WRITTEN QUESTION E-0003/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Spanish Draft Plan relating to management of water resources.
Date: 2001-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, Spain, environmental protection, sustainable development, water management

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/27

5. What scope is there for diplomats from European Union Member States to visit prisoners and
members of their families in the near future and how might it be possible to offer to mediate, thereby
helping to avoid faits accomplis which will result in further escalation of the conflict?

Reply

(31 May 2001)

With regard to paragraphs 1 to 3, the Council refers the Honourable Member to its answer to question
E-4111/00 concerning the hunger strike by Turkish prisoners.

With regard to paragraph 4, the Council hopes that the efforts to strengthen the legal and constitutional
guarantees for freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, which are included in the short-
lead to a considerable reduction in the number of
term priorities of the Accession Partnership, will
political prisoners. Turkey is also expected to (cid:145)address in this context the situation of those persons in
prison sentenced for expressing non-violent opinions(cid:146).

With regard to paragraph 5, to the knowledge of the Council, diplomats from Member States have in the
past been able to visit prisoners only in certain specific cases.

The Council has not so far discussed the possibility mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question.

(2001/C 261 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0003/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Spanish Draft Plan relating to management of water resources

In July 2000, the Spanish Government put forward a proposal for a new water-resources management
plan aimed at introducing a new fully-integrated legal framework for water management. The plan is due
to come before the Spanish Parliament early next year. The issue of interregional water transfers has been,
and is likely to remain, the bill(cid:146)s most controversial point, but the Spanish Government is speeding up
multiple projects for large-scale reservoirs and water-transfer systems that will have an extremely serious
social and environmental impact through failure to respect the precautionary principle, with particular
regard to sustainable water management. The Arag(cid:243)n Regional Government has already given notice that
it will oppose any attempt to transfer water from its own basins.

Is the European Commission aware of the Spanish Government(cid:146)s plans to build a large number of new
dams and water-transfer systems as part of its new water-resources management plan? Can the Commi-
ssion confirm that the Spanish Government has already received EU funding to finance these plans and
from which European programme or fund? Will the Spanish Community Support Framework, financed by
the Structural Funds 2000-2006, and the Cohesion Fund allocate funding to support these water-transfer
operations? If so, how can these operations be justified under the requested ex-ante environmental
appraisal for the Structural Funds and the strategic assessment for the Cohesion Fund? Are the Spanish
plans in line with the provisions on water transfers set out in the new Water Framework Directive (2000/
60/EC)? Is the Spanish draft plan in line with the article of the new Water Framework Directive relating to
water pricing, and the common guidelines for the use of water charging (1) current being drawn up?

(1) Pricing policies for enhancing the sustainability of water resources (cid:129) COM(2000) 477.

C 261 E/28

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

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

(6 April 2001)

The draft (cid:145)Plan Hidrol(cid:243)gico Nacional(cid:146) received a favourable vote of the consultative body (cid:145)Consejo Nacional
del Agua(cid:146) on 30 January 2001. It was adopted by the Spanish government on 9 February 2001 and was
passed by the lower chamber of the Spanish parliament in mid March. The project has been subject to a
large consultation with all concerned stakeholders and a detailed analysis will be possible once it is in its
final version. The Plan encompasses the analyses and elements related to the different river basins, but it
also constitutes a global framework for national water policies and actions which goes beyond the
meaning of River Basin Management of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament
and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of
water policy (1).

With regard to the latter Directive, the implementation of the Plan should comply with the following
mandatory obligations:

a)

the elaboration of detailed river basin management plans for each entire individual river basin in Spain
by 2009,

b)

the elaboration of an analysis of pressures and impacts including an economic analysis by 2004.

Moreover, for the shared river basins like the Duero, Tajo and Miæo rivers, such plans must be developed
in close cooperation with Portugal.

