WRITTEN QUESTION P-0041/00

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 January 2000)

Subject: Extension of the dock at Escombreras, Murcia (Spain)

The Commission is currently examining the case for Cohesion Fund aid for the project for extension of the dock at Escombreras, Murcia (Spain) and the rehabilitation of Portmán Bay submitted by the Cartagena Port Authority.

This project has not been made the subject of an environmental impact assessment, despite the fact that it affects the Punta de Aguilones/Isla de Escombreras area, which is considered an important area for bird life by Directive 79/409/EEC(1), and is, furthermore, a threat to the underground vegetation (Posidonia oceanica) of the Costas de Calblanque, an area classified as a priority natural habitat by the habitats directive (92/43/EEC) and proposed as a location of Community interest(2). Virtually no attempt has been made to consider alternative proposals, and the official reports drawn up by the regional authorities and other bodies(3) have not been forwarded to the Ministry of the Environment for use in preparing the environmental impact statement. In addition, the regional authorities have failed to comply with Directives 85/337/EEC(4) and 97/11/EC(5), the national regulation on the same subject(6), and Regional Law 1/1995(7) on participation in the transmission of public information and provision of information to the Regional Environmental Council. One of the key objections made by the above-mentioned bodies concerns the link between the rehabilitation of the Bay and an oversized infrastructure. Further, the rehabilitation project for the Bay has not been linked to environmental recovery in the Sierra Minera: this would have been a more coherent approach which would have permitted the judicious development of tourism, in line with the regional planning guidelines of 1995(8). The EIB has delivered a negative report on the project(9).

Would the Commission not be prepared to allocate Cohesion Fund monies to the rehabilitation of Portmán Bay and environmental recovery in the Sierra Minera, rather than to any large-scale infrastructure project?

What action does the Commission take against the failure to comply with Directives 85/337/EC and 97/11/EC, especially as regards the failure to consider alternatives or to inform the public during the assessment of the project submitted by the Cartagena Port Authority?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure the protection of the Punta de Aguilones/Isla de Escombreros area, including the underground vegetation of the Costas de Calblanque?

Does the Commission not consider that Article 6 of Directive 92/43 should be applied to all projects affecting this area? Does the Commission not consider that, in the wake of the disaster at Aznalcollar (Andalusia, Spain), it would be preferable to deposit and treat the waste generated in the area of this Bay on dry land?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1; the Commission has taken out infringement proceedings against Spain for failing to designate the important areas for bird life as special protected zones pursuant to the directive.

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

(3) The University of Murcia, the Association of Professional Biologists, the Spanish Institute of Oceanography and the National Museum of Undersea Archaeology.

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

(5) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(6) See Royal Decree 11/1988 of 31 November 1988, in particular Article 8.

(7) See Regional Law 1/1995 of 8 March 1995 on environmental protection in the Murcia Region.

(8) See the planning guidelines for Portmán Bay and the Sierra Minera, as adopted by decree of 26 May 1995.

(9) The EIB's report mentions three problems: the main beneficiary of the project is the owner of virtually all the land adjoining the bay; the extension of the dock at Escombreras is not justified; and the act of cleaning the bay does not guarantee that it will be totally pollution-free.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2000)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the reply the Commission made to Oral Question H-364/00 by Mr Carnero González at Question Time during the May 2000 part-session of Parliament(1).

The Commission is currently handling Complaint P-99/4212 on the project mentioned by the Honourable Member over possible breach of several environmental Directives, in particular Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. In this context recommendations have been made to the Spanish authorities and the Commission awaits their reply.

The Commission's examination of the complaint has shown that an environmental impact assessment was made for the project to enlarge the Port of Escombreras and rehabilitate Portmán Bay, as required under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

The meadows of Posidonia oceanica of the Costas de Calblanque have not been included by the Spanish authorities in the national list of sites of Community importance suitable for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network provided for in Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC. As the Spanish proposal for these sites is theoretically adequate for this type of habitat, this is not an infringement of the Directive.

Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991(2), requires waste to be recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods that could harm the environment. Waste creating a risk such as the toxic waste in Portmán Bay should either be cleaned before use so that its dangerous components are eliminated, incinerated or landfilled. The Commission is ready to examine in partnership with the Spanish authorities any suitable solution to the Portmán Bay waste problem they may wish to propose.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (May 2000).

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.