WRITTEN QUESTION P-3160/03 by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Authorisation for the construction of a landfill site in the prefecture of Ioannina.
Date: 2003-10-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Epirus, application of EU law, environmental impact, impact study, project evaluation, waste management

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/231

consequently unable to buy Norwegian herring as cheaply as Norwegian firms can. In addition there is a
difference in the rates of customs duty: the duty is 15 % on raw fish but only 6 % on processed fish.

Despite the fact that the current rules were intended to protect firms in the EU, they are having a
disastrous effect on the competitiveness of Danish businesses.

Firms in Skagen and other towns in Jutland, which normally purchase considerable quantities of
Norwegian fish, are currently dismissing most of their employees. They are unable to purchase the
necessary quantities of herring within the EU.

Will the Commission please investigate ways of counteracting the harmful effect of these customs duties?

What opportunities does the Commission have to change this competition-distorting state of affairs,
whereby unprocessed herring imported to Denmark from Norway is subject to a 15 % customs duty, while
the duty on processed fish imported to Denmark from Norway is only 6 %?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the concerns which the Honourable Member expresses about the
situation of supplies of herring as raw material for the Danish processing industry. However, there are a
number of factors other than tariff rates which may have an impact on the competitiveness of the
processing industry. In this regard, it appears that the supply situation in certain Member States is related
more to the practice of Community fishing vessels landing their catches of herring in Norwegian ports
than to the present tariff situation. This practice is due to the geographical particularities of the fisheries on
Atlanto-Scandian herring in the Northeast Atlantic.

The Honourable Member will recall that the import duties for fishery products originating in Norway were
set as a result of an international agreement between the Community and that country. Therefore, the
Community cannot change these tariffs on an unilateral basis.

As for possible short-term measures, the Commission is currently preparing a proposal for a new multi-
annual tariff quota system for the period 2004 to 2006 in consultation with Member States. This proposal
will need to take into account not only the interests of the fish processing sector in the Community but
also those of other sectors having a direct interest in the harvest of pelagic fish stocks.

In addition to the above, the attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the improved stock
situation for North Sea herring. The emergency measures, to which this stock has been subject over the
past years, are now starting to pay off. Thus, the availability of herring in the Community can be expected
to substantially increase in the years to come, with a positive impact on the supplies of the Community’s
processing industry.

(2004/C 78 E/0234)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3160/03

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Authorisation for the construction of a landfill site in the prefecture of Ioannina

Through its decision No 364/22.8.2003 the region of Epirus gave a favourable opinion on the
implementation of the project to construct a landfill site in Geroplatanos-Phteri, in the municipality of
Kalpakion, Ioannina prefecture. A supplementary opinion (No 3989/1.10.2003) places the landfill site in
Kidonies, in the parish of Vassilikon, which falls within the municipality of Ano Pogoniou.

C 78 E/232

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The proposed project lacks public acceptance for the following reasons:

(cid:1) the preliminary environmental assessment shows that from the hydrogeological point of view this site
is the least favourable of all the sites considered (high soil permeability and possible link with the
rivers Aoo and Kalama, as well as the closed basin of the Pamvotida lake);

(cid:1) there is a fissure at the site, and the study stated that its dynamics could not be documented. It might
be pointed out that the region is situated in a category I seismic zone, and not in a category II zone as
stated in the study;

(cid:1) the requisite opinion of the Ioannina forestry commission (2606/14.8.2003) clearly states that the
study cannot be considered definitive, given that the preparatory documentation did not include the
necessary topographical charts;

(cid:1) the site is located a very short distance away from the Vikos-Aoos, a Natura 2000 area, and comprises

protected woodland;

(cid:1) the proposed site is 55 kilometres away from the area where the waste will be produced.

In this context, and bearing in mind that funding has been requested for this project from the Cohesion
Fund, can the Commission say whether Directives 1999/31/EC (1) on the landfill of waste, 75/442/EEC (2)
and 97/11/EC (3) have been complied with in the above case?

(1) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

illegal or
Based on a considerable number of complaints concerning the operation in Greece of
uncontrolled landfills, where waste disposal endangers human health and harms the environment, the
Commission initiated an infringement procedure against Greece under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. The
Greek authorities recognised that 1399 illegal or uncontrolled landfills were still operating at the end of
2002, and they declared that all illegal landfills would be closed by the end of 2007 and would be replaced
by permanent waste management installations. Since Greece had failed to comply with the Community
legislation on waste, the Commission decided on 9 July 2003 to bring the matter before the European
Court of Justice.

Although Member States are obliged, under Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste as
amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (1), to ensure that waste is recovered or
disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, the selection of
disposal methods and of suitable disposal sites or installations is a matter for the competent national
authorities. In particular, the landfilling of waste must be done in accordance with the technical standards
and procedures laid down by Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.

The construction of landfills is subject to development consent being granted and an assessment of their
impact on the environment. This should be carried out following the requirements of Council Directive
85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (2), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997. This Directive sets out a
series of procedures for projects requiring an environmental impact assessment, mainly the preparation of
an environmental impact study, the information of the public and consultations with the public and other
competent authorities.

On the basis of the existing information, it appears that the environmental assessment of the project is
ongoing. The construction of the landfill will be subject to the approval of the competent national
authorities, which will either reject the project or will approve it subject to environmental conditions and

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/233

restrictions on the performance of the activity, particularly with regard to location, scale, type, technology
used and general technical characteristics. Therefore, the Commission considers that, at this stage, there is
no infringement of Community environmental legislation, since the project is not yet approved and its
authorisation is ongoing.

Regarding the Cohesion Fund, to date the Commission has received no request for cofinancing for this
project from the competent Greek authorities. If such a request were submitted in the coming weeks or
months, it would be examined in accordance with the rules and procedures in force.

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2004/C 78 E/0235)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3165/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Spanish Hydrological Plan (Pyrenees)

In reaching decisions regarding the application of environmental legislation and the rules concerning the
approval of bids for structural funding, does the Commission accept that plans for dam projects in the
Pyrenees (cid:1) particularly the Yesa Dam enlargement and construction of new dams at Biscarruès,
Santaliestra, Itoiz and Rialp (cid:1) should be considered as part of the overall Spanish Hydrological Plan, in
that they are essential to the water transfers proposed?

Have formal requests for structural fund assistance towards the cost of any of these projects yet been
submitted by the Spanish authorities?

Is the Commission aware that work on the Santaliestra dam has been suspended due to failure by those
involved to take full account of the need for comprehensive environmental risk assessments?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

Concerning the proposed dams in the Pyrenees in the catchment of the river Ebro, the Commission
understands from the Spanish authorities that these dams do not have any connection with the proposed
Ebro transfer foreseen in the Spanish National Hydrological Plan and that they will not be used to regulate
the flow in the lower river. The Commission further understands from the Spanish authorities, that only
the existing Mequinenza and Ribarroja/Flix dams in the lower reaches of the Ebro catchment will be used
to regulate the flow at the abstraction point foreseen for the proposed transfer.

The Commission has requested information from the Spanish authorities regarding Community financing
of these projects. In their reply, the Spanish authorities inform that none of these projects are included in
the relevant Objective 2 Single Programming Documents, neither is there financing through the Cohesion
Fund.

With regard to the suspension of work on the Santaliestra dam, the Commission was aware of the fact that
work had been suspended.