WRITTEN QUESTION E-0819/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Diversion of water from the River Júcar to Vinalopó in Valencia (Spain).
20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/29 it must be noted that within the Cohesion fund project In relation to the financing of this plan, No 97. 11. 61. 047, Plan de Gestión de los Residuos Sólidos Urbanos de Galiciaí, it is planned to build a number of transfer stations to transport the municipal waste from all Galicia to a central recycling and recovery plant in the Complexo Medioambiental de Cercedaí. In principle it was envisaged to build the transfer station in Vilaboa in order to collect the waste from the whole area of the city of Vigo and surroundings. Due to the social opposition to the construction of such a facility, and after a consideration of the plan with a view to locating the transfer stations closer to the production centres (the municipalities), it was decided to continue operating the existing transfer station in Vigo and to review the size of the transfer station in Vilaboa in order to adapt it to the needs of this municipality. (1) OJ L 194, 25. 7. 1975. (2) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985. (2001/C 53 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0819/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 2000) Subject: Diversion of water from the River Jœcar to Vinalopó in Valencia (Spain) According to recent press reports in the Autonomous Region of Valencia the Spanish Ministry of the Environment has asked the European Union for aid for the Jœcar-Vinalopó water diversion project. The work on this project was approved by the Spanish authorities in August 1998 for the alleged purpose of ámeeting the needs of the districts of Vinalopó, Alacanti and Marína Baja, without any danger of over- exploiting the aquifersí. However, since the project was announced, the neighbourhood associations of the communities affected, such as the Riu Xœquer coordinating committee, trade unions such as the CCOO and other environmental groups have been claiming that the various routes proposed, taking water from the La Muela or Cortes reservoirs, would have an extremely adverse environmental impact on the fauna, flora, landscape, aquifers and cultural heritage of the district they would go through. Furthermore the town councils, associations and communities affected have doubts about the energy efficiency arguments used by the projectís advocates, in that the energy saved by pumping the water from the La Muela reservoir would be lost elsewhere, since there is not enough volume to harness the waters downstream, making it impossible to use them to generate energy. Furthermore, the groups opposed to the diversion suspect that the real purpose of the project is to provide water resources for the Terra Míticaí theme park now under construction. In view of the fact that: ü the current environmental impact study accompanying the project does not assess to what extent the diversion will affect the minimum volume of water needed by the environment, ü the diverted waters flow thorough an area in which considerable human and financial resources have for many years been devoted to developing depressed areas, for example under the EUís Leader programme, and the project would have an adverse effect on these vulnerable areas, ü a study carried out by the regional government shows that taking water from the Jœcar would affect Lake Albufera (a protected zone under the LIFE programme), since 50 % of its water comes from the streams belonging to the Jœcar irrigation system, can the Commission say whether it is true that the Ministry for the Environment has applied for aid for the Jœcar-Vinalopó diversion? If so, under which budget heading is the allocation and what funding is being allocated Does the Commission not consider that this project may constitute an infringement of Community environmental legislation, in particular because of the absence of a statement of the environmental impact, the possible infringement of the Directive on habitats, etc. ? C 53 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (26 May 2000) The Commission cannot say at this stage whether a funding request for the project in question will form part of the new 2000-2006 programme under Council Regulation No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) or Council Regulation No 1164/1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (2). The projects to be put forward for Structural Fund financing will be determined once the current procedure for adopting the operational programmes has been completed. The Commission would point out that Article 2 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 (3) stipulates that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location must be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects before authorisation is granted. This provision applies to the projects listed in Annexes I and II to the Directive. As for the installations mentioned by the Honourable Member, Annex II(10)(e) refers to canalisation and flood-relief works, and Article 4(2) of the Directive stipulates that projects of the classes listed in Annex II must be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. Moreover, the Commission recently received a complaint on this same subject, and is currently examining the dossier. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will in any event take the necessary steps to ensure that Community law is observed in this instance. (1) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2) OJ L 130, 25. 5. 1994. (3) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985. (2001/C 53 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0842/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (21 March 2000) Subject: Erikaí disaster and environmental liability In the parliamentary debate of 2 March 2000 on the oral question Erikaí, I asked the Commissioner Fischler to respond to two questions: 1. What was his assessment of the likelihood of securing compensation from the owners of both the ship and its cargo, in accord with the call previously made by Parliament? 2. Whether the Commissionís proposals for a directive on environmental liability would embrace maritime incidents of this kind, ensuring in future that the polluter-pays principle can be firmly applied? The Commissioner answered neither of these questions. Will the Commission please do so now? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (11 May 2000) 1. Compensation for victims of the Erikaí accident is governed by two international conventions; the liability for oil pollution damage, as amended by the 1992 1969 International Convention on civil Protocol thereto and the 1971 Convention on an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage, as amended by the 1992 Protocol thereto. These conventions ensure that victims can receive compensation without having to prove fault or negligence of the shipowner and without having to rely on the solvency of the owner (since there is compulsory insurance for tanker owners). Compensation will therefore be available but it is limited to certain maximum amounts. For the shipowner the maximum