WRITTEN QUESTION P-1442/02 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission. German wind farm near Bellingwolde.
Date: 2002-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, noise, wind energy

C 301 E/146

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Since 1999, when specific funds were dedicated to this programme (1), a series of actions has been
undertaken, including the modernisation and/or the construction of treatment plants (e.g. treatment of
liquid waste, decontamination plant etc.), the characterisation of waste stored in repositories, the re-
conditioning of old waste and the removal of irradiated fuel etc. Annual financial appropriations have been
steadily increased from EUR 3,8 million in 1999 to EUR 10,24 million in 2002. For 2003, EUR 13 million
have been requested.

Regarding the ISPRA site, all the actions above have been undertaken in close co-operation with the Italian
authorities (ANPA) and under their strict supervision. The discussions conducted with these authorities
have led to the formulation of the detailed waste treatment programme, of the configuration of the waste
treatment facilities being installed on the site, and more specifically, of the reconditioning of the waste
stored there. This includes the construction of characterisation plants, of a solid waste treatment plant and
of a specific ‘interim store’: works are under way.

Of particular importance is the design of this ‘interim store’ as a result of the co-operation with ANPA. The
treated waste will be temporarily stored in this store, while waiting for shipment to its final destination.
The national repository will be identified in Italy in accordance with European and the Italian legislation.

Upon receipt of the general data which the Italian Government should provide in due time on the
dismantling operations, the Commission will give an opinion on the plan for the disposal of radioactive
waste according to the provisions of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty.

To reassure the local communities, the JRC has launched a number of actions. Specific meetings have been
organised with mayors and other representative persons of the villages and towns in the surrounding area.
On these occasions, an overall description of the decommissioning programme was given. Moreover,
brochures illustrating both the programme and its associated environmental monitoring programme have
been distributed. Additional actions are foreseen. Another meeting is planned with local communities and
will take place in October/November 2002.

(1) COM(1999) 114 final.

(2002/C 301 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1442/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(15 May 2002)

Subject: German wind farm near Bellingwolde

In October 1998 residents of the Dutch municipality of Bellingwolde learnt of the plan to build a wind
farm 200 metres over the border in Germany (and approximately 300 metres from the nearby houses)
consisting of 22 wind turbines with an overall height of 132 metres each with a maximum capacity of 1.5
MW. Following protests, 17 wind turbines were eventually built in September 2001 with an overall height
of 135 metres each with a maximum capacity of 1.8 MW approximately 367 metres from the border. This
wind farm is causing residents nuisance in the form of noise, by casting shadow, blocking the view,
causing vibrations in the ground, electromagnetic interference, a fall in property values and a deterioration
in quality of life.

The project may cause considerable damage to the environment. Consequently, an environmental impact
assessment is required before planning permission can be granted.

Can the Commission say whether or not

the project complies with the relevant Community
the European Birds Directive (79/409/EC (1)) and Habitats Directive

in particular,

1.
legislation and,
(92/43/EEC (2))?

Can the Commission say whether or not an environmental impact assessment was carried out for

2.
this project in accordance with Directive 85/57/EEC (3) and, if so, what was the outcome?

If no environmental impact assessment took place, does the Commission consider that there was

3.
failure to comply with Community legislation against which the Commission will take action?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/147

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2002)

From the summary information that the Honourable Member has provided about a wind farm in
1.
Germany near the Dutch municipality of Bellingwolde, firstly, the Commission sees no indication that
either the Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds), or the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) may apply in this situation.

2. Moreover, there seem to be no particular indications for the Commission that the windfarm project
might be subject to the Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March
1997 (1).

3.
On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to
give an assessment as to whether there exists a failure to comply with Community legislation. The
Commission will examine any supplementary information that the Honourable Member may provide in
this context.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2002/C 301 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1444/02

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Imports of Argentinean beef

Is the Commission aware that, for some weeks now, large amounts of Argentinean beef have, once

1.
again, been appearing on the European market and, in particular, on the German market?

2.

On what scientific basis have the import restrictions on Argentinean beef been relaxed?

3. What measures is the Commission taking to offset the deterioration in marketing conditions for
European producers that has resulted from the increase in beef imports?

4.
Should not the long-term objective be to cover demand for foodstuffs on the European market
principally with products produced in the EU Member States (on grounds of better traceability, quality, a
higher level of food safety, better control mechanisms and shorter transport routes)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Imports of beef, sheep and goat meat were immediately prohibited from the whole of
1. and 2.
Argentina as of 14 March 2001 following notification of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) by
Commission Decision 2001/276/EC of 4 April 2001 amending Decision 93/402/EEC concerning animal
health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of fresh meat from South American countries to
take account of the animal health situation in Argentina (1).

Following a Food and Veterinary Office inspection and guarantees provided by the Argentinean Veterinary
Authorities the import for human consumption of matured and de-boned beef meat excluding offal was
authorised from certain regions of Argentina by Commission Decision 2002/45/EC of 22 January 2002
amending Decision 93/402/EEC (2). These imports were only resumed from regions without outbreaks