The Impact of EU Environmental Law on Waterways and Ports

The Impact of EU Environmental Law on Waterways and Ports including a proposal for the creation of Portus 2010, a Coherent EU Network of Strategic Port Development Areas A study carried out in the framework of the Maritime Transport Coordination Platform of the European Commission (Directorate General Energy and Transport) Eric Van Hooydonk Professor of Law, University of Antwerp Advocate Maklu Antwerp / Apeldoorn

Table of contents Executive summary 13 1. BACKGROUND AND APPROACH OF THE STUDY 18 1.1. Background 18 1.1.1. The Maritime Transport Coordination Platform (MTCP) 18 1.1.2. Definition of the problem: the difficult implementation of EU environmental legislation in and around waterways and ports 19 1.2. Objectives 20 1.3. Structure 21 1.4. Methodology 22 1.5. List of abbreviations 23 2. OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT LEGAL INSTRUMENTS 25 2.1. Introduction 25 2.2. The legal framework for the protection of natural habitats and water bodies 26 2.2.1. EU law 26 2.2.1.1. The EC Treaty 26 2.2.1.2. The Birds Directive 29 2.2.1.3. The Habitats Directive 31 2.2.1.4. The Water Framework Directive 37 2.2.1.5. Selected other instruments 45 2.2.1.5.1. The EIA Directive 46 2.2.1.5.2. The SEA Directive 47 2.2.1.5.3. The Environmental Information Directive 48 2.2.1.5.4. The Environmental Participation Directive 49 2.2.2. International law 50 2.2.2.1. The CBD 50 2.2.2.2. The Bern Convention 50 2.2.2.3. The Ramsar Convention 51 2.2.2.4. The Transboundary Watercourses Convention 51 2.2.2.5. The Marine Dumping Conventions 52 2.2.2.6. The AFS Convention 55 2.2.2.7. The BWM Convention 56 2.2.2.8. The Espoo Convention. 57 2.2.2.9. The Aarhus Convention 57

2.3. The legal framework for the use, maintenance and improvement of waterways and ports 58 2.3.1. EU law 58 2.3.1.1. The EC Treaty 58 2.3.1.2. Liberalisation instruments 62 2.3.1.3. The TEN-T Guidelines 65 2.3.1.4. Modal shift instruments 75 2.3.1.5. State aid policy 77 2.3.2. International law 81 2.3.2.1. The regime of inland waterways and ports 81 2.3.2.2. The regime of the territorial sea 86 2.3.2.3. The regime of the EEZ 87 2.3.2.4. The regime of the high seas 88 2.4. The interrelation and integration of EU laws and policies on environmental protection, waterways and ports 88 2.4.1. Importance of the issue 88 2.4.2. The integration principle of the EC Treaty 89 2.4.3. The integration principle in secondary EU law on waterways and ports 91 2.4.4. Integration of EU transport policy objectives into EU environmental policy 96 2.4.5. The interrelation between conflicting provisions of EU law 104 2.4.6. The interrelation between EU law and international law 105 2.4.7. The interrelation between conflicting international conventions 109 2.5. Interim conclusions 110 3. SELECTED CASES ON THE BIRDS AND HABITATS DIRECTIVES 113 3.1. Introduction 113 3.2. Leybucht (Port of Greetsiel) 115 3.2.1. Background 115 3.2.2. Environmental issues 116 3.2.3. Court judgment 117 3.2.4. Consequences 119 3.3. Lappel Bank (Port of Sheerness) 120 3.3.1. Background 120 3.3.2. Environmental issues 121 3.3.3. Court judgment 122 3.3.4. Consequences 123

