WRITTEN QUESTION E-0859/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Construction of a bottling plant on the island of La Gomera (Canaries, Spain).
13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/63 The Commission, whilst not geared to participate directly in the search and rescue efforts, responded immediately through its Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), whose partners were operational on the ground from the first wave of localised flooding in early February. The member of the Commission in charge of development cooperation and the Portuguese Presidency visited Mozambique within days of the second wave of flooding caused by cyclone Eline to assess the damage at first hand, and a senior ECHO specialist was deployed in Maputo to co-ordinate the Commissionís relief and resettlement intervention strategy with the government, the UN, the delegation and Member Statesí missions on the spot. In financial terms, the Commission made € 1 million available to provide emergency assistance to the victims of the first wave of flooding in Mozambique and Botswana. It also responded swiftly to the subsequent flooding wrought by Cyclone Eline by announcing another € 2 million for emergency relief, to provide support to those who had been driven from their homes, while € 1,4 million, locally available to the Commissionís delegate and the government of Mozambique, was offered with a view to improving food security for the victims. A further sum of € 5,58 million has since been earmarked for relief and resettlement operations, with the prime objectives of providing shelter, water, sanitation and health care to 100 000 people displaced by the flooding in the worst-affected provinces, while facilitating their rapid resettlement through the provision of seeds and tools to ensure a second harvest, and small-scale rehabilitation of essential health infrastructure. The intervention of the Commission and its partners in Mozambique is expected to continue for at least six months, while a flood relief intervention is also planned in Madagascar as a result of the needs assessment missions conducted concurrently throughout the region. To address the medium-term needs for rehabilitation of the afflicted areas, the member of the Commission, during his mission to Mozambique on 2-3 March 2000, announced an initial amount of € 21 million in additional funds. This sum could well be increased as the needs for reconstruction and rehabilitation become clear. Finally, in order to maintain the rapid growth achieved by Mozambique in recent years, the increasing level of co-operation envisaged before the disaster will be maintained. This will result in disbursements estimated at € 150 million this year, as compared to an estimated € 100 million in 1999. This raft of interventions shows that the actions of the Member States and of the Commission in support of the Government of Mozambique have been generous, rapid and responsible. Indeed, mid-March figures from the UN (OCHA) in Maputo put the international contributions at € 115 million, of which the Member States and the Community had pledged € 85 million, almost 74 % of the total figure. The Commission, via its delegation in Maputo, and the Member States continue to be actively involved in the Government-led donor co-ordination mechanisms on the spot. These donor co-ordination groups are closely following the needs assessments exercises currently being carried out and, in the light of the results, the Commission will decide on future action to be taken. (2001/C 46 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0859/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Construction of a bottling plant on the island of La Gomera (Canaries, Spain) On the island of La Gomera, a water bottling plant is currently being constructed. This project is receiving EU funding under the Investment Plan for La Gomera, which qualifies for Community aid. C 46 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 However, the building works, which have already reached the second phase, are facing a broad current of opposition, from neighbourhood associations, farmersí organisations and ecological groups, who have filed complaints with the local, national and Community institutions on the following grounds: ü the plant will have an adverse environmental effect on two areas which are protected on the grounds of their ecological importance, namely Palmeral de Tagaluche and Lomo del Carretón (LIFE identifying Nos. : ES 7020108 and ES 7020037 respectively); ü the project has not been submitted to the mandatory environmental impact assessment. This has been admitted by the environment ministry of the regional government of the Canaries. All that exists is an unreliable impact assessment carried out by the municipal council of Valle Gran Rey, which is the body promoting and defending the project; ü it will eliminate the water supply for the farmers who, under the common land system, get their irrigation water from the Mena, Choquete and Tederas springs. The complainants believe that the rhythm of extraction proposed for the plant will lead to the exhaustion of the upper watercourse which feeds the springs, within five years; ü the project has been declared to be áof social interestí, when in reality it is only expected to create seven jobs while 116 farmers would be affected. Should the work continue, the private interests of the bottling industry would be seen to prevail over the public interests of the local residents affected. In view of the above: ü does the Commission not consider that the EU-funded construction work on this bottling plant could be in breach of such major environmental directives as Directive 97/11/EC on environmental impact assessment (1) and Directive 92/43/EC on the protection of habitats (2)? ü can the Commission state what action has so far been taken concerning complaint No 99/4875, SG(99) A/10714/2, filed by Mrs M. A. Rodríguez on behalf of the Plataforma por la Defensa del Aguaí ( Platform to Protect our Waterí) (Tagaluche)? ü would the Commission consider sending a delegation to La Gomera to ascertain the real impact of the construction work on this bottling plant on the environment of the above-mentioned protected areas and on agricultural activity? (1) OJ L 73, 14. 3. 1997, p. 5. (2) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 7. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (8 May 2000) The Tagulucheí and Lomo del Carretóní sites, covering 140 and 263 hectares respectively, have been identified by the Spanish authorities as sites of Community importance for possible inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. It should be noted that the Commission has already received a complaint concerning the construction of the water bottling plant at Taguluche, in the Valle Gran Rey district, Gomera. The Commission is examining the dossier to see whether the project ü to which the provisions of Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC must be applied ü is likely to have a significant effect on the sites in question, in view of their conservation objectives. As part of its investigation, the Commission has asked the Spanish authorities for their comments. 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/65 The project has not received any financial support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). At all events, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is complied with in the case in question. (2001/C 46 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0861/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Problems arising in multinational research programmes funded by the European Union One of the institutions participating in a fisheries research project (FAIR CT-97-3508) claimed sole credit for a joint research idea, research plan and preliminary results obtained jointly, and published them under its own name. It had previously been agreed with each institute that the findings were not yet to be published because they were still preliminary and moreover because, from the point of view of the further use to be made of them, it was important to consider carefully when would be the best time to publish them. The EU coordinator informed the management of the institute concerned of this by letter. The institute concerned acted so secretively that it was not until about a year later that the other EU partners discovered what had happened to the joint plan and findings. The instituteís actions caused both economic and scientific damage to the EU, other institutes and the world scientific community, as well as to many businesses cooperating on the project. The extent of the damage cannot yet be assessed. It did prove possible to continue the project, as its basis was very strong, it was well planned, and the institutes participating in it were leaders in their field. The EU does not have an assessment system, for example a supranational ethics committee, which would act swiftly in such circumstances to ensure that research projects did not suffer on account of delays. Such a committee, which would be well versed in scientific research, would not be a court but could give advice, make recommendations and, as the funding body, could if necessary institute special monitoring of a participant which was evidently selfish and out of control. The mere existence of a supranational body would be likely to discourage scientific dishonesty. If, in spite of everything, a case did come before the courts, an international opinion would be helpful to the local court in considering the non-material issues at stake, and the committee could help to protect the rights of all. A system based on complex agreements and a judicial institution would be quite alien to the world of science and would, moreover, be slow. The basis for effective scientific cooperation should remain mutual trust and awareness of oneís own know-how, i. e. certain ethical standards, which fortunately are second nature to the vast majority of scientists. In order nonetheless to be able to deal with such problems more swiftly in future, I would ask the Commission: 1. What attitude will it adopt towards such breaches of contract? 2. What will it do to ensure that breaches do not recur? How will the EU investigate such cases?