WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/00 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Extension of the dock at Escombreras, Murcia (Spain).
Date: 2000-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Region of Murcia, environmental impact, environmental protection, infringement procedure (EU)

C 136 E/36

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

More generally, the Commission wishes to confirm that it is taking the necessary steps (1) to ensure that
Ireland complies with the judgement of the Court of justice in Case C-392/96 in relation to 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 may be noted that it is possible for an environmental impact assessment of
a forestry project carried out pursuant to Directive 85/337/EEC to also satisfy the assessment requirement
referred to in Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild flora and fauna (2). The Commission expects that the results of its action will be the outcome
desired by the Honourable Member, i.e. respect for the assessment requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC
and Directive 92/43/EEC in relation to Community co-financed afforestation in Ireland.

(1) A letter of formal notice under Article 228 (ex Article 171) of the EC Treaty was notified to Ireland on 25 July

2000.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 136 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/00

by Marie Isler BØguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: Extension of the dock at Escombreras, Murcia (Spain)

Following its reply to Question P-0041/00 (1), of 8 March 2000, on the scheme for extension of the dock
at Escombreras and the rehabilitation of PortmÆn Bay, in which the Commission said it was conducting a
detailed investigation of the problem:

(cid:129) How does the Commission explain that no appropriate environmental impact assessment, containing
binding recommendations, was carried out beforehand, given that the area is classified under Directive
79/409/EEC (2) on the protection of bird life?

(cid:129) Has the Commission taken out infringement proceedings against Spain for failing to respect Commu-
nity law in terms of environmental impact procedures, particularly as regards informing and involving
the public, and taking due account of alternative solutions to the scheme under dispute? Has the
Commission taken steps to improve the way in which the public is kept informed when projects
involving the bay in question are being assessed?

(cid:129) How is the Commission going to guarantee that the waste discharged into the bay is treated and got
rid of on land, and that they are not used in the building of any port structures, given that the local
authorities intend to carry out the extension of the Escombreras dock, despite the Commission(cid:146)s
opposition? Can the Commission ensure that this controversial project does not receive money from
other types of Community funds such as the ERDF?

(cid:129) Does the Commission intend to link the scheme for the rehabilitation of the bay and the scheme to
clean up the environment in the Sierra Minera, and thus give priority to funding via the Cohesion
Fund or the Structural Funds?

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/37

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission(cid:146)s replies to her Written Question P-41/00 (1)
and to Oral Question H-364/00 by Mr Carnero GonzÆlez at Question Time during Parliament(cid:146)s May 2000
part-session (2). As requested by them the Commission has stated its readiness to re-examine the situation
in the context of any new proposal from the Spanish authorities. It is only in the light of the information
provided in that context that the Commission would be able to decide whether to finance the project and
on the terms of execution.

No application for part-financing from the European Regional Development Fund has been received for
the project to extend the port at Escombreras and depollute PortmÆn Bay.

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001.
(2) Debates of the European Parliament (May 2000).

(2001/C 136 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2447/00

by Fernando FernÆndez Mart(cid:237)n (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2000)

Subject: Islands

The (cid:145)Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of
electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market(cid:146) (COM(2000) 279 final) recently
submitted by the Commission, has caused a number of questions to be raised.

Paragraph 2.4 of
strengthening, contains the following statement:

the document, which deals with questions relating to grid connection and grid

It has been suggested, as a general rule, that connection costs of renewable generators should be borne
by the grid operator, to facilitate deployment of RES installations. It is doubtful whether this approach
can be considered appropriate. In fact, it would lead to a situation where the distance to the grid
would be irrelevant to potential investors. Such an approach would thus encourage non-economic
installations. On the contrary, to ensure the correct development of the RES sector in the EU, it is
important that all relevant investments are fully taken into account, including grid connection costs.

Would it be right to conclude on the basis of the above that an operator wishing to deploy an RES
installation in a peripheral region, and in particular in an island region would, in future, have to bear the
grid connection costs, which in the most remote and isolated areas of the Community are very likely to be
prohibitive?

For example, would the laying of an underwater cable between an island region such as the Shetland
Islands and the Scottish mainland involve a connection cost for any company wishing to establish an
installation in the Shetlands in order to exploit its wind and wave energy resources?

Does the Commission not consider that such a policy, which can only discourage the development of such
activities, would be completely at odds with the provisions of Article 154 of the Treaty and the provisions
of the Article 158 relating to economic and social cohesion, which also contains a specific reference to
islands?