WRITTEN QUESTION E-1059/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Canalisation of the Poyo, Torrente, Chiva and Pozalet ravines (Valencia).
C 46 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 Why did the Commission support the continued use of leaded petrol in these countries, even though it is widely known that lead in fuels can easily be replaced by other less polluting additives? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (5 June 2000) The Commission considered carefully the requests for derogation to continue the marketing of leaded petrol from the Member States in question. In coming to its decisions the Commission was well aware of the technical alternatives to leaded petrol. However, it became equally clear that considerable consumer uncertainty would have resulted in these Member States if derogations had not been granted and that this could have given rise to widespread disruption. The Commission thus concluded that the derogation periods granted were necessary to allow the authorities in the Member States to inform consumers accurately on this topic and to implement the necessary measures to ensure a smooth transition to unleaded petrol. (2001/C 46 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1059/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: Canalisation of the Poyo, Torrente, Chiva and Pozalet ravines (Valencia) the statement thereon by the Directorate-General The initial phase of the project to canalise a 42-kilometre stretch of gullies in the network of water courses in the Chiva ravine has recently been given the go-ahead. The project in question involves making the river bed wider and deeper, diverting its course and undertaking various resurfacing operations, as well as connecting tributary gullies to the main river bed. Although the authorities did indeed approve the for Environmental mandatory impact assessment, Quality, dated 15 March, contained a three-page annex setting out as yet undisclosed conditions which the project was supposed to satisfy. Various associations and bodies, including the Spanish Association of Limnology, Agro-Environmental Action, SEO-Birdlife and the Platform for a Green Ravine, have warned of the grave impact that such a project would have on the river and lakeside ecosystems concerned. Besides it would destroy spoiling the landscape, the project would have a number of effects. For instance, completely and irrevocably the plant life which currently colonises the river bed and its banks, as well as the plant species (mates) which line the area where the river flows into the lake, thus wiping out the natural habitats they provide for an array of protected species, bird life in particular. In addition, it would disturb the toxic substances which have settled on the river bed and lead to a build-up of sediment as the water began to circulate more quickly and a larger area of the basin was drained. That sediment would then be deposited in the La Albufera lake, thus inevitably serving to speed up the silting-up of the lake, which enjoys the highest protection afforded by the regulations governing the Nature Park in question. Furthermore, should this situation occur, the project to canalise the ravines would contravene several national and regional laws and also constitute a breach of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds (under which La Albufera is designated a special bird protection area) and Directive 92/43/ EEC (2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (under which Spain included the Nature Park as a protected area in Natura 2000 network). Could the Commission outline the current state of play as regards petitions 99/4494, SG(99), A/7586 and 99/4430, SG(99), A/6253, filed by environmental organisations from Valencia? To its knowledge, is the project in question receiving Community funding? Does it Community legislation? intend to initiate infringement proceedings for failure to comply with the aforementioned 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/115 Does it not think that the environmental impact statement is also flawed, since hitherto the requirements laid down in the annex thereto have gone unheeded and the process has failed to assess the damage to the Parkís most highly prized areas? (1) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979, p. 1. (2) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 7. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (18 May 2000) The Commission was informed of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers by complaints 99/4430 and 99/4494 mentioned in the written question. As part of its investigation, the Commission contacted the Spanish authorities several times to ask them for their observations. As they did not reply, the Commission then sent Spain a letter of formal notice pursuant to Article 10 (ex Article 5) of the EC Treaty. The project receives financial support from the Cohesion Fund (project number 98. 11. 61. 012). The Spanish authorities know that this support is conditional upon compliance with Community environ- mental legislation. Once the Commission has received their reply (including the environmental examine it to check whether relevant Community legislation has been complied with. impact statement) it will It would therefore be premature at this stage to say whether or not Community law has been infringed. (2001/C 46 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: Registration of GMOs in the USA based on deception and the misrepresentation of evidence According to Steven M. Drucker, a Doctor of Laws and specialist in administrative law, the Commissionís decisions on registering genetically modified plant varieties are based on erroneous assessments by the US Food and Drug Administration. For instance, when the American authorisation body permitted the marketing of the Flavr Savrí tomato which is also marketed in the EU in the form of tomato concentrate and ketchup, it was acting contrary to the specific test results of its own scientists. For laboratory tests show that when these tomatoes are fed to rats, this leads to a bleeding of the stomach walls. In view of this high health risk, the scientists advised against the authorisation of this product as a foodstuff. The safety tests on GMOs that have been authorised since then have been even less demanding ü in many cases, no tests at all were carried out. 1. Is the Commission aware of this information? Is the Commission prepared to examine these latest findings regarding the bleeding of stomach walls? 2. If not, why not? 3. What lessons will the Commission draw from these latest findings?