WRITTEN QUESTION E-0847/04 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Mineral water extraction plant at Padernello di Paese (Treviso).
Date: 2004-03-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Veneto, beverage industry, environmental impact, exploitation of resources, groundwater, protected area, trade licence, water protection, water resources

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/235

Is the Commission already aware of this project?

Since it is not a project of priority public interest, how can its construction be allowed in an area proposed
as part of the Natura 2000 network?

What steps will the Commission take to protect the wetland in question and to ensure that the building
project is carried out elsewhere, if necessary?

Can the Commission say whether the project in question is being co-financed by the Community?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission was not aware of the project referred to by the Honourable Member: construction of a
‘health and wellness centre’
in the south of the island of
in the wetland of Es Salobrar (cid:1) Es Trenc,
Mallorca, which might involve the construction of a luxury hotel in the area.

The Commission has checked that the site in question has been classified as a special protection area (SPA)
for birds pursuant to Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
wild birds (1).

It should be noted that the Spanish authorities have also proposed the ‘Es trenc (cid:1) Salobrar de Campos
ES0000037’ site, which covers an area of 1 442 hectares, as a site of Community importance (SCI) for
future inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under the terms of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2).

The Commission has contacted the Spanish authorities
to seek their comments on how the
abovementioned Directives have been enforced in this particular case and to determine whether the
project in question is likely to have a significant effect on the site in terms of the objectives of Directive
92/43/EEC, in which case the procedure laid down in Article 6 thereof would have to be applied.

In any event, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary steps to ensure that
Community law is complied with in this case.

It should also be pointed out that investments in the health sector are not eligible for co-financing under
the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in Objective 2 regions. However, aid for hotel and
tourism enterprises may be assisted under that Fund.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 88 E/0238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0847/04

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject: Mineral water extraction plant at Padernello di Paese (Treviso)

Knowing that:

(cid:1) the technical committee on the extractive industries of the Veneto Region granted the request from
the company San Benedetto Spa to launch an operation to prospect for a source of mineral water to
be called ‘Padernello’ in the municipality of Paese (Treviso);

C 88 E/236

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

(cid:1) the licence issued by the Veneto Region was confined to prospecting rather than covering the
extraction of water for bottling and had a duration of one year, renewable for another year, subject to
the submission of a technical study of environmental compatibility to be carried out by the same firm;

(cid:1) on 15 October 2003 the Regional Government, via the Directorate for Geology and Water Resources,

extended the permit by Decree No 263.

Knowing that:

(cid:1) the problems linked to this extractive industry (cid:1) which has not even been launched fully (cid:1) has
already impoverished the acquifers, vital for the very existence of the Sile national park, and is causing
problems for the nearby urban area, in that an average of 200 extra lorries per day are using the
Postumia provincial road, which already has enough traffic congestion;

(cid:1) the San Benedetto company has occupied the neighbourhood of the acquifers with 175 square metres
of covered area, 2 625 000 cubic metres of new buildings above ground and another 450 000 cubic
metres underground and has applied to the municipality for more building land;

(cid:1) although the licence and the extension granted by the Region are confined to prospecting for
groundwater, the San Benedetto company has on several occasions announced that as of March 2004
it will start commercial bottling of the water, claiming, in the technical report accompanying the
application for more building land sent to the mayor of Paese, that once the plant is fully operational
about 2 500 litres of water will be extracted per year (cid:1) twice the quantity mentioned in the
application for the prospecting licence;

(cid:1) the investment in terms of capital and resources is far from commensurate with a one-year licence for

prospecting possibly renewable for another year;

(cid:1) the water extraction operation will affect an area adjacent to the Sile national park, pSIC IT3240011,

which, like the entire surrounding area, would be irreparably damaged by the planned work.

In view of all this can the Commission say:

(cid:1) whether the licences issued by the Veneto Region, the extraction work already under way and that
planned by the San Benedetto company are compatible with Community environmental legislation,
including provisions governing the protection of acquifers and environmental impact assessment;

(cid:1) what urgent measures it will adopt to protect pSIC IT3240011?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

Groundwater abstraction of less than 10 million cubic meters comes under Annex II of Council Directive
85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (1) (EIA Directive) 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 (2). The
EIA Directive provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects
likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, ‘inter alia’ , of their nature, size or location
are made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. From the information provided it is not
clear if development consent has been granted to the company San Benedetto for extracting 2 500 millions
litres of water per year. What is clear is that the Region has granted a licence for prospecting groundwater
extraction. When application will be made for actually abstracting groundwater then the Italian authorities
will have to determine, either through a case by case examination or according to thresholds or criteria,
whether the project is to be made subject to an assessment because of its likely significant effects on the
environment taking into account the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive.

Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3), define the procedure to be followed before authorising plans or
projects which are likely to have a significant impact on a Natura 2000 site. In particular, such plans or
projects have to be the object of an assessment of their effects on the sites from the point of view of their
conservation. The Italian authorities are responsible for evaluating whether the project is likely to have

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/237

a significant impact on the proposed site of Community interest ‘Sile: sorgenti, paludi di Morgano
e S. Cristina’ and, if that is the case, follow the procedure defined in the Directive before approval of the
project.

The Honourable Member does not provide concrete information that shows an effective degradation of the
Natura 2000 site and, therefore, the Commission is not in a position to identify a possible violation of
Community legislation.
the Honourable Member can provide detailed information enabling the
Commission to assess this issue in relation to the above-mentioned Directive, the Commission will then
be able to investigate this matter.

If

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

(2004/C 88 E/0239)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0850/04

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Correction for irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas

Commission Decision 2004/136/EC (1) of 4 February 2004 lays down a financial correction of
EUR 8,7 million for Spain on account of the irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas
and of shortcomings in checks on the quality of the end products.

What was involved in the shortcomings in checks on the quality of the end products? In what marketing
years did such shortcomings occur?

As regards the irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas, what irregularities have given
rise to the correction? In what marketing years did they occur? What volume of supplementary quotas was
granted improperly in each marketing year? To how many firms were supplementary quotas granted
improperly in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates? How many firms were eligible
for the supplementary quotas in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates?

(1) OJ L 40, 12.2.2004, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

In answer to the questions raised, the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat have been sent a
summary report extract explaining the grounds for the financial correction contained in Decision 2004/
136/EC (1) with respect to the processed tomato sector in Spain.

Please also note the following points:

(cid:1) the marketing years covered by the correction are: 1997/98 (very small amount concerning only the

correction for quality control of finished products), 1998/99, 1999/2000, 2000/01;

(cid:1) the volumes of the additional quotas granted are: 35 027 tonnes (1998/99), 14 341 tonnes (1999/

2000), 21 224 tonnes (2000/2001).