EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Committee on Petitions NOTICE TO MEMBERS

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN PARLIAMT Committee on Petitions NOTICE TO MEMBERS Subject: Petition 0338/2010 by T.F.T (Spanish), on behalf of the Plataforma por la defensa de los valles verdes, on water catchment facilities and the sinking of wells in the Sierra de Cazorla, wildlife park in Segura y las Villas, Jaén 1. Summary of petition The petitioners expressed concern at the unfavourable impact on groundwater in the Sierra de Cazorla natural park resulting from the sinking of wells as part of the large-scale private profit-making irrigation project for 654 hectares of olive groves being planned by the Beas del Segura irrigation association. The wells are being sunk in a location declared a protected wildlife area by the Andalusian Government in 1986 and designated as a biosphere reserve by UNESCO. The petitioners maintain that Community legislation is being infringed, including the Habitats Directive (the location being SCI ES forming part of the Natura 2000 network) and Directive 79/409/EEC (since the area is special bird protection area), together with national legislation including the Guadalquivir Hydrological Plan and the Sierra de Cazorla wildlife park management plan. 2. Admissibility Declared admissible on 1 July Information requested from Commission under Rule 216(6). 3. Commission reply, received on 13 January The petition concerns the approval of the 645 ha irrigation project in the province of Jaén with water taken from the Natural Park of Sierras de Cazorla, Segura y las Villas. According to the petitioners, the impact of the catchment on the hydraulic resources of the Natural Park, which is also a Natura 2000 site has not been adequately assessed. The impact of the other CM\ doc PE v08-00 United in diversity

2 accompanying facilities that will have to be built within the borders of the site (aerial power line) has also not been properly assessed. The petitioners claim that the provisions of environmental European legislation: the Habitats Directive 92/43/ECC 1, the Birds Directive 2009/147/EC 2 and the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC 3 have not been respected. The site ES , "Sierras de Cazorla Segura y las Villas", has been designated as a site of Community importance under the provisions of the Habitats Directive and as a special protection area under the provisions of the Birds Directive. The Habitats Directive requires (articles 6.3 and 6.4) that any project likely to have a negative effect upon such sites is subject to an assessment. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, the competent authorities shall agree to such a plan only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. The provisions contained in article 6 (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC constitute a form of derogation regime, setting out the circumstances within which plans and projects with negative effects may or may not be allowed. According to the information available, the environmental impact statement of this project (DIA) does not show that an adequate assessment of its impact on the ecological values that motivated the designation of this site has been conducted. Conclusions The Commission will, therefore, contact the Spanish authorities in order to assess whether or not the provisions of the Habitat and Water Framework Directives were respected. 4. Commission reply (REV), received on 6 September The Commission asked the Spanish authorities for detailed information about the evaluation of the impact of the catchment on the water resources as well as about the impact of the accompanying facilities (to be built within the borders of the site, as an aerial power line). The examination of the reply received from Spain has, however, prompted new questions and the need for further information as regards the conformity of the assessment performed with the provisions of the Habitats Directive. Consequently, the Commission has requested further detailed information from the Spanish authorities. 5. Commission reply (REV II), received on 27 January The Commission asked the Spanish authorities twice for detailed information about the evaluation of the impacts of the catchment on the hydraulic resources of the site of Community importance (SCI) and the special protection area (SPA) ES "Sierras de 1 OJ L 206, Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. OJ L 20/7, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. OJ L 327, PE v /6 CM\ doc

3 Cazorla Segura y las Villas". Regarding the provisions of the Directive 92/43/EEC 1 (Habitats Directive) the information received did not answer certain points and the Commission has, once again, asked the Spanish authorities to provide a reply. Regarding the application of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 2, it should be noted that this project has been the subject of an EIA procedure. The Commission services have examined the additional information provided by the petitioner on this matter and also requested some clarifications from the Spanish authorities in this respect. The information provided by the Spanish authorities has proved that a deterioration of the aquifer status is not expected. In this regard, the most relevant report that was issued by the Planning Office of the Guadalquivir Basin Authority states that the authorised extraction for the three wells ( m3/year) is very little compared with the available resource (70 Hm3/year). The yearly extraction of water is estimated at 22.7 Hm3/year. According to the information provided by the regional minister of environment, the hydrological resources are being monitored following the recommendations of the Spanish Geological and Mining Institute. As regards the alleged infringement of EU law on environmental liability 3, pursuant to Article 12 of the Environmental Liability Directive, a natural or legal person having a sufficient interest in environmental decision-making relating to the damage [including nongovernmental organisations working on environmental protection and meeting the requirements of the legislation] may submit to the competent authority 4 any observations relating to instances of environmental damage or imminent threat of such damage of which they are aware and may request the competent authority to take action under this directive. In addition, the said directive states that Member States shall determine what constitutes sufficient interest and impairment of a right. The request for action shall include all relevant information and data supporting the observations submitted in relation to the environmental damage in question, showing persuasively that environmental damage exists. The competent authority can consider such comments and requests for action, granting to the concerned operator the opportunity to make known their views on the request for action and the accompanying observations. The competent authority must subsequently inform the concerned persons of its decision to accede to or refuse the request, and the reasons behind it. It is worth noting that, under Article 13 of the directive, the concerned persons have access to a court or another independent and impartial public body competent to review the procedural and substantive legality of the decisions, acts or failure to act of the competent authority under 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992, on the protection of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. O.J. L 206 of Directive 85/337/EEC (OJ L 175, ) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (OJ L 073, ), Directive 2003/35/EC (OJ L 156, ) and Directive 2009/31/EC (OJ L 140, ). 3 Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. Official Journal L 143, 30/04/2004 P Under Article 11.1 of Directive 204/35/EC, "Member States shall designate the competent authority(ies) responsible for fulfilling the duties provided for in this Directive.". CM\ doc 3/6 PE v08-00

