WRITTEN QUESTION P-1522/99

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Expansion of the Gardaland amusement park (Castelnuovo del Garda, Verona)

It would appear from its answer to written question E-2513/98 of 14 July 1998(1) on the above subject that the Commission is unaware of the ill feeling and criticism which, for many years, Gardaland which began as a series of buildings put up for the most part illegally has provoked, because of its environmental and socio-economic impact. In its present form the park contravenes, most notably, the requirements of the Lake Garda Area Plan, contained in the Regional Territorial Coordination Plan, the overall planning instrument for the Veneto region(2). This plan provides, among other things, for the protection of the landscape and natural resources and, to that end, restricts building on the section of land between the Gardesana road and the lake, the area in which the planned expansion of the park is to take place. Two serious environmental issues have not been addressed: noise pollution and traffic. As regards the first, according to recent checks carried out by the regional environmental agency, it is very unlikely

that the park will be able to stay within the required noise pollution limits(3). Concerning the second issue, the Leoncini company, which is much more significant in terms of stable employment than Gardaland, has threatened legal action should the over-ambitious plans proposed by Gardaland for the reorganisation of the local road network be implemented. On the issue of the environmental impact assessment: the deadline for the implementation of Directive 97/0011/EEC on environmental impact assessments(4) expired on the 14 March. The directive provides for an environmental impact assessment to be carried out for theme parks, on the basis of Article 4(2). The expansion should, at all events, be subject to the environmental impact assessment provided for by the recent Regional Law(5). Lastly, it is difficult to understand why a European loan has been granted, given that the company has considerable financial resources. Meanwhile, the failure to float the company on the stock exchange has prompted a number of partners (including UBS [Union of Swiss Banks] which holds 25 % of the registered capital) to take legal action over the liability of the company directors(6).

How can the Commission state that the main focus of the Gardaland theme park is to diversify the range of natural mldr activities(7), when the park has altered the area's orological configuration through the construction of buildings that are completely incongruent with the original natural environment? How can it justify a project that contravenes the provisions of the planning instruments in force? How does it intend to ensure that the environmental impact assessment procedure is applied to the plans for the expansion of the park? How is it possible that the EIB is financing a project which contravenes the Union's objective of sustainable development, promoted by a company with considerable assets? Does the Commission not consider that the internal disagreements in the company could have an adverse effect on the transparent and efficient use of European funds?

(1) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 18.

(2) Veneto Regional Council measure No 250/1991.

(3) National Framework Law on noise pollution No 447, of 26 October 1995.

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

(5) Veneto Regional Law No 10, of 26 March 1999, section B2, para. qq.

(6) Cases No RG 239298 and 239398 before the Court of Verona.

(7) Commission's answer to written question E-2513/98 by Gianni Tamino MEP.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 1999)

Although located in the area of Lake Garda, the Gardaland theme park is not a direct lake-front development, and is situated on flat land. This means it has a negligible botanical or topographical impact.

Concerning the application of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure to the plans for the expansion of Gardaland, the Commission is always ready to examine any specific and detailed complaint concerning a possible breach of Community legislation on EIA. If the Commission considered that such a complaint disclosed a breach of Community law, it could open infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC Treaty (ex Article 169).

The Commission would stress that Council Directive 97/0011/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/0337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1), lists, in Annex II, the following classes of projects: theme parks (12 e) and any change or extension of projects listed in Annex I or Annex II, already authorized, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment (13). For projects listed in Annex II, Member States are obliged to determine, through case-by-case examination, or thresholds or criteria set by the Member State, whether the project is to be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. However, projects with requests for development consent submitted before 14 March 1999 are governed by the provisions of Directive 85/0337/EEC prior to the amendments. Theme parks were not listed in the Annexes of Directive 85/0337/EEC.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) advanced a loan of 31 million (ITL 60 000 million) to Gardaland in March 1998. The main justification was to support the local economy in an area heavily dependent on tourism. Created in 1975, Gardaland plays a crucial role in attracting visitors to the region. However, in the early 1990s, lack of investment and the economic slow-down led to a reduction in visitors to the park. Updated facilities were considered vital to maintain the park's attractiveness and enhance its long-term employment prospects. The finance decision was also taken as part of the EIB policy to support small and

medium sized enterprises investment. The project was also considered for its positive spill-over effects in the region's tourism and related services sectors. At the time the EIB took its decision, the project had planning permission from the Italian authorities. It was out of the scope of Directive 85/337 and Directive 97/11 was not applicable. However, environmental consequences of the project were considered by the Italian authorities. Given the nature of the project and the selection criteria listed in Annex III to Directive 97/11, they took the view that the project would not require a full EIA.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.