WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE),María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL)to the Commission. Community funding for an increase in the capacity of the Yesa reservoir.
Date: 2001-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Aragon, EU financing, complaint to the Commission, environmental impact, hydraulic works, protected area, protection of animal life, water management

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/97

(2002/C 93 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE),
María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL)
to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Community funding for an increase in the capacity of the Yesa reservoir

In its answer of 15 March 2001 to Written Question E-0004/01 (1) on European funding for an increase in
the capacity of the Yesa reservoir, the Commission stated that in January 2001 it had ‘proposed that a
decision be adopted on joint financing, under the cohesion funds, of a project concerning the water
in the Ebro corridor, covering
supplies for
EUR 70 901 365. The work concerns the pipework running from the La Loteta reservoir to Zaragoza
and to the other locations, not including the ducting of water from the Pyrenees as provided for in the
initial project. This project has never been included in the funding of the extension of the Yesa reservoir
nor has it had any direct relationship with this …’.

the city of Zaragoza and of

the 22 municipalities

Given that increasing the Yesa reservoir’s existing capacity from 491 to 1 521 hm3 is apparently designed
to transfer water from the Pyrenees to other areas, does the Commission intend to apply the same criteria
here as it did to funding for the project to supply Zaragoza with water, and thereby withhold funding for
work to increase the capacity of the Yesa reservoir?

In addition, the Spanish authorities are neglecting to classify those areas that lie within the planned basins
of the reservoirs proposed by the Spanish Government under the National Hydrological Plan as special
protection areas, or are employing a technique whereby they divide areas of environmental importance in
two and use the different protection formulas to classify only the area left unaffected by the planned
reservoir basin.

Such is the case with the planned increase in capacity of the Yesa reservoir. In excluding the section of the
Foz de Sigüés affected by the planned reservoir basin, the Spanish authorities have failed to recognise the
environmental importance of that area as a whole as a special protection area for birds.

Does the Commission intend to intervene as a matter of course in cases of
environmental directives and projects anywhere in the European Union are evidently being undermined?

this kind in which

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 84.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2001)

As indicated in the reply to Written Question E-0004/01 (1), the Spanish authorities did not request that
the Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund cofinance the extension of the Yesa reservoir. The Commission
is therefore not in a position to comment on the possibility of a future request for cofinancing, as, in
accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the choice of projects is a matter for the Member States.

As regards the designation of ‘special protection areas for birds’
(SPAs), the Commission has, under
Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, opened an infringement procedure against Spain, which
covers, in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation
of wild birds (2), the insufficient classification as SPAs of the territories most suitable in number and size, as
well as the partial classification of sites in key bird areas (ZICOs) identified as such by the inventory of key
areas for the conservation of birds in Europe.

Under this infringement procedure, which carries the reference number 99/2212, Spain was sent a
reasoned opinion in early 2001. The Spanish authorities recently informed the Commission that they were
starting the procedures necessary to increase the number of SPAs in the Autonomous Community of
Aragon from 11 to 50, most of which are situated in the key bird areas. It should be noted that these new

C 93 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

proposals will expand by 603,790 hectares (ha)
Community of Aragon, which partly includes the ‘Foz de Sigüés’.

the areas classified as SPAs in the Autonomous

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2002/C 93 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2288/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE),
María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL)
to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Spain’s National Hydrological Plan: compliance with EU directives, Structural Funds,

irrigation

policy and Community funding

In its reply to Question E-0003/01 (1) on non-compliance with EU directives and the use of EU funds to
finance projects under Spain’s National Hydrological Plan (NHP), the Commission made the following
statement:
‘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 (…). 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
including environment policy.’ However, the Spanish Government is in the
with Community policy,
process of approving river basin hydrological plans which are not consistent with those policies and is also
asking for funding to finance particular projects.

Will the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

1. Which projects and priority activities for each river basin have been selected by the Spanish

Government with a view to obtaining EU funds?

2. Has the Spanish Government submitted the statutory reports which demonstrate compliance with the

framework directives on water and on habitats and birds, as required under Community law?

3.

If the Spanish authorities request individual funding for projects included in their country’s National
Hydrological Plan (thereby taking them out of the broader context which makes them meaningful),
would the European Union agree to finance such projects?

4. How can the water-management strategy which has been integrated in accordance with the water
framework directive guidelines and which forms part of the 2000-2006 Objective 1 Community
Support Framework for Spain be combined with the water-diversion policy proposed under the
National Hydrological Plan? Does the Commission not think that some form of cooperation could be
brought about between the central government and some of the self-governing regions if structural
measures financed by the EU were to be concentrated in the regions which provide backing for NHP
projects?

5.

Since the Spanish Government has announced a national irrigation plan which is to be very closely
related to the NHP water-diversion strategy, how is the Commission planning to ensure that the
irrigation policy will not lead to a non-rational use of water resources on account of the availability of
diverted water? Does the Commission not think that it would be more logical to rationalise the use of
existing water resources for agricultural purposes and reduce the misuse of water, rather than
supporting a diversion policy?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 27.