WRITTEN QUESTION E-3274/03 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Impact of the laying of artificial beaches in Caleta de la Guirra in the municipality of Antigua (Fuerteventura, Spain).
Date: 2003-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Canary Islands, application of EU law, coastal protection, environmental impact, project evaluation, public works

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/505

On the grounds that the method of disposing of the sewage sludge from Psittalia, which consists of
transferring it to the Ano Liosia landfill site, already almost full to capacity, is not compatible with the
requirements of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 on urban waste water treatment (1) or of
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (2), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC
of 18 March 1991 (3), the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC
Treaty. A reasoned opinion was sent to Greece in July 2003. The Greek authorities replied, giving their
comments on the Commission’s allegations. The reply is now being examined. The Commission will take
all the appropriate measures to ensure that Community environmental law is observed.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(3) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(2004/C 78 E/0525)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3274/03

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Impact of the laying of artificial beaches in Caleta de la Guirra in the municipality of Antigua

(Fuerteventura, Spain)

Artificial beaches are being laid in Caleta de Guirra (Municipality of Antigua on Fuerteventura) on a
publicly-owned stretch of coastline. This has destroyed a seaboard of great natural value with significant
marine and fisheries resources (including the species of small crab used as bait for parrot fish). This
symbolic area is also used by native and visiting species of birds such as stonechats, Egyptian vultures,
trumpeter finches, cream-coloured coursers, plovers, turnstones, dunlins, egrets, herons and flamingos as a
stopping-off point, to rest and to nest.
In the course of the work a site of great palaeontological
importance has been discovered. Reports prepared by respected palaeontologists from Canary Islands
universities show this to be the richest and most extensive site found on the island of Fuerteventura to
date. It contains a vast quantity and great variety of marine fossils dating back over 100 000 years. Since
late 2002, heavy machinery has been destroying the seaboard and ravaging the site day after day,
excavating and extracting tonnes of fossil material and carrying it off to an unknown location. The Canary
Islands Green Party has filed a complaint with the local and central government authorities of the Canary
Islands and applied for suspension of the work pursuant to Law 4/1999 of 15 March 1999 on the
Historical Heritage of the Canary Islands. However, the work is continuing, and fresh discoveries are still
being made. A complaint and application for suspension of the work have also been filed with the Office
of the Public Prosecutor for the Environment and Court of Instruction No 2 in Puerto de Rosario. The
Secretary-General for the Environment (see Resolution 7039 in Official State Gazette No 88 of 12 April
2002) exempted the project in La Guirra from an environmental impact statement, ignoring the adverse
opinions issued with regard to it during the consultation process. An environmental impact assessment
should have been an imperative owing to the presence of a palaeontological site and because the area’s
natural resources have been undervalued (impact on the halophile coastal vegetation, on Canary tamarisk,
and on marine phanerogams in the subtidal zone; destruction of the area in which bait is collected for
parrot fish, a species typical to the area and the bait for which is slowly disappearing).

Will the Commission take action to ensure that the impact assessment procedure laid down in Directive
97/11/EC (1) is applied?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

The Commission has checked that the area where the project is to be implemented has not been
designated by the Spanish authorities as a Special Area of Conservation included in the Natura 2000
Network within the terms of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

C 78 E/506

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The project, as described by the Spanish authorities, consists of coastal works along 600 meter (m) of the
shoreline to allow for bathing activities. The main actions considered in the project are the construction of
a discontinuous dyke and the deposit of sand in order to build the beach. This kind of project is listed in
Annex II (cid:1) point 1, k) (cid:1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (2), as amended by Council
Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment.

Pursuant to Article 4.2 of the above Directive, Member States shall determine, on a case-by-case basis,
according to thresholds or criteria, or a combination of both, whether a project listed in Annex II shall be
made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive. For this purpose,
Member States shall take into account the selection criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive, which
refers to the characteristics of the project,
its location and the characteristics of the potential impact.
Member States shall ensure that the determination made by the competent authorities is made available to
the public.

As stated in the Resolution of 14 March 2002, the Spanish authorities have determined whether this
project should be made subject to an impact assessment procedure. This determination has concluded that
the project is not likely to have significant effects on the environment and, therefore, no impact assessment
should be required.

According to available information, the Commission considers that the Spanish authorities have respected
the provisions of the above-mentioned Council Directives concerning the mentioned project.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1993.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2004/C 78 E/0526)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3275/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Destruction of Russian forests

It is reported that the Russian Government plans to sell off a vast proportion of Russia’s forests to private
logging companies. Such forests act as a giant ‘carbon sink’ second only in importance to the Amazonian
rainforests. Is the Commission aware of this situation and, if so, what does it believe that the EU can do to
dissuade the Russians from a policy that can have enormously damaging environmental consequences?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission is not aware of any plans on the part of the Government of Russia to sell off a vast
proportion of Russia’s forests to private logging companies although it has seen press reports regarding the
new Russian Forest Code. Concessions granted to companies, private or otherwise, may or may not have
an adverse effect on the management of those forests. The Russian Government has expressed its
commitment to the sustainable management of its forests in various international fora, among them the
Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe. The Commission expects Russia to live up
to those commitments and implement the relevant resolutions.