ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0926/98

by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Damage to Contreras reservoir due to work on the A3

Work on the stretch of the A3 motorway between Valencia and Madrid which passes Contreras reservoir is having a severe impact on the environment and landscape and is in clear breach of the environmental impact statement for the project.

Paragraph 1 of the environmental impact statement issued by the former Directorate-General for Environmental Quality and Assessment stated that, in order to prevent any significant impact on the hydrological features of Contreras reservoir, no quarry or borrow pits may be located, no materials of any sort may be discharged and no auxiliary installations connected with the works may be sited in areas from which the reservoir might be affected directly or by run-off.

In the course of the work, excavations of more than 40 metres in height are being made and the excess material from the excavations is being tipped into the reservoir water. Tracks are also being opened whose course will need to be corrected at a later date.

The result of these practices is the total destruction of the vegetation surrounding an area known as Rabo de la Sartén, as well as in other locations where viaducts are to be supported.

Despite the protest of political parties and the Júcar Hydrological Confederation, the work continues to be in systematic breach of the recommendations of the environmental impact statement.

This damage to the ecology and countryside is a result of the urgency with which the authorities are endeavouring to meet the deadlines for the work's completion. In this case, such urgency is not justified, given the environmental damage which it entails.

Bearing in mind that some of the funding for this work is being provided by the European Union:

1. Is the Commission aware of the impact which this work is having?

2. Can the Commission send a delegation to assess the environmental damage and pollution which the work is causing?

3. Can the Commission contact the Spanish Ministry of Public Works to ask it to restore the countryside and ecology immediately and ensure that further work complies with the environmental impact statement?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 1998)

The Commission feels that it is up to the Member-State authorities to check compliance with the conditions laid down in the environmental impact assessment statement. The Commission has therefore contacted that Member State in order, as requested by the Honourable Member, to be informed of any effects that the activities in question could have.

In addition, when the committee monitoring the Cohesion Fund meets, the Commission will ask for clarification and closer details in order to ensure that the work continues in line with the environmental impact assessment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1230/98

by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Planning of aiports on the basis of noise pollution caused to the surrounding area

In its resolution A-0183/97(1), adopted on 10 June 1997, on the Commission Green Paper on future noise policy, the European Parliament calls on the Commission "to submit a proposal for a directive on obligatory standards and the planning of airports on the basis of a European noise pollution system" (para. 30).

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does a uniform method exist for measuring noise pollution around airports? If not, is the Commission in favour of introducing such a method?

2. Does the Commission favour the planning of airports on the basis of a European noise pollution system as a way of clearly mapping the noise pollution of European airports, and as a basis for applying further measures to the airports which cause the greatest level of noise pollution to the surrounding area?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

1. In the Community, there is currently no uniform method for the calculation of noise nuisance around airports. In preparing a forthcoming legislative initiative on environmental noise, the Commission, in close cooperation with Member States and specialist organisations, will assess the feasibility of a common noise unit of measurement and methodology. Any future proposal by the Commission would be based on the outcome of this technical assessment.

2. The Commission will similarly consider the issue of drawing up maps of effects of noise nuisance, including noise nuisance caused by aircraft around airports.

(1) OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, p. 28.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0848/98

by Antoni Gutiérrez Díaz (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Municipal solid waste in Formentera (Spain)

At Cap de Barbaria on the island of Formentera (Balearics, Spain), a municipal solid waste tip has been located on an escarpment between two streams. The tip is currently the object of legal proceedings brought by the environmental offences section of the High Court of the Balearics on grounds of delays in obtaining legal authorization for the site. In addition, local inhabitants are bringing administrative proceedings in an effort to expose the illegality of the installation and the serious environmental problem posed by its location and the way it is managed.

The problem is affecting the whole island. The tip is constantly burning, giving off dioxins which cause pollution to humans, animals and plants. In addition the Mediterranean is also being polluted. The site is not waterproofed and there is no system for the collection of leachate which, because of the location of the site on a slope leading down to the sea, all goes into the water. There is also the danger that an avalanche might occur in future, with the disastrous environmental effects that would entail.

