WRITTEN QUESTION E-4003/03 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Draught in the Vilshofen-Straubing section of the Danube.
Date: 2004-01-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, environmental impact, environmental protection, hydraulic works, impact study, inland waterway, inland waterway transport, protected area, trans-European network

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/281

Sixty proposals have not received funding either because the independent evaluators judged them to be of
insufficient quality or because a competing proposal for the same topic was judged to be of better quality.

Most of the contracts are still active and the outcome will be included in an on-going exercise that is
examining the results and the socio-economic impact of finished projects from the Competitive and
Sustainable Growth programme.

(2004/C 84 E/0327)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3996/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: New work methods and development of e-commerce

The key action relating to the creation of new work methods and the development of e-commerce
provided for under the fifth framework programme for research included a number of calls for proposals
for the period 1999-2001.

Can the Commission state how many such calls were published, with the names of the successful
candidates and the sums allocated to each project approved? Has action been taken to verify the success of
the actions?

Answer given by Mr. Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

During the period indicated (1999-2001), there were nine calls for proposal related to key action II: new
working methods and development of electronic commerce.

The information related to the projects resulting from these calls can be found on the Cordis website (1),
where it is possible to carry out research by key action, by country, by contract type and by partner type.

Another address (2) provides access to another document giving an overview of the activities of key action
II during the period concerned.

The impact assessment of the activities of the Information Society Technologies (IST) taken as a whole,
including the key action II, is underway and the corresponding report will be available at the end of April
2004 in a preliminary form and at the end of October 2004 in the final version.

(1) http://www.cordis.lu/ist/projects/projects.htm
(2) http://www.cordis.lu/ist/ka2/report.htm#ar2001

(2004/C 84 E/0328)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4003/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Draught in the Vilshofen-Straubing section of the Danube

(7 January 2004)

The Van Miert report calls for a draught of 2,5 metres throughout the whole year in the Vilshofen-
Straubing section of the Danube but this cannot be achieved without damming stages that would destroy
the most important water meadow ecosystem in southern Germany,

What is the Commission’s assessment of the following points:

1. Damning stages on the Vilshofen-Straubing section of the Danube are incompatible with both the
Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive and are in breach of the ‘no deterioration’ clause in the EU
water framework directive;

C 84 E/282

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

2. On 7 June 2002, after a wide-ranging hearing of experts, the Bundestag rejected damning stages on
environmental and economic grounds and voted by a clear majority for river improvement works in
line with Variant A;

3. The recommendations made by the Danube Commission for the section from Vienna to the Black Sea

provide merely for a navigable channel of 2,5 m during 94 % of the shipping season;

4. Creating a guaranteed draught of 2,5 m for the whole year in Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria and

Romanian would destroy the last natural river landscape?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the area concerned is designated as
(proposed site of Community importance) according to the Habitats Directive (1). The site
pSCI
DE 7142301 ‘Donauauen zwischen Straubing und Vilshofen’ stretches along the Danube with an area of
4 548 hectares (ha).

Neither the Habitats Directive nor the Birds Directive (2) prohibits projects like water regulating measures.
Article 6 of the Habitats Directive provides procedures and conditions for assessing projects that might
have an impact on protected areas. For the time being, the Commission has no evidence to suspect that
Community legislation has not been respected. It is understood that a number of options have been
considered and the variant A supported by the Bundestag is indeed the most sensitive in environmental
terms.

As regards the Water Framework Directive (3)
(WFD), the Commission supports the recent resolution
adopted by the Plenary of the International Commission for the Protection of the River Danube (ICPDR) on
1 and 2 December 2003 which states,

that the ICPDR:

(a)

(b)

(c)

takes note of the European Commission Proposal on Trans-European Networks (TENs) Guidelines,
specifically stressing in its Explanatory Memorandum the need for compliance of TENs projects
with EU environmental legislation such as the WFD;

stresses that each project has to be subject to a comprehensive integrated environmental impact
assessment and a compliance with the WFD, including the non-deterioration principle;

invites contracting parties to engage in dialogue with their responsible ministries for transport
and ensure agreement on the above.

(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 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. Directive as

last amended by Commission Directive 91/244/EEC of 6 March 1991, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.

(3) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(2004/C 84 E/0329)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4007/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject: Earthquake risk prevention

According to press reports (see the 16 December 2003 issue of the newspaper ‘Açoreano Oriental’), the
chairman of the Portuguese Seismic Engineering Society (SPES), in a speech made on the fringe of a