WRITTEN QUESTION P-2689/99 by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (COM(98) 76): pollutants (Article 2(27) in conjunction with Annex VIII).
Date: 2000-01-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, water pollution

C 280 E/104

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

lead to a
nitrogen for 1999 to 2002 and 170 kilograms of nitrogen from 2002. These limits will
restriction on the amount of slurry and solid manure spread on the land, and will therefore restrict the
phosphorus input as well. The action programmes must also lay down, as required by Annex III.1.3 of the
Directive and in order to comply with Annex II.A.6 requirements, the maximum amounts of nutrients
which may be applied to the land, taking account of crop requirements, soil supply and chemical and
organic nitrogen input and maintaining a balance between them. This implies careful use of both chemical
and organic fertilisers.

As part of the infringement procedure initiated against Belgium, the Commission sent Belgium a reasoned
opinion as provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. If the comments submitted by the
Belgian authorities are judged unsatisfactory, the Commission could bring the matter before the Court of
Justice.

The Commission does not publicise the details of infringement procedures. It did, however, publish a press
release (2) when it decided to send Belgium the aforesaid reasoned opinion. The press release indicated that
Belgium had not,
in the Commission(cid:146)s view, applied the Directive(cid:146)s criteria when designating the
vulnerable zones. The Belgian authorities had failed to include waters which had been reported to be
polluted by nitrates. Moreover, the action programmes are incomplete for Flanders and inexistent for
Brussels and Wallonia, the monitoring system is inadequate and the first implementation report presented
by Belgium was unsatisfactory.

it should be pointed out that in a reasoned opinion the Commission does not suggest what
Lastly,
measures should be taken by the Member State concerned or when it should take them to ensure that the
Directive in question is properly implemented, since the Directive itself indicates what has to be achieved
and by when. The Commission(cid:146)s role is to check that the measures the Member States adopt comply with
the provisions of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.
(2)

IP 99/450, 2.7.1999.

(2000/C 280 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2689/99

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (COM(98) 76):

pollutants (Article 2(27) in conjunction with Annex VIII)

Is it correct to say that when Bentonite or similar natural substances are used in civil engineering,

1.
applying the best available technology (BAT), groundwater is unlikely to suffer lasting effects?

2.
Is it correct to say that, when considering the term (cid:145)Material in suspension(cid:146), as referred to in Annex
VIII, point 10, a distinction has to be made between materials that could damage the environment and
materials consisting mainly of, for example, natural clay minerals (as does Bentonite) and consequently
harmless from the environmental point of view?

3. Would it be contrary to the water framework Directive if, to clarify the law, the term (cid:145)Material in
suspension(cid:146)
in Annex VIII, point 10, were described more specifically as (cid:145)Suspensions containing
environmentally harmful material in suspension(cid:146), or should such additional detail be laid down in the
water legislation of the individual Member States?

4.
in
Should further discussions fail to produce a more clear-cut definition of the term (cid:145)Material
suspension(cid:146) in Annex VIII to the proposed water framework Directive, would the Member States then be
required, so as to enable Bentonite or similar materials to be used, to make provision in their national law
to replace prior authorisation with generally binding rules, having regard to Article 13(3)(f) of the
Directive?

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/105

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

(4 February 2000)

Civil engineering works in particular affect the groundwater in a number of different ways, but normally
only temporarily. Following extensive consultations, it has been concluded that a derogation from the
general ban on discharges into the groundwater should be allowed for many of these effects. For this
reason, both the amended proposal of the Commission of 17 June 1999 for a European Parliament and
Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1) and the
common position of the Council of 20 October 1999 on a European Parliament and Council Directive
establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy 9085/3/99 (2) allow the
Member States to grant derogations in such cases. Since the Member States and their regions display
variations in terms of geology, hydrology and water resources, it makes sense to leave this question to the
Member States, but to lay down the criteria in Community legislation.

The Commission does not share the view that materials in suspension consisting of natural clay minerals
are in themselves harmful to the environment. Chemically and biologically inert materials in suspension
can also cause considerable harm to the environmental quality of
the water, e.g. by covering the
biocoenoses of the microfauna and microflora in surface waters and by damaging spawning grounds.

If Parliament and the Council adopt the proposal for a Directive as described above, it will be for the
Member States to decide whether and to what extent
In its opinion
(first reading) of 11 February 1999 on a Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the
field of water policy (3), Parliament attached particular importance to the criteria for derogations. The
possibility for Member States to grant derogations from the prohibition on direct discharges into the
groundwater in this and some other cases is contained in Article 11(3)(g) of the Council(cid:146)s common
position.

they apply the derogations.

(1) OJ C 342 E, 30.11.1999.
(2) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
(3) OJ C 150, 28.5.1999.

(2000/C 280 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2690/99

by Thierry La Perriere (UEN) to the Council

(3 January 2000)

Subject: EU-Turkish relations, human rights, and Christian minorities

In the negotiations on implementation of the Customs Union and Turkey(cid:146)s application to join the
European Union, the Council is focusing especially on the situation of the Kurds.

There are other minorities in Turkey. Christians make up quite a substantial portion of its population. In
the past, Christian Turks have suffered human rights violations on a massive scale, and their situation is
still extremely precarious.

Can the Council say whether, when conducting the ongoing negotiations with Turkey,
focusing on the situation of the Christian minorities?

it is likewise

Reply

(13 March 2000)

The Helsinki European Council decided that Turkey is a candidate State destined to join the Union on the
basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate States. Compliance with the Copenhagen
political criteria is a prerequisite for the opening of any accession negotiations. The Council underlines that
stability of institutions guaranteeing human rights and respect for and protection of minorities is one of
the Copenhagen political criteria. This naturally includes the Christian minorities.