WRITTEN QUESTION E-2344/00 by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Construction of a high-voltage power line in Tenerife (Canary Islands).
Date: 2000-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Canary Islands, application of EU law, energy transport, environmental impact, transport infrastructure

C 103 E/126

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

its willingness to send a second Troika mission to Rangoon later this year to promote the aims of the
Union(cid:146)s policy through the establishment of a political dialogue. Failure to engage in such a dialogue will
only mean continued isolation for Burma(cid:146)s regime, and prolong the hardship and suffering for the Burmese
people that result from its policies.

(1) Common Position 2000/346/CFSP, 26.4.2000 (OJ L 122, 24.5.2000).

(2001/C 103 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2344/00

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Construction of a high-voltage power line in Tenerife (Canary Islands)

The Unelco-Endesa electricity company is planning to construct a high-voltage power line exceeding 80
kms in length and rated at 220 kw overall and 900 kw at the pylon. The purpose of the power line is to
carry electricity to the huge (47 000-bed tourist complexes which are due to be built in the southern and
south-eastern parts of Tenerife, and also to complete the energy circuit. The power line will cut through
five natural areas which are protected under the relevant Canary Island law and which include wooded
areas around the mountain peaks. The natural areas affected are of vital importance from a scientific and
ecological point of view and they are home to such valuable native species as the blue chaffinch and the
greater spotted woodpecker, together with many other types of bird,
insect and animal which are
indigenous to the Canary Islands. On account of its great wealth in terms of flora, landscape and forests,
the Vilaflor pine forest is one of the most valuable ecosystems within the archipelago and the area to be
crossed by the power line is a place of major international ornithological value which in 1994 was
designated as a natural park by the Canary Islands Government itself and which in 1989 received EU
recognition as an area of special protection for birds (1). This area became part of the Nature 2000
Network in 1995, when the Directive on habitats (92/43/EEC) (2) entered into force.

The project has already been endorsed by the Canary Island Government(cid:146)s Minister for Industry and the
Tenerife Council, although it has not received the necessary approval from the Canary Island Natural Areas
Management Board. Implementation of the project would involve making 40-metre-wide fire breaks in
order to prevent fires from breaking out along the route followed by the power line and this would require
thousands of ancient resin-producing Canary Island pine trees to be cut down. Mention should also be
made of the fact that approval has not yet been granted in respect of the Canary Island Regional Planning
Scheme or the law on corridors through Tenerife, which would influence the route to be followed by the
power line.

The Government of
the Canary Islands has not allowed proper public access to the assessment
procedure (3). The assessment was favourable, although it imposes certain conditions which have not
been made possible either. During the course of the procedure, no consideration was given to alternatives
involving energy saving and efficiency or the harnessing of renewable resources.

Does the Commission consider the installation of an energy transmission infrastructure such as the one
planned in Tenerife to be compatible with the conservation of areas which are designated as places of
Community interest? Can the Commission ascertain whether or not Community rules on environmental
impact studies have been followed (4), with particular reference to public access? Can the Commission also
ascertain whether or not the Directive on air quality (80/779/EEC (5)) and Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/
together with Council Recommendation 1999/519 on electromagnetic fields (6), are being
43/EEC,
complied with?

(1) See Directive 79/409/EEC which was published in OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(3) There is a ban on making photocopies of the environmental impact assessment study documents, which have not
even been made available to the Vilaflor authorities, which represent the area most affected. The residents of Vilaflor
have launched a public campaign against the power line (for information, see http://www.accionmm.com/vilaflor/)
and have submitted a petition to the European Parliament.

(4) Directives 85/37/EEC and 97/11/EC on environmental impact assessment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40 and OJ L 73,

14.3.1997, p. 5).

(5) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980, p. 30.
(6) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59.

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/127

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

(15 September 2000)

On the question of the plan to construct a high-voltage power line on Tenerife (Canaries), it should be
noted that the Commission has recently received a complaint criticising the project in question as likely to
affect a site classified by the Spanish authorities as a (cid:145)special protection area for birds(cid:146) (SPA) under Article 4
of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.

As regards 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 paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 6 lay down that any plan or
project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the SPA but likely to have a
significant effect thereon is subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of
the site(cid:146)s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for
the site, the competent national authorities will agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained
that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained
the opinion of the general public. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and
in the absence of alternative solutions, a project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of
overriding pubic interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member States must take all
compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. The
Member States must inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.

As regards Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment, it should be noted that Article 2 of that Directive lays
down that, before consent is given, projects likely to have a significant effect on the environment by virtue
inter alia of their nature, size or location must be made subject to an assessment with regard to their
effects.

This provision applies to the projects listed in Annexes I and II of the Directive. Annex II(3)(b) includes
installations for the transmission of electrical energy by overhead cables. Under Article 4(2), projects listed
in Annex II must be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics
so require.

In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take the necessary measures to ensure that
Community law is upheld in the case in question.

(2001/C 103 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2346/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Connivance between traffickers and anti-drugs authorities

In May 2000, the US Congress committee for the secret services published the conclusions of the
parliamentary inquiry into the role of the CIA in the support given to the Nicaraguan (cid:145)Contras(cid:146) in the
early 1980s.

During the hearings, which were held in camera, former CIA agents confirmed that the (cid:145)Contras(cid:146) were
allowed to benefit from a policy of (cid:145)active tolerance(cid:146) with the (cid:145)blessing(cid:146) of the US secret services, which
enabled them to self-finance their armed campaign, thanks to the profits of an extensive cocaine-trafficking
network.

Was the Council aware of these circumstances? Does the Council consider these dubious practices to be a
purely exceptional phenomenon in terms of anti-drugs-trafficking policy, or is it, on the contrary,
in
possession of similar information for other regions of the world, for recent years or for today? Does the
Council not consider that, in view of the seriousness of this case, it should raise the matter in the relevant
international forums, beginning with the UN(cid:146)s anti-drugs authority (the UNDCP)? Does the Council not
also consider that, in view of the seriousness of the matter, it should propose, as a matter of urgency, the
revision of the international conventions on narcotics with a view to creating a single legal framework to
cover all activities related to the production of marketing of substances forbidden under present law?