3.4. Seine Estuary (Ports of Le Havre and Rouen) 123 3.4.1. Background 123 3.4.2. Environmental issues 124 3.4.3. Court judgment 125 3.4.4. Consequences 127 3.5. Severn Estuary (Port of Bristol) 127 3.5.1. Background 127 3.5.2. Environmental issues 127 3.5.3. Court judgment 128 3.5.4. Consequences 129 3.6. Second Deepening of the River Scheldt 131 3.6.1. Background 131 3.6.2. Environmental issues 132 3.6.3. Intervention of the European Commission 132 3.6.4. Consequences 134 3.7. Deurganck Dock (Port of Antwerp) 135 3.7.1. Background 135 3.7.2. Environmental issues 136 3.7.3. Intervention of the European Commission 136 3.7.4. Court judgments 140 3.7.5. Consequences 141 3.8. Dibden Bay (Port of Southampton) 142 3.8.1. Background 142 3.8.2. Environmental issues 143 3.8.3. Decision of the UK government 143 3.8.4. Consequences 146 3.9. Western Scheldt Container Terminal (Port of Flushing) 147 3.9.1. Background 147 3.9.2. Environmental issues 147 3.9.3. Court judgment 148 3.9.4. Consequences 149 3.10. Cockle Fisheries (Waddenzee) 150 3.10.1. Background 150 3.10.2. Environmental issues 151 3.10.3. Court judgment 152 3.10.4. Consequences 154 3.11. Second Maasvlakte (Port of Rotterdam) 155 3.11.1. Background 155 3.11.2. Environmental issues 155 3.11.3. Opinion of the European Commission 156 3.11.4. Court judgment 157 3.11.5. Consequences 158

3.12. Other cases 159 3.12.1. Port of Zeebrugge 159 3.12.1.1. Background 159 3.12.1.2. Environmental issues 159 3.12.2. Verrebroek Dock (Port of Antwerp) 160 3.12.2.1. Background 160 3.12.2.2. Environmental issues 161 3.12.2.3. Intervention of the European Commission 161 3.12.3. Haringvliet Yachting Harbours 162 3.12.3.1. Background 162 3.12.3.2. Environmental issues 162 3.12.3.3. Court judgment 162 3.12.3.4. Consequences 163 3.12.4. Port of Vuosaari 163 3.12.4.1. Background 163 3.12.4.2. Environmental issues 164 3.12.4.3. Court judgments 165 3.12.4.4. Interventions of the European Commission and the European Parliament 166 3.12.4.5. Consequences 167 3.12.5. Ports of Felixstowe, Harwich, Hull, Immingham and London 167 3.12.5.1. Background 167 3.12.5.2. Decisions of the UK government 168 3.12.6. Port of Monfakone 171 3.12.6.1. Background 171 3.12.6.2. Environmental issues 172 3.12.6.3. Court judgment 172 3.12.6.4. Consequences 174 3.12.7. Seed Mussels (Eastern Scheldt) 174 3.12.7.1. Background 174 3.12.7.2. Environmental issues 174 3.12.7.3. Court judgment 175 3.12.7.4. Consequences 176 3.12.8. Vilshofen - Straubing stretch of the River Danube 176 3.12.8.1. Background 176 3.12.8.2. Environmental issues 177 3.13. Interim conclusions 179 4. POLICY INTEGRATION INITIATIVES 182 4.1. Introduction 182 4.2. Consultations under the relevant directives 182

4.3. Commission initiatives 183 4.3.1. Cooperation between Directorates General 183 4.3.2. Specific guidance documents and integration activities 184 4.3.3. Integrated Coastal Zone Management 186 4.3.4. Forthcoming EU Maritime Policy 188 4.4. Selected private initiatives supported by the Commission and/or the industries 189 4.4.1. Ecoports 189 4.4.2. ESPO's Environmental Codes of Practice 191 4.4.3. Paralia Nature 192 4.4.4. NEW! Delta 193 4.4.5. SedNet 193 4.5. National and local initiatives 193 4.6. Conferences, seminars, etc. 195 4.7. Critical assessment and interim conclusions 196 5. UNRESOLVED PROBLEMS 198 5.1. Introduction 198 5.2. Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives 199 5.2.1. A battle for scarce areas 199 5.2.1.1. The economic need for additional capacity on waterways and in ports 199 5.2.1.2. The scarcity of both nature conservation areas and waterway and port development areas 203 5.2.1.3. Problems relating to the designation of nature conservation areas 202 5.2.2. Fundamental legal uncertainty 208 5.2.2.1. A growing malaise 208 5.2.2.2. Lack of clarity on obligation to assess maintenance dredging 210 5.2.2.3. Insufficient guidance on the alternative solutions test 212 5.2.2.4. Insufficient guidance on the overriding public interest test 215 5.2.2.5. Causes and effects of legal uncertainty 224 5.3. Implementation of the Water Framework Directive 231 5.3.1. Involvement of shipping and port stakeholders at EU level 231 5.3.2. Acknowledgement of the need for policy integration and further guidance 232 5.3.3. Forthcoming guidance on technical and policy-related issues 236 5.3.4. The need for more legal guidance and integration 236 5.3.4.1. The CIS not a guarantee against legal disputes 236 5.3.4.2. Designation of heavily modified water bodies 239

