WRITTEN QUESTION E-0775/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Negative impact of the extension of the Port of Altea (Alicante, Spain) on posidonia beds

My Written Questions E-1486/02(1) and E-1487/02(2), voiced my concern at the rapid deterioration of posidonia beds on the south east Spanish coast, and the inadequate protection being given, particularly in the Serra Gelada region, to this species protected by Directive 92/43/EEC(3).

A further problem has now been added to those highlighted in my previous questions, namely the planned building work to extend the Port of Altea, whose negative impact on the area's environment and above all its posidonia beds, have been described at length in reports drawn up by the Universities of Alicante and Almería respectively, and in the WWF's complaint 2001/2210 (all of which documents are currently before the Commission).

Given that in its reply of 12 July 2002, the Commission undertook to approach the Spanish authorities with a view to ensuring that the posidonia beds were adequately protected, has the Commission received any reply from the authorities with regard to such protection on the south east Spanish coast?

What steps does the Commission intend to take in order to guarantee that Directive 92/43/EEC is complied with as regards both the extension of the Port of Altea and the problems at Serra Gelada?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 158.

(2) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 159.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Joint answerto Written Questions P-0769/03 and E-0775/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The matters described by the Honourable Member in Written Question E-0769/03 are the subject of a complaint being investigated by the Commission. The Spanish authorities have been asked for their comments on the application of Community legislation in this particular case, but no response has yet been received.

Once it receives the response, the Commission will take any necessary action to ensure that the Spanish authorities observe Community law in the case in hand and in particular Directive 85/337/EEC(1), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC(2), and Directive 92/43/EEC(3).

Regarding the follow-up to Written Questions E-1486/02 and E-1487/02 mentioned by the Honourable Member in Written Question E-0775/03, the Commission would point out that, having examined the Spanish authorities' comments on the sand extraction and beach regeneration projects along the Mediterranean coast, it decided that they had applied the abovementioned Directives incorrectly and therefore took appropriate action. In another context, the bio-geographical seminar for the Mediterranean region held in Brussels in January 2003 recorded a general reservation in respect of all marine habitat types. Accordingly, the appropriateness of the Member States' proposal in relation to habitat type 1120 Posidonia beds will need to be examined in the light of the findings of an ad hoc working group of national experts, Commission representatives and other partners, set up recently to look in detail at subjects connected with the application of the Habitats and Birds Directives to the marine environment.

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.