WRITTEN QUESTION E-1797/02 by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission. Wind farm in the Tolfa Mountains.
Date: 2002-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU financing, Latium, application of EU law, countryside conservation, energy policy, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, power plant, protected area, wind energy

C 301 E/230

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

there is currently no legislation in the United Kingdom which
The Commission understands that
specifically protects individuals against discrimination in access to employment on grounds of age. This
situation will change with the transposition of Directive 2000/78/EC. The Commission currently has no
plans to bring forward further measures in the field of age discrimination in employment.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

(2002/C 301 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1797/02

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Wind farm in the Tolfa Mountains

The Spanish company ‘Gamesa Eólica’ has put in a request to build a wind farm in the Tolfa mountains, in
Allumiere, a commune in the Lazio region, in a Special Protection Area (SPA) as defined in Directive
79/409/EEC (1). The area in question, a volcanic plateau lying behind the coast to the north-west of Rome,
is totally untouched and unspoilt, and entirely covered in woods and pastures. It is of great natural value
due to its considerable biodiversity, and is also highly significant in terms of both its panoramic and its
picturesque qualities. In particular, the site contains several wooded areas which are a valuable source of
information being amongst the highest in Italy. At present, the use of wind energy in Italy is devastating
areas which are extremely valuable natural habitats and which, in many cases, such as the above, are areas
protected under national legislation or are sites of Community interest (SPAs and SCIs). Both SPAs and
SCIs play host to endangered animal species and habitats which merit special protection, and therefore are
considered to be important at European level on the basis of international conventions and Community
rules such as Directive 94/43/EEC (2) and Directive 79/409/EEC. Given that the programming instruments
of the EU Structural Funds, designed by a number of regions, provide for wind installations in Italy to be
financed from European Union resources, there appears to be a manifest contradiction in the fact that
Community resources are allocated for measures which cause irreversible damage to the natural heritage,
declared to be of environmental importance under the above directives.

Does the Commission not consider that a wind farm equipped with wind generators of considerable size
and power, would be incompatible with an SPA which is valuable not only for its strictly natural qualities,
but also for its highly significant overall panoramic and picturesque aspects since, amongst their other
attributes, the Tolfa mountains look out onto the sea?

Does the Commission not consider, moreover, that it is extremely contradictory to use European funds,
intended for promoting energy production from renewable sources, to finance the establishment of
electricity-generating wind farms in areas considered to be of significant natural value, which are included
on the list of SPAs and SCIs and which merit special protection under European Union directives?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2002)

Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora provides for protection requirements with reference to Special Conservation Areas
(SCA). Under Article 4(5), of Directive 92/43/EEC these requirements are applied also to Sites of
Community Importance (SCI) when, on the basis of the list of proposed Sites of Community Importance
(pSCI), they are adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 4(2). At present, the
Community list of the Sites of Community Importance (SCI) has not been adopted yet. However, with

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/231

reference to proposed Sites of Community Importance, in particular when including priority habitat and
species, Member States have the obligation to act in a way that does not jeopardise the objectives of the
Directive. Even in the absence of a Community list, Member States are advised to at least abstain from all
activities that may cause a proposed site to deteriorate.

Concerning the Special Protection Areas (SPA) designated under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild birds, and according to Article 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC,
Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC already applies.

In particular, under Article 6(3), of Directive 92/43/EEC, any plan or project not directly connected with or
necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually
or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject
its
implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the
assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent
national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely
affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the
general public.

to appropriate assessment of

According to Article 6(4), if, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the
absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons
of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take
all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.

The construction of a wind farm inside a Special Protection Area can, therefore, be authorised only if it
does not have a significant impact on the area, from the point of view of nature conservation, or if, in the
presence of a significant impact, and in the absence of alternative solutions, it has to be carried out for
imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, the project does not seem to have been authorised yet,
and the Commission can only expect the requirements of Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC to be fully
complied with. Any possible contradiction between the project and the conservation objectives of the
Special Protection Area should become clear in the framework of the assessment mentioned in Article 6(3)
of the Directive.

In conclusion, there is no contradiction between the Community funding given to projects intended to
produce energy from renewable sources and the community legislation that allows for those projects only
if they do not cause significant damage to the conservation of nature.

(2002/C 301 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1798/02

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: 06760 (cid:1) KPN dial-up number

Last year Opta (the Netherlands telecom regulator) gave KPN the freedom to set up a special telephone
number for internet dial-up numbers. Since then a number of Netherlands internet providers, including
Planet Internet, have moved over to KPN’s new dial-up network with a special 06760 dial-up number.

An initial consequence of this changeover is the fact that international dial-up is no longer possible. This
has led to a sharp reduction in international use of e-mail by Planet Internet subscribers.

In addition, as a result of the change to the new 06760 number internet providers are unilaterally forcing
subscribers to pay internet units to the relevant provider instead of to the telecom company with which
the subscriber has a telephone subscription. The use of carrier-preselect numbers and cable telephone for
internet access are also effectively made impossible as a result. The right of the consumer to enter freely
into contracts is thus violated.