92000E0804

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0804/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Installation of storage tanks for fuel and chemicals in the port of Vilagarcia de Arousa in Galicia without an environmental impact assessment

A new quay is being built in the port of Vilagarcia de Arousa in Galicia, with funding provided by the European Union through the ERDF, on which storage tanks with a capacity of 80 000 m3 for fuel and chemicals are to be placed, even though the environmental impact assessments required by Directive 85/337/EC(1) have not been carried out and the Council's planning regulations have not been complied with. The installations, which are owned by the FINSA and Foresa undertakings, are situated on an estuary which is highly vulnerable to pollution caused by the handling of these products and to the consequences of potential accidents involving ships transporting the products. The Arousa estuary is extremely rich in shellfish and, among other species, the bulk of the 300 000 tonnes of mussels produced annually in Galicia comes from here, representing 50 % of world production of mussels. Activities linked to fishing and shellfish farming provide a source of income for 26 000 people on the Arousa estuary, while the chemical installations on the quay will create only three jobs.

All the economic and social sectors affected have protested against the construction of these tanks and have appealed on many occasions to the municipal council, the Galician government and the Spanish government, and now to the European Commission, with the aim of preventing the storage tanks from coming into operation.

The regional and central administration, under the pretext that the Spanish government did not comply with the provisions of the EC directive and clearly disregarded the need for an environmental impact assessment for this type of installation for the storage of oil and petrochemical and chemical products, while failing to take due account of the productive activities which provide the best guarantee for the present and future livelihood of people along the estuary, is permitting work to continue, with the result that there is a serious risk that the installations will come into operation in defiance of the law and to the detriment of the vital economic and social interests of the many people affected. It might also be pointed out that the Commission has recently brought a case against Spain before the European Court of Justice for failure to comply with Directive 85/337/EC.

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that Community rules are complied with and the area is restored to its previous state, before the construction of the quay and the chemical and oil storage tanks in the port of Vilagarcia de Arousa, and to prevent the start or continuation of an operation which would be hazardous and seriously detrimental to fishing, shellfish farming and tourism, which represent the main source of income for people on the estuary and, indeed, throughout Galicia?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0790/00 and E-0804/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2000)

With regard to Council Directive 85/337/EEC(1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects 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. This provision applies to projects of the classes listed in Annexes I and II to the Directive.

As regards the facilities to which the Honourable Member refers, Annex I, point 8 includes trading ports, inland waterways and ports for inland waterway traffic which permit the passage of vessels of over 1 350 tonnes. Annex II, point 10 (d) includes the construction of ports (including fishing harbours) not listed in Annex I. Annex II, point point 6 (c) mentions storage facilities for petroleum, petrochemical and chemical products. Under the terms of Article 4 projects of the classes listed in Annex I must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment. Projects of the classes listed in Annex II must be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 97/11/EC(2) of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC provides that Member States must comply with the Directive by 14 March 1999 at the latest. However, under Article 3(2) if a request for authorisation is submitted before 14 March 1999 the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments continue to apply. It should be noted that the Commission automatically takes action whenever a Member State fails to communicate national implementing measures by the given deadline, under the terms of Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. As no official communication has been received, a reasoned opinion has just been sent to Spain regarding Directive 97/11/EC.

At all events, as guardian of the Treaties the Commission will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is complied with in the case in question. With regard to the possibility that the two projects concerned were cofinanced, the Commission has requested information from the Spanish authorities.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.