WRITTEN QUESTION E-2653/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Tourism development project centring on Gardaland, Castelnuovo del Garda, Italy

In answer to Written Question P-0198/00 of 23 February 2000 relating to the approach road to the Gardaland amusement park(1), known as via Derna, the Commission stated that it would take the steps required to ensure that Community EIA legislation was observed. Can it say what arrangements it has made for screening with a view to determining whether an EIA is necessary?

In the intervening period, the municipality of Castelnuovo del Garda, on whose territory much of Gardaland is situated, has been making plans to build a lake shore pier, close to the amusement park. This facility, which lies in an area subject to land use restrictions within the meaning of Laws 1497/39 and 431/1985 and has been classed under the heading of works in the public interest, is unlikely to benefit anyone apart from Gardaland customers and indeed, for all practical purposes, ought to be considered an extension of the amusement park proper.

No environmental impact assessment or screening procedure has been laid down for the construction project, even though it falls under point 10(k) of Annex II to Directive 97/11/EC(2).

What steps will the Commission take to ensure that the project is environmentally screened?

On 6 July 1999 the Veneto regional authorities approved a partial variant to the PRG for the municipality of Castelnuovo del Garda(3) whereby the stretch of land between the SS 249 trunk road (Gardesana) and the lake shore has been made a protected area, thus rejecting the municipality's proposal to cover some 100 000 m2 with concrete(4).

Less than a year later, the municipality submitted another proposal for a partial variant to the PRG relating to the same stretch of land, the plan being to concrete 286 000 m2 on several parcels covering about 38,5 hectares in all. This operation is being presented as landscape and environmental improvement because it is to be implemented in conjunction with a 40 hectare regional park. In reality, however, the improvement which the new partial variant to the PRG is essentially seeking to bring about is to make the area in the vicinity of Gardaland more attractive for property development(5).

The report on the planning variant in question does not mention the need to apply the EIA procedure. Does not the Commission believe that the property development operations provided for in the variant should be environmentally screened?

Finally, the general variant to the PRG refers to two sites for expansion of Gardaland to create space for conferences (zone D5 and 1) and educational and recreational activities (zone D8 and 2). The partial variant would add a third site, the overall result being to double the size of the park. Should not the works to be carried out on those sites be subject to the EIA procedure?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 160.

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

(3) Regional Council Decree No 2340 of 6 July 1999. PRG stands for Municipal Planning Scheme.

(4) Observations Nos 13 and 40 on the general variant, approved by the municipality on 5 May 1998.

(5) According to the guidelines of the Lake Garda area plan provided for in the Regional Development Master Plan, the most important planning policy document in Veneto (cf. Veneto Regional Council measure No 250/1991) and currently being drafted. However, it is clearly stipulated that natural and landscape resources must be protected, and hence restrictions imposed on building in the stretch of land between the Gardesana road and the lake to which the variant relates.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

The Commission has requested information from the Italian authorities in relation to the project, mentioned by the Honourable Member in Written Question 198/2000(1), for the construction of an approach road to the Gardaland amusement park (known as via Derna).

As stated in the reply to the above written question, the project is to be considered as covered by the class 10(e) Construction of roads, harbours and port installations, including fishing harbours (projects not included in Annex I) of Annex II of Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. The Directive provides (Article 4, paragraph 2): 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. Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in (a) and (b).

The Italian authorities communicated that the concerned project consists of a second class extra-urban road not crossing any nature conservation area. For this kind of road, the regional legislation of Regione Veneto has determined specific thresholds. Below five kilometers (km) of length, authorities are not obliged to carry out an environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure. Above five km of length authorities are obliged to carry out an EIA procedure. Therefore, since the road is 1,4 km long, according to the above-mentioned provision and in line with the Directive, the project mentioned by the Honourable Member did not become the subject of an EIA procedure.

In the light of the above, no breach of Directive 97/11/EC can be identified.

The project for construction of a lake shore pier on Lago di Garda is not included in any of the classes of projects listed in the annexes of the above mentioned directives on environmental impact assessment. Therefore, Community EIA legislation does not apply to it. Class 10(k) of Directive 97/11/EC, mentioned by the Honourable Member, is not relevant to the case since it concerns 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. A lake shore pier has not the purpose of combating the erosion or of altering the coast and, in particular, is not a maritime work.

The last two works mentioned by the Honourable Member, a plan to concrete 286 000 m2 on several parcels covering about 38,5 hectares and the expansion of the park of Gardaland to create space for conferences and educational and recreational activities, could fall in the following classes of Annex II of Directive 97/11/EC: 12(c) Holiday villages and hotel complexes outside urban areas and associated developments, 12(e) Theme parks or 13 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. Where this is verified, they are to be considered covered by the regime, above mentioned, which Directive 97/11/EC sets out for classes of projects listed in Annex II. However, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the projects mentioned appear to be at too early a stage to envisage possible breach of Community EIA directives.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 160.