WRITTEN QUESTION E-3553/01 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Revision of the 1976 EC Bathing Water Directive.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, access to information, bathing water, health control, leisure, quality of the environment, tourism, water analysis, water protection

C 172 E/82

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

In conclusion, the Commission will consider the situation in particular in the light both of the results of its
further TBR investigation and of its twin-track strategy. The Commission has no intention to change its
strategy vis-à-vis Korea, as set out in its reply to written question E-2142/01 (1).

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 68.

(2002/C 172 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3553/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Revision of the 1976 EC Bathing Water Directive

There are millions of water users who use Europe’s coastal and inland waters each year. Would the
Commission agree that a number of changes to the legislation should be made in order that these water
users get the protection they deserve?

Will the Commission ensure that when this directive is revised, the following will be incorporated:

1.

2.

3.

4.

a broadening of the concept of ‘bathing waters’ to take into account those waters heavily used by
citizens participating in water contact recreation;

acknowledgement of the year round nature of water use at certain locations;

the development of a standard and methodology that will give the best possible health protection;

accessible, up to date information to enable the public to make an informed choice about which
waters they use, and when.

Will the Commission take into account that the above proposals will not only benefit the water user but
also the tourism and leisure industry?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2002)

In order to protect the health of numerous bathers the Commission currently revises the Council Directive
76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (1) hereafter the ‘1976’ Directive.
When preparing this revision, the Commission published in December 2000 a Communication (2) to the
Parliament and the Council and has organised a wide public and stakeholder consultation.

From this consultation it is apparent that the scope of the 1976 Directive should be reviewed in the
‘bathing and

In fact, nowadays water activities are not

1.
light of modern recreational practices.
swimming’ but encompass several water sports.

just

2.
The bathing season may vary according to geographical and regional conditions. However, during
the consultation no consensus could be reached to formally extend bathing seasons throughout the year,
because at most locations the number of bathers would be very limited during the ‘colder’ months. As a
consequence, the revised Bathing Water Directive will not foresee bacteriological monitoring of beaches
throughout the entire year. The general water quality of inland and coastal waters is however subject to
the Urban Wastewater Directive (3), the Nitrates Directive (4), the Water Framework Directive (5) and the
relating monitoring schemes. Moreover, the Water Framework Directive foresees the concept of ‘Good
Ecological Status’ for all European waters.

3.
The revised directive will foresee a standard for monitoring and analysis. Scientific research indicates
that stringent bacteriological parameter thresholds are only meaningful in conjunction with a standard
testing methodology.

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/83

One of the weak points of the 1976 Directive was communication with the public. The revised
4.
Directive will take into account the new state of the art in (electronic) communication and will plan better
and faster information. This communication will take place on two levels. First, a messaging system on the
beaches will show beach and water status. Secondly, a wider information system (for example on the
Internet) will exist, allowing the public to be aware of bathing water quality before reaching the beach.
Both systems will deliver frequently updated information.

The Commission believes that the revision of the Bathing Water Directive will not only have a positive
effect on public health. It will also be beneficial for the tourism and leisure industry in terms of improved
public information provisions on beach and water status which will provide good publicity.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
(2) COM(2000) 860 final (http://www.europa.eu.int/water/water-bathing/index_en.html).
(3) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991 and OJ L 67, 7.3.1998.
(4) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.
(5) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(2002/C 172 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3554/01

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE), Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE)
and Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Community Tobacco Fund: unused appropriations and further undue deductions from tobacco

premiums

At a time when Greek tobacco processing organisations are complaining that the Community tobacco
fund (1) has not spent a single euro of the 60 million euro in accumulated deductions over the three-year
period 1999-2001 on agronomic research programmes to improve tobacco quality or alternative crop
programmes, the Commission is attempting to impose a further unacceptable increase in the deductions
from tobacco-producers’ premiums used to finance the Community fund’s research and information
activities in the tobacco sector, thereby cutting their incomes.

With reference to the proposal for a Council Regulation (2) fixing the premiums and guarantee thresholds
for leaf tobacco by variety group and Member State for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 harvests and amending
Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 (3):

1. Why is the Commission seeking unduly to impose a deduction for financing the Community tobacco
fund of 2 % of the premium for the 2002 harvest, 3 % for 2003 and 5 % for 2004 onwards (Article 3,
paragraph 1) when there are unused appropriations remaining in the fund, and why is it seeking to
abolish agronomic research in respect of this product?

2. What is the total amount of appropriations to have accumulated in the Community tobacco fund
since 1992, the year in which it was established, and what amounts of appropriations have been spent
per year since 1992 on the development of agronomic research into the production of less harmful
tobacco, and carrying out health awareness campaigns?

3. What becomes of the unused appropriations from the Community tobacco fund, given that in 1999
only 128 308,76 euro of the 3 000 000 euro available were taken up? What amount of appropriations
from the 6 000 000 euro available in 2000 and the 15 000 000 euro available in 2001 have been
taken up?