4 this directive. All this, without prejudice to any provisions of national law which regulate access to justice and those which require that administrative review procedures be exhausted prior to recourse to judicial proceedings. However, the additional information provided by the petitioner in September 2011 has not explained how he has used the mechanisms provided for this purpose by the Directive 2004/35/EC. Under these circumstances, the Commission is not able to pursue any further the subject of his request as regards the alleged breach of the directive on environmental liability 6. REV Commission reply, received on 30 May 2012 On three occasions information has been requested from the competent authorities in relation to the assessment of the potential impact the project may cause in the site of Community importance (SCI) and a special protection area (SPA) ES "Sierras de Cazorla Segura y las Villas and concerning the identification of the impact of the water catchments on the aquifers of the SCI. The answers given by the Spanish authorities have failed to clarify the existing concerns about the lack of an appropriate assessment of the negative effects of the project on the Natura 2000 network. In addition, the information provided by the Spanish authorities seems to admit that the catchment has already caused some negative effects in the SCI and SPA. The Commission also maintains its concerns regarding the requirements of the environmental impact statement which might not have been properly implemented and monitored. Therefore, the Commission is considering opening an infringement case as regards the impact of the project on the Natura 2000 network. 7. Commission reply (REV IV), received on 30 April 2013 On 21 March 2013, under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission decided to send a letter of formal notice 1 to Spain in relation to the authorisation and exploitation of the irrigation project in the municipal districts of Beas de Segura and Arroyo de Ojanco (province of Jaén, Andalusia, Spain) with water taken from the Natura 2000 site Sierras de Cazorla, Segura y Las Villas. According to the Commission, the irrigation project referred to did not undergo (before approval) an adequate assessment of its effects on the groundwater resources and on the natural habitats and species present in the Natura 2000 site. This would represent a breach of basic obligations under the Environmental Impact 1 The letter of formal notice is the first stage in the pre-litigation procedure, during which the Commission requests a Member State to submit its observations on an identified problem regarding the application of EU law within a given time limit. PE v /6 CM\ doc

5 Assessment 1 and Habitats 2 Directives. 8. Commission reply (REV. V), received on 29 November 2013 On 30 September 2013 the Commission sent Spain a Reasoned Opinion, under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, setting out its position on the infringement and the action required on the part of the Spanish authorities to ensure compliance with the relevant obligations under the Environmental Impact Assessment 3 and Habitats 4 Directives. In its Reasoned Opinion, the Commission took the view that the Spanish authorities have failed to respect key obligations under the above-mentioned Directives by authorising the irrigation project in the Jaén province without having properly assessed its potential impact on groundwater and on the Natura2000 sites in question in view of their conservation objectives, nor taken the adequate measures to avoid deterioration of habitats and disturbances of the species for which the areas have been designated. The Spanish authorities have until 30 November 2013 to submit their observations to the Commission. 9. Commission reply (REV VI), received on 28 February 2014 In its reply to the Reasoned Opinion of 30 September 2013, Spain informed the Commission of the initiation of a process to review the water concession. This procedure might end up with the closure of the three boreholes in the natural area. In the meantime, it is forbidden to continue with water abstraction. The Commission is closely monitoring the outcome of the review procedure. 10. Commission reply (REV VII), received on 28 February 2015 Further to the concerns raised by the Commission in the Reasoned Opinion sent to Spain in September 2013, the national authorities reported that, considering that the authorised water abstraction could not be regarded as sustainable, no further water abstraction could take place. 1 Article 3; paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5 read in conjunction with Annex IV of the Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC. 2 Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 6 in conjunction with Article 7 of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 3 Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (codification). 4 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. CM\ doc 5/6 PE v08-00

6 Consequently, the project developer submitted a new request for a permit. After examination, the authorities decided that the request entailed a substantial revision of the conditions of the former water concession. Considering the nature of the changes, the former permit cannot be amended. On these grounds, the authorities informed the project developer that the request for a new water concession will have to undergo an entirely new environmental impact assessment procedure before development consent is granted. During this procedure, the developer must provide information on the environmental impact, and the environmental authorities and the public must be informed and consulted. Only then, the competent authority would be able to decide, after having taken into consideration the results of consultations. The decision will then be rendered public and could be challenged before the courts. Conclusion On these grounds, the Commission does not intend to pursue this investigation any further. PE v /6 CM\ doc