WRITTEN QUESTION E-0071/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Storage of peak discharges of river water and fair burden sharing between upper and lower reaches of rivers in Member States.
Date: 2003-01-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Netherlands, budgetary reserve (EU), cross-border cooperation, environmental research, environmental risk prevention, flood, hydrology, water management, watercourse

C 242 E/88

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

to replace Member States in their responsibilities. Under Article 18 of Directive 96/82/EC, it is up to the
authorities of
inspections, or other control measures
appropriate to the type of establishment concerned. Therefore, the Commission is not competent to launch
inspections of plants covered by the Directive.

the Member States to organize a system of

However, as it is not aware of the specific situation described by the Honourable Member, the Commission
will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure, within the
limits conferred on it by the Treaty, the compliance with Community law.

The Italian decree finalising the environmental
impact assessment (EIA) procedure on the project to
increase the production capacity of both vynil chloride monomer (VCM) and dichloretane (DCE) at Porto
Marghera (EIA decree)
in itself under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of
27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (2), after amendments by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3). It may become
relevant if and when a development consent is granted.

is not relevant, at this stage,

Under Article 9 of the Directive ‘When a decision to grant or refuse development consent has been taken,
the competent authority or authorities shall inform the public thereof in accordance with the appropriate
procedures and shall make available to the public the following information:’

(cid:1) ‘the content of the decision and any conditions attached thereto,’

(cid:1) ‘the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based,’

(cid:1) ‘a description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the

major adverse effects.’

Based on the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission observes that the decision to
grant or refuse development consent has not been adopted yet in this specific case. Therefore, at present,
the lack of publication of the Italian EIA decree is not relevant under the Directive and no breach of
Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, can be identified.

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2003/C 242 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0071/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 January 2003)

Subject: Storage of peak discharges of river water and fair burden sharing between upper and lower

reaches of rivers in Member States

Does the Commission consider that flooding of European rivers can no longer be regarded as isolated
1.
incidents but as a growing structural problem caused by the felling of forests, draining of agricultural land,
canalisation and narrowing of the upper reaches of rivers, the more rapid melting of glaciers in the Alps,
higher rainfall as a result of global warming caused by the greenhouse effect, the settlement of land and
the 1,2 cm a year rise in the sea level?

2.
Is the Commission aware that many of these problems originate in the upper reaches of the rivers
Oder, Elbe, Rhine, Maas, Scheldt and Danube, whereas so far virtually the entire responsibility for finding
solutions has been left to the countries in the lower reaches of these rivers, which means that some present
or future Member States of the EU are passing the problems on to other Member States?

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/89

Is the Commission aware that, as a last resort to protect towns from flooding, the Netherlands is
3.
investigating the possibility of using ten thousand hectares of low-lying farmland and nature protection
areas as a water storage area when the Rhine and Maas are at high water, as a result of which farms and
even whole villages will disappear. The cost of creating this water storage area will be EUR 15 billion in
addition to the EUR 4,5 billion required for major works to protect the coast and river banks?

4. What possibilities are there of using the EU Disaster Fund (solidarity fund) in the near future for
preventive measures designed to increase significantly the possibilities of holding rain water and melt water
in the ground longer in the upper reaches of rivers, thereby preventing ever-increasing peaks in water
discharges leading to more frequent and worse disasters in the lower reaches and the need for countries
located in the lower reaches to take extremely expensive measures for which there is no public support?

5. What other measures does the Commission envisage to ensure fairer burden sharing of efforts and
costs between the upper and lower reaches of cross-border rivers in the Member States concerned?

Source: Netherlands 1 TV channel, Zembla programme, 2 January 2003, ‘The new water crisis’.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2003)

1. to 3. and 5. Within the river basins addressed by the Honourable Member (Oder, Elbe, Rhine, Maas,
Schelde and Danube)
International River Conventions have been established. The Community is
Contracting Party in most of them, whilst observer status prevails in the case of Maas and Schelde. These
Conventions do have flood prevention among their statutory objectives and are actively involved in
addressing flood prevention and flood protection (1). Assessments done, and action agreed within these
Conventions, do inter alia address the question of ‘upstream (cid:1) downstream’ cooperation and sharing of
responsibilities. The Rhine ‘Action Plan Flood Protection’, agreed within the International Rhine
Commission, is an example of such an agreement, currently being implemented.

Following legislative decisions by the Parliament and the Council, the Community has recently restructured
its water policy by the Water Framework Directive (2). Whilst it will contribute to mitigating the effects of
floods and droughts (cf. article 1(e)), it does not per se set operational targets for flood prevention and
flood protection, not least with a view to the legal basis of article 175(1) of the EC Treaty.

However, the Commission, Member States and Candidate Countries have in 2002 started comprehensive
cooperation on the issue of flooding. Beyond the formal scope of the Water Framework Directive,
exchange of information, knowledge and experience on flood prevention and flood protection will, in first
step during 2003,
lead to a joint document on best practices in flood prediction, prevention and
mitigation. Whilst flood events have been occurring across Europe for centuries, and will continue to
occur, the impacts of such events have in many cases drastically increased, due to human activities such as
cutting off rivers from their natural floodplains, changed land-use and increasing sealing of surface,
designation of areas for housing and/or economic activities in areas with a potential of flooding.

At the same time the Commission is working on a horizontal initiative addressing environmental risks
(forest fires, earthquakes,
flood events, technological risks etc.), with a Commission Communication
foreseen during the first half of 2003. Following discussion on this Communication and the collating of
best practices, the Commission will consider need and scope of possible legislative frameworks.

C 242 E/90

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

The Commission has been supporting European research on floods throughout its Framework Programmes
for Research and Technological Development (3). During the Fifth Framework programme (1999-2002)
over 30 multi-national projects were financed under the ‘Environment and Sustainable Development
Programme’. Advances has been made particularly in the areas of flood forecasting and flood risk in
relation to climate change. Research under the ‘Global Change Priority’ of the Sixth Framework Programme
(2003-2006) focusses on a more holistic approach in which flood hazard, vulnerability and risk assessment
are addressed in an integrated manner with the aim of mitigating the evironmental, social and economic
effects of floods. In addition, research is also to be performed in the context of improved integrated
watershed management strategies, and where relevant, taking into account the transboundary nature and
impacts of floods.

In parallel, the Commission’s Joint Research Centre has developed a flood prediction and modelling
instrument for the Oder river basin. This instrument is now, as a basis for flood defence strategies in river
basins across administrative and political borders, to be applied to and made operational for the Elbe and
Danube basins and to other European basins.

In the context of Community funding, the Community Initiative Interreg III of the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) for the period 2000-2006 can, on the operational level, contribute to support
ongoing actions at international level for flood prevention and protection. In particular its strand B, for
transnational co-operation, promotes the good management of natural resources,
in particular water
resources, following an integrated spatial planning approach. Further, the Common Agriculture Policy
(CAP), through its second pillar (Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of the Council of
17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain regulations) (4) can already finance measures which
have a particular relevance for flood prevention if Member States choose to include such measures into
their Rural Development programmes. Currently, some of these programmes foresee direct or indirect
measures for the prevention or reduction of environmental risks. Measures that will help to increase the
water retention capacity of the soil (e.g. afforestation of arable land, maintenance of grassland, organic
matter incorporation) will have a direct reduction effect on floods. Likewise, any measure aimed at climate
change mitigation (e.g. promotion of renewable energies such as bio-gas, reduction of animal stocking) is
likely to have a positive (indirect) effect, since it is suspected that global warming contributes to increasing
the frequency of extreme weather events.

For the future, the Commission proposals for a CAP reform, as set out in a Communication (5) recently
published would, if adopted, result in an increased budget being available through pillar II, which Member
States could use to increase their support for risk prevention activities. This would be brought about by
using modulation to shift money from pillar I to pillar II. The introduction of mandatory cross-compliance
for farmers receiving direct payments will reinforce the respect of statutory management requirements and
the maintenance of good agricultural conditions, which comprise e.g. anti-erosion measures. It is proposed
to exclude changes in the land use of permanent pastures, in particular no conversion to arable land. The
single payment scheme can contribute to extensification, which would have positive consequences e.g. on
water retention capacity of soils. The CAP reform proposals also introduce support for energy crops
(pillar I) with a view to achieving carbon dioxide substitution.

The European Union Solidarity fund (EUSF) (6) was created to give immediate financial assistance in
4.
the event of a major disaster to help people, regions and countries concerned to return to living conditions
that are as normal as possible.

Intervention can only take place to help finance making good public damage not covered by insurance.
The EUSF can not be utilised to fund long-term preventive measures. In the context of disasters eligible for
EUSF assistance the funding of preventive measures is only permissible in the case of essential emergency
operations for the immediate securing of preventive infrastructures and measures of immediate protection

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/91

of the cultural heritage. Countries that receive assistance from the Solidarity Fund are obliged to submit a
report to the Commission not later than 18 months after the date of disbursement of the grant. This report
shall detail the preventive measures introduced or proposed by the beneficiary State in order to limit
damage and to avoid, to the extent possible, a recurrence of similar disasters.

(1) Rhine: action plan flood protection adopted, implementation ongoing. Elbe: flood protection strategy adopted, draft
action programme currently validated following the 2002 flood disaster, adoption foreseen end-2003. Danube river:
minimisation of impacts of floods as part of the adopted action programme, follow-up evaluation ongoing. Maas
and Scheldt: flood prevention and protection as key part of the recently signed new Conventions.
(2) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, of 23.10.2000 (cid:1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
(3) SEC(2002) 907, COM(2002) 481.
(4) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(5) COM(2003) 23 final.
(6) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (cid:1)

OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.

(2003/C 242 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0080/03

by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Agronomic research into tobacco growing

(23 January 2003)

Council Regulation No 546/2002 (1) has now modified the COM in tobacco (Regulation (EC) No 2075/
92 (2)), excluding agronomic research from the actions financed by the Tobacco Fund. The Cunha report
(A5-0065/2002), adopted by Parliament on 14 March 2002, favoured ‘stepping up agronomic research
with a view to promoting the gearing of tobacco production towards varieties and cultivation and drying
methods less harmful for human health, better adapted to market conditions and more environment-
friendly, as well as the development of alternative uses for raw tobacco’.

Given the importance of the research programmes aimed at gearing Community production towards the
varieties and qualities of tobacco that damage human health the least, and also with the objective of
continuing the work done so far and not losing the synergies that have been created, the Commission has
recommended that the sectors affected by the change regarding the Tobacco Fund should seek the support
of research policy, as administered by the Directorate-General for Research.

The recent presentation of
the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development, on
11-13 November 2002, did not make it possible to identify the heading(s) under which research projects
for tobacco cultivation could be financed.

Can the Commission identify the headings relating to the funding of agronomic research projects for
tobacco under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development? Can it ensure that, in the
selection procedures for agronomic research projects, those projects that concern tobacco will receive
equitable treatment?

(1) OJ L 84, 28.3.2002, p. 4.
(2) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 70.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

Community Research project
funding is exclusively based on multi-annual Framework Programmes
co-decided by the Parliament and the Council. The 6th Research Framework Programme 2002-2006,
which determines the research priorities for the next four years, is the result of a priority setting by the
Parliament and the Council, on the basis of the Commission proposal