WRITTEN QUESTION E-0645/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Spanish National Hydrological Plan and EU law.
Date: 2001-03-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU financing, Spain, impact study, protected area, water management

C 318 E/92

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

Answer given by M. Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2001)

The milk brand names to which the Honourable Member refers are not registered as (cid:145)Protected
designations of origin(cid:146) or (cid:145)Protected geographical indications(cid:146) within the meaning of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical
indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1).

Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (2)
provides that the labelling and methods used must not be such as could mislead the purchaser ((cid:133)) as to
the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in particular ((cid:133)) the origin or provenance (of that foodstuff).

A name or indication in the labelling referring to a specific region would therefore be admissible only if
the foodstuff was actually produced in that region.

The Commission will contact the Italian authorities to obtain further information so that it can look into
the case reported by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

(2001/C 318 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0645/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE)
and Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Spanish National Hydrological Plan and EU law

(6 March 2001)

Has the Spanish Government informed the European Commission officially of their recently proposed
National Hydrological Plan (NHP)?

Is the European Commission aware that according to Birdlife International
(see www.seo.org/es/
conservation.html) this NHP cuts through no fewer than 109 areas which are protected by the EU
Habitats and Birds Directives? Is the European Commission aware that this NHP threatens the existence of
the Iberian lynx and dozens of other fauna and flora species?

In the Ebro river delta alone 30 protected areas are under threat.

According to Article 6 of
these Directives such plans as NHP are allowed only when the Spanish
Government proves that there are no alternatives. Has the Spanish Government proved this to the
European Commission?

Are there not at least two alternatives for this NHP:

1. Using existing water resources much more rationally and installing drip-irrigation installations for

agriculture (like in Israel) instead of flooding the whole agricultural land;

2. Desalinisation of water from the Mediterranean Sea is cheaper than the NHP according to studies from
the government of Aragon (see General submissions and considerations concerning the National
Hydrological Plan)?

Will the European Commission point out to the Spanish Government that this NHP violates the EU
Habitats and Birds Directives?

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/93

Will the European Commission refuse to grant the amounts of money (one third of all costs) which the
Spanish Government hopes to receive from EU funds?

Is the European Commission prepared to put European Structural Fund money for Spain on hold until the
Spanish Government respects the EU Habitats and Birds Directives?

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

(7 June 2001)

The Spanish Government has informed the Commission of their proposed National Hydrological Plan. The
Commission refers
it gave to the Oral Questions H-0843/00 by
Mrs Sornosa Martinez during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s November 2000 part-session (1), H-0904/00
by Mrs Sornosa Martinez (December 2000) (2), H-0973/00 by Mrs Sornosa Martinez (January 2001) (3) and
H-0186/01 by Mrs Garcia-Orcoyen Tormo (March 2001) (4) concerning this issue.

to the replies

in this point

Many of these projects envisaged in the draft Plan could affect Special Protected Areas (designated by Spain
pursuant to article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC, of 2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild
birds) (5) or Sites of Community Importance (to be integrated into the Natura 2000 network under the
Council Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora) (6). Therefore, the species included in the Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive and
the species in Annex I of the Birds Directive could be affected as well.

According to article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive, the plan as such has to be subject to a (cid:145)global impact
independent of the impact assessment that many of the individual projects will have to
assessment(cid:146),
undergo.

Therefore, the plan itself should be subject to the provisions of article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC. This
article explains that plans likely to affect protected sites (either under 79/409/EEC birds directive or 92/43/
EEC habitats directive) should be subject to an impact assessment. If the assessment reveals an important
negative effect on the sites concerned, the plan can only be authorised in absence of alternatives, for
reasons of overriding public interest and with compensation measures.

The Spanish authorities submitted their draft Plan to the Commission. The information submitted includes
a study on its likely environmental effects. The draft Plan is currently being examined by the Commission
and should shortcomings be identified, they will be swiftly brought to the attention of the Spanish
authorities.

With regard to the nature conservation directives,
undertake all necessary measures to ensure that these directives will be respected.

the Spanish authorities committed themselves to

It must be noted that, at this stage the plan is still a draft document, which is currently under discussion in
the Spanish Parliament. Therefore,
it would be premature to presume conflicts between the Plan and
existing Community legislation or policy.

The financing of measures related to the Plan by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund is made in
accordance with the relevant legislation, in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June
1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (7) and with the Community Support
Framework for Spain Objective 1, 2000-2006 and other relevant programming documents, and Council
Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21 June 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 establishing
a cohesion fund (7). All of these give due consideration to the respect of environmental
legislation,
including the Community Habitat and Bird-Directives mentioned by the Honourable Members.
Furthermore, on 14 March 2001 a letter was addressed to Member States concerning the notification of

C 318 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

Natura 2000 sites to the Commission and their protection during operations which are part-financed by
the structural
funds and the rural development programme, mainly concerning the investments in
agricultural holdings.

(1) Written reply, 15.11.2000.
(2) Written reply, 13.12.2000.
(3) Oral reply, 16.1.2001.
(4) Written reply, 13.3.2001.
(5) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(6) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(7) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 318 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0646/01

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Commission participation in plenary debates

(6 March 2001)

The Framework Agreement calls on Commissioners to attend debates in plenary on their own business. As
I understand, it only provides for limited exceptions to this general rule.

Can the Commission say how many plenary debates came within the responsibility of each Commissioner
in 2000?

How many debates on their own respective portfolio did each Commissioner attend?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2001)

As requested by the Honourable Member the annexed table provides an overview on how many plenary
debates came within the responsibility of each Commissioner in 2000 and how many debates on their
own respective portfolio each Commissioner attended. It should be noted that joint debates on different
subjects or on a number of different reports are counted as one debate. Attendance of Commissioners in
urgency debates, in question time or when replacing another Commissioner have not been counted.

In the course of the investiture debate on 15 September 1999, President Prodi gave firm commitment to
Parliament to ensure the attendance of Commissioners at plenary debates falling under their competencies
as a general rule. This political commitment was subsequently codified in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the
Framework-Agreement adopted the 5 July 2000. It was here agreed (cid:145)The Commission shall ensure, as
a general rule, that the Commissioner responsible is present whenever this is requested by the European
Parliament at plenary sittings for agenda items falling under his or her responsibility (point 19). With
a view to ensuring the presence of Commissioners, the European Parliament undertakes to do its best to
maintain its
its draft
agenda subsequently to the meeting of the Conference of Presidents that decides the final draft agenda of
a part-session, or where it moves items within the agenda within a part-session, the Commission shall use
its best endeavours to ensure the presence of the Commissioner responsible (point 21)(cid:146).

(point 20). Where the European Parliament amends

final draft agendas

The overall headline figure of 86 % attendance shows the Commission(cid:146)s determination to comply with this
commitment. However, as the Honourable Member himself notes, the Framework-Agreement does permit
some flexibility to accommodate the conflicting pressures on Commissioners(cid:146) schedules.

The Commission would also like to recall that the figure for attendance in plenary under point 19 of the
Framework Agreement gives only an incomplete picture of both overall presence and relations between
Commissioners and the European Parliament. To get a comprehensive view, attendance of Commissioners
in Committee meetings, meetings with parliamentary delegations, political groups, inter-groups, etc. also
needs to be taken into account.