WRITTEN QUESTION E-0447/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Damage to the environment of the Peñiscola marshes (Valencia) caused by EU-funded projects.
C 26 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 the GAC decision last October, and with monitoring arrangements already in place. The Federal Republic of Yugoslaviaís authorities held up the first convoy at the border for a fortnight; demonstrations ensued in Nis and Pirot demanding the release of the oil. When the trucks eventually entered Nis they were greeted by crowds cheering the European Union. The project has, however, been highly successful ü reflected in the decision of the GACís decision to extend it, which again the Commission did very rapidly indeed. (2001/C 26 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0447/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission (24 February 2000) Subject: Damage to the environment of the Peæiscola marshes (Valencia) caused by EU-funded projects The Peæiscola marshes are currently being affected by building and drainage programmes linked to the opening of the N-1 road, the reclamation of six kilometres of coastline, the building of a new promenade and the construction of tourist accommodation and golf courses. All these planned projects are having a direct impact on the environment of this wetland area which is of great importance to the species of flora and fauna found there. Environmental organisations have protested about this situation to the Community institutions without as yet receiving any response to their complaints, which include the following: ü the Peæiscola marshes are the habitat of indigenous species of fish and birds (some of which are included as protected species in the directive on the protection of birds) and should thus be declared a zone of special interest by the Spanish authorities as part of the Nature 2000 network; ü the range of projects approved by the Spanish authorities have not been accompanied by an environmental impact statement (since they were considered individually as minor works not affecting the environment and it was not thought necessary to draw up a study of their total overall impact; ü 85 % of the cost of the coastal reclamation project is being funded by the Community: ü the zone concerned continues to be classified as áeligible for developmentí, despite the various statements by the authorities pledging to classify it as a protected wetland area. In the light of the above considerations and bearing in mind that the Commission already has all the relevant documentation on the matter provided by the organisations which lodged the complaint, does the Commission not consider it contradictory that on the one hand Community legislation should seek to protect a natural area inhabited by species included under the directive on birds, while on the other hand Community funds are being used to carry out works which threaten the environment of this same area? Will the Commission send a delegation to the marshes to determine whether the impact of these projects is harmful to the environment as claimed by the environmental organisations? Does it consider that the Spanish authorities may have infringed Community legislation by not requiring the compulsory environmental for these projects, because it considered them separately rather than as a whole? to be carried out impact assessment Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (7 April 2000) Firstly, it should be noted that the Marjal de Peæiscolaí area to which the Honourable Member refers has not been classified by the Spanish authorities as a special protection area for birds under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Neither has it been 26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/45 identified by the scientific community as an important area for birds in the inventory prepared for the Commission in 1998 by national experts and Birdlife. Moreover, the Spanish authorities have not identified it as a site of Community importance for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. However, the Commission has information on the presence of a priority species listed in Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC in this area. It hosts one of the four natural populations of Valencia hispanica. The Commission has therefore asked the Spanish authorities to include the site in the national list referred to in Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC. The Spanish authorities have undertaken to officially notify the inclusion of the Marjal de Peæiscolaí site shortly. With regard to Council Directive 85/337/EEC (3) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment, it should be noted that Article 2 thereof provides that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size or location must be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects before authorisation is granted. The Commission was informed of the projects to which the Honourable Member refers when investigating a complaint and a petition from Parliamentís Committee on Petitions relating to the same problem. It should be pointed out that the projects in question are of classes which are either not listed in the Annexes to Directive 85/337/EEC or listed in Annex II. Under the terms of Article 4(2) projects of the classes listed in Annex II must be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. The Spanish authorities have undertaken to take the necessary measures to ensure that the projects will not affect the Marjal de Peæiscolaí site. At all events, the Commission will continue to investigate the matter and, in its role as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is complied with. (1) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992. (3) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985. (2001/C 26 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0454/00 by Karin Jöns (PSE) to the Commission (24 February 2000) Subject: Austrian warnings concerning salted saithe products and smoked salmon under the rapid warning system for foodstuffs (pursuant to Directive 92/59/EEC) Since February 1998 the Austrian Federal Chancellery has been repeatedly warning against the consump- tion of salted saithe products and smoked salmon inter alia from Germany. The rapid warning system is triggered because Austrian food testing establishments judge qualitatively positive findings of Listeria monocytogenes in 25 g samples harmful to health (pursuant to § 8 (a) of the 1975 Law on Foodstuffs). In other Member States, for example France and Germany, such findings do not comprise sufficient grounds for withdrawing the products in question from circulation. The warnings are disseminated throughout the EU under the rapid information exchange system and cause substantial financial losses to the manufac- turers concerned, who may be faced with the alternative of either avoiding the Austrian market or seeing their reputation permanently damaged throughout the EU single market, even though it is only on the basis of Austrian criteria that there is a supposed risk. 1. In the opinion of the Commission (to be precise, the competent expert advisory committee on foodstuffs of animal origin, the former veterinary committee), what are the risks to health from Listeria monocytogenes?