WRITTEN QUESTION E-0818/04 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Sludge storage in Ingensche Waarden.
Date: 2004-03-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, metal pollution, protected area, waste disposal, water protection

C 84 E/884

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The question raised by the Honourable Member prompts the following comments:

to which the Honourable Member refers, established a ‘general system’

(cid:1) Among its fundamental principles, the EC Treaty established freedom of establishment, freedom to
provide services and free movement for employed persons. So as to facilitate the effective exercise of
these freedoms, several legal instruments have been adopted. To this end, Directives 89/48/EEC (1) and
92/51/EEC (2),
for the
recognition of diplomas between Member States. Under these Directives, a Member State may not in
principle refuse to allow a Community national to take up and pursue a regulated profession provided
the person concerned holds the diploma required in his or her Member State of origin or provenance
there are substantial differences in the training
for the pursuit of that profession. However,
undergone by the applicant in comparison with the training required in the host Member State, the
latter may require the applicant either to provide evidence of professional experience or to comply
with compensatory measures in the form of an adaptation period or an aptitude test.

if

(cid:1) From the above it is apparent that the above-mentioned Directives apply only when community
nationals wish to pursue a regulated profession in a Member State other than that where they acquired
their professional qualifications, and not to situations that are purely internal to a Member State. From
the information supplied by the Honourable Member, however, it is not clear that Mr Ghezzi acquired
his professional qualifications outside Italy. In consequence, having regard to the facts presented,
no presumed violation of the above Directives can be established.

(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education
diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, OJ L 19,
24.1.1989.

(2) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional

education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2004/C 84 E/0978)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0818/04

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

(15 March 2004)

Subject: Sludge storage in Ingensche Waarden

Gelderland Province in the Netherlands intends to grant licences for the storage of 11 million cubic metres
of sludge in a sand-recovery area near Ingen. The project provides for putting two suction-pump extractors
to work to deepen the existing sand pit from 25 to about 40 metres.

The intention, for an expected period of some 15 to 20 years, is to store (dredger) sludge, much of it
removed from river beds. Class 3 and 4 sludge contains heavy metals, in particular.

The outer limits of the Ingensche Waarden are (cid:1) as part of the Lower Rhine (cid:1) designated as a special
protection area (SPA) under Natura 2000. The area is well-known as a wintering habitat for Bewick’s swan
and the white-fronted goose, and as a brooding habitat for the cornkrake.

According to the compulsory environmental impact report (EIR) there will (cid:1) as a result of the storage (cid:1)
be no significant disruptive impact.

The EIR fails, even so, to consider any alternative to storing the sludge, such as processing as clinker or
brick, or as road-building material.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/885

Nor is there any mention of offsetting (natural) measures. The rural EIR committee notes that there is no
mention in the EIR of
the actual effects of
concentrations on pollution of flora and fauna.

the gap in knowledge surrounding expectations of

local water quality can be expected to deteriorate
During and after storage of the dredged sludge,
temporarily. For some substances a temporary overshoot of the maximum permitted risk level (MPR)
cannot be excluded. The potential eco(toxico)logical risks of such situations for specified guide species are
not quantified in the EIR.

Special protection areas are subject to the Habitats Directive and the Habitats Assessment Framework,
which stipulate that encroachment on the natural characteristics of such areas is only permitted if there are
no alternatives and there are urgent reasons of overriding public interest.

Does the Commission consider that the intended action is in conflict with the principles underlying the
Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive and Natura 2000?

Will the Commission arrange to screen all activities in special protection areas, not least the Waal and
Lower-Rhine basin area?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

Following Article 6, § 3, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), which, pursuant to its Article 7, also applies to Special Protection
Areas (SPAs) classified under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds (2), any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of such a site but
likely to have a significant effect thereon shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for
the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives.

The SPA ‘Neder-Rijn’ has a total area of ca. 2 900 hectares (ha). According to the information provided by
the Honourable Member, the planned sludge storage project might locally and temporarily affect the water
quality within that area. It appears from the information provided that an assessment of the project has
been done which shows that there are no significant effects on the site. There is no further information
that would suggest a violation of the procedure of Article 6, § 3, of Directive 92/43/EEC. The issue of
alternatives is mentioned in Article 6, § 4, of Directive 92/43/EEC which only applies if the project is likely
to have significant effects on the site, but must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of
overriding public interest. Since the information from the Honourable Member refers to an assessment
concluding that there are no significant effects, it seems at first sight that the provisions of that Directive
have been respected. The issue of the need to consider alternatives is further addressed in Article 5 of
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment (3), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (4).
From the information provided, however, it is not evident that this provision is contravened.

It is the responsibility of Member States and not of the Commission to screen activities in special
protection areas in order to make sure that the protection regime under Article 6, § 2, 3 and 4 is being
respected. For activities where convincing evidence is provided to the Commission that the EU nature
protection legislation has been infringed,
the Commission has the possibility to open infringement
procedures against the Member State responsible.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, as amended by Commission Directive 91/224/EEC of 6 March 1991, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.