WRITTEN QUESTION E-0527/04 by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Enlargement of Arinaga port (Gran Canaria, Spain).
Date: 2004-02-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Canary Islands, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, harbour installation, impact study, protected species

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/699

(2004/C 88 E/0718)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0526/04

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Enlargement of Arinaga port (Gran Canaria, Spain)

The Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Port Authority has made public (Canaries Official
Journal of
14 November 2003) the Basic Arinaga Port Extension Scheme which affects the towns of Agüimes and
Santa Lucía. The future quay, occupying 2,2 km of coastline,
is intended for loading and unloading
passengers and goods such as gas and oil. The damage which the building work to enlarge Puerto de
Aringa will cause is far greater than the questionable socio-economic benefits it may provide, quite apart
from its impact on the fabric of business life in Puerto de La Luz and Las Palmas, as a result of diverting
part of container traffic and shipping to Puerto de Arinaga. The scheme will have grave effects on the most
productive of the coastal marine ecosystems and the sebadales, shrinking the breeding and growing area
for the species which are of interest to the fishermen of Agüimes (19 284 inhabitants) and Santa Lucía
(40 011 inhabitants). Moreover, it will affect the prospects for developing ‘green’ tourism in the area. The
scheme’s environmental impact study has not been drawn up with the requisite methodological seriousness
and expertise, since many of its claims are quite unjustified from a scientific point of view (e.g.: existing
alternatives to this new port, absence of impact on the coastal sedimentation patterns and therefore on
Playa del Inglés and Playa de Maspalomas; the absence of effects on the natural wave and wind patterns at
Pozo Izquierdo, Europe’s most important windsurfing site; the absence of effects on the Playa del Cabrón
site of Community interest
the failure to quantify the
(SCI) and on the sebadales of Arinaga Bay;
populations of protected species affected, or the interest of the area in the island context; the real value of
the scheme to the population of the surrounding towns; the loss of leisure opportunities and of exploitable
marine resources).

Can the Commission demand that alternative schemes be investigated, which would not have a negative
impact on the SCI and important bird areas affected by this scheme, nor prejudice the development
prospects for sustainable activities in the area, such as water sports, fishing, shellfishing, bathing and
leisure?

(2004/C 88 E/0719)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0527/04

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Enlargement of Arinaga port (Gran Canaria, Spain)

The Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Port Authority published (Canaries Official Journal of 14 November
2003) the Arinaga Port Basic Extension Scheme which, affects the towns of Agüimes and Santa Lucía. The
Environmental Impact Study is riddled with all sorts of inexcusable omissions. These include: the possible
negative repercussions on the tourist beaches of the south of the island, following the declassification of
part of the La Isleta Protected Nature Reserve, and the extension of Puerto de Las Palmas (there is no
justification for creating a further port and commercial area, and moreover, a port on this scale is not
necessary for off-loading gas); the extent of the sebadales which will be affected is greater than that of the
sebadales included in the Site of Community Interest (SCI) aforementioned; the conditions established in
the impact statement of
the serious damage done during the
construction of the first phase to the marine SCI’s sebadales, where dredging and other activities have been
carried out without an impact statement, or the requisite administrative authorisation to affect listed
species; the existence of other ports or alternative areas where there would be less environmental impact,
and therefore a lower price to be paid in environmental terms. The consequences of the building scheme
will be the destruction of a large part of Important Bird Area (IBA) 531, of major importance for the
conservation of various species, which was already broken up some years ago by the building of a power

the first stage have not been met;

C 88 E/700

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

station. The negative impact of the building of the first phase of the scheme on SCI ES7010053 will be
worsened still further. Windsurfing and surfing in this area, which is visited by some ten thousand
windsurfers per year, will be seriously affected, and will no longer be possible in Punta de La Gaviota and
subject to restrictions in Pozo Izquierdo, which site is famed for its ideal windsurfing conditions, as
indicated by the various world championships which have been held there for the last 13 years.

Can the Commission verify whether the environmental
the
consequences of extending the port, and the establishment of a system for compensating for the effects on
part of an SCI, part of an IBA, the loss of a saline system and of a major leisure and sporting area?

impact study has taken account of all

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0526/04 and E-0527/04
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the alleged facts referred to by the Honourable Member.

Article 6 of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora (1) states that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the
management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination
with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in
view of the site’s conservation objectives. In light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications
for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to
the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site
concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.

Similarly, port installations require environmental impact assessment (EIA) under the terms 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 (3).

According to the available information, the Commission is not in a position to identify a breach of the
applicable Community environmental law.

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

(2004/C 88 E/0720)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0569/04

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Leonardo da Vinci programme

The Commission’s Leonardo da Vinci programme is intended to help implement EU vocational training
policy. The European Union needs to ensure its citizens are better prepared for entry into the job market
and, in doing so, reduce the number of unemployed. The economy is also in need of a skilled workforce in
order to keep up with the rapid scientific and technological developments. Against this backdrop, the
Leonardo da Vinci programme serves as a laboratory of innovation in the field of lifelong learning.

Can the Commission provide a list of
the projects that have been approved under the Leonardo
programme over the last three years, including details of the promoters and the level of funding, stating
how much has been paid out and how much is outstanding?