WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Taking account of protests at the devastation of residential and natural areas by the construction of a dam in the Spanish region of Navarre

1. Is the Commission aware that after completion of the Itoiz dam (which is 135 m in height and 35 km in length) the rivers Irati and Urrobi in the Pyrenees in the north of the Spanish region of Navarre will flow into a 1 100 ha reservoir which will require the submersion of nine villages in their entirety and parts of six others, that in addition the nature and bird conservation areas (Txintxurrenea, Gaztelu and Inyarbe) created and protected with support from the European Union will be flooded, resulting in the disappearance of rare species of eagles, vultures and owls, while the otter has already disappeared thanks to the building work?

2. Is the Commission familiar with the action of the Spanish group Solidarios con Itoiz, as reported in various media, which took place during the opening speech by chairman Abu-Zeid on the occasion of the second World Water Forum held in The Hague from 17 to 22 March 2000?

3. Is the Commission also aware that one of the main official arguments for building the dam, namely the creation of 57 000 ha of land for intensive farming, is not supported by the latest thinking whereby a sustainable environmental policy involves reducing the area of land under cultivation, less intensive farming and maintaining or extending nature conservation areas?

4. Can the Commission confirm that there are still no detailed and approved plans for the 177 km canal needed to the south of Navarre, that the project does not appear in Spain's national irrigation plan currently in force, that the return on this project is extremely dubious and that two-thirds of the expected increase in electricity production is offset by the discontinuation of existing production of electricity at plants along the existing river banks?

5. Is the Commission aware that the construction of this dam is highly controversial because of:

(a) the trial and sentencing of former ministers of the region of Navarre for accepting bribes for allocating building concessions;

(b) the decisions of 29 September 1995 and 14 July 1987 by the highest courts in Spain which did not approve the technical project;

(c) the fact that the firm Burson-Matseller was brought in to convince the mass media and public opinion of the desirability of this project?

6. What does the Commission intend to do:

(a) to help protect the countryside and fauna in the Western Pyrenees from the detrimental effects of the planned dam on the countryside and natural life, and

(b) to reach an agreement with the relevant Spanish authorities in this respect?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2000)

The Commission received a complaint concerning the construction of the Itoiz dam and conducted an investigation. On 30 November 1994, the Commission decided not to open infringement proceedings in respect of this matter. A press release to this effect was issued on 9 December 1994(1), including the necessary elements to explain why the file was closed.

It must be noted that the Community has not granted any financing for the construction of the Itoiz dam in the Navarre region of Spain.

Furthermore, as a result of the suggestions made by the Commission following the closure of the file, the Spanish authorities notified an enlargement of the special protection areas where the project is located. Recently, they have communicated to the Commission new designations of special protection areas in the area of Bardenas Reales.

With regard to the observations concerning the judgements delivered by national courts in this issue, it should be noted that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to comment. It should also be noted that a recent judgement of the Spanish Constitutional Court has overturned a previous decision by the Spanish Supreme Court against this project.

Given the fact that the Itoiz dam project has now been constructed, the Commission does not see any purpose in prolonging commentary on a Commission decision dating from 1994.

(1) IP/94/1175.