WRITTEN QUESTION E-1059/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Canalisation of the Poyo, Torrente, Chiva and Pozalet ravines (Valencia).
Date: 2000-04-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, Community of Valencia, Spain, ecosystem, environmental impact, infringement of EU law, water supply

C 46 E/114

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

Why did the Commission support the continued use of leaded petrol in these countries, even though it is
widely known that lead in fuels can easily be replaced by other less polluting additives?

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

(5 June 2000)

The Commission considered carefully the requests for derogation to continue the marketing of leaded
petrol from the Member States in question. In coming to its decisions the Commission was well aware of
the technical alternatives to leaded petrol. However, it became equally clear that considerable consumer
uncertainty would have resulted in these Member States if derogations had not been granted and that this
could have given rise to widespread disruption. The Commission thus concluded that the derogation
periods granted were necessary to allow the authorities in the Member States to inform consumers
accurately on this topic and to implement the necessary measures to ensure a smooth transition to
unleaded petrol.

(2001/C 46 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1059/00

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

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Canalisation of the Poyo, Torrente, Chiva and Pozalet ravines (Valencia)

the statement

thereon by the Directorate-General

The initial phase of the project to canalise a 42-kilometre stretch of gullies in the network of water courses
in the Chiva ravine has recently been given the go-ahead. The project in question involves making the
river bed wider and deeper, diverting its course and undertaking various resurfacing operations, as well as
connecting tributary gullies to the main river bed. Although the authorities did indeed approve the
for Environmental
mandatory impact assessment,
Quality, dated 15 March, contained a three-page annex setting out as yet undisclosed conditions which
the project was supposed to satisfy. Various associations and bodies, including the Spanish Association of
Limnology, Agro-Environmental Action, SEO-Birdlife and the Platform for a Green Ravine, have warned of
the grave impact that such a project would have on the river and lakeside ecosystems concerned. Besides
it would destroy
spoiling the landscape, the project would have a number of effects. For instance,
completely and irrevocably the plant life which currently colonises the river bed and its banks, as well as
the plant species (mates) which line the area where the river flows into the lake, thus wiping out the
natural habitats they provide for an array of protected species, bird life in particular. In addition, it would
disturb the toxic substances which have settled on the river bed and lead to a build-up of sediment as the
water began to circulate more quickly and a larger area of the basin was drained. That sediment would
then be deposited in the La Albufera lake, thus inevitably serving to speed up the silting-up of the lake,
which enjoys the highest protection afforded by the regulations governing the Nature Park in question.

Furthermore, should this situation occur, the project to canalise the ravines would contravene several
national and regional laws and also constitute a breach of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of
wild birds (under which La Albufera is designated a special bird protection area) and Directive 92/43/
EEC (2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (under which Spain included the
Nature Park as a protected area in Natura 2000 network).

Could the Commission outline the current state of play as regards petitions 99/4494, SG(99), A/7586 and
99/4430, SG(99), A/6253, filed by environmental organisations from Valencia?

To its knowledge, is the project in question receiving Community funding?

Does it
Community legislation?

intend to initiate infringement proceedings for failure to comply with the aforementioned

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/115

Does it not think that the environmental impact statement is also flawed, since hitherto the requirements
laid down in the annex thereto have gone unheeded and the process has failed to assess the damage to the
Park(cid:146)s most highly prized areas?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

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

(18 May 2000)

The Commission was informed of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers by complaints
99/4430 and 99/4494 mentioned in the written question.

As part of its investigation, the Commission contacted the Spanish authorities several times to ask them
for their observations. As they did not reply, the Commission then sent Spain a letter of formal notice
pursuant to Article 10 (ex Article 5) of the EC Treaty.

The project receives financial support from the Cohesion Fund (project number 98.11.61.012). The
Spanish authorities know that this support is conditional upon compliance with Community environ-
mental legislation.

Once the Commission has received their reply (including the environmental
examine it to check whether relevant Community legislation has been complied with.

impact statement) it will

It would therefore be premature at this stage to say whether or not Community law has been infringed.

(2001/C 46 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Registration of GMOs in the USA based on deception and the misrepresentation of evidence

According to Steven M. Drucker, a Doctor of Laws and specialist in administrative law, the Commission(cid:146)s
decisions on registering genetically modified plant varieties are based on erroneous assessments by the US
Food and Drug Administration.

For instance, when the American authorisation body permitted the marketing of the (cid:145)Flavr Savr(cid:146) tomato
which is also marketed in the EU in the form of tomato concentrate and ketchup, it was acting contrary to
the specific test results of its own scientists. For laboratory tests show that when these tomatoes are fed to
rats, this leads to a bleeding of the stomach walls. In view of this high health risk, the scientists advised
against the authorisation of this product as a foodstuff. The safety tests on GMOs that have been
authorised since then have been even less demanding (cid:129) in many cases, no tests at all were carried out.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this information?

Is the Commission prepared to examine these latest findings regarding the bleeding of stomach walls?

2.
If not, why not?

3. What lessons will the Commission draw from these latest findings?