WRITTEN QUESTION E-0499/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE)and Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Environmental objectives relating to the Rhine.
Date: 2003-02-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Rhine Valley, application of EU law, drinking water, environmental standard, market approval, pesticide, plant health legislation, pollution of waterways, water management, water supply, water treatment

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/137

Networks in the years 1986-1987, with an amount of EUR 6,5 million. Other sections have been
co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, within the Regional Operational Programme
1994-1999 for Peloponese. The amount of
the assistance for these sections are expected to be
communicated by the Greek authorities to the Commission when the closure report for this programme
is submitted.

The Commission is not informed at present about possible ESPEL controls for projects relating to the
realisation of this motorway. However, such information should be included in the relevant closure report
for the Operational Programme Peloponese.

(2003/C 242 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0499/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE)
and Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2003)

Subject: Environmental objectives relating to the Rhine

In her answer dated 3 June 2002 to Written Question E-1128/02 (1) tabled by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL),
Mrs Wallström states that the Commission is of the view that the existing agreement on the Rhine and the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive in close cooperation with all riparian states will ensure
[he attainment of] the environmental objectives relating to the Rhine both as regards ecology and the use
of water from the Rhine for the abstraction of drinking water.

That statement prompts the following questions:

1. Does the Commission agree that

the measures laid down in the Framework Water Directive
(2000/60/EC) (2) with a view to ensuring compliance with the provisions of Article 7 of that Directive,
including measures to maintain water quality in order to reduce the level of purification treatment
required in the abstraction of drinking water, imply that the water companies should be cutting back
their efforts instead of increasing them?

2. As the European Union’s representative on the International Convention for the Protection of the
Rhine, does the Commission support the ‘Target’ for isoproturon set by the International Commission
for the Protection of the Rhine of 0,1 µg/l as the desired maximum value for the presence of this
substance in the water of the Rhine?

3.

4.

5.

In November 2001, Parliament and the European Council drew up a list of priority substances. Inter
alia, water quality standards were to be established for those substances. Isoproturon is one of the
‘priority hazardous substances’ to be evaluated and is responsible for the suspension of water supplies
to purification plants producing drinking water referred to by Mr Meijer. How does the Commission
take into account the ‘target’ referred to above when setting the standard for isoproturon?

If the Commission does not take into account the ‘target’ referred to above when setting standards,
how does it take into account the importance of drinking water abstraction from surface water when
setting the standard for isoproturon?

In its answer to Mr Meijer’s questions, the Commission states that a solution must also be sought in
the proper implementation of Directive 91/414/EEC (3). Is the Commission aware that the criterion
included in the Uniform Principles for the abstraction of drinking water from surface water is
currently not being implemented by any Member State in its assessment procedure for the
authorisation of pesticides in general and the procedure for the authorisation of isoproturon in
particular and that this state of affairs is being justified by some Member States on the grounds that
no guidance document exists for a check of this nature?

6. Does the Commission have any plans to draw up in the near future a guidance document of that
nature in order to counteract this failure to implement the assessment procedure for the authorisation
of pesticides?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 150.
(2) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

C 242 E/138

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

for bathing. The Drinking Water Directive,

The Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of
1.
23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1)), sets as
the standard objective the obligation to achieve/maintain good status for all waters. Further, it attached
particular attention and particular obligations to those waters of specific use, such as those for drinking
water abstraction or
(Council Directive 98/83/EC of
3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (2)), ensures proper drinking
water quality at the tap for the consumer. Where presently drinking water of the required quality might
only be ensured by a high level of treatment, achievement of the quality objectives set out in the Water
Framework Directive should in those cases result in distinctly better quality of the raw water used for
drinking water supply, and thus reduce the level of purification treatment required in the production of
drinking water. This will make the water supplying activity more sustainable by cutting the normal costs
of purification.

The findings of the International Convention for the Protection of the Rhine are recom-
2. to 4.
mendations for this river under International Law, and as such agreed by the Contracting Parties of the
Convention including the Union. Under the Water Framework Directive (Article 16, paragraph 7) quality
standards will be set at Union level applicable to the concentrations of priority substances for all surface
waters, which will be legally binding and enforceable. The Commission is currently carefully assessing all
the information available including data and experience from the Rhine basin, and is complementing these
by additional scientific studies and comprehensive stakeholder consultation (Article 16.5). Once finalised,
these will form the basis for the Commission proposals to the Parliament and to the Council on specific
measures against pollution by individual pollutants. Individual substances such as Isoproturon, or groups
of pollutants presenting a significant risk to or via the aquatic environment, including the risks to waters
used for the abstraction of drinking water will be considered for risk management. Such measures will
consist of environmental quality standards for priority substances, aiming at a high level of protection.
In addition, in applying a combined approach, emission control measures will be proposed for priority
substances to ensure progressive reduction of their discharges into water, and for priority hazardous
substances phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses, will be proposed by the Commission. In the
case of Isoproturon, the review on whether it shall be classified as hazardous or not, has not yet been
concluded.

The Commission is not aware that the criterion included in the uniform principles for the abstraction
5.
of drinking water for surface water (cid:1) i.e. that surface water used for the abstraction of drinking water
must comply with the provisions of Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality
required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States (3) (cid:1) is not
being implemented by any Member State in its assessment procedure for the authorisation of pesticides in
general. Consequently, it is not aware of justifications being used by Member States for the purported non-
compliance. Commission Directive 2002/18/EC of 22 February 2002 amending Annex I to Council
Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant-protection products on the market to include
Isoproturon as an active substance (4), which included Isoproturon in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/
EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (5) provides a
deadline of 1 January 2007 for Member States to amend or withdraw authorisations of plant protection
products containing Isoproturon on the basis of evaluations made using the uniform principles. It may be
premature to draw conclusions already at this stage on whether Member States are conforming with the
provisions of the Directive for Isoproturon.

6.
The Commission has no plans to develop a guidance document in relation to the implementation of
Directive 91/414/EEC for two reasons. Firstly, the Commission sees no necessity and no benefit in
developing a guidance