WRITTEN QUESTION E-0818/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Baling plant at Vilaboa (Galicia).
Date: 2000-03-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, Galicia, Spain, competence of the Member States, domestic waste, petition, public hearing, region-EU relationship, representative of local or regional authority

C 53 E/28

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

(2001/C 53 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0818/00

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Baling plant at Vilaboa (Galicia)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the
Structural Funds institutes a spirit of association between the various levels of public administration
(European, national, regional and local government) in addition to social and economic agents. However,
some projects subsidised by the European Community are being carried out against the wishes of the local
representatives in whose municipalities they are under way, and in spite of opposition from residents. As a
result, people are rejecting the Community institutions and the idea of European integration.

Such is the case in Vilaboa (Galicia), where there are plans to build a baling plant for the incineration of
waste, as part of the Galicia programme for solid urban waste, which is co-financed by the European
Community. These plans have been rejected by the local municipal council and residents.

Is the Commission aware of the opposition of local representatives and public opinion? How does it view
the fact that it is co-funding a project that has been rejected by the local council and residents?

Bearing in mind that in the Community range of treatments for solid urban waste the Commission places
incineration below the sorting of waste, does the Commission think that the Sogama programme is in line
with Community priorities?

The residents wrote to the Commission at the time complaining at the absence of an environmental
impact assessment, and the study was subsequently carried out. In its reply to the residents(cid:146) complaint
(of 15 December 1998), the Commission informed them that it was currently looking into ways of
adapting the urban solid waste management plan in the light of requirements arising from the directives
on waste. What results has the Commission obtained from this investigation? What conclusions has it
reached on adapting the plan?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

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

(18 May 2000)

Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1)
(Article 7) requires that Member States
establish waste management plans, which must relate in particular to the type, quantity and origin of the
waste, general technical requirements, any special arrangements for particular waste and suitable disposal
site or installations. As regards Galicia, the Commission has received the Galician management plan for
solid urban waste (1999). The plan provides for the construction of a transfer station (estaci(cid:243)n de
transferencia) at Vilaboa.

Community waste legislation neither obliges Member States to build waste treatment or disposal installa-
tions at a specific place nor does it oblige them to have recourse to a specific way of waste treatment. It is
thus the Member State(cid:146)s choice whether material recycling of waste or waste incineration (cid:129) with or
without energy recovery (cid:129) is preferred in a given situation.

The above-mentioned plan does not indicate how it was generated and whether the public concerned was
properly and adequately consulted. Apart from 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), Community waste
law is silent on this question. Eventual irregularities relating to the production of the plan would have to
be solved at the appropriate local, regional or national level.

Concerning Council Directive 85/337/CEE,
in the framework of a complaint
concerning this issue, the Commission has confirmed that an environmental impact assessment was carried
out in this case.

it must be noted that,

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/29

it must be noted that within the Cohesion fund project
In relation to the financing of this plan,
No 97.11.61.047, (cid:145)Plan de Gesti(cid:243)n de los Residuos S(cid:243)lidos Urbanos de Galicia(cid:146), it is planned to build a
number of transfer stations to transport the municipal waste from all Galicia to a central recycling and
recovery plant in the (cid:145)Complexo Medioambiental de Cerceda(cid:146).

In principle it was envisaged to build the transfer station in Vilaboa in order to collect the waste from the
whole area of the city of Vigo and surroundings. Due to the social opposition to the construction of such a
facility, and after a consideration of the plan with a view to locating the transfer stations closer to the
production centres (the municipalities), it was decided to continue operating the existing transfer station in
Vigo and to review the size of the transfer station in Vilaboa in order to adapt it to the needs of this
municipality.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2001/C 53 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0819/00

by Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Diversion of water from the River Jœcar to Vinalop(cid:243) in Valencia (Spain)

According to recent press reports in the Autonomous Region of Valencia the Spanish Ministry of the
Environment has asked the European Union for aid for the Jœcar-Vinalop(cid:243) water diversion project. The
work on this project was approved by the Spanish authorities in August 1998 for the alleged purpose of
(cid:145)meeting the needs of the districts of Vinalop(cid:243), Alacanti and Mar(cid:237)na Baja, without any danger of over-
exploiting the aquifers(cid:146). However, since the project was announced, the neighbourhood associations of the
communities affected, such as the Riu Xœquer coordinating committee, trade unions such as the CCOO
and other environmental groups have been claiming that the various routes proposed, taking water from
the La Muela or Cortes reservoirs, would have an extremely adverse environmental impact on the fauna,
flora, landscape, aquifers and cultural heritage of the district they would go through.

Furthermore the town councils, associations and communities affected have doubts about the energy
efficiency arguments used by the project(cid:146)s advocates, in that the energy saved by pumping the water from
the La Muela reservoir would be lost elsewhere, since there is not enough volume to harness the waters
downstream, making it impossible to use them to generate energy. Furthermore, the groups opposed to
the diversion suspect that the real purpose of the project is to provide water resources for the (cid:145)Terra M(cid:237)tica(cid:146)
theme park now under construction.

In view of the fact that:

(cid:129) the current environmental impact study accompanying the project does not assess to what extent the

diversion will affect the minimum volume of water needed by the environment,

(cid:129) the diverted waters flow thorough an area in which considerable human and financial resources have
for many years been devoted to developing depressed areas, for example under the EU(cid:146)s Leader
programme, and the project would have an adverse effect on these vulnerable areas,

(cid:129) a study carried out by the regional government shows that taking water from the Jœcar would affect
Lake Albufera (a protected zone under the LIFE programme), since 50 % of its water comes from the
streams belonging to the Jœcar irrigation system,

can the Commission say whether it is true that the Ministry for the Environment has applied for aid for
the Jœcar-Vinalop(cid:243) diversion? If so, under which budget heading is the allocation and what funding is
being allocated

Does the Commission not consider that this project may constitute an infringement of Community
environmental legislation, in particular because of the absence of a statement of the environmental impact,
the possible infringement of the Directive on habitats, etc.?