WRITTEN QUESTION E-1261/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Relocating the Empresa Nacional de Celulosa-Electroquímica del Noroeste (ENCE-ELNOSA) industrial complex, located in the town of Pontevedra on the estuary of the same name in Galicia.
Date: 2000-04-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU competence, EU environmental policy, Galicia, air quality, chlorine, paper, transfer of businesses, water pollution

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/33

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the replies which it has already given to Oral
Questions H-429/99 by Mr Alavanos and H-431/99 by Mr Papayannakis during question time at
Parliament(cid:146)s September 1999 part-session (1) and to Written Question E-1481/99 by Mr Manisco (2).

In response to the first question raised by the Honourable Member, two studies have been carried out to
ascertain, inter alia, whether there was radioactive pollution as a result of the use of depleted uranium
bombs in Kosovo. The first assessment, financed by the Commission, was a preliminary assessment of the
environmental impact of the Kosovo conflict, and was carried out by the Regional environment centre for
Central and Eastern Europe. This report is available on their website: www.rec.org. A more detailed
assessment was then carried out by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Balkans Task
Force (cid:129) the report of which is available on their website: www.grid.unep.ch. Both of these reports
concluded that the Kosovo conflict did not cause an environmental catastrophe for the region.

In light of this, it was not felt necessary to introduce measures such as suggested in the next two questions
posed by the Honourable Member. Nonetheless, the Commission, through its humanitarian office (ECHO)
and through its Task Force Kosovo, now replaced by the Reconstruction Agency, has taken a leading role
in the broader international effort to address other identified issues, particularly in the field of water
treatment. It is also supporting a regional environmental reconstruction programme, within the framework
of the Stability Pact, which will assist in environmental reconstruction throughout the wider Balkans
region.

The Commission has not been able to consider the wider issue of whether depleted uranium bombs should
be banned because it has no competencies in the field of weapons.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (September 1999).
(2) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 2.

(2001/C 72 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1261/00

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Relocating the Empresa Nacional de Celulosa-Electroqu(cid:237)mica del Noroeste (ENCE-ELNOSA) indus-

trial complex, located in the town of Pontevedra on the estuary of the same name in Galicia

The industrial complex comprising the public undertakings ENCE, which produces paper pulp, and Elnosa,
which produces chlorine, is located a few hundred yards from the town centre of Pontevedra, on the banks
of the estuary of that name, and close to the town and port of Mar(cid:237)n. At the present time the complex is a
contributory factor to the steady deterioration of the shellfish and fish-rich waters of the estuary, and
spoils living conditions in the towns concerned thanks to the air pollution it produces, seriously hindering
both towns(cid:146) urban development. If the chemical plant did not exist, Pontevedra and Mar(cid:237)n would form a
single town planning area. The space occupied by the factories and by a vast lagoon into which their waste
water is discharged, is on the coast, in one of the most richly endowed natural areas in Galicia.

The industrial complex stands on land held under an administrative concession, which is legally bound to
run out in the year 2018, under Article 62(2) of the Spanish law on coastlines. Furthermore, the complex
is illegal. In 1989 the threat it represents, and unremitting protests by local people, forced the Galician
Government to sign an agreement with ENCE on limits for discharges into the sea, as a pre-condition for
using a drainage channel to take the waste waters to the middle of the estuary, and in 1991 the
government ruled that Elnosa was to be temporarily closed down. ENCE failed to meet the terms of the
agreement signed, with the result that as late as 1998, the Galician Government was still refusing to allow

C 72 E/34

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

the use of the drainage channel for waste water, while Elnosa continued to discharge mercury, without
authorisation and in quantities over the legal limits. Spanish government departments such as the National
Institute of Toxicology claim that the waste water from ENCE can be classified as toxic, and may be
seriously affecting the environment, and departments of the University of Santiago believe that the
mercury levels in the estuary(cid:146)s shellfish are above the recommended limits of 0,1 ppm.

Given that the complex cannot, in any case, make any economic or industrial projections beyond the year
2018, when the administrative concession of the shoreline land which it occupies runs out, and bearing in
mind the much-suffering local population(cid:146)s opposition to the complex, does the Commission intend to
take the requisite steps, having ascertained the economic, social and environmental damage caused and
studied the problem in collaboration with the Galician and Spanish administrations, to have Elnosa
relocated immediately and to negotiate the relocation of the ENCE installations to a suitable site, according
to a strict timetable and in the near future?

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

(9 June 2000)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,
it is not the Commission(cid:146)s responsibility to relocate
companies. However, if it can be demonstrated that the installations in question have infringed Commun-
ity environmental law, the Commission could take the necessary steps to ensure compliance. This could
include initiation of the infringement proceedings provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the
EC Treaty.

it appears that Directive 96/61/EC of
From the information provided by the Honourable Member,
24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1) is not yet mandatorily
applicable to the two installations, since the deadline for application of the Directive is October 2007. The
case should therefore be studied with reference to the relevant Directives concerning discharges to water
and emissions to air.

It should be noted that
the Commission has already examined a complaint regarding the possible
infringement by the installations in question of several Community Directives concerning air and water
pollution. No evidence of infringement could be found and the case was closed at the end of 1999.

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(2001/C 72 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1278/00

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Agriculture (cid:129) flax and hemp

Is the Commission aware that, under its present proposals, between 60 and 80 % of the land on which flax
is grown in the UK will not be eligible for aid? This would kill off the UK industry immediately.

And does the Commission accept that innovative markets have recently been developed for short-fibre
crops, at a substantial
including Wales? If
farmers cannot expand their production to supply these new outlets, this investment in rural areas will
have been for nothing.

investment cost to the industry,

in several Member States,

And, lastly, does the Commission accept that there is a blurring of lines between the markets for short-
fibre and long-fibre crops, since long-fibre products also compete in the new products market, which
means that a differentiated aid rate offers a competitive advantage to long-fibre producers in the same
market?