WRITTEN QUESTION P-0769/03 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Extension of the harbour at Altea (Alicante, Spain).
Date: 2003-03-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, EU control, complaint to the Commission, environmental impact, harbour installation, project evaluation, report, university

C 268 E/130

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

The Commission does not share the Honourable Member’s view concerning the Euratom Treaty. It should
be remembered that this Treaty forms the basis of an important set of rules which include, among other
things, inspection mechanisms to ensure nuclear safeguards and new initiatives with regard to nuclear
safety, the management of decommissioning funds and the management of radioactive waste. Furthermore,
Parliament considers the organisation of the monitoring of non-proliferation to be exemplary (7).

Following on from the recommendations of the Laeken Council in December 2001, the Commission on
6 November 2002 adopted a communication Nuclear safety in the European Union (8) and, after seeking
the views of the group of experts provided for in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty, on 30 January 2003 (9)
adopted two proposals for Directives, one defining the basic obligations and general principles in the field
of the safety of nuclear installations and the other on the management of spent nuclear fuel and
radioactive waste. In conformity with the procedure provided for in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty, the
proposals for Directives have been forwarded to the Economic and Social Committee. When the
Committee has expressed its opinion, which is expected very shortly, the texts will be officially sent to the
Council and Parliament. These two proposals for Directives, which are novel as regards the approach
proposed, confirm the relevance of the Euratom Treaty.

In view of:

(cid:1) the fact that no new capacity is being launched at the moment and that the main analyses given in the

1997 PINC and the Green Paper still apply;

(cid:1) the broad discussion which has taken place following the Green Paper, during which nuclear energy

aspects have played a considerable part;

(cid:1) the discussions which will shortly be starting in Council on the subject of the nuclear package; and

(cid:1) the forthcoming enlargement in May 2004,

the Commission believes it is not advisable to consider the publication of a new illustrative nuclear
programme in the immediate future. The situation may evolve and lead to the publication of a further
PINC if the decisions on the construction of new facilities or the postponement of closures in some
Member States are confirmed.

(1) EUR 2773, March 1966.
(2) EUR 5011, 1.7.1972.
(3) OJ C 169, 8.7.1985.
(4)

‘The nuclear power station design and construction industry and completion of the European single market. Update
of the illustrative nuclear programme adopted by the Commission in 1984 and published in 1985’, COM(89) 347
final.

(5) COM(97) 401 final.
(6) COM(2000) 769 final.
(7) Rübig Report on the Commission’s report on the operation of the Office for the Monitoring of Euratom Safety in

1999-2000 (adopted by Parliament on 8 July 2002).

(8) COM(2002) 605 final.
(9) COM(2003) 32 final.

(2003/C 268 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0769/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject: Extension of the harbour at Altea (Alicante, Spain)

The plan to extend the harbour at Altea in order to accommodate watersports facilities has caused outrage
in the region on account of the possible effects which the project, if put into effect, might have on the
coastline, which is already suffering from overdevelopment.

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/131

Last year the universities of Almería and Alicante both carried out research into the environmental effects
of the project and came to the following conclusions (which contradict the claims made by the project’s
supporters):

(cid:1) since the 1950s the beaches adjacent to the harbour at Altea have shrunk in size by over 2,5 hectares
(on account of erosion, torrential rainfall, the effects of sedimentation caused by construction work on
the River Algar dam, the consequences of the original 1986 extension, and so on); any additional
extension to the harbour could lead to further erosion and the loss of even more of the beach;

(cid:1) the stretch of beach which would be left between the harbour and the Albir headland would suffer
from reduced wave penetration, with the effect that the sand would not be sufficiently stirred up and
aired; sediment would therefore be deposited which would affect the substratum (accumulation of
organic matter) and cause odours, thus detracting from the beach’s attractiveness as a recreational
area;

(cid:1) extending the harbour would obviously lead to an increase in maritime activity, with a consequent

increase in the volume of oily pollutants in the waters in and near the harbour;

(cid:1) an extension to the harbour and the consequent increase in pollution would seriously affect the
already damaged seaweed beds and two marine species: bottle-nose dolphin and loggerhead turtle
(see also complaint 2001/2210 submitted to the Commission by the WWF);

(cid:1) the extension work would cause cloudiness in the waters adjacent to the harbour; this would reduce

the amount of light reaching the seabed, thus affecting the seaweed.

In view of the facts described and the points made in the reports produced by the two universities, does
the Commission consider the Altea harbour extension plan to have been drawn up in accordance with
Directive 85/337/EEC (1)? It is, after all, a project of a type which comes under Annex I and which is
therefore subject to the provisions of Article 4(1) of that directive.

What action is the Commission intending to take vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities in order to ensure that
the already serious damage which has been done to the coastline in the Alicante region (in particular to
the area’s seaweed beds) is not compounded by yet more environmental devastation caused by any future
extension of the harbour at Altea?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2003/C 268 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0775/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Negative impact of the extension of the Port of Altea (Alicante, Spain) on posidonia beds

My Written Questions E-1486/02 (1) and E-1487/02 (2), voiced my concern at the rapid deterioration of
posidonia beds on the south east Spanish coast, and the inadequate protection being given, particularly in
the Serra Gelada region, to this species protected by Directive 92/43/EEC (3).

A further problem has now been added to those highlighted in my previous questions, namely the planned
building work to extend the Port of Altea, whose negative impact on the area’s environment and above all
its posidonia beds, have been described at length in reports drawn up by the Universities of Alicante and
Almería respectively, and in the WWF’s complaint 2001/2210 (all of which documents are currently
before the Commission).

Given that in its reply of 12 July 2002, the Commission undertook to approach the Spanish authorities
with a view to ensuring that the posidonia beds were adequately protected, has the Commission received
any reply from the authorities with regard to such protection on the south east Spanish coast?