Creative Science Park strategic programme II

6.3.2014

Question for written answer E-002589-14
to the Commission
Rule 117
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) , Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

In December 2009, the Management Committee of the Central Portugal Regional Operational Programme (PORCentro) approved the strategic programme for a Creative Science Park (Parque de Ciência e Inovação — PCI), an infrastructure which it proposes to build in the municipal districts of Aveiro and Ílhavo, with an investment of over EUR 28 million, out of which EUR 15 million is to be co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

The local population rejects the siting of the project and has formed a committee (CIDIHC) The polemic also involves an environmental association (Quercus) and the local and regional authorities. Construction of the project will destroy around 35 hectares of highly productive agricultural land and affect part of the Ria de Aveiro Special Protection Area (SPA), which forms part of the Natura 2000 network, as well as areas within the National Ecological Reserve (REN) and the National Agricultural Reserve (RAN). A number of complaints have been made to the Commission, particularly be the aforementioned environmental association.

The construction company, PCI-SA, and the Portuguese authorities argue that the project has to be located close to Aveiro University. Other sites, with existing infrastructure, are available in the vicinity of the university but were not considered.

In 2013, the Aveiro administrative and fiscal court agreed to impose an injunction preventing some of the land in question from being used for construction of the PCI. Other actions, in particular one seeking to revoke the declaration of public utility of the land where the project is to be built, are still awaiting a decision from the courts.

The project developers signed the funding contract with PORCentro this month and it has been announced that construction work will soon begin.

1. What studies or arguments have the Portuguese authorities or the project’s developers put forward to justify its atypical location in an extensive REN, RAN and SPA designated area? More importantly, where is the alternative site study?

OJ C 324, 18/09/2014