WRITTEN QUESTION P-0693/00 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Effective depollution of the Thermaic Gulf ‐ environmental conditions for biological treatment.
C 26 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 It is no exaggeration to say that the Leader programme is changing the face of this rural district and making an exemplary contribution to improving its quality of life and economic development. In this context I had the opportunity of confirming that the Leader programme is exceptionally successful and it is hard to imagine a more suitable instrument for rural development. However, I noted a degree of apprehension on the part of the leaders of Adeliaçor on two fundamental points, firstly the timetable for the application of the Leader+ programme there, and secondly the deadlines for payment. Could the Commission indicate the foreseeable timetable for all the measures needed to ensure that the Leader+ programme is introduced there (approval of the programme, deadlines for the submission of applications by the Member States and the launching of tendering procedures on the spot)? Does the Commission not consider it would be useful to carry out a detailed study of the channels and financial formalities for the structural funds involved from the moment the money leaves the Communityís coffers until it reaches the promoter of individual projects, as well as the actual deadlines, so as to make it clear why payments are systematically delayed? In any event, can the Commission say what level of priority it considers should be given to the application of the Leader+ programme in the most remote areas of the outermost regions? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 April 2000) The expected timetable for implementing Leader+ is as follows: once the lawyer-linguists have examined the text of the guidelines, formally adopt it and the Leader+ communication containing the final version will be published in the Official Journal; Member States will then have six months to submit their programmes to the Commission, which in turn will have a maximum of five months to approve them; once the programmes have been approved, Member States will have a maximum of two years to select beneficiaries. the Commission will Having noted a number of implementation problems with Leader II, particularly in relation to the complexity of certain financial channels, the Commission states in the draft Leader+ communication that it áfavours the use of global grantsí where this aims for simplification, without prejudicing the principle of sound and rigorous management. In addition, programmes will be required to describe áthe management arrangements and the procedures for the mobilisation and circulation of financial flows, including the Community funding, as far as the final beneficiary. The ex-ante evaluation must confirm that the implementing arrangements are appropriateí. All rural areas in the Community will be eligible for Leader+, including the remotest rural areas of the outermost regions. Member States will be free to opt for specific zoning of Leader+ if necessary, depending on the strategy chosen. (2001/C 26 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0693/00 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (3 March 2000) Subject: Effective depollution of the Thermaic Gulf ü environmental conditions for biological treatment One of the biggest infrastructure projects for the protection of the environment in the Thessaloniki region, financed by the Cohesion Fund, threatens not to meet the environmental protection standards for which it was designed. The project ü Extension and completion of a plant for the biological treatment of sewage in Thessaloniki ü Stage IIí ü is at risk of not being completed, being financially unsustainable and, above all, of creating a second source of pollution and eutrophication, thereby defeating the object of the exercise. The legitimate concerns that the project falls short of the environmental standards required to clean up the 26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/89 Thermaic Gulf and the constant misgivings that many of the biological treatment plants under construc- tion in Greece will operate efficiently raise significant question marks about the effective use of Community finance from the Cohesion Fund and about the Communityís environmental protection strategy. 1. Where will the underwater section of the pipe with two branches, each totalling 2 600 metres in length, be situated (distance and location) and is it true that the original plan is to be altered? Is it true that the current plan for laying the underwater pipe will create another major source of 2. pollution in the Thermaic Gulf owing to its proximity to the shore, and another source of eutrophication because of the hydrological conditions in the Thermaic Gulf? Is it true that the project will not be effective in environmental protection terms without constructing 3. another treatment plant for tertiary processing? 4. What happens to the industrial waste from the four industrial estates in Thessaloniki? Will it undergo if not, what provision has been made to protect the environment in the appropriate treatment and, Thermaic Gulf? 5. What problems have been identified in Greece in connection with projects concerning the biological treatment of sewage and what impact do they have on effective environmental protection? