WRITTEN QUESTION E-0859/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Construction of a bottling plant on the island of La Gomera (Canaries, Spain).
Date: 2000-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Canary Islands, EU financing, European Regional Development Fund, Spain, bottling, eligibility criteria, environmental protection, location of industry

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/63

The Commission, whilst not geared to participate directly in the search and rescue efforts, responded
immediately through its Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), whose partners were operational on the ground
from the first wave of localised flooding in early February. The member of the Commission in charge of
development cooperation and the Portuguese Presidency visited Mozambique within days of the second
wave of flooding caused by cyclone Eline to assess the damage at first hand, and a senior ECHO specialist
was deployed in Maputo to co-ordinate the Commission(cid:146)s relief and resettlement intervention strategy with
the government, the UN, the delegation and Member States(cid:146) missions on the spot.

In financial terms, the Commission made € 1 million available to provide emergency assistance to the
victims of the first wave of flooding in Mozambique and Botswana. It also responded swiftly to the
subsequent flooding wrought by Cyclone Eline by announcing another € 2 million for emergency relief, to
provide support to those who had been driven from their homes, while € 1,4 million, locally available to
the Commission(cid:146)s delegate and the government of Mozambique, was offered with a view to improving
food security for the victims.

A further sum of € 5,58 million has since been earmarked for relief and resettlement operations, with the
prime objectives of providing shelter, water, sanitation and health care to 100 000 people displaced by the
flooding in the worst-affected provinces, while facilitating their rapid resettlement through the provision of
seeds and tools to ensure a second harvest, and small-scale rehabilitation of essential health infrastructure.
The intervention of the Commission and its partners in Mozambique is expected to continue for at least
six months, while a flood relief intervention is also planned in Madagascar as a result of the needs
assessment missions conducted concurrently throughout the region.

To address the medium-term needs for rehabilitation of the afflicted areas, the member of the Commission,
during his mission to Mozambique on 2-3 March 2000, announced an initial amount of € 21 million in
additional funds. This sum could well be increased as the needs for reconstruction and rehabilitation
become clear.

Finally, in order to maintain the rapid growth achieved by Mozambique in recent years, the increasing
level of co-operation envisaged before the disaster will be maintained. This will result in disbursements
estimated at € 150 million this year, as compared to an estimated € 100 million in 1999.

This raft of interventions shows that the actions of the Member States and of the Commission in support
of the Government of Mozambique have been generous, rapid and responsible. Indeed, mid-March figures
from the UN (OCHA)
in Maputo put the international contributions at € 115 million, of which the
Member States and the Community had pledged € 85 million, almost 74 % of the total figure.

The Commission, via its delegation in Maputo, and the Member States continue to be actively involved in
the Government-led donor co-ordination mechanisms on the spot. These donor co-ordination groups are
closely following the needs assessments exercises currently being carried out and, in the light of the results,
the Commission will decide on future action to be taken.

(2001/C 46 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0859/00

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

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Construction of a bottling plant on the island of La Gomera (Canaries, Spain)

On the island of La Gomera, a water bottling plant is currently being constructed. This project is receiving
EU funding under the Investment Plan for La Gomera, which qualifies for Community aid.

C 46 E/64

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

However, the building works, which have already reached the second phase, are facing a broad current of
opposition, from neighbourhood associations, farmers(cid:146) organisations and ecological groups, who have filed
complaints with the local, national and Community institutions on the following grounds:

(cid:129) the plant will have an adverse environmental effect on two areas which are protected on the grounds
of their ecological importance, namely Palmeral de Tagaluche and Lomo del Carret(cid:243)n (LIFE identifying
Nos.: ES 7020108 and ES 7020037 respectively);

(cid:129) the project has not been submitted to the mandatory environmental impact assessment. This has been
admitted by the environment ministry of the regional government of the Canaries. All that exists is an
unreliable impact assessment carried out by the municipal council of Valle Gran Rey, which is the
body promoting and defending the project;

(cid:129) it will eliminate the water supply for the farmers who, under the common land system, get their
irrigation water from the Mena, Choquete and Tederas springs. The complainants believe that the
rhythm of extraction proposed for the plant will lead to the exhaustion of the upper watercourse
which feeds the springs, within five years;

(cid:129) the project has been declared to be (cid:145)of social interest(cid:146), when in reality it is only expected to create
seven jobs while 116 farmers would be affected. Should the work continue, the private interests of the
bottling industry would be seen to prevail over the public interests of the local residents affected.

