WRITTEN QUESTION E-1792/99 by Winfried Menrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Surveillance of bathing water pursuant to Directive 76/160/EEC.
Date: 1999-10-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, bathing water, quality of the environment

C 219 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 1999)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member(cid:146)s concern at the toll of death and injury from road
accidents. The communication to which the Honourable Member refers contained an action programme
for road safety for the period 1997-2001 (1). At the request of the Parliament the Commission is preparing
a report on the operation of this programme to date and a list of priority actions for the future. Work on
this report is well advanced, and the Commission hopes to submit it to Parliament early next year.

On the specific questions raised:

1. The Commission is of the opinion that setting targets, when it has little or no control over the means
of achieving them, is not the best way of promoting road safety at Community level. If individual
Member States wish to set targets, the Commission would offer whatever support it could in achieving
them.

2. The Commission wishes to promote transport safety across all modes. In allocating its transport safety
budget the Commission will be guided by both the need for action and the value added at a European
level. Using these criteria, in recent years the proportion of the transport safety budget spent on road
safety measures has been around 60 %.

3. The Commission always seeks to maximise the benefits from its limited staff resources.

4. Where a measure or commitment of resource has a bearing on road safety the Commission will, as it
has in the past, seek to ensure that maximum benefits accrue from the measure or commitment.

5. The Commission is currently developing a proposal for legislation on pedestrian friendly car fronts
and that proposal will be based upon the recently completed work done by the international scientific
committee on vehicle safety (EEVC).

6. The Commission will continue to give both its financial and practical support to the Euro new car
assessment programme (NCAP). It believes that EuroNCAP has promoted a (cid:145)market for safety(cid:146) culture
amongst the general public and within the vehicle manufacturing industry.

(1) COM(97) 131 final.

(2000/C 219 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1792/99

by Winfried Menrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Surveillance of bathing water pursuant to Directive 76/160/EEC

Various local authorities in my region have drawn my attention to problems with the surveillance of
bathing water in accordance with Directive 76/160/EEC (1).

The criticisms centre on the current assessment system, based solely on samples, about twenty of which
may have to be taken.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Can we expect any EU legislation to replace the current assessment system by a procedure for

determining a quality profile to reflect the quality of bathing water over long periods?

2. When can we expect amendment of Directive 76/160/EEC, and what form will it take?

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/27

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1999)

The annual reporting obligations under Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning
the quality of bathing water imply that a quality assessment of Member States(cid:146) bathing waters is made per
bathing season.

This quality assessment follows from a control of water samples against the parametric values set out in
the annex of the Directive and according to a statistical calculation set out in Article 5. 95 % of the
samples should comply for a bathing area to comply with the Directive. Therefore only when 20 samples
are taken during a bathing season, may one sample fail without causing the bathing area to fail.

However, in practice, on average about 10 water samples are taken per bathing area. All water samples
should therefore comply for a bathing area to be in compliance. One accidental failing sample, for
example due to heavy rainfall without a long-lasting risk for public health, could cause a bathing area to
be failing. This would not really reflect the real overall water quality, in particular if all other samples taken
that bathing season respect the parametric values and good water quality has been observed during
previous bathing seasons.

It seems therefore more appropriate to look at a longer time period (cid:129) for example three or five years (cid:129)
than just one bathing season, to give a more accurate quality assessment based on a trend calculation.
Such a trend assessment allows a better appreciation of improving, or decreasing water quality and to
advise Member States on a way forward. A suggestion in that sense has been made for the revision of the
current Directive.

Following Council discussions (summer 1999) on the Commission(cid:146)s initial proposal of 16 February
1994 (1) (amended proposal adopted by the Commission on 17 December 1997 (2)) the latter has started
a further revision process of Directive 76/160/EEC. This process involves consecutive consultations (cid:129)
Member States, non governmental organisations, consumers, tourism sector (cid:129) and close involvement of
the Parliament. The Commission intends to put forward a new proposal in the second half of 2000.
However, if the consultations indicate that more time is needed to draft a proposal for a workable and
effective directive, then the Commission will adapt its calendar without hesitation.

(1) OJ C 112, 22.4.1994.
(2) OJ C 6, 10.1.1998.

(2000/C 219 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1803/99

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Introduction of a (cid:145)Europe test(cid:146) for all national legislation

(12 October 1999)

On 2 August 1999 the previous Commission wrote in reply to Question E-0850/98 (1) that it would be
better to foster consultation between border regions in this field in order to resolve the problems
concerned on the spot.

Is the Commission aware that in many cases these border regions (or their provincial and municipal
authorities) are not responsible for the relevant legislation because it is mostly adopted at the level of the
national Member States, while any adverse impact makes itself felt in the border regions, particularly
affecting businesses, frontier workers and local and regional authorities there.

Will the Commission again seriously consider drafting and submitting to the European Parliament a
European Directive providing for a (cid:145)Europe test(cid:146), particularly because this has been requested frequently,
both in the Euregions and in the European Parliament?

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 2.