WRITTEN QUESTION E-2614/01 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE), Joan Colom i Naval (PSE),Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) and Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission. Illegality of the Spanish NHP under Community law and need for urgent action by the Commission.
Date: 2001-09-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Spain, complaint to the Commission, environmental impact, environmental law, exchange of information, hydraulic works, hydrology

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/59

(2002/C 134 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2614/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE), Joan Colom i Naval (PSE),
Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) and Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Illegality of
Commission

the Spanish NHP under Community law and need for urgent action by the

In view of the arguments set out in the complaint lodged by private individuals and citizens’ organisations
against the Commission on 10 September 2001 (1) and in a number of parliamentary questions (2), does
the Commission not consider that
the National Hydrological Plan (NHP) adopted by the Spanish
government (Law 10/2001 of 5 July 2001, BOE [Official Journal of the Spanish state] No 161) is in visible
the framework directive for water (2000/60/EC) (3), as well as
contradiction with the principles of
containing serious infringements of existing Community law and, especially, of the wild birds directive
(79/409/EEC) (4) and the habitats directive (92/43/EEC) (5)?

What action does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities to ensure that all present
and future Spanish national environmental legislation is in conformity with the framework directive for
water, even though the incorporation period for that directive is not yet over? Does the Commission not
consider it within its competences to act preventively, rather than not opening a procedure until the
Spanish government has actually infringed Community law through measures which could have
irreversible environmental consequences?

Now that the Spanish NHP has the status of a law, what form of rapid action does the Commission intend
to take to ensure that this Plan is modified so that it no longer violates the habitats and wild birds
directives?

(1) Complaint submitted to the Commission concerning non-compliance with Community law by the Kingdom of

Spain in the context of its adoption of the National Hydrological Plan.

(2) H-0561/01, H-0904/00, H-0843/00, E-1165/01 and E-0645/01, in particular.
(3) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Commission is studying the complaint lodged by representatives of the ‘Blue March’ on 10 September
2001.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its replies given in relation to the cited
questions.

The Commission has already brought to the attention of the Spanish authorities the need to ensure the full
respect of all applicable Community environmental legislation with regard to the Plan and with regard to
the projects that will be based thereupon in the future. It must be noted that in October 2000, well before
the approval of the Law on the National Hydrological Plan, the Commission reminded the Spanish
authorities of their obligations under the nature and impact assessment directives.

The Spanish national hydrological plan is an extensive and detailed document. The Commission has
the Environment
completed a preliminary assessment and in July 2001 the Director General of
Directorate-General wrote to the Spanish authorities in order to obtain further clarifications with regard
to the plan. It is the Commission’s understanding that the Spanish authorities will reply to this letter
imminently. The same authorities will be required to assess the potential environmental impacts of the
individual projects that will have to be realised within the framework of the plan. Accordingly, the design
and planning of these projects should ensure compliance with Community legislation in general and in

C 134 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

particular with the Habitats Directive (1), the Wild Birds Directive (2), the Directive on Environmental
Impact Assessment (3) (85/337/EEC as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (4)) and
the Water Framework Directive (5).

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
(2) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(3) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private

projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(5) 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.

(2002/C 134 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2615/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)
and Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Commission’s response to the citizens’ movement against the Spanish NHP

On 9 September 2001, 12 000 citizens of various European countries met in Brussels to demonstrate,
under the slogan ‘Blue March for a new water culture: not one euro for the NHP’, against the existing,
highly dubious water management policy based on massive hydraulic projects that have grave environ-
mental repercussions and cause severe human damage, which is currently exemplified by the new law on
the Spanish National Hydrological Plan (NHP).

In parallel to this demonstration, on 10 September 2001 a complaint was lodged with the Commission’s
services over non-compliance with Community law in relation to the NHP.

What is the Commission’s position concerning the large-scale mobilisation embodied in the ‘Blue March’,
expressing as it did the hostility of the public to this law on the NHP (1) which is in contradiction with
Community law?

In view of the urgent need to deal with this citizens’ complaint and the threat hanging over a substantial
part of Spain’s environmental heritage, can the Commission state when it expects to be able to reply to the
complaint? What action does it intend to take vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities to resolve the conflict? Is
any procedure for allocation of Community funds currently under way for the NHP? If so, does the
Commission not believe that the entire allocation procedure should be frozen pending conclusion of the
inquiry?

(1) Law 10/2001 of 5 July 2001 E BOE (Official Journal of the Spanish state) No 161.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

The Commission is of course aware of the ‘Blue March’ demonstration, which took place in Brussels on
9 September 2001 and considers that peaceful demonstrations of this type are a significant part of the
democratic process as a way of expressing the views of different citizens groups.

The Commission can also confirm the receipt of a complaint handed over by representatives of the Blue
March on 10 September. This complaint does indeed assert that the Spanish National Hydrological Plan
contravenes various pieces of Community legislation. It is expected that the analysis of the complaint will
be completed shortly.

There are two main sources of Community co-financing for water management related projects in Spain:
the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds. It is clear that all assisted projects, both under the Cohesion
Fund and the Structural Funds, must comply with Community legislation (1),
including environmental
requirements, in all respects.