WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission. Catchment area management ‐ ESDP.
Date: 2000-02-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, hydrology, proposal (EU), water analysis, water management, water resources, water supply

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/163

expenses, etc.). Moreover, certain items, such as the costs of constructing or modernising buildings, may be
subject to different accounting processes. It should also be remembered that in the ideal case scenario the
official statement of costs can only be provided at the end of year n+1, year n being the year in which the
veterinary checks and inspections in question are carried out. On this subject, it is clear that the working
documents used to establish standard amounts are for guidance only. Only the text of the Directive is
legally binding.

Paragraph 3 of the above-mentioned judgement of 9 September 1999 by the Court of Justice states that (cid:145)in
cases where a Member State has delegated to local authorities the collection of fees relating to health
inspections and controls of fresh meat, Article 2(3) of Directive 85/73, as amended by Directive 93/118,
authorises it to collect an amount higher than Community fee levels so long as it does not exceed the
actual costs of inspection incurred by the competent local authority(cid:146). If competence is delegated to local
authorities, these are the costs incurred by the authorities in national territory. In the absence of such
delegation, there is in principle no difference between the costs incurred at national level and the costs
incurred by the authorities in national territory.

With regard to the provisions of Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (a) of Directive 85/73/EEC, the text itself
indicates that differences are possible between establishments. (cid:145)In order to cover increased costs, Member
States may (cid:133) increase the standard amounts of fees as laid down in points 1 and 2 (a) for individual
establishments(cid:146). The provisions of Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (b) do not refer specifically to this
possibility. The relevant concept is that of (cid:145)actual costs(cid:146). It is not made clear whether calculation of these
costs can be for a given establishment or whether it should be done at the level of the competent
authority, which can carry out an equalisation for the establishments for which it is responsible.

The question needs to be clarified. In the context of Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (a) of Directive 85/73/
EEC, a Member State may as a general rule, in order to cover increased costs, provide for standard fees and
increase these amounts for certain establishments meeting the conditions referred to. Such a system has its
own internal coherence. The other option referred to in Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (b) for covering
increased costs gives Member States the possibility of charging a special fee covering actual costs. This
option also has its own internal coherence. It is therefore difficult to come up with a combination of these
two systems.

2.
In the context of Annex A, Chapter I, the standard amounts are laid down in points 1 and 2 (a) and
not in points 4 (a) and (b). These amounts cover all the checks laid down by the Directives concerned and,
therefore, the checks relating to the detection of trichinosis.

(1) See the consolidated version in Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and consolidating Directive
85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and certain animal
products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC.

(2) OJ C 402, 6.1.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Catchment area management (cid:129) ESDP

In its recent publication entitled ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective (Potsdam unofficial
council, May 1999) (1) the Commission writes (p. 68) that the proposal for a directive which inter alia
covers integrated catchment area management is currently under negotiation.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What is the exact title of the proposal, when was it drawn up and by whom?

2. At what stage are the discussions on this proposal for an EU directive?

C 330 E/164

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

3. What positions have the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council adopted?

4. What is the Commission(cid:146)s approach in this directive, and what implications will the directive have for

countries with adequate water supplies?

5. What precisely does integrated catchment area management mean?

6. What action has the Commission taken so far to counter the problem of leaking public water supply

grids in some Member States?

7. Does the Commission have data and information on water quality and water shortages in the
countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and what is the gap between them and the data for
EU Member States?

(1)

ISBN, 92-828-7656-X.

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

(23 March 2000)

This is the Commission proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive establishing a framework
for Community action in the field of water policy (1). The Parliament in its plenary session of 16 February
2000 finalised the second reading (2), (3). On the majority of issues there is agreement between the points
of view of Parliament, Commission and Council. There are divergent points of view on some issues, in
particular deadlines, derogations, hazardous substances and charges for water and waste water. A detailed
evaluation will be part of the amended Commission proposal to be adopted by the Commission in March
2000.

The main objectives of the new Community water framework directive will be to expand water protection
to all waters; to achieve and maintain (cid:145)good status(cid:146) within a set deadline; to base water management on
river basins; to combine the approaches of emission criteria and water quality criteria; to ensure water
pricing policy with adequate incentive for users to use water resources in an efficient way; to involve
citizens more closely in planning and decision taking procedures; and to streamline legislation. One of the
elements of
for groundwater is a long-term balance between available resources and
abstractions. These objectives are valid regardless of whether Member States have larger water resources
or not. The objective of the directive is to achieve and maintain water quality, not to distribute water
resources. Monitoring and measures to achieve the quality objective ((cid:145)good status(cid:146)) within a set deadline
have to be coordinated with a river basin district. The operative part in this context is a programme of
measures which ensures achieving the objective of (cid:145)good status(cid:146).

(cid:145)good status(cid:146)

For public (drinking) water supply systems Community legislation defines the quality of water for the
consumer at the tap. This is the 1980 drinking water directive, Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July
1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (4) amended by the 1998 drinking
water directive, Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 (5). There is no obligation at European
level to construct public water supply systems. However, construction and improvement of such water
supply systems, including measures against leaking distribution systems, may be funded by the structural
funds and the Cohesion fund.

Water protection is an important factor in the current accession negotiations. Evaluations of the status
quo, objectives and programmes for achieving the objective for the whole range of Community water
legislation are an integral part of the accession negotiations. Water resources show a quite diverse pattern
from country to country and from region to region, both in the 15 Member States and in candidate
countries, a situation to be expected given the diverse geographical and hydrological situation.

(1) OJ C 184, 17.6.1997.
(2) Opinion of the European Parliament (1st reading) of 11.2.1999, OJ C 150, 28.5.1999.
(3) Opinion of the European Parliament (2nd reading) of 16.2.2000 not yet published in the OJ.
(4) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.
(5) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.