WRITTEN QUESTION E-2858/03 by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Opencast mining in the north of León (Valle de Laciana district, Spain).
Date: 2003-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Castile-Leon, coal mining, degradation of the environment, environmental liability, mining operation, project evaluation, protected area, protected species

C 78 E/180

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Is the Commission aware that blue and green algae, which can be toxic, are also controlled by the use of
barley straw by many if not all water utilities? If this product is no longer available, what alternative means
would the Commission propose for controlling toxic algae? Is the Commission aware of the side-effects of
chemical solutions to the control of algae? Will the Commission propose to make any amendments or
exemptions to the directive in light of these problems?

(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the intention of Directive 98/8/EC of
16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, as proposed by the
Commission and adopted by the Parliament and the Council is to guarantee a high level of protection of
human health and the environment from unintentional adverse effects of biocidal products by ensuring
that only sufficiently effective products with no unacceptable effects on target organisms, humans, animals,
or the environment are placed on the market.

The particular question about the treatment of Barley straw in the framework of Directive 98/8/EC has
been brought to the attention of the Commission directly by the company concerned. The Commission is
currently investigating the matter in close co-operation with the competent authorities of all Member
States.

There are a number of rather complicated issues of technical and legal nature at stake. The definition of
‘biocidal product’ and ‘active substance’ in Directive 98/8/EC as adopted by the Parliament and the Council
does not exclude that products and materials of natural origin would be covered by the provisions of the
Directive, as long as the action they exert against harmful organisms is by chemical or biological means.
With the initial information provided not being fully conclusive, further clarification will be necessary
before a final position can be taken, also in order to avoid unwanted effects on non-target organisms.

A great number of other active substances have been notified under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/
2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive
98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products (1) that could be used for the control of
algae. In line with the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Directive, these will be rigorously assessed with
regard to their risks to human health and the environment in the course of the review programme for
existing active substances. Only substances for which the risks are deemed to be acceptable (including side-
effects on non-target organisms) will be eligible for use in biocidal products to control algae.

(1) OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.

(2004/C 78 E/0187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2858/03

by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject: Opencast mining in the north of León (Valle de Laciana district, Spain)

Further to the information provided in questions E-1431/03 and E-1432/03 (1) on the Fonfría opencast
mine belonging to Minero Siderúrgica Ponferrada S.A., I would observe: The area is also home to wolves

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/181

(Canis lupus signatus), otters (Lutra lutra), native trout (Salmo trutta) and roach (Chondrostoma arcasii), all
of them priority species, and the gentian (Gentiana lutea), a northern alpine flower (cid:1) listed as a plant
species of Community interest in Annex V of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) (cid:1) which has already been wiped out
in a large part of the region (3). The mining company complies with virtually none of the preventive,
corrective and/or compensatory measures provided for in the environmental impact statement endorsed by
the Castilla y León Environmental and Regional Planning Ministry on 14 June 1999, which is a sine qua
known for carrying out mining operations.

The most glaring failures to comply involve:

(cid:1) The protection of the oak wood surrounding the future mine, particularly at the eastern end (on the
right bank of the river Orallo). In fact, the company has built a track running right through the wood,
cutting down a huge number of trees (oak, birch and other species) in the process, and then gone on
to fell large numbers of trees off this track as well.

(cid:1) The preservation of the stream which rises from a spring near the northern slag heap, which was to
run through a 200 metre culvert in order to protect it completely from the slag heap. Instead, the
stream has been used as a rubbish tip, and has been almost entirely filled in, apart from the first few
metres running from the spring.

(cid:1) Rigorous control of dust production. A slag heap has been built outwith the area indicated in the plan,
spreading right over the crests of the hills, and thus exposed to the region’s frequent north winds,
blowing clouds of dirty, polluting black dust down on the village.

(cid:1) Planting woodland fruit trees along the watercourses (cid:1) which already exist within the mine, and those
in the areas to remain unchanged (cid:1) before mining operations start. No planting of any kind has taken
place, and the watercourses are generally used as tips.

Given the lackadaisicality of the relevant Spanish authorities, can the Commission investigate where
responsibility lies, as regards both the management of the mine and the deterioration of areas and species
protected by the Habitats Directive?

(1) See page 33.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(3)

Information taken from the Unesco Draft Declaration of the Valle de Laciana biosphere as a nature reserve.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Having examined the available information, the Commission has concluded that, in the case in hand, the
Spanish authorities have misapplied Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2),
and Directive 92/43/EEC (3) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora. It has therefore decided to institute infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty and
has sent Spain a letter of formal notice inviting the Spanish authorities to submit their observations on its
comments.

The Commission is currently waiting to receive those observations.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.