WRITTEN QUESTION E-0873/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Incineration of hazardous industrial waste at the Outão cement works in the Arrábida Nature Park.
Date: 2001-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, impact study, nature reserve, waste incineration

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/113

(2001/C 340 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0873/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Incineration of hazardous industrial waste at the Outªo cement works in the ArrÆbida Nature Park

People living in the Setœbal area have lodged a protest with the Commission against the Portuguese
Government(cid:146)s intention of setting up a toxic and hazardous waste coincineration plant at the Outªo
cement works in the ArrÆbida Nature Park (Complaint No 98/5064).

The site concerned is a protected area and of outstanding interest from the historical, landscape, cultural,
social, and tourism point of view.

According to the signatories sponsoring the protest, an environmental impact assessment has never been
encouraged, a failure which infringes Directives 85/337/EEC (1) and 97/11/EC (2).

The Portuguese Government considers an environmental impact assessment by the private company to be
sufficient. The cement industry consortium (Scoreco) has submitted such an assessment, thus ruling out an
environmental
impact assessment backed and monitored by bodies whose interests might be affected,
despite the fact that the latter form of assessment is required in the light of the correct interpretation of
the above Community directives. Portugal, moreover, has recently accepted that interpretation by issuing
Order in Council No 74/2001 of 26 February 2001, repealing Article 46(3) of Order in Council No 69/
2000 of 3 May 2000, which was based on a narrow interpretation of the directives.

What attitude is the Commission taking to the complaint referred to above (incineration of hazardous
industrial waste at the Outªo cement works in the ArrÆbida Nature Park)?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

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

(10 May 2001)

The Honourable Member is referring to complaint 98/5064 presented by a group of citizens in response
the Outªo cement works in the
to the plan to set up a hazardous waste coincineration plant at
ArrÆbida national park. As the Honourable Member points out, the complainants maintain that the project
was not made subject to an environmental impact assessment and that this infringes the provisions 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, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997.

As explained to the complainants when the complaint was being investigated and, more recently, in an
additional reply to the petition they presented to Parliament (petition No 1072/98), the Commission,
having examined all aspects of the project, does not consider that it contravenes the applicable provisions
of Directive 85/337/EEC, nor those of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

Although, as pointed out in the written question, the impact studies were done by a company chosen by
the developer Scoreco, this does not mean they did not meet the requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC.
The Directive does not in fact state that impact studies cannot be commissioned by a project(cid:146)s promoter.
On the contrary, under Article 5 it is for the developer to transmit the information required for assessment,
including information on the effects the project is likely to have on the environment, the measures
envisaged to minimise these effects and a non-technical summary of this information.

With regard to the allegations in the written question on Decree-Law 74/2001, which repealed the
provision of Decree-Law 69/2000 excluding from its application projects for which the impact studies had
been submitted to the competent authority before its entry into force, we would point out that these texts
transpose Directive 97/11/EC into Portuguese law and that the said Directive is not applicable to the
project in question.

C 340 E/114

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

for consent is submitted to
Under Article 3(2) of Directive 97/11/EC, projects for which a request
a competent authority before 14 March 1999 shall be governed by the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC
prior to the amendments, not the amended version. The project in question was submitted to the
competent authority before 14 March 1999.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 340 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0876/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Food aid to Russia

The Court of Auditors Special Report (1) concerning the programme to supply agriculture products to the
Russian Federation reveals the difficulties encountered in supplying goods to Russia.

In any future food aid schemes will the Commission refrain from supplying it to countries of current

1.
commercial interest to Community exporters?

Does experience with the state-to-state agreement on food aid to Russia give the Commission cause

2.
to reassess exporter liability for that country, see previous Questions E-0979/00 (2) and E-2792/00 (3)?

(1) OJ C 25, 25.1.2001.
(2) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 6.
(3) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 177.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

The Community policy on Food Aid and Food Aid management

1.
improvement of food security of developing countries.

is oriented towards the

The policy, in line with the Food Aid Convention and its Code of Conduct, is carefully oriented to avoid
any adverse effects on the production and commercial import structures of the recipient countries.

There have been rare exceptions to those principles, made only in a few urgent cases in countries going
through economic crisis for which an immediate (and temporary) response was deemed necessary.

As to the future, on the basis of an assessment of the food aid/food security instrument, the Commission is
currently drafting a Communication on food aid and food security which will reiterate the principles
mentioned above.

2. Written Question E-979/00 by the Honourable Member (1) relates to the specific matter of re-
importation of goods eligible for refund. The Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question E-2792/00 (2) also
relates to the re-importation of goods eligible for refund.

Special Report No 18/2000 by the Court of Auditors concerning the programme to supply agricultural
products to the Russian Federation does not imply that any of these goods were re-imported into the
Community. Moreover, supplies under the programme are not eligible for export refunds (Article 2(4) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of 17 December 1998 on a programme to supply agricultural
products to the Russian Federation (3)).