Financial aid from the Community is vital in order to resolve the problem of municipal solid waste on this small island, although it is doubtful if this will involve retaining the existing installation, which is a source of pollution.

Given the possibility that the Government of the Autonomous Community of the Balearics may allocate funds obtained from the Community to this tip, will the Commission say:

1. whether it is aware of the existence of this installation?

2. if so, whether it is aware of the legal proceedings in progress?

3. whether it has allocated funds under any programme to finance the processing of municipal solid waste in Formentera?

4. if so, whether this aid is being used to maintain the existing installation?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 1998)

The Commission was not aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member. It will make the requisite contacts to gather full details of the matter and to ensure that all relevant Directives are being fully complied with.

Environmental interventions are funded under the Balearic 5b operational programme by the European Regional Development Fund (actions 2-5 in favour of rural centres). However, no such intervention has been recorded for Formentera, except for study appropriations shared by Formentera and Ibiza and earmarked for the production of plot plans (PTA 0.7 million, or ECU 4 250) and land use plans (PTA 1.3 million, or ECU 7 800). The Commission would also point out that the question posed by the Honourable Member has never been raised in the 5b monitoring committee.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1121/98

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(8 April 1998)

Subject: Veterinary inspections and controls

Could the Commission provide a comparative list of charges for veterinary inspections and controls across the EU?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 1998)

It is important to separate the question of the costs of controls and veterinary inspections from that of the way in which these controls and inspections are financed.

With respect to the costs, this is a particularly complex operation since it involves adding together total expenditure (staff costs, social contributions, analysis costs, administrative expenses, etc.). Moreover, certain items, such as the costs of constructing or modernising buildings, may be subject to different accounting processes. It should also be remembered that in the ideal case scenario the official statement of costs can only be provided at the end of year n+1, year n being the year in which the veterinary checks and inspections in question are carried out. In addition, in many Member States local authorities are responsible for carrying out this cost assessment. The Commission is not therefore in a position to draw up a comparative list of charges.

The Community does however have rules on the financing of the costs occasioned by veterinary inspections and controls, notably through Council Directive 85/73/EC(1) on the financing of health inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662/EEC(2), 90/425/EEC(3), 90/675/EEC(4) and 91/492/EEC(5). More detailed rules are laid down for meat and fishery products (Annex A). Generally speaking, these provide for standard amounts of funding, with the possibility of increasing or reducing funding to take account of individual situations. The amounts and the conditions for applying particular rates are laid down in the above legislation.

(1) Council Directive 85/73/EC, amended and consolidated by Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996, OJ L 162, 1.7.1996.

(2) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.

(3) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(4) OJ L 373, 31.12.1990.

(5) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1222/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Opening of a quarry in the Pittolo area

With reference to the Commission's reply to my Written Question No E-3370/97(1) on the matter referred to above:

1. Has the Commission contacted the Italian authorities?

2. If so, is it in a position, on the basis of the information obtained, to state that the opening of a quarry in this area will not breach the relevant European legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 1998)

A letter was sent to the Italian authorities concerning the problem raised by the Honourable Member. In reply a letter from the Italian authorities was received by the Commission.

On the basis of the information received from the Italian authorities, it appears that an installation to extract various substances known as "Pittolo", situated in the municipality of Piacenza, was foreseen by the plan "Piano Infraregionale delle Attività Estrattive" (PIAE), and that this plan was adopted on the basis of an impact study. Moreover, because of the intermunicipal nature of the plan (PIAE), adopted in accordance with the legislation of Regione Emilia Romagna, the effective starting up of the installation will be subject to the approval of a "Piano Particolareggiato". This is a detailed plan, regarding the whole intermunicipal area concerned, which appears to constitute an environmental impact assessment, open to possible public consultation. The above mentioned legislation of Regione Emilia Romagna was expressly adopted in the light 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(2).

All the regional legislation concerning transposition of Directive 85/337/EEC is being examined in the framework of the infringement proceedings against Italy.

