WRITTEN QUESTION E-2897/01 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Commission action to prevent the deterioration of the Pego-Oliva marshes in Valencia (Spain).
Date: 2001-10-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, application of EU law, degradation of the environment, exchange of information, humid zone, protected area, sports facilities

C 134 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

Article 3 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the
environment (3) provides 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.

Article 3(4) states that the public authority must respond to a person requesting information as soon as
possible and at the latest within two months. The reasons for refusing to provide the information
requested must be given and based on the exceptions provided for in Article 3(2) and (3).

Furthermore, Article 4 of Directive 90/313/EEC states that any person who considers that his request for
information has been unreasonably refused or ignored or has been inadequately answered by a public
authority may seek a judicial or administrative review of the decision in accordance with the relevant
national legal system.

The facts as reported by the Honourable Member do not, on their own, permit the Commission to
ascertain whether the Spanish authorities responded inappropriately or not to a request for access to
information, which could constitute an infringement of the provisions of the Directive.

If it should be the case that a request for access to information had been refused by the authority asked, in
infringement of the directive, it would be up to the requester of the information concerned to seek a
review as provided for in the abovementioned Article 4 of the Directive and through the transposed
Spanish law.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2002/C 134 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2897/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Commission action to prevent the deterioration of the Pego-Oliva marshes in Valencia (Spain)

The Pego-Oliva marshes are one of the most important wetlands in Spain, and are considered a protected
area both by the authorities of the Autonomous Community and under European legislation (an SPA and
in receipt of LIFE funding), but they continue to be subject to serious problems of environmental
deterioration. These problems have already been highlighted in Written Questions E-1526/99 (1),
E-0349/99 (2), E-3006/98 (3), E-3831/97 (4), E-2834/97 (5) and E-1387/96 (6), and have led to the
Commission approaching the Spanish authorities to investigate the situation. I have no news of the most
recent details of the investigation, nor of the Commission’s final decision.

The deterioration of this nature reserve, however, continues apace. In particular:

= the ‘Monarch’ butterfly is suffering, since the much-abused Pego-Oliva marshes are one of

its

Mediterranean migratory haunts;

= the Pego town council has recently granted permission for the construction of a new golf course, with
hotel facilities, on the edge of the nature reserve, reclassifying farmland which is already negatively
impacting on the reserve’s boundaries. The construction of the golf course will undoubtedly increase
still further the threat to the area’s endangered environment.

These two fresh developments come on top of the serious damage being done to the reserve by intensive
farming,
including pesticide spraying, resulting in the disappearance of half of the bird species which
formerly nested there and continues to threaten many other species, including species of fish.

What are the Commission’s conclusions with regard to its investigation of the Marjal de Pego-Oliva
protected area?

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/139

What steps does it intend to take to stop the environmental deterioration of the reserve, which is proving
so destructive to the irreplaceable species it shelters?

Does the Commission not believe that the Spanish authorities are under an obligation to maintain a
suitable environment for the migrating Monarch butterfly?

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 109.
(2) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999, p. 97.
(3) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 68.
(4) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 64.
(5) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 23.
(6) OJ C 356, 25.11.1996, p. 33.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2001)

The Marjal de Pego-Oliva area was classified by the Spanish authorities as a Special Protection Area for
birds (SPA) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild birds (1). It
has also been proposed by Spain as a Site of Community Importance (SIC) 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).

In response to Petition 543/96 concerning environmental damage caused by agricultural activity in the
Marjal de Pego-Oliva area, the Commission launched an own-initiative investigation (reference 98/2014).
When looking into the case the Commission asked the Spanish authorities for their comments several
times in order to check that the obligations arising from the Community Directives on nature protection
were being fulfilled. Having failed to conclude that Community law had been infringed, the Commission
closed the case on 21 April 1999.

However, as Petition 543/96 was still open and in the light of new information reported, the case was
reopened. It was processed under a new complaint on the same subject (reference 99/5074).

