WRITTEN QUESTION E-2414/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Project to build a cement factory and quarry in the Sierra de Alconera.
Date: 2000-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Extremadura, Spain, application of EU law, cement, environmental impact, location of industry, mining operation, protection of animal life

C 103 E/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Under Article 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC, any installation or undertaking carrying out waste disposal
operations must obtain authorisation from the competent authority.

In any case the Commission as guardian of the Treaties will take the necessary measures to ensure that
Community law is complied with in the case in point.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(2001/C 103 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2414/00

by Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: Project to build a cement factory and quarry in the Sierra de Alconera

The Sierra de Alconera, the proposed site of a cement factory and quarry, has been identified as an area of
importance for bird life.

Given the great ecological value of
Community directives on the environment, namely:

the area concerned,

the project could constitute a breach of

(a) Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds;

(b) Directive 92/43/EEC (2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and

(c) Directive 85/337/EEC (3) on environmental impact assessments.

What action can the Commission take vis-(cid:224)-vis the Spanish authorities in order to establish whether the
aforementioned directives are being complied with and seek to prevent infringements of Community law?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

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

(14 September 2000)

The Commission is aware of the project mentioned by the Honourable Member. A complaint has been
filed on the matter.

At the beginning of 1998 a cement manufacturer declared its intention to build a cement factory and
quarry in the Sierra de Alconera, Badajoz. It requested and obtained from the authorities the expropriation
of several mining concessions. In all likelihood the expropriated land was to be the site for the cement
works. The firm also requested permission to operate the quarry; the request for permission for the cement
factory was delayed. The authorities carried out an impact assessment for the quarry and authorised it on
22 July 1998. The plaintiff opposed the siting of the cement factory on the grounds that the impact study
had been badly done since it had taken account of the quarry alone and the project would affect a valuable
nature area.

According to the information received, as regards Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), the (cid:145)habitats Directive(cid:146), these installations
are located within the site of Community importance for birds No 273. Furthermore, the lynx, a priority
species in Annex 2 to the habitats Directive, is present in those parts. Article 6(2), (3) and (4) is therefore
applicable to the case in point.

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/149

From the point of view of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects
of certain public and private projects on the environment (2), it is clear that the quarry is intended to
supply the raw material for cement production in the future cement factory. Accordingly, it is not possible
to split a global economic project (cid:129) construction of a cement factory with a quarry in the immediate
vicinity for supplying raw material (cid:129) into two parts and evaluate the direct and indirect effects for only
one of those parts (the quarry).

A letter to this effect has been sent to the Spanish authorities. Having learned that a complaint had been
filed on the matter the Spanish authorities informed the Commission that the impact study would be
revised to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the project as a whole. The Commission expressed its
satisfaction that the study was being revised but warned the Spanish authorities that since the project in
question was located within a site of Community importance for birds they had to take account of the
obligations arising out of Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC.

The Commission asked the Spanish authorities to send it a copy of the new impact study to be made on
the project, in order to verify that the relevant Community law was being complied with.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2001/C 103 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2421/00

by Concepci(cid:243) Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Reform of the COM for rice

On 7 June the Commission adopted a proposal for the reform of the COM for rice which will entail the
abolition of the intervention price mechanism and an increase in direct aid, with rice being included in the
COM for arable crops. It appears that it is also intended to use this as an opportunity to increase tariffs on
rice from third countries.

The intervention price plays a fundamental part in protecting the sector in the face of imports from third
countries whose prices are more competitive on the world market, and the increase in aid may not be
sufficient to offset the losses caused by the abolition of the intervention price, which will make the sector
less profitable. Moreover, rice is already subject to a discriminatory system of penalties by comparison with
other arable crops. How will the Commission remedy this discrimination?

Can the Commission say what measures it will propose to ensure that the reform of the COM for rice does
not lead to market imbalance?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2000)

The proposed reform of the common organisation of the market in rice (1) is based on integrating rice into
the arable crop system and abolishing the intervention price.

The Commission does not consider that the proposal would place rice at a disadvantage compared with
other arable crops or could cause a market imbalance. The proposal is based on: an increase in the area
payment (currently € 52,65/tonne) to € 63/tonne in line with the aid stipulated for cereals from 2001/
2002 onwards; scope for adopting exceptional measures if there is market disruption following abolition