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (10 April 2000) The purpose of Phase II of the project to extend and complete the biological treatment facilities for Thessaloniki, part-financed by the Commission and the Greek authorities, is to improve the quality of water in the Thermaic Gulf. To that end, the project has been allocated sufficient resources for its completion. The work also meets the environmental standards governing the Thermaic Gulf, whose water quality is being monitored in order to detect any possible problem or future need. On the basis of information from the Greek authorities, the Commission can state the following: 1. The dual-branch underwater pipeline is being constructed in accordance with the initial plans. It will be installed 800 metres north-west of the Chalastra pumping station and will run from north-west to south-east. The two branches will run side by side for 972 metres before diverging by 30 o for 1 620 metres and 1 600 metres respectively. Diffusers will be placed at a depth of 23 metres over the last 400 metres of the pipeline. 2. Far from causing pollution, the project to collect and treat Thessalonikiís urban waste water will improve the environment: based on oceanographic findings by the national maritime research centre and Thessaloniki university, the distance and depth of the underwater pipeline have been chosen so as to prevent pollutant effects. 3. The work has been carried out in accordance with the satisfactory environmental standards in force. The Phase II treatment plant currently under construction will enable all the conurbationís waste water to undergo comprehensive secondary treatment with additional nitrogen treatment, particularly during the summer, although the discharge does not occur in an area which the Member State regards as sensitive. Provision has been made for adding phosphorus treatment facilities if necessary. The Commission is monitoring changes in the environment of the Thermaic Gulf and will ensure that the most appropriate treatment level is applied. 4. The preventive measures with regard to industrial waste from the four areas comprise: the require- ment under current Greek legislation that industry must pretreat such waste before being connected to Thessalonikiís biological treatment facilities; the fully-equipped laboratory for monitoring discharge quality, to be installed within those facilities; and the toxicity indicator monitoring system, to be installed at the junction between the pipeline and Thessalonikiís industrial area. C 26 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 5. treatment (1), on In accordance with Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water 11 February 2000 Greece supplied to the Commission official notification of its sensitive areas ü including Thessaloniki harbour at the end of the bay. The Commission considers that the whole of Thessaloniki bay probably show signs of eutrophication and the Greek authorities have therefore been asked to examine this point in more detail. The Commission is also verifying whether all Member States are identifying sensitive areas correctly in accordance with the Directive. A report of its findings will be published at the beginning of 2001. (1) OJ L 135, 30. 5. 1991. (2001/C 26 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0699/00 by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (17 March 2000) Subject: Meetings between Commission officials and Patrick Peter How many meetings have Patrick Peter (of GTR and ADISA) and his consultant, Maitre Christian Lamonin, had with Commission officials? Which officials were present at these meetings and when did they take place? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 April 2000) The Honourable Memberís question relates to a pending competition investigation. As regards parliament- ary questions on pending cases, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the letter of the then member of the Commission in charge of competition policy dated 28 January 1999 to the then Chairman of Parliamentís committee on Economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy which explained that only limited, general and non-confidential information can be provided in relation to pending cases. Consequently, the Commission can only confirm that it has had several meetings with the representatives of the company GTR after GTR had introduced, in November 1997, a complaint against the FØdØration Internationale de líAutomobile (FIA) and a number of other companies, in particular FOA and ISC. The Commission has never held private meetings with Mr Peter or his consultant Mr Lamonin as individuals. For confidentiality reasons, the Commission is not in a position to disclose the number of meetings with the complainant in questions, namely the GTR company, or the identity of those who took part in those meetings. (2001/C 26 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0703/00 by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Council Subject: The European Union and the genocide in Chechnya (14 March 2000) Since the fall of Grozny, the genocidal nature of the war waged by the Russian army has become even clearer. Should the military action be followed through to its final conclusion, it would lead to the extermination of the Chechen people and Russiaís taking over the depopulated territory of Chechnya. Russiaís genocidal action in Chechnya is far worse than Serbiaís in Kosovo, but the European Council, a prisoner of unjustifiable and unacceptable ideological prejudices and political interests, has taken not one serious measure to help prevent the tortures and deaths inflicted on the Chechens, and the appalling destruction of their country