WRITTEN QUESTION E-0904/96 by Pieter Dankert (PSE) and Carlos Pimenta (PPE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: New Tagus bridge financed from the Cohesion Fund

Pursuant to Article 5 of Annex IV of the decision on project 94/10/65/005 the Advisory Committee must check whether in the construction of the new Tagus bridge, partly financed from the Cohesion Fund, the Community rules in particular on the environment have been observed.

Has this committee taken action against the illegal dredging activities, against the dumping of sediments outside the designated sites, against activities on the salt marshes in the breeding season of the birds which nest there and against the lack of fences protecting birds and humans?

Has the Commission representative on this committee alerted the Commission to the infringements of the various rules with a request for action?

If so, why has the Commission not started an inquiry, as referred to in Article 10 of the decision on project 94/10/65/005?

If not, why has this committee and the Commission representative no knowledge of matters which are widely reported in the Portuguese media?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0904/96, E-0905/96, E-0906/96, E-0907/96 and E-0908/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 September 1996)

Further to its answer of 9 July 1996, ((OJ C 297, 8.10.1996, p. 46. )) the Commission can now provide the following information.

1. Implementation of the environmental clauses is discussed at meetings of the committee set up to monitor the project in question.

Both Gattel ('Gabinete da Travessia do Tejo em Lisboa') and the CAO ('Comissão de Acompanhamento da Obra'), a body created to monitor measures designed to minimize the project's environmental impact, submit regular progress reports to the committee on such activities.

Commission representatives have raised questions in the committee on the measures taken, prompted in many cases by letters from NGOs. Site visits have also taken place.

2. From the monitoring work done, the Commission concluded that the impact minimization measures taken were insufficient to protect wildlife habitats in the special protection area and that parts of the decision had not been implemented properly. Singled out in this respect were monitoring of impact reduction measures and the fencing-off of some more sensitive areas.

In addition, there were strong suspicions that other parts of the environmental impact procedure had not been observed, especially during dredging activities.

The Commission passed on its misgivings to the Portuguese authorities in two letters to Mr Cravinho, the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Regional Management, dated 20 February and 7 June this year.

These letters were not formal notices of complaint of the type referred to Annex VI of the decision to award aid. They did, however, give details of the Commission's intention to carry out a site check, which took place on 17 and 18 June. The Commission added that it might still be possible to work together with Portugal on satisfactory ways of tackling the problems encountered.

A memorandum of understanding was subsequently signed by Mrs Wulf-Mathies and Mr Cravinho, setting out compensatory measures including a 400 ha enlargement of the special protection area, tighter monitoring controls and full implementation of the measures set out in the evaluation procedure for assessing environmental impact.

3. The Commission did not take action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty in response to Portugal's violation of Directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )) because it did not at that stage have enough evidence that the disruption cited by the Honourable Members was having a significant effect on the Tagus Estuary special protection area designated by the Portuguese authorities under Article 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC. ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. ))

Article 6.2 of Directive 92/43/EEC stipulates that Member States must take appropriate steps in special conservation areas to prevent any deterioration in natural or wildlife habitats and any disruption to the wildlife for which the areas have been created, if such disruption could seriously jeopardize the goals of the Directive.

Under Article 7 of the same Directive, the obligations imposed by Article 6.2 override those in Article 4.4 of Directive 79/409/EEC in cases such as this one which deal with special protection areas designated under Article 4.1 of the Directive.

4. Regarding written question 0908/96, the Honourable Members are asked to specify which roads they are referring to so the Commission can give an answer.