A further letter was sent to the Spanish authorities asking for their comments on the situation and on the
application of the aforesaid Directives in this particular case. In reply, the Spanish authorities forwarded a
report from the Department of the Environment of the Autonomous Community of Valencia. They said
that various measures had been taken to protect the Marjal de Pego-Oliva area. Administrative and
criminal proceedings have been taken against those responsible for the damage. A natural resources
management plan was adopted for the site. There is currently a programme to purchase land from farmers
in order to ensure that the area’s ecological value is preserved. The Spanish authorities report that natural
conditions in the area and the situation of birds have improved in recent years. They have forwarded data
on the subject.

Marjal de Pego-Oliva is one of the most important wetlands in the Autonomous Community of Valencia.
The natural park covers an area of 1 200 hectares (ha) and includes a large wetland of around 900 ha.
Conservation of this area was addressed by LIFE project B4-3200/92/15183 (Primera y segunda fases del
programa de acciones para la conservación de los Humedales de el Hondo de Elche y Marjal de Pego-Oliva,
y creación de áreas de reserva para el Samaruc, Valencia Hispánica, en la Comunidad Valenciana, España).
The project has been completed and the Commission’s evaluation approved the final payment. The project
was committed to purchasing several dozen hectares.

The regional environmental authority took an administrative decision to stop all illegal agricultural activity
in the marshes, forbidding any changes to the ecology or biology of the natural park. Following acts in
breach of these regulations, the regional authorities lodged a complaint against the Mayor of Pego, in the
form of criminal proceedings for alleged damage to natural resources and the environment and disturbance
of public order. The judge (Juzgado de Instrucción no 2 de Denia) issued an order prohibiting all activity in
the marshes and instructed the rural police (Guardia Civil) to monitor any infringements. Later breaches of
the regulations were also reported to the judge.

C 134 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

The approval of the natural resource management plan (PORN) of Marjal de Pego-Oliva on 4 May 1999 is
an important factor in ensuring that the site will be properly managed and conserved. The Plan protects
the whole wetland from drying out and allows rice to be grown on a number of hectares, which will also
help to conserve the area. Part of the park is designated as a special protection area where no crops may
be planted. The Spanish authorities have noted the efforts made to find a consensus solution involving the
landowners in the conservation of the natural park.

The area was visited by the Commission in connection with the above-mentioned Life project in order to
ascertain the impact of the illegal acts perpetrated and the feasibility of further land purchases jointly
funded by Life-Nature. The Life project covering the area on the conservation and management of the site
has produced very satisfactory results and met its objectives.

The Commission would point out that the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), mentioned by the
Honourable Member, is unknown in the area.

In this light, the Commission considers that the Spanish authorities have taken appropriate steps to
prosecute the illegal acts in this wetland and to conserve this Natura 2000 area. The various measures that
the Autonomous Community of Valencia has taken to protect the Marjal de Pego-Oliva have led to a
remarkable improvement in the situation over the past year. Therefore, after analysing the case the
Commission cannot conclude that Community environment law has been infringed.

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

(2002/C 134 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2900/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Procedure for recruiting staff for the Socrates Technical Assistance Office

The Commission has not answered the detailed set of questions in Written Question E-1681/01 (1)
concerning the procedure for recruiting staff for the Socrates Technical Assistance Office. Would it
therefore now provide answers to the following questions:

1. Who is responsible for the discriminatory notices of vacancy in The Bulletin (2)?

2. Will Socrates pursue a non-discriminatory personnel policy in future? If not, why not?

3. How many applicants were of English mother tongue?

4. How many applicants were of French mother tongue?

5. How many applicants were of neither English nor French mother tongue?

6. How many applicants had studied for more than one year at an English-language university?

7. How many applicants had studied for more than one year at a French-language university?

8. How many applicants had studied at neither an English- nor a French-language university?

9. How many of the applicants interviewed were of English mother tongue?

10. How many of the applicants interviewed were of French mother tongue?

11. How many of the applicants interviewed were of neither English nor French mother tongue?

12. How many of the applicants interviewed had studied for more than one year at an English-language

university?