(1) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 151.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1168/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: General aviation

In recent years, the number of aerodromes throughout the EU being closed or sold for other industrial purposes has increased. This has left general aviation increasingly dependent on fewer airfields.

While seeking to apply reasonable environmental and noise pollution standards, does the Commission recognize that there is considerable pressure on general aviation and on the ever-dwindling numbers of aerodromes with appropriate facilities to serve it?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1587/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Italy's surplus liabilities

The Italian Audit Court has recently opened an inquiry into the surplus liabilities in Italian public accounts. This is not the first such case to have occurred, since the Commission was initially alerted in July 1997 to the unused sums entered in the Italian State budget.

The danger is that the accumulation of unused tied resources is creating a huge volume of potential expenditure which sooner or later could turn into actual expenditure, throwing the State accounts out of control. Italy's surplus liabilities amounted to Lit 94 767 billion in 1996 and over Lit 160 billion in 1997, giving a total in excess of Lit 250 billion for the two years.

A high proportion of the surplus liabilities have apparently arisen on account of bookkeeping delays, whereas others are surplus appropriations, that is to say, sums earmarked to finance projects which have not yet been implemented.

Can the Commission say what European limits it considers admissible?

Does it not consider Italy's surplus liabilities to be unduly high?

If it emerges that the above-mentioned limits are being exceeded, what precautionary measures will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 1998)

In the Italian budgetary procedures, the Parliament allocates funds on both a commitment and a cash basis. A difference between the two could lead to the formation of unspent budget appropriations that can be carried-over to following exercises, the so-called "residui passivi".

The Commission believes that the existence of the "residui passivi" does not represent a danger for future expenditure, as long as the Italian Parliament maintains limits to the cash budget which are consistent with the overall budgetary targets. This is indeed the approach which the Italian authorities have adopted for the next three years with the budget law for 1998. However, the Commission welcomes the intention of the Italian authorities, expressed in the "Documento di Programmazione Economica e Finanziaria" for 1999-2001, adopted by the government on 17 April 1998 and endorsed by the Parliament on 13 May 1998, to close the gap between the budget in commitment terms and the budget in cash terms as of 1999.

The Commission monitors the developments in the government accounts of all Member States, also according to the procedures laid down in the framework of the Stability and growth pact, effective as of 1 July 1998. The monitoring will focus on the development of the general government balance following the provisions of Article 104c of the EC Treaty which sets a reference value only to the government deficit.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0892/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Aid for Bosnia

The European Parliament's ad-hoc delegation led by Tom Spencer, has revealed that the Commission's distribution of aid for reconstruction in Bosnia, amounting to ECU 408 million, is wholly inefficient and uncoordinated. The delegation's leader has referred to the EU's "inappropriate and inefficient bureaucratic procedures."

1. Why were the aid measures financed under a PHARE project?

2. How is the staff of the EU representation in Sarajevo structured?

3. What practical steps will the Commission take to remedy the obvious failings in cooperation?

4. What is happening to the ECU 40 million which could not be spent in 1997?

5. How will the Commission respond to the ad-hoc delegation's recommendation?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 1998)

1. The only funding readily available to meet immediate needs in Bosnia-Herzegovina after the signing of the peace agreements came from the Phare programme. Later, in 1996, Parliament wanted to vote through extra funding for reconstruction but the basic regulation for this was not adopted until July of that year.

2. Work is now under way to draw up the staff structure of the Commission representation in Bosnia and to get more personnel. By summer of this year, the representation will have 21 A, 5 B and 10 C staff and will be fully operational.

3. The new head of the representation will have wide decision-making and coordination powers enabling him/her to act quickly in the context of the international situation on the ground.

4. Most of the ECU 40 million held back last year in light of the political circumstances in Republika Srpska has been released since the new Dodik government took office. Channelling of these funds has been speeded up.

5. The Commission has been careful to take into account the suggestions of the Parliament delegation which visited Bosnia, putting in hand regulatory improvements more suited to the special situation there (quicker and more flexible procedures and direct links with regional and local authorities), decentralising the management of most of its programme to the Commission representation in Sarajevo, and giving the head of the representation more powers and more staff.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1417/98

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Incompatibility with Community legislation of law No 30/97 and the hunting season calendar of the Emilia-Romagna region.

