WRITTEN QUESTION E-2615/01 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)and Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission. Commission's response to the citizens' movement against the Spanish NHP.
Date: 2001-09-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Spain, Structural Funds, complaint to the Commission, environmental law, hydraulic works, hydrology, infringement of EU law, water management

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 @ 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.

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/61

Under the Cohesion Fund, the Commission appraises and approves projects or groups of projects,
submitted by the Spanish authorities, on their individual merits in the context of the regulations in force.
A series of such projects have been approved to date and the Commission publishes regularly information
on these. Some of these may have been included by the Spanish authorities in their National Hydrological
Plan and it is a matter for these authorities to identify whether or not this is the case. The same reasoning
applies to projects applications which are in the course of appraisal by the Commission and which will be
announced if and when approved.

As far as the Structural funds are concerned, these operate on a programme basis. In October 2000, the
Commission approved the Community Support Framework (CSF) 2000-2006 for the Spanish Objective 1
regions. One of the priorities set out in this Framework is ‘Environment, Natural Environment and Water
Resources’. In the context of this priority and in accordance with the operational programmes based on
the CSF, the Spanish authorities have selected and will continue to select projects for assistance from the
Structural Funds. The Commission is informed of the selected projects in the context of the monitoring
system set up under the CSF and becomes directly involved in regard to aid rates in the case of major
projects (€ 50 million or more). Again it is up to the Spanish authorities to identify whether or not
selected projects have been included by them in their National Hydrological Plan.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21 June 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 establishing a
Cohesion Fund, and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June laying down general provisions on the
Structural Funds both published in OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 134 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2617/01

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Subject: The Netherlands’ problems with the ESF record-keeping system in 1994-1999

The report on the inquiry ordered by the Netherlands Government into the use of ESF funds between
1994 and 1999 and chaired by Mr H. E. Koning (hereafter referred to as the Koning report) mentions a
number of problems with the system made available under licence by the European Union for the purpose
of keeping records on the administration of the ESF during that period. The Koning report states that there
was a problem caused by the millennium bug. Eventually the system which was being used in the
Netherlands was replaced, giving rise to delays in reporting.

Did the Netherlands Government immediately inform the Commission of the complaints about and

1.
problems with the system provided by the EU?

2.

3.

Did other Member States have similar problems with and complaints about the system?

Did the Commission take measures to eliminate the causes of dissatisfaction?

Is there any truth in the suggestion that the record-keeping system was affected by the millennium

4.
bug? If so, why has this not been acknowledged previously?

5.
Is the Commission aware that it took the Netherlands Government more than a year to obtain a
replacement for the system which had been supplied? Did the Commission offer alternatives? Did the
Netherlands Government request advice from the Commission regarding both the administrative record-
keeping system and the consequences for reporting on the ESF?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

1.
First contacts between the Commission and Arbvo to implement a new version of the software used
for the Dutch regional European Social Fund (ESF) application took place in 1998. September 1999 and