As for the elaboration of the river basin management plans, a range of Community legislation is relevant
and already mandatory beyond the Water Framework Directive, e.g. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2), Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3), and Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March
1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment (4). The Commission will, in its role as Guardian of the Treaties, carefully
observe the issue.

As regards water transfers, the Water Framework Directive does not per se prohibit these. However, they
have to comply with the environmental objectives, such as providing sufficient water quantity in the basin
of abstraction/diversion to meet the requirements of good ecological status, and not interfering with other
Community legislation such as the Birds and Habitats Directives.

As regards the economic aspects and pricing, the obligations under the Water Framework Directive are
clearly specified. Firstly, an economic analysis has to be carried out per river basin, taking into account all
water uses, and serving as well as a basis for the future water pricing policy. The deadlines to respect are
2004 for the economic analysis, and 2010 for water pricing being operational. The Commission
Communication of July 2000 on (cid:145)Pricing policies for enhancing the sustainability of water resources(cid:146)
provides principles and guidance for implementing the economic requirements of the Water Framework
Directive.

The Community Support Framework for structural intervention in Objective 1 regions in Spain for 2000-
2006 sets out a number of priorities, including water resources. It calls for an integrated water resource
management strategy for individual basins and sub-basins, whose aim (cid:129) following the guidelines of the
Water Framework Directive (cid:129) is to create complete operational systems which will be incorporated in and
coordinated by the National Hydrological Plan.

To date, several projects in this field have been co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund
and the Cohesion Fund, on the basis of the plans for individual basins. The Spanish authorities have
presented a framework water-supply strategy with project selection criteria and an initial list of priority
activities for each basin. Sets of projects for individual basins are now being examined by the Commission
with a view to possible co-financing through the Cohesion Fund during the period 2000-2006.

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/29

The Commission will ensure that the programmes it co-finances are implemented in accordance with
current legislation and that all activities are consistent and compatible with Community policy, including
environment policy. It must be emphasised that the Hydrological Plan is very general in character. When it
comes to assessing whether individual projects are compatible with, for example, the Water Framework
Directive or the Habitats Directive, far more detail will be required, as dictated by the legislation in
question.

(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 261 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0033/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: The increased incidence of bromisum containing flame retardants in human beings and foodstuffs

comparable with PCBs

Can the Commission confirm that bromisum containing flame retardants show a similarity in terms
1.
of their toxicity with the PCBs that attracted much attention in the 80s because of their poor biodegrad-
ability, that they also end up via the food chain in the fatty tissue of human beings and interfere with
hormones and that, according to Swedish research, they accumulate in the mother(cid:146)s milk with the result
that children suffer damage to their memory and motor system even before birth?

2.
Can it further confirm that the release of such flame retardants into the environment also takes the
form of discharges during production, losses during the impregnation of plastics and the scrapping of
products treated with these substances and that they increasingly turn up in meat, fish and crops intended
for human consumption and are even encountered in fish that are washed ashore?

3.
Is it true that attempts have been made to place voluntary restrictions on the use of such flame
retardants with the relevant industry but that, in the meantime, their use has increased with the result that
the scale of the risks involved bears a strong resemblance to that of PCBs in the recent past?

4.
Can it confirm that Germany banned toxic flame retardants back in 1986 but that, at the same time,
the relevant industry in other countries remains opposed to such a ban, while the Dutch government is of
the opinion that it must await the search for alternatives and an EU-wide ban on the most toxic varieties
in 2008?

Do circumstances exist that prevent Member States other than Germany from anticipating or going
5.
further than the future ban referred to in paragraph 4? What action is the Commission taking to remove
these obstacles?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers provided on the same subject to
Written Questions E-2616/00 (1) by Mr Davies, E-2504/99 (2) by Mrs Thors, P-1976/99 (3) by Mrs Sch(cid:246)rling,
E-3004/98 (4) by Mr Eisma and to the oral question H-776/99 (5) by Mrs Sch(cid:246)rling.