WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/01 by Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE) and Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Waste problem - construction of a waste screening plant in Palomonte.
Date: 2001-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Campania, EU environmental policy, impact study, waste disposal

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/79

(cid:129) In many cases actual imports are far below attributed quotas. This is due to various reasons related to
the lack of capacity by the exporting country to comply to minimal quality requirements for selling
on Community markets, but also to the weakness of the export and trading infrastructure.

(cid:129) Finally, considering that the Community is at the same time the biggest importer and the biggest
exporter of agricultural products, Community concessions to third countries should be appreciated in
the light of reciprocal concessions given by third countries to the Community in agricultural trade.
These concessions facilitate improved penetration of Community agricultural commodities on foreign
domestic markets.

(cid:129) For fishery products a chart is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

3. and 4.

The financial impact of trade concessions in agriculture:

(cid:129) In 1997 (latest figures available), the total value of agricultural imports under the GSP amounted to

€ 9 480 million. The loss of budgetary revenue during that year was € 473 million.

(cid:129) The Commission has no other aggregated data regarding the cost of trade concessions to the
for trade concessions is introduced by the
Community budget. However, whenever a proposal
Commission, an impact study is made for each traded product, in particular as regards budget costs.
The financial impact is reflected in the financial appendix that is annexed to the proposal. However,
the actual cost of trade concessions cannot be quantified in advance, -except for the full volume of
a tariff quota concession, as it depends on the amount of actual trade that takes place under the trade
regimes at preferential conditions.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December 1998 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff

preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 (OJ L 357, 30.12.1998, p. 1).

(2001/C 364 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/01

by Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE),
Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Nistic(cid:242) (PPE-DE)
and Stefano Zappal(cid:224) (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Waste problem (cid:129) construction of a waste screening plant in Palomonte

In the Campania region waste disposal has become an emergency of unprecedented seriousness. None of
the Italian authorities, both national and regional (most of whom of the centre-left) have ever carried out
careful surveys of the area to find more suitable sites for the disposal and screening of waste.

Can the Commission say on what basis the decision was made to build the screening plant in the
municipality of Palomonte, province of Salerno, given that such a decision conflicts with the following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

the area in question is an atypical industrial area considered to be a centre of the agri-foodstuffs
industry and therefore highly unsuitable for the plant in question;

the building in question was intended for a different use;

the said building is already equipped for the production of foodstuffs, which means that the existing
plant would have to be destroyed;

the project plainly conflicts with Community directives in that no environmental impact assessment
has been carried out.

In the light of the above, will the Commission make representations to the competent bodies to ensure
compliance with the legislation referred to in point 4?

C 364 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

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

(18 July 2001)

According to Council Directives 85/337/EECof 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment (1) and 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), which has modified
Directive 85/337/EEC, Member States are obliged to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to
have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made
subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Projects
covered by the Directive are identified in the annexes.

In the opinion of the Commission, based on the information given by the Honourable Member, the work
to which the question makes reference, a waste treatment plant, could fall within the scope of Directives
85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC, and, in particular, within categories 11c of Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC
(Installations for the disposal of industrial and domestic waste, unless included in Annex I) and/or 11b of
Annex II of Directive 97/11/EC (Installations for the disposal of waste (cid:129) projects not included in Annex I).

impact assessment

to an environmental

Under Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments, projects falling within Annex II are to be made
subject
their
characteristics so require. However, Member States are considered to be obliged to make a pre-assessment
in order to establish whether Annex II projects need to be made subject to an EIA procedure. Under
Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified, for Annex II projects, Member States are obliged to determine through
a case-by-case examination or thresholds or by the setting of criteria whether the project shall be made
subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(EIA) where Member States consider

that

In order to identify the correct Community law to be applied, it is necessary to check when the request for
development consent was submitted to the competent authority: projects whose requests for development
consent were submitted to a competent authority before 14 March 1999 are governed by the provisions of
Directive 85/337/EEC (prior to its 1997 amendment).

The Commission has already opened a complaint file on the project and a letter has been sent to the
Italian authorities to request information on the issue. The Commission will take the appropriate steps in
order to ensure the observance of Community law and in particular of the Directive mentioned.

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

(2001/C 364 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1309/01

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Position regarding the water-treatment plants in Molina de Segura (Murcia, Spain)

According to recent press reports, the Commission considers the municipality of Molina de Segura (Murcia,
Spain) to have one of the worst records where sewage treatment is concerned.

At present Molina de Segura has two water-treatment plants, a lagooning plant and a standard plant.
However, there is a problem because the industries which produce the most pollution, in particular the
canning industries, discharge their effluents in Molina, which consequently reach the water-treatment
plants without undergoing any form of pretreatment, whereas the plants are designed only for municipal
sewage and not industrial effluents.

The body that manages the area(cid:146)s waters (Confederac(cid:237)on HidrogrÆfica del Segura) has to date brought nine
actions in all against the companies on account of their irresponsible behaviour, but the companies are
appealing and the Molina de Segura municipal authorities are, in one way or another, concealing their
misdeeds and protecting them.