WRITTEN QUESTION E-2595/00 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Blue flags.
Date: 2000-08-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, European Commission, bathing water, coastal protection, environmental education, foundation, interinstitutional relations

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/193

(2001/C 103 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2595/00

by Fernando FernÆndez Mart(cid:237)n (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Blue flags

Virtually all the media on the Canaries have reported that the European Union has awarded blue flags to
six ports in the islands. According to the information available to me, this award has been granted
annually in Spain for 12 years by a non-governmental organisation originally set up in France in 1985 and
known as the European Environmental Education Foundation (EEEF).

What relationship exists between the EEEF and the European Union institutions, and on the basis of what
provisions is it entitled to grant its European Union blue flags? Is the Commission or any other European
Union institution responsible for ensuring that all the beaches and marinas receiving this award comply
with the European Community Bathing Water Directive and other provisions deriving from that directive?

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

(19 September 2000)

The blue flag campaign is a project initiated by the Foundation for environmental education in Europe
(FEEE), based in Copenhagen (Denmark). The objective of this campaign is to inform the general public of
the quality of beaches in several European countries inside and outside the Community and to increase the
environmental awareness of local authorities and tourism operators. FEEE has associated organisations in
the participating countries ((cid:145)national operators(cid:146)) which assess the beaches applying for a blue flag. This
assessment is made for four major issues, for which both imperative and guideline criteria are established:
environmental education and information, environmental management, safety and services, and water
quality. The water quality criterion is based on the guideline values of the Community bathing water
Directive, Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1976 concerning the quality of bathing water (1).

In the past the Commission participated in the work of the jury of FEEE which takes the final decision to
award (or not) a blue flag to beaches for which the national juries could not come to a decision and ratifies
the decisions of FEEE national operators. FEEE also received financial support from the Commission.

However, for both financial and technical reasons the Commission decided in 1998 not to grant financial
support for the 1999 blue flag campaign. Also for the 2000 campaign no financial support was granted,
as the measures of control of the flag(cid:146)s attribution were not considered effective enough.

Consequently, there is no participation by the Commission in the jury awarding the blue flags. The
question of beaches complying with the blue flag is the sole responsibility of the FEEE foundation.

The Commission publishes annually its report on bathing water quality in the Community, the latest
edition in May 2000. This report is published in all Community languages in print, and is available on the
Internet (2). Of all the 217 beaches in the Islas Canarias, 195 met the stricter (cid:145)guideline values(cid:146) of the
bathing water Directive, 19 met the (cid:145)imperative values(cid:146) and only three did not meet the criteria.

C 103 E/194

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

The Commission is currently preparing a proposal to the Parliament and the Council for a review of the
bathing water Directive. Information of the public about bathing water quality will be one of the main
pillars of this proposal.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
(2) http://europa.eu.int/water/water-bathing/report.html.

(2001/C 103 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2598/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Community funding of the fisheries sector in Portugal

Bearing in mind:

(cid:129) the reply to Written Question E-1525/00 (1);

(cid:129) the hearing organised by the Court of Auditors on the Propesca Programme in Portugal and the
implementation of the PESCA initiative which, according to reliable sources, came to the conclusion
that the EU withdrew more than ESC 3,5 billion from Portugal owing to delays in the assessment of
applications and allocation of funding; and

(cid:129) the importance of the fisheries sector for Portugal;

Can the Commission say:

1. What, in the Commission(cid:146)s view, are the reasons for the low level of implementation of the PESCA
initiative and of programmes financed under the FIFG in general and those for Portugal in particular?

2. What measures did the Commission take during the period 1994-1999, and what action will it take in
future, in order to guarantee the correct implementation of funding under the PESCA initiative and the
FIFG in the previous financial period, particularly with regard to Portugal?

3. What consequences will this low level of implementation have with regard to discussions on the

allocation of FIFG funding for the new financial period?

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 49.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

1.
The main reasons (cid:129) including with regard to Portugal (cid:129) for the delays and low implementation
rates in respect of the Pesca Community Initiative (CI) and the operational programmes (OPs) funded under
the financial
instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) are the late publication of national framework
legislation, the restructuring of the relevant administrative departments (Directorate-General for Fisheries
and Aquaculture), and the shortage of human resources for managing and monitoring operational
assistance at national level.

2.
During Community support framework (CSF) II, the Commission adopted a number of measures
designed to ensure that Pesca CI and FIFG appropriations were applied correctly in the various
Member States. With regard to Portugal, inter alia during the implementation phase a number of warnings
were issued at Monitoring Committee level and letters were sent pointing out to the national authorities
that the accumulated arrears needed to be made up. In response, from the second quarter of 1998
onwards the situation returned to normal.

3.
The national authorities(cid:146) effort to make up the arrears meant that it was possible for the entire FIFG
budget available to be committed at the end of CSF II(cid:146)s term and for the objectives to be achieved
satisfactorily. Discussion of the FIFG appropriation for CSF III (2000-06), inter alia as regards Portugal, was
therefore not adversely affected.