WRITTEN QUESTION E-2709/99 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. La Punta agricultural area (Valencia, Spain).
Date: 2000-01-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, Spain, application of EU law, environmental impact, referendum, town planning

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/95

Objective 2 on 22 December 1999. Under the above Regulation, the final decision is to be taken after
consultation with three committees. These committees were consulted on 25, 26 and 31 January 2000.
The Commission will therefore take a final decision in the course of February 2000.

With regard to the transition between the two programming periods, the Commission would remind the
Honourable Member that, in respect of assistance in the 1994-99 programming period, payments may be
made by the final beneficiaries in respect of measures which were the subject of binding legal and financial
provisions prior to 31 December 1999 up until 31 December 2001.
In addition, for the 2000-06
programming period, Article 52(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 provides for a retroactive date of
in respect of which the
eligibility of expenditure under certain conditions. Expenditure actually paid,
Commission has received an application for assistance between 1 January and 30 April 2000 and which
fulfils all the conditions laid down in the above Regulation, may be regarded as eligible from 1 January
2000.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 303 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2709/99

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: La Punta agricultural area (Valencia, Spain)

The Valencian Ministry of Public Works, Urban Development and Transport is supporting a proposal for a
logistics park (ZAL) for the port of Valencia at La Punta, an agricultural area on the edge of the city with
exceptional features as a model of sustainable and efficient agriculture serving urban consumers, unique in
the European Union. The environmental impact assessment for the project did not include consultation of
the residents who would be affected or consider alternatives to the project, and therefore did not comply
with Directives 85/337/EEC (1) and 97/11/EC (2) on environmental impact.

The plan justifies the failure to consider alternative locations on the grounds of poorly defined operational
factors, the most important of which seems to be the need for logistical services to be very close to the
port. However, there are locations which are even closer to the container terminal than La Punta, where
the impact on the environment, the structure of production and agricultural labour, and on heritage would
be markedly less than in La Punta. Furthermore, the ZAL plan does not analyse the possible impact on the
neighbouring Albufera nature reserve, protected by Valencian legislation and also listed in several
international conventions (Ramsar, special protection area for birds and Directive 92/43/EEC (3) on
habitats).

The plan(cid:146)s environmental impact assessment recognises, for example, the risk that the ZAL(cid:146)s activities
could result in pollution of the Valencian Plain aquifer, but does not examine in sufficient detail the
possible effects on the nature reserve. The plan also acknowledges that as a result both of the water-
proofing effect caused by the ground being tarmacked, and the closure of La Punta for various
infrastructure projects to be carried out, the ZAL would create an increased risk of flooding caused by
water collecting after heavy local rainfall. It therefore proposes a series of corrective measures in the area
set aside for the planned industrial complex. However, it does not take into consideration the risk of
flooding in the residential areas adjoining the ZAL, which would lose the drainage capacity currently
provided by the agricultural area.

Does the Commission agree that the Spanish authorities have not complied with the directives on
environmental impact assessments, particularly as regards the obligation to consult the persons affected
and to consider alternative proposals? What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that
the Albufera nature reserve is not adversely affected by the ZAL plan?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 140.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

C 303 E/96

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Commission was informed of some aspects of the situation described by the Honourable Member via
petition No 749/94.

In the light of the new information the Honourable Member has provided, the Commission has taken the
required steps to obtain all the details of the case and ensure that the relevant Directives are correctly
applied.

(2000/C 303 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2710/99

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Proposed extension of a sludge-drying plant in the Sierra de Fontcalent (Alicante, Spain)

The proposed extension of a sludge treatment plant at Fontcalent has caused widespread concern among
residents, who complain of unpleasant smells both in and around the plant. The authorities have stated
that no environmental impact assessment was carried out, since the area is already in an advanced state of
decline due to the existence of a landfill site, which is only separated from the sludge-drying plant by a
is full to capacity, but the waste continues to
fence. The landfill site, adjacent to the sludge area,
accumulate, piling up and causing fires. Eleven organisations, among them residents(cid:146) associations and
social and environmental groups, have made public their opposition to the proposed extension of the
treatment plant for sludge from the sewage farms of the city of Alicante, and have complained about the
(sometimes illegal) dumping of sewage sludge for drying, which means that the area is now a magnet for
waste, insects and small rodents, and overwhelmed by intolerable smells.

The sludge, which currently extends over an area of 130 000 m2, takes two months to dry. It is left in a
large open-air site, where the highly polluting liquids produced by the rotting process are entirely
unprotected from the rain and wind.

The residents claim that sludge is sometimes dumped outside the areas permitted by Emarasa, constituting
a possible breach of Law 10/98 of 21 April 1998 on waste, and, specifically, the extremely serious offence
of abandonment, dumping or unauthorised disposal.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2.
Can the Commission confirm whether an environmental impact assessment was carried out for the
extension of the sludge plant, in accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the effects
of certain public and private projects on the environment, and whether the authorities concerned are in
compliance with directives on waste, packing and packaging?

Can the Commission make available all the information on this case it has been able to obtain from

3.
the Spanish authorities?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the situation referred to by the Honourable Member and does not know
whether the project in question was the subject of an impact assessment as provided for by Council
Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment.