WRITTEN QUESTION E-1019/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Regional policy with particular reference to Slovakia and other applicant countries.
Date: 2002-04-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Slovakia, Structural Funds, accession to the European Union, administrative structures, competence of the Member States, decentralisation, eligible region, regional policy, statistics

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/131

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Within the context of the urban waste water treatment Directive (1), the United Kingdom has partly
identified the region of Midlands as a sensitive area, which includes rivers such as the rivers Leadon, Chelt,
Avon, Bow Brook, Arrow, Teme and Blyth.

In addition, the Midlands area lies within the catchment area of the Humber, the estuary of which,
according to the Commission, should also have been identified as sensitive due to eutrophication. The
River Trent, which runs through the Midlands, is one of the main rivers flowing into the Humber Estuary.

Concerning the designation of potential sensitive areas under the urban wastewater treatment directive, the
Commission initiated an infringement procedure against the United Kingdom in 1998, which is at present
at the state of Reasoned Opinion.

To tackle the problem of poor water quality, Member States are required to identify sensitive areas
according to the criteria of the Directive, among which, eutrophication is one criterion. In areas which are
considered as sensitive by virtue of concerns regarding their eutrophic status, the urban wastewater
treatment directive foresees more advanced treatment
in
agglomerations with more than 10 000 person equivalents (deadline 31 December 1998).

(phosphorus or/and nitrogen removal)

Under the requirements of the urban wastewater treatment directive, Member States are required to report
to the Commission on the implementation of the directive. The latest date for which the Commission has
complete information is 1998. As of that date, a large number of British agglomerations discharging into
sensitive areas, did not comply with the provisions of the Directive. As regards West Midlands the
agglomerations of Barston, Redditch, Pershore, Ludov, Ledbury, Gloucester, Stanley Downtown and Coaley
did not comply with the provisions of the Directive. It is possible that the situation may have changed
over the last few years and the Commission is aware that the British authorities were intending to
introduce adequate treatment facilities for some of these agglomerations.

In order to improve poor water quality in the concerned regions, the implementation 5 as far as point
sources are the relevant factor 5 of wastewater treatment facilities should be improved. The problem of
eutrophication is a serious one, and areas being eutrophic or in danger to become eutrophic should be
identified as sensitive. As a consequence more stringent measures should be put in place. For the West
Midlands this would mean 5 among other requirements 5 that many major cities, which currently only
provide secondary treatment facilities, would have to be up-graded to tertiary treatment.

(1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban wastewater treatment (OJ L 135, 30.5.1991),

as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998 (OJ L 67, 7.3.1998).

(2002/C 277 E/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1019/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Regional policy with particular reference to Slovakia and other applicant countries

A number of Member States are constitutional monarchies, and a number of Member States are republics.
Both forms of government are perfectly consistent with the European treaties.

Similarly, some Member States, such as Germany and Spain, have chosen to formalise in their
constitutions highly regionalised structures of government, whilst others, such as France and the United
Kingdom, have preferred to maintain more traditional, centralised structures. These are matters of national
choice, with Portugal, for example, choosing several years ago to reject a more regional structure in a
referendum.

C 277 E/132

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

It has recently been reported that the Slovak Prime Minister, Mr Mikuláš Dzurinda, has told the Slovak
people that preparation for accession to the European Union requires not only the establishment of
territorial units (NUTS) for the purposes of allocation and distribution of structural funds as required by
the acquis but also the setting-up of regional governments. Can the Commission confirm whether or not
these reports are correct, and, if so, whether the Commission has in any way suggested to Mr Dzurinda or
the leader of any other applicant country that that is the case?

The UK, with a population of sixty million, has ten regions (but not ten regional governments). With
regard to the requirements for territorial units, could the Commission indicate whether it believes that the
national territory of Slovakia, with a population of only five and a half million, could double as a region
for the purposes of the acquis, and what area and population size the Commission believes is optimal for a
region under the NUTS classifications?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Questions of decentralisation and the internal political and administrative organisation of a Member State
are matters for that country alone. The Commission has never suggested to any of the candidate countries
that they should establish regional governments.

However, the Union does require an appropriate framework based on objective statistical criteria within
which to implement the regional policy financed by the Structural Funds. The Commission set up the
Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) in order to have a single coherent and comparable
method of classifying the regions of the Union and drawing up Community regional statistics. This
nomenclature has been used since 1989 to identify target regions in order to ensure the concentration of
Community assistance.

Accordingly, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural
Funds (1), the regions eligible under Objective 1 in 2000-2006 are the NUTS level 2 regions whose per
capita gross domestic product
the Community average. The managing
authorities are designated by the Member State at national, regional or local level.

is less than 75 % of

(GDP)

In order to provide a solid and transparent legal basis, on 14 February 2001 the Commission adopted
a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a
common classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) (2) on which Parliament has adopted
a report. It is now being discussed by the Council. Under this proposal for a Regulation, the average size of
NUTS level 2 territorial units would lie between 800 000 and three million people.

The NUTS was extended to the candidate countries by agreement between the country concerned and the
Commission. The whole of the territory of Slovakia is regarded as a NUTS level 1 region. Four territorial
units are regarded as being at NUTS level 2.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ C 180 E, 26.6.2001.

(2002/C 277 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1021/02

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Air traffic noise

Air traffic noise is a general problem but under the Commission proposal (1) noise management will
become the responsibility of airports that have 50 000 or more movements a year.