----

(2004/C 65 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/03

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), José Mendiluce Pereiro (PSE) and Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject:   Spanish National Hydrological Plan, Structural Funds and territorial imbalances

The Commission is currently examining the Spanish Government's request for EU monies to co-fund planned building schemes under the National Hydrological Plan (NHP), and particularly those for transferring water from the Ebro to the Barcelona metropolitan area and South-eastern Spain.

A group of scientists claims that the areas which would surrender the water and suffer the heaviest impact (Aragonese and Catalan districts of the Bajo Ebro) are poorer than those which would be in receipt of this water (Barcelona metropolitan area, coastal districts of the Valencian community, Murcia and Almeria, and the Murcian-Alicantine Altiplano). Using the criterion of disposable per capita family income, the prosperous Murcian coastal districts, for example, enjoy lower incomes than those of less prosperous Pyrenean districts.

This distortion of the indicator is caused by two factors:

The fact that these highly developed districts have the highest levels of undeclared labour is not accidental, and reveals a certain level of ‘misgovernment’ (and not only in connection with water management) which goes hand in hand with the development model which prevails in these areas.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

The Union has two instruments that can be used to support investment in infrastructures, including that relating to water management: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund.

The ERDF intervenes in support of economic development programmes in the areas eligible under Objectives 1 and 2 of the Structural Funds as well as under the Community Initiatives URBAN and Interreg.

With the exception of major projects, the selection of individual projects is the responsibility of the authorities in the Member States once the broad strategic objectives of the programmes have been agreed by the Commission. The projects selected by the authorities must, however, conform with Community law in all respects, including that relating to the environment.

Major projects, as well as projects supported by the Cohesion Fund, are subject to individual approval by the Commission. The environmental impact of such projects must be assessed.

The social and economic impact of the current generation of programmes will be assessed in the course of 2003 in the framework of the mid-term evaluation of the programmes, the results of which will provide the Member States with an opportunity to adjust their development strategy as appropriate.

An ex-post evaluation of the programmes is also foreseen by the regulation once the programmes have come to an end. This will provide a more definitive assessment of their impact on the eligible regions in social and economic terms.

----

(1)  Furthermore, the population continues a pace in the most heavily affected Araganese districts, and the higher ageing population rates in the Bajo Ebro, compared with those of other Mediterranean coastal districts, reflect a far lower social economic level than that of the Barcelona metropolitan area and other coastal districts to benefit from the water transfer (Arrojo Agudo P. y otros, Análisis y valoración socioeconómica de los trasvases del Ebro, WWF European Office, September 2002.

(2)  A Commission report ((Mateman S.; Rencoy, P.H.; Undeclared labour in Europe — Towards an integrated approach of combating undeclared labour, Regioplan Research Advice and Information, Amsterdam, October 2001), undeclared work in Spain accounts for between 15 and 20 % of the GDP, far higher than the European 9 % average. The Spanish south-east has the highest rates of undeclared work: Murcia 32 %, Andalucía 29 %, Comunidad Valenciana 24 % (Consejo económico y social, La economía sumergida en relación a la quinta recomendación del Pacto de Toledo, Colección Informes-CES, Madrid, 1999).

(3)OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

----