WRITTEN QUESTION E-2424/00 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Environmental impact assessment of afforestation in Ireland.
Date: 2000-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, afforestation, complaint to the Commission, environmental impact, environmental protection, protected area, rural development

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/35

(2001/C 136 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2424/00

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: Environmental impact assessment of afforestation in Ireland

The answer given by Commissioner Wallstr(cid:246)m on 6 April 2000 in relation to a question from this
Member of Parliament [E-0431/00 EN] (1) enquiring about Irish compliance with the European Court of
Justice(cid:146)s judgment against Ireland of 21 September 1999 [Case C-392/96] stated that the (cid:145)Commission is
conscious of the importance of respect for Council Directive 85/337/EEC (2) on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(cid:146).

Commissioner Wallstr(cid:246)m drew this Member(cid:146)s attention to Article 37(1) of
the Rural Development
Regulation which provides that support for rural development shall be granted only for measures that
comply with Community law.

This Member would like to draw Commissioner Wallstr(cid:246)m(cid:146)s attention to the grant aid since this judgment
by Ireland of a plantation of 52 hectares on the northern shores of Glenbeg Lough, County Kerry. The
lough is designated by the Irish authorities as a proposed Special Area of Conservation as a blanket bog
and for its oligotrophic (nutrient poor) waters and associated vegetation. It is farmed for its native brown
trout. While this northern shore is excluded from the designated area, the steep slopes of the site drain
into and adjoin this lough [Glanmore Bog, Site Code 1879]. Further, the Ownagaopul River, which exits
from Glenbeg Lough, has also been designated as a proposed SAC for protection of the fresh water pearl
mussel, but part of this afforestation has taken place along the banks of this river.

Aside from its protection under proposed Natura 2000 designations, the area is protected in the local
authority development plan as an Area of Visual/Scenic Importance [Table V.2: Item B 48 Glenbeg Lake
and Environs] and is included in the National Inventory of Outstanding Landscapes [Item 12: Caha
Mountains: Glaciated mountain massif]. The lough is also the source of the local authority water supply
with a catchment of 6 500. However no environmental
impact assessment was required by the Irish
Forestry Service as the thresholds for EIAs remain unchanged at 70 hectares.

Further, the application was not referred to Duchas, the competent national authority under the Habitats
Directive, as the Forestry Service procedures only require such notification if a forestry development is
within the boundaries of an SAC. Yet Article 6 of the Habitats Directive requires that (cid:145)any plan or project
not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have an effect on the
site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate
assessment of its implications for the site in view of the sites(cid:146) conservation objectives(cid:146).

Can the Commission now assure this Member that no further Community funding will be made available
for afforestation in Ireland until procedures are in place to ensure both Directives are complied with and
the areas long recognised and designated for their scenic qualities are also preserved?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 74.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

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

(10 October 2000)

The Commission notes the information provided by the Honourable Member concerning a forestry project
at Glenbeg Lough, County Kerry. It confirms that complaints are being registered in relation to this
project, and that it intends to make representations to the national authorities. Pending the results of these
representations, the Commission considers that it would be premature to offer more specific comments.
The Honourable Member will be kept informed of developments.

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.