In view of the above:

(cid:129) does the Commission not consider that the EU-funded construction work on this bottling plant could
be in breach of such major environmental directives as Directive 97/11/EC on environmental impact
assessment (1) and Directive 92/43/EC on the protection of habitats (2)?

(cid:129) can the Commission state what action has so far been taken concerning complaint No 99/4875,
SG(99) A/10714/2, filed by Mrs M.A. Rodr(cid:237)guez on behalf of the (cid:145)Plataforma por la Defensa del Agua(cid:146)
((cid:145)Platform to Protect our Water(cid:146)) (Tagaluche)?

(cid:129) would the Commission consider sending a delegation to La Gomera to ascertain the real impact of the
construction work on this bottling plant on the environment of the above-mentioned protected areas
and on agricultural activity?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

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

(8 May 2000)

The (cid:145)Taguluche(cid:146) and (cid:145)Lomo del Carret(cid:243)n(cid:146) sites, covering 140 and 263 hectares respectively, have been
identified by the Spanish authorities as sites of Community importance for possible inclusion in the
Natura 2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

It should be noted that the Commission has already received a complaint concerning the construction of
the water bottling plant at Taguluche, in the Valle Gran Rey district, Gomera.

The Commission is examining the dossier to see whether the project (cid:129) to which the provisions of Article 6
of Directive 92/43/EEC must be applied (cid:129) is likely to have a significant effect on the sites in question, in
view of their conservation objectives. As part of its investigation, the Commission has asked the Spanish
authorities for their comments.

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/65

The project has not received any financial support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

At all events, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that
Community law is complied with in the case in question.

(2001/C 46 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0861/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Problems arising in multinational research programmes funded by the European Union

One of the institutions participating in a fisheries research project (FAIR CT-97-3508) claimed sole credit
for a joint research idea, research plan and preliminary results obtained jointly, and published them under
its own name. It had previously been agreed with each institute that the findings were not yet to be
published because they were still preliminary and moreover because, from the point of view of the further
use to be made of them, it was important to consider carefully when would be the best time to publish
them. The EU coordinator informed the management of the institute concerned of this by letter.

The institute concerned acted so secretively that it was not until about a year later that the other EU
partners discovered what had happened to the joint plan and findings. The institute(cid:146)s actions caused both
economic and scientific damage to the EU, other institutes and the world scientific community, as well as
to many businesses cooperating on the project. The extent of the damage cannot yet be assessed. It did
prove possible to continue the project, as its basis was very strong, it was well planned, and the institutes
participating in it were leaders in their field.

The EU does not have an assessment system, for example a supranational ethics committee, which would
act swiftly in such circumstances to ensure that research projects did not suffer on account of delays. Such
a committee, which would be well versed in scientific research, would not be a court but could give
advice, make recommendations and, as the funding body, could if necessary institute special monitoring of
a participant which was evidently selfish and out of control. The mere existence of a supranational body
would be likely to discourage scientific dishonesty.

If, in spite of everything, a case did come before the courts, an international opinion would be helpful to
the local court in considering the non-material issues at stake, and the committee could help to protect the
rights of all.

A system based on complex agreements and a judicial institution would be quite alien to the world of
science and would, moreover, be slow. The basis for effective scientific cooperation should remain mutual
trust and awareness of one(cid:146)s own know-how, i.e. certain ethical standards, which fortunately are second
nature to the vast majority of scientists.

In order nonetheless to be able to deal with such problems more swiftly in future, I would ask the
Commission:

1. What attitude will it adopt towards such breaches of contract?

2. What will it do to ensure that breaches do not recur? How will the EU investigate such cases?