WRITTEN QUESTION No. 964/99 by Gianni TAMINO Extension of the harbour of Ibiza, Baleares
Date: 1999-04-13
Institutions: European Parliament, TAMINO
Subjects: Balearic Islands, Cohesion Fund, countryside conservation, environmental impact, environmental protection, harbour installation, impact study, transport infrastructure













EUR-Lex - 91999E0964 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91999E0964

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 964/99 by Gianni TAMINO Extension of the harbour of Ibiza, Baleares  


Official Journal C 370 , 21/12/1999 P. 0146 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0964/99by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission(13 April 1999)Subject: Extension of the harbour of Ibiza, BalearesSince the late eighties the Spanish Government has been planning to enlarge the port of Ibiza. To this end they drew up the "Plan Especial de Reforma y Ampliación del Puerto de Ibiza".This plan envisaged the installation of a large commercial port in the southern part of the bay of Ibiza town, including all the infrastructure which this implies (buildings, new roads, etc.). In addition, the plan included the construction of a huge breakwater more than half a kilometre long. The total estimated cost was Euro 72 million.The decision of the Spanish Government to go ahead with this project forced various political parties, environmental and civic groups to form "La Coordinadora Contra La Ampliación del Puerto". Thanks largely to the actions of the "Coordinadora", the plan seems to have been reduced. A new commercial port is not now contemplated as it is recognized that the existing quays are sufficient for passenger and goods traffic. However, it is still planned to construct the breakwater and more than 1 km of access road along the edge of the sea, which would have an extraordinarily negative environmental and visionary impact. According to a study Commissioned to highly qualified civil engineers and meteorologists by the "Coordinadora" in order to assess the problems in the port and the solutions proposed by the Spanish Government, there exist perfectly viable technical alternatives which would resolve the problems of the Port of Ibiza without such an aggressive and expensive project as the proposed huge breakwater (cost: Euro 15 million).Although no serious technical analysis of more ecologically sustainable possible alternatives has yet been made, Spanish authorities insist on supporting the proposal to build a breakwater, for which an application under the Cohesion Fund has been forwarded to the Commission.1. Does the Commission intend to finance the breakwater project?2. Is the Commission not prepared to take into consideration alternative projects to the proposal made by the Spanish Government?3. If not, how does the Commission intend to avoid the extraordinarily negative environmental and visionary impact that the current breakwater project would have?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission(5 May 1999)The Commission is in the process of adopting a decision granting financial assistance from the Cohesion fund for a project to construct a new breakwater and access road in the harbour of Ibiza. This project meets the eligibility conditions relating to transport infrastructure projects set out in the Council Regulation establishing the Cohesion fund (EC) 1164/94 of 16 May 1994(1).During the assessments of the applications for financial assistance, the alternative technical solutions investigated by the port authorities were examined. The Commission is satisfied that the project represents an appropriate solution to the problems encountered by the port of Ibiza.The Commission considers that the project in question has been submitted to an environmental impact procedure in conformity with Council Directive 85/337/CEE, of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(2). The declaration of the environmental impact of the project was published in the Spanish official journal(3). This sets out the measures to be undertaken by the authorities concerned to mitigate any adverse environmental effects of the project.(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.(3) B.O.E. No 233, 29.9.1994.