in the corridor between the proposed sites of Community interest (‘pSCIs’) ‘Falkenseer
Kuhlaake’ and ‘Spandauer Forst’ in Brandenburg. On the basis of the limited information provided in the
written question, the Commission cannot decide whether or not Articles 4(1) and 6(3) of Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats
Directive), or any other Community law, may have been violated.

The Commission will now start an own-initiative investigation on the case. The German Government will
be asked to provide additional information and to take a position on the case.

A decision to co-finance the project under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) programme
of Brandenburg has not been taken. To be eligible for ERDF funding, any project has to fully comply with
Community environmental legislation in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June
1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1).

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2004/C 78 E/0824)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3066/03

by Alain Esclopé (EDD) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Breaking-up of decommissioned US warships

The United States has decided to have hundreds of decommissioned US Navy warships, which are riddled
with asbestos and contaminated with fuel oil, broken up in a port on the east coast of England. The
towing of the ships to that port is exposing neighbouring national and international waters to serious
environmental risks.

The logical course of action would have been for the ships to be broken up on US territory, rather than
thousands of kilometres from their home port.

Pressure from US ecologists, combined with the financial incentives on offer, prompted the Americans to
pass on the task of dealing with this ecological hazard to European countries which have already been
badly affected by similar problems in recent years.

Against a background of world, and, more particularly, European, efforts
development, is it not strange that such practices should go unremarked?

to foster

sustainable

It should be borne in mind that the Americans have adopted maritime legislation which authorises them
to use military force to exclude vessels which pose an environmental risk from their territorial waters.