WRITTEN QUESTION E-0775/03 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Negative impact of the extension of the Port of Altea (Alicante, Spain) on posidonia beds.
Date: 2003-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, application of EU law, coastal protection, environmental protection, harbour installation, project evaluation, protected area, protection of plant life

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?

C 268 E/132

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

What steps does the Commission intend to take in order to guarantee that Directive 92/43/EEC is
complied with as regards both the extension of the Port of Altea and the problems at Serra Gelada?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 158.
(2) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 159.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-0769/03 and E-0775/03
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The matters described by the Honourable Member in Written Question E-0769/03 are the subject of a
complaint being investigated by the Commission. The Spanish authorities have been asked for their
comments on the application of Community legislation in this particular case, but no response has yet
been received.

Once it receives the response, the Commission will take any necessary action to ensure that the Spanish
authorities observe Community law in the case in hand and in particular Directive 85/337/EEC (1), as
amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2), and Directive 92/43/EEC (3).

Regarding the follow-up to Written Questions E-1486/02 and E-1487/02 mentioned by the Honourable
Member in Written Question E-0775/03, the Commission would point out that, having examined the
Spanish authorities’ comments on the sand extraction and beach regeneration projects along the
Mediterranean coast,
it decided that they had applied the abovementioned Directives incorrectly and
therefore took appropriate action. In another context, the bio-geographical seminar for the Mediterranean
region held in Brussels in January 2003 recorded a general reservation in respect of all marine habitat
types. Accordingly, the appropriateness of the Member States’ proposal in relation to habitat type 1120
‘Posidonia beds’ will need to be examined in the light of the findings of an ad hoc working group of
national experts, Commission representatives and other partners, set up recently to look in detail at
subjects connected with the application of the Habitats and Birds Directives to the marine environment.

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private

projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of

certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2003/C 268 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0774/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Destruction of the Schinias Marshes

With regard to the construction of a rowing centre on the Schinias Marsh on the Attica peninsula, the
Commission confirmed in answer to Written Questions E-0769/01 (1) and E-1073/01 (2) that it had written
to the Greek government ‘drawing attention to the value of the site for nature conservation and requesting
information concerning any intended proposal of the site for the Natura 2000 network by virtue of
Council Directive 92/43/EEC (3) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna