WRITTEN QUESTION E-2685/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Damage done to the Pontine coast in Italy by the Lazio regional authorities

Several months ago, the regional authorities of Lazio ordered several environmental regeneration operations at Porto Badino, in the commune of Terracina. Gravel was spread along the water's edge and several kilometres of beach were subsequently ruined and

rendered inaccessible as a result of the gravel deposits on the beach. This had a disastrous effect in both environmental terms, by endangering the area's natural beauty, and economic terms, as the area is now less attractive to tourists. Moreover, it appears that this regeneration might even be extended to surrounding areas on the Lazio coast.

1. Does the Commission not consider that this runs counter to Directive 76/160/EEC(1) on the quality of bathing water and Directive 76/464/EEC(2) on the discharge of dangerous substances into the aquatic environment?

2. Given its impact on the natural habitat, does it not also breach Directive 92/43/EEC(3)?

3. Will the Commission contact the relevant authorities, and in particular the president of the Lazio Region, the regional councillor for the environment and the mayor of Terracina, to ask them to shed light on the reasons for the above operations and the research on which the project was based?

4. Does the Commission not think it would be advisable to call on the competent authorities to apply Community law with greater prudence?

5. What is the Commission's general view on the matter?

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

The Honourable Member makes reference to a situation which is not covered by Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water or Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

Under Directive 76/464/EEC discharge means the introduction into the waters referred to in paragraph 1 of any substances in List I or List II of the Annex. In this specific case, the application of the gravel material was limited to the beach and the coastal zone, therefore, no discharge to the aquatic environment took place. Furthermore, the substances mentioned by the Honourable Member are not included in List I or List II of the Annex. Inert gravel material could be considered neither as list I nor list II substance.

Directive 76/160/EEC aims to protect the environment and human health by reducing the pollution of bathing water and to protect such waters against further deterioration. To this purpose it set out a monitoring system which requires Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure the quality of the bathing water conforms to the limit values and the minimum frequency and method of sampling operations given in the Annex. Possible breach of the Directive can be envisaged only in so far as a lack of conformity to the given limit values can be demonstrated with reference to the bathing area concerned.

Directive 92/43/EEC sets out obligations for Member States concerning the protection of special areas of conservation (SPA) and to sites of community importance (SIC) identified under the Directive. However, the area mentioned by the Honourable Member is neither part of a SPA designated pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC nor of a SIC proposed pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, Directive 92/43/EEC is not of application in the specific case.

The circumstances raised by the Honourable Member could be relevant under Council Directive 97/11/EEC amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1). Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Directive states: Subject to Article 2 (3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States shall determine through: (a) a case-by-case examination, or (b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Annex II lists at No10(k):

Coastal work to combat erosion and maritime works capable of altering the coast through the construction, for example, of dykes, moles, jetties and other sea defence works, excluding the maintenance and reconstruction of such works. Provided that the work to which the Honourable Member refers can be considered as a project under the class mentioned, it would have been made the subject of an examination.

The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about the matter and to ensure the observance of relevant Community law.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.