WRITTEN QUESTION E-2270/01 by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Open-cast coal mine in northern Palencia (Alto Carrión district, Spain).
Date: 2001-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Castile-Leon, application of EU law, coal, exchange of information, mining extraction, protected area, protection of animal life, protection of plant life

C 115 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

(2002/C 115 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2270/01

by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Open-cast coal mine in northern Palencia (Alto Carrión district, Spain)

The mining company Unión Minera del Norte S.A. (Uminsa), which is owned by the León businessman
Victorino Alonso, applied for a total of 600 hectares in the Alto Carrión district (Guardo, Palencia) in the
course of 2000 and 2001 in order to develop open-cast mines over the coming three years, spread over
six mining projects, on the grounds that underground mining is unprofitable. This district contains most of
the 16 % of woodland in the desert-like province of Palencia. It is the natural habitat of the brown bear,
capercaillie, holly and other species protected under Directives 79/409/EEC (1) and 92/43/EEC (2) and is
adjacent to the ‘Parque Natural de Fuentes Carrionas y Fuente Cobre’, which is included in the Natura 2000
network under number LIC = 414 011. An environmental impact assessment was carried out on these
projects, but the administrative proceedings have been marked by significant irregularities and a deliberate
and biased lack of technical and scientific rigour aimed at minimising the damaging effects on flora, fauna,
the soil, air, water, countryside, jobs and the local population (3).

It is already impossible to restore habitats and biodiversity in the areas affected: this level of deterioration
was made possible by evident collusion with the autonomous administration of Castilla y León and the
local bodies involved (4). The authorities have refused to allow the local protest group Plataforma Comarcal
Antidesmontes de Guardo (Palencia) access to environmental information, in contravention of Directive
90/313/EEC (5).

How does the Commission justify the destruction of biodiversity and the district’s future when the mining
sector is bound to disappear in the short term? Does the Commission not believe that Spain is in breach of
European legislation and policy on environmental protection, in particular forest protection, and that it is
violating Directives 79/403/EEC, 92/43/EEC, 90/313/EEC and 91/156/EEC (6) on waste and Directive
97/11/EC (7) on environmental impact assessment? What action will the Commission take to prevent this
ecological disaster?

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

It should also be pointed out that coal from open-cast mines is of such poor quality that it produces 35 % more ash,
with the consequent increase in air pollution.

(4) These bodies, which are aware of the disastrous environmental consequences, justify the granting of permission for
open-cast mining on the grounds of saving jobs, when in fact staff numbers have been cut by two thirds and many
millions in state aid have been granted to the firm in exchange for a 15 % cut in production. Collusion can also be
seen in the fact that 80 % of total state funding for the restoration of rubbish tips in Castilla y León has been
awarded to the same firm.
(5) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
(6) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
(7) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Ms Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

The Commission was unaware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.

However,
it has verified that the area in question corresponds to the special protection area/site of
Community importance (SPA/SCI) ‘ES4140011 = Fuentes Carrionas = Montaña Palentina’, classified by
the Spanish authorities as a ‘Special Protection Area for birds’ under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/
EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). The area has also been listed by the Spanish
authorities as a site of Community importance for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (2).

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/49

Article 3 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on freedom of access to information on the
environment (3), stipulates that ‘Member States shall ensure that public authorities are required to make
available information relating to the environment to any natural or legal person at his request and without
his having to prove an interest’. Under paragraph 4 of the said Article a public authority must respond to a
person requesting information as soon as possible and at the latest within two months. A refusal to
communicate the information requested must be justified for one of the reasons set out in Article 3(2)
and (3).

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member alone, the Commission is not in a
position to ascertain whether the Spanish authorities have incorrectly applied the said provisions of
Directive 90/313/EEC. If an authority were to refuse a request for access, contravening the provisions of
the Directive, it would be for the requester to take action as provided for in Article 4 thereof and in the
Spanish transposing legislation.

In any event, the Commission has asked the Spanish authorities for their comments on the situation
reported by the Honourable Member, in order to ensure that Community law is observed in the case in
question.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2002/C 115 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2272/01

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(3 August 2001)

Subject: Common position on Cuba

The Council has not reviewed the common position on Cuba since 1996. Relations between the Union
and Cuba have changed profoundly and the common position does not reflect the current state of
relations.

It is above all in the Union’s interests to review the common position on Cuba before the end of this year.

1. What does the Council intend to do about this?

2.

Has it already placed the issue on its agenda?

(2002/C 115 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2505/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Council

(10 September 2001)

Subject: EU relations with Cuba

Following the Presidency-in-Office’s recent visit to Cuba, international press reports indicate that ‘Cuba
agrees to re-establish the dialogue with the EU’, and that the Belgian Foreign Minister himself ‘has
ascertained that the existing climate is favourable to stepping up EU relations with Cuba’.

Given that the status of these relations is determined by the common position adopted by the Council in
1995, is the Belgian Presidency seeking to suggest that this common position be amended? What changes
have occurred in Cuba to change the situation which obtained at the time the common position was
adopted?