WRITTEN QUESTION E-2809/01 by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Construction of a bottling plant at Taguluche, La Gomera (Canary Islands).
Date: 2001-10-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Canary Islands, bottling, complaint to the Commission, environmental impact, environmental protection, exchange of information, location of industry, project evaluation

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/9

The Commission is at present looking into complaints concerning the way the United Kingdom has
transposed certain aspects of Directive 92/12/EEC into national
law. The Commission is awaiting the
outcome of this investigation to determine whether,
in its view, the United Kingdom has faithfully
implemented the Directive.

(2002/C 172 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2616/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Subject: State of affairs concerning bottling plant in La Gomera (Canaries)

A water-bottling plant in process of construction on the island of La Gomera (Canaries) is meeting with a
broad-based opposition movement, bringing together residents’ associations, farmers’ organisations and
environmental groups, who have complained to local, national and Community institutions on the
grounds that this project will have an irreversible impact on the sites of Community importance of
Tagaluche (identification number ES-7020108) and Lomo del Carretón (ES-7020037). In addition, the
project has not been subjected to the mandatory environmental impact assessment.

The author of
this question addressed an earlier question on La Gomera to the Commission
(E-0859/00 (1)), to which Commissioner Wallström replied on 8 May 2000, pointing out, among other
aspects, the following:

8 the Commission had received a complaint on the matter (99/4875, SG/99, A/10714/2);

8 the Commission was examining the dossier in order to determine the impact of the project on the
above-mentioned sites of Community importance and ascertain whether there was an infringement of
Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC (2);

8 the Commission would take the necessary action to ensure compliance with Community law.

However, now that over a year has passed since Commissioner Wallström’s answer, no information on the
state of the dossier has been received by either the complainant organisations or the author of this
question.

Can the Commission state what research and other activity it has carried out in the past year and what
results have been obtained, as well as indicating the stage reached by the works referred to in Complaint
99/4875?

Can the Commission indicate the date by which the Spanish government is obliged to reply to its
inquiries? Should a reply have already been received, can the Commission state its content?

Can the Commission state what measures it has taken to prevent the plant from being constructed in
Tagaluche and ensure compliance with Community law?

Would the Commission be willing to send a delegation to La Gomera to verify the real environmental and
agricultural impact of the construction work for the bottling plant?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 63.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2002/C 172 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2809/01

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Construction of a bottling plant at Taguluche, La Gomera (Canary Islands)

to our question P-0360/00 (1) on the construction of a bottling plant
With respect
in Taguluche,
La Gomera, Canary Islands, the Commission told us on 7 March 2000 that it would take the necessary
measures to ensure conformity with Community law in this case.

C 172 E/10

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

As we have not received any additional information on the Commission’s action, we would like to know:

8 Has the Commission enquired into the environmentally adverse effects of the project and therefore
assessed whether the Habitat directive (92/43/EEC) (2) has been infringed? Should not Art. 6 of that
directive apply for the preventive preservation of the site?

8 Has the Commission enquired into the environmental impact assessment procedure, given the fact
that no proper assessment on the underground water sources was done, as mentioned in our previous
question?

8 What measures has the Commission taken in order to ensure the protection of the site and the correct

application of the Habitat and EIA (97/11/EC) (3) directives?

8 What follow-up has the Commission given to the complaint it has received on the same issue

(P-1999/4875)?

8 Would the Commission be ready to send a delegation to La Gomera so as to enquire into the real

impact of this project on the environment as well as on local agricultural activity?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 137.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2616/01 and E-2809/01
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment (1), amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), does
not apply in the case mentioned by the Honourable Member because the project in question is not
included in the annexes to that Directive.

Nevertheless, as was pointed out in the answers to the written questions cited above, this project might
affect the Taguluche and Lomo del Carretón nature sites identified by the Spanish authorities in their
national list of sites of Community importance likely to be included 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 (3).

In its preliminary inquiries into complaint 99/4875, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities to
comment on the facts as stated and to find out if the project concerned is likely to have a significant effect
on the sites mentioned in the light of the objectives of Directive 92/43/EEC, in which case the procedure
laid down in Article 6 of that Directive has to be applied. The Commission has analysed both the Spanish
authorities’ reply and the additional information supplied by the complainant.

Having examined the dossier and in view of this project’s considerable potential impact, the Commission
has sent another letter to the Spanish authorities asking for additional information regarding the effect of
this project on the area and their assessment of possible alternatives. It has not yet received a reply. The
Commission has informed the complainant of the above.

As regards sending a Commission delegation to La Gomera to verify the real impact of the work, it should
be noted that the Commission has no inspection capability in the environmental field.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.