WRITTEN QUESTION P-2534/01 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Canalisation of the Poyo, Torrent, Chiva and Pozalet ravines (Valencia).
Date: 2001-09-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, application of EU law, complaint to the Commission, exchange of information, hydrology, protection of animal life, watercourse

C 81 E/188

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

(2002/C 81 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2534/01

by Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Canalisation of the Poyo, Torrent, Chiva and Pozalet ravines (Valencia)

In July of this year the Valencian authorities published a Notice of Occupation relating to the compulsory
purchase order issued in connection with the plan to enhance and adapt the beds of the Poyo, Torrent,
Chiva and Pozalet ravines, which are located in the Valencia region of Spain.

The Commission has already been made well aware of the harmful effect which the implementation of
such a project would have on the environment by means of Question E-1059/00 (1) (which was tabled by
this question) and Complaints 99/4430 and 99/4494, which were lodged with the
the author of
Commission by groups and associations opposed to the project.

The Commission has still not responded to the allegations and complaints submitted to it. All that is
known is that the Commission, which was not satisfied with the initial response from the Spanish
authorities, has requested further information from them.

In view of the need for the Albufera de Valencia special bird protection area (which, incidentally, the
Spanish authorities themselves have proposed for classification as a site of scientific interest) to be
safeguarded as a matter of urgency, and given that the Commission has acknowledged the fact that Spain
has infringed Articles 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) by failing to submit the ravine
canalisation project to an appropriate assessment of the effects which it is likely to have on the local area,
would the Commission say what stage it has reached in dealing with Complaints 99/4430 and 99/4494?

What urgent action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that Community directives are
complied with and that the species threatened by the project are properly protected?

Does the Commission not think that it should ask the Spanish authorities to freeze the current project
(which receives financial support from the Cohesion Fund under project number 97.11.61.012) until it can
be guaranteed that the canalisation project which is currently being implemented (even though the need
for it is open to question) will not do any damage to the environment?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 114.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

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

(8 October 2001)

The Commission learned of the situation described by the Honourable Member through Complaints
99/4430 and 99/4494, as referred to in the Written Question.

In following up those complaints, the Commission contacted the Spanish authorities several times to
request their comments on the situation as reported. Having received no reply by the given deadline, the
Commission sent Spain a letter of formal notice based on Article 10 (ex Article 5) of the EC Treaty.

The Spanish authorities then sent a reply from which it emerged that they had not taken account of the
fact that the project will affect 6 230 square metres of the special bird protection area ((cid:145)SPA(cid:146)), which the
Spanish authorities have also proposed as a site of Community interest for inclusion in the Natura 2000
network (pSIC ES00023 Albufera de Valencia).

The Spanish authorities(cid:146) impact assessment study failed to take account of the project(cid:146)s significant effect on
the SPA, as required by Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). The site contains six different habitat types listed in
Annex I to that Directive. The project would affect these habitats, as well as several species in the SPA. For
instance, the freshwater habitats would be destroyed by extensive deep runoff, while the inflow of water
into the lake would be altered as a result of the canalisation.

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/189

A letter of formal notice (for improper application of Directive 92/43/EEC) was therefore sent to the
Spanish authorities. In their latest reply they say that,
in the light of a report from the Jœcar Water
Authority, they have decided to produce a new impact statement with a view to altering the project so as
to prevent the adverse impact, and indicate that the consent to carry out the first phase of the project has
been suspended. The Commission is now examining both the (cid:129) fairly technical (cid:129) reply from the Spanish
authorities and the new information received from the Honourable Member with a view to deciding how
to pursue the matter.

Payments to the (cid:145)Restituci(cid:243)n y adaptaci(cid:243)n de cauces naturales de los Barrancos Poyo, Torrente, Chiva y
Pozalet(cid:146) project, co-financed through the Cohesion Fund by virtue of Decision C(1999) 2161 of 20 July
1999, have recently been suspended pending the outcome of the proceedings initiated under Article 226
(ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. Should the investigation procedure confirm that the relevant Community
legislation has not been complied with, the Commission will withdraw the aid and recover any sums
already paid.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 81 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2544/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: Promotion of the use of wind energy

The EU often proclaims its intention to promote the use of environmentally friendly forms of energy, such
as wind power. As part of this policy, several wind parks have been created, particularly in countries with
high wind power potential such as Greece. However, many of the generators in the wind parks have been
taken out of operation, leaving them inactive and presenting a rather depressing sight in areas which do
not have other energy resources such as Skyros, Ikaria, Evvia, Crete etc.

Can the Commission say whether it knows how many of the generators which it has helped to fund,
constructed in wind parks in Greece, are currently operating? How many of them have been taken out of
operation? What are the exact amounts which the EU has allocated for the construction of wind generators
in Greece? Which bodies have these amounts been given to?

Has the Commission investigated the reasons for these generators(cid:146) high failure rate? What initiatives has
the Directorate-General for Research taken for the promotion of this environmentally friendly form of
energy, and what provisions have been made in the new programme which has replaced the Fifth
Framework Programme to ensure that there are sufficient resources permanently available and to prevent a
repetition of unwelcome developments such as the cutback of appropriations in the Preliminary Draft
Budget for 2002 for environmentally friendly nuclear fusion?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information required in order to reply to this question in detail. It will
communicate the results of its research shortly without fail.