The Emilia-Romagna (Italy) regional authority approved the new hunting season calendar on 31 March of this year in connection with regional law No 30/97 which stipulates, among other things, that during the season running from 20 September 1998 to 31 January 1999 it will be possible to hunt protected species such as sparrows (up to 31 December) and starlings.

Does this regional law comply with the European directives on the protection of species of wild animals and game, in particular Directive 92/43/EEC(1)?

If not, does the Commission not think that it has a duty to initiate an infringement procedure?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 1998)

Infringement proceedings are already under way against Italy concerning in particular the transposition of the derogation provided by Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds(2). Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitat and of wild fauna and flora, is not relevant.

Since the Commission aims to ensure that the laws of Member States comply with Community law at every level, the infringement proceedings involve also the aspect of the competence of regions in implementing Community law in Italy and their obligation to comply with it. The Commission would be grateful if the Honourable Member would transmit the text approved by the Giunta Regionale dell'Emilia Romagna to which he refers. In any case the Commission will request information on the subject matter from the Italian authorities.

Nevertheless, the Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that, subject to the strict conditions and limits established by Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC, the hunting of species which are protected by the Directive can be legally authorised at a regional level.

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

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1261/98

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Establishment of a solid waste tip at Dos Aguas (Valencia, Spain)

The plan to establish a solid waste tip in the district of Dos Aguas and surrounding areas is a cause of concern to local inhabitants regarding the effects that pollution will have on the catchment of water for human consumption, given that large areas of the Valencia coast are supplied from here.

Various studies have shown that the planned tip at Dos Aguas is inadequate and will undermine efforts to develop a proper waste management strategy, as well as having major technical defects which pose a real threat of pollution to the area's water supply and environment, preventing it from implementing a sustainable development strategy from within and jeopardizing the future of its inhabitants.

The district of Dos Aguas and surrounding areas are also less-favoured regions where Leader initiatives or PRODER programmes are being applied and, if the tip goes ahead, none of the objectives set by the Commission for these areas will be achieved. The Commission:

1. Is it aware of the above situation?

2. What steps will it take vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities to ensure compliance with Community legislation on the environment and in particular with the following Directives: (a) Directive 91/156/EEC(1) on waste, (b) Directive 94/62/EEC(2) on packaging and packaging waste, (c) Directive 85/337/EEC(3) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, (d) Directive 90/313/EEC(4) on the freedom of access to information on the environment and (e) Directive 92/43/EEC(5) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora?

3. Will it provide information on any developments in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 1998)

The Commission was not aware of the situation described by the Honourable Members.

The Commission will approach the Spanish authorities for information to ensure that Directive 91/156/EEC, amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, and Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment are being properly applied in this instance.

The Commission is unable - on the basis of the information supplied by the Honourable Members - to establish whether Directives 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, 90/313/EEC on the freedom of access to information on the environment and 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora are applicable in this particular situation.

The Commission will not fail to inform the Honourable Members of the outcome of its contacts with the Spanish authorities.

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(4) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

(5) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1143/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Agri-environmental measures/Azores

In view of the specific nature of Portugal's Azores region (an extremely remote region which, as such, has a special status enshrined in the EU Treaty), would the Commission give details of the amount of Community support received by the region under the agri-environmental measures during the 1994-1999 period? What does the Commission envisage as regards the provision of such support during the 2000-2006 financial period?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 May 1998)

The specific agro-environmental programme for the Azores under Council Regulation (EEC) 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside(1) was approved by Commission Decision of 3 June 1994.

The eligible part-funding approved for the period 1993-97 was ECU 18.77 million, broken down as follows:

>TABLE>

The forecast for 1998 on the date the decision was taken was ECU 16.8 million.

From the year 2000 on, and as required by Agenda 2000(2), the agro-environmental measures will form part of the regional development programmes prepared by the competent authorities in Portugal.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(2) COM(97) 2000 final.