5.3.4.3. New modifications 241 5.3.4.4. Issues related to dredging 244 5.3.4.5. Other ambiguities 247 5.4. Interim conclusions 250 6. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 253 6.1. Principal conclusions 253 6.1.1. Conclusions on the existing legal framework 253 6.1.2. Conclusions on past implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives 255 6.1.3. Conclusions on policy integration initiatives relating to the Birds, Habitats and Water Framework Directives 257 6.1.4. Conclusions on unresolved problems relating to the Birds, Habitats and Water Framework Directives 258 6.2. Recommendations 260 6.2.1. Recommendations for a clearer definition of policy objectives 260 6.2.1.1. Increase awareness of integration problems 260 6.2.1.2. Define two-way integration as a key objective of waterway and port policies 262 6.2.1.3. Address specific environmental issues in future waterway and port policies 263 6.2.2. Recommendations for a better implementation of the existing legal framework 263 6.2.2.1. Exchange knowledge and build legal capacity 263 6.2.2.2. Recommend consultation at the designation stages under the Birds and Habitats Directives 264 6.2.2.3. Provide additional general guidance on the Birds, Habitats and Water Framework Directives 264 6.2.2.4. Provide waterway and port-specific guidance on the Birds, Habitats and Water Framework Directives 265 6.2.2.5. Link TEN-T and other statuses of waterway and port plans and projects to environmental assessments 270 6.2.3. Recommendations for a reinforcement of the legal status of waterway and port development 272 6.2.3.1. Attach a legal status to the forthcoming EU Network of Inland Waterways 272 6.2.3.2. Create Portus 2010, a Coherent EU Network of Strategic Port Development Areas 272 6.2.3.2.1. Conflicting views on the need for national port planning in Member States 272 10

6.2.3.2.2. The happy medium: reserving port expansion areas for unhindered future development while respecting environmental requirements 276 6.2.3.2.3. Portus 2010 - a mirror image of the Natura 2000 Network 280 6.2.3.2.4. Portus 2010 - a tool for a proper economic assessment and risk management of port plans and projects 283 6.2.3.2.5. Portus 2010 - an instrument for a better integration of policies 285 6.2.3.2.6. Portus 2010-a strong legal status for port expansion areas 287 6.2.3.2.7. Portus 2010 - a guarantee for commercial adaptability and managerial flexibility 288 6.2.3.2.8. Portus 2010 -a basis for just compensation of port authorities 288 6.2.3.2.9. Portus 2010 - a strategy for the management of non-socioeconomic values of waterways and ports 289 6.2.3.2.10. Summary of recommendation 291 6.2.3.3. Link TEN-T and other statuses of waterway and port plans and projects to environmental assessments 292 6.2.3.4. Consider amendments to the proposed Marine Strategy Directive 294 6.2.3.5. Take opportunities to clarify the Birds, Habitats and Water Framework Directives 296 6.2.3.6. Insert a provision on waterways and ports in the EC Treaty and introduce an Infrastructure Impact Assessment Report 297 6.2.4. Timetable 298 ANNEX - SELECTED SOURCES 299 1. Legislation 299 1.1. International conventions 299 1.2. Community instruments 300 1.2.1. Secondary legislation 300 1.2.2. Preparatory documents 303 2. Case law 304 2.1. European Court of Justice judgments 304 2.2. European Commission decisions 305 2.3. Belgian court judgments 305 2.4. Dutch court judgments 306 3. Legal doctrine 307 11

4. Various sources 310 4.1. European Community 310 4.2. ESPO 312 4.3. Other documents 313 4.4. Other internet sources 316 5. Correspondents and interviewees 317 12