WRITTEN QUESTION E-3668/03 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission. Impact of the enlargement of the port of Altea on flora and fauna.
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, environmental impact, environmental law, harbour installation, project evaluation, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, replanting

C 84 E/78

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

These include:

(cid:1) Setting-up the legal framework and mechanisms for enhanced collaboration between all authorities
competent for the fight against counterfeiting (law enforcement, central banks including those of
acceding and third countries, Finance Ministries, etc.) at the level of Member States and European
Institutions-bodies;

(cid:1) Reinforcement of the penal measures against counterfeiting;

(cid:1) Intense training for all those concerned, general and specialised, at national, Union and international
level, for which the main vehicle is the specific programme Pericles for exchange, assistance and
training, managed by the Commission;

(cid:1) Continuous monitoring of the implementation of relevant legislation by the Member States; reporting

and proposals, where appropriate.

Overall, the measures taken at European and at national level to prevent and repress euro counterfeiting
have raised the level of protection and have increased security for the citizen.

These measures were taken prior to the introduction of the euro banknotes and coins. In particular, the
Europol mandate was extended to the counterfeiting of money in 1999; increased penal protection was
decided in May 2000 (3) in terms of setting minimum sanctions and extending the scope of punishable
acts; and Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 (4), which lays down measures for the protection of the
euro against counterfeiting, was adopted in June 2001.

(1) COM(2002) 124 final.
(2) Europaper No 44 (cid:1) April 2002.
(3) Council Framework Decision of 29 May 2000, OJ L 140, 14.6.2000.
(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the
euro against counterfeiting, OJ L 181, 4.7.2001. Extended to those Member States that have not adopted the euro
as their single currency in Council Regulation (EC) No 1339/2001 of 28 June 2001, OJ L 181, 4.7.2001.

(2004/C 84 E/0083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3668/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)
and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Impact of the enlargement of the port of Altea on flora and fauna

Various universities, ecological organisations and citizens’ groups, along with the two authors of this
question, have been alerting the Commission to the major consequences which the work on enlarging the
Campomanes Port in Altea will have, particularly on the posidonia beds and the dolphin population. The
Commission itself, which has directly approached the Spanish authorities in order to assess the case,
knows that the autonomous government intends to transplant the 40 hectares of posidonia threatened by
the building work. However, this option has been discounted as ‘not viable’ by most experts, given the
difficulties involved in replanting posidonia, and the fact that the dolphin community currently inhabiting
the area of the posidonia beds, is highly dependent on them.

The Commission’s answer to Written Question P-1450/03 (1) of 23 May 2003 stated that it was continuing
to study the case, and would shortly take a decision.

Could the Commission please specify what conclusions were reached in its investigation into the
environmental impact of the work on extending the port of Altea?

What decisions has it taken on this issue to date?

Do the Commission’s experts agree with the opinions emanating from the area’s universities on the ‘non-
viability’ of the autonomous government’s solution, namely transplanting the posidonia beds?

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 716.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/79

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Having studied the information available, the Commission concluded that the Spanish authorities had
correctly applied the provisions of Community environmental law with regard to the plan to enlarge the
Campomanes port in Altea. The Commission noted that an environmental impact assessment had been
carried out. The results of the assessment do not show that there will be a significant effect on the Site of
Community Importance (SIC) proposed by the Spanish authorities for the Natura 2000 network, situated
nearby. Moreover, the project will affect only 1 % (between 10 and 15 hectares) of the priority habitat of
Community interest (posidonia beds) found on the site.

Insofar as the project concerned will not have any significant impact on the site, Community legislation
does not require the adoption of compensatory measures. Therefore, although it is aware of the technical
difficulties involved in transplanting posidonia beds, the Commission is unable to comment on the viability
of such a step, or to prejudge the validity of other measures envisaged by the Spanish authorities to reduce
the project’s environmental impact.

As already stated, the Spanish authorities found that the project would not have a significant impact on
the site following an impact assessment study which took particular account of Article 6(3) of Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (1). Under these conditions, and in accordance with the said Article 6(3), the Spanish authorities can
decide to authorise the project without adopting compensatory measures. Any other measures
subsequently adopted by the Spanish authorities to protect the site would go beyond the application of
Community law.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 84 E/0084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3669/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Camarles monkey farm

The Centre de Recherches Primatologiques Ltd. has recently imported a total of 298 macaques for an
experimental farm in Camarles (Tarragona). The Commission has already been made aware of the problem
by Question E-2259/02 (1). These monkeys have been confiscated by the Catalan Generalitat’s Departament
de Medi Ambient, until such time as it can be guaranteed that they represent no threat of possible
contagion and risk of illness for the population, and likewise whether the activities carried out at the
Camarles farm are compatible with Catalan autonomous legislation.

However, despite the fact that the Spanish authorities have momentarily held back the permits for the
farm’s activities, while waiting for a final decision on the part of the Catalan autonomous government:

(cid:1) does the Commission not believe that by virtue of the provisions of Article 22 of the Directive 86/
609/EEC (2) on the unnecessary duplication of experiments on animals, it should approach the Spanish
authorities with regard to the operating plan of the envisaged installations, so as to guarantee that,
should the farm’s activities be carried out, they will respect this Directive;

(cid:1) is the Commission prepared to investigate the measures which both the research company and the
Spanish authorities have devised to ensure that Articles 5, 14 and 15 of the Directive are fully
complied with;

(cid:1) is the Commission aware of the fact that many of the imported macaques are of the macaca
fascicularis species, which comes under the CITES Red List, where it is classified as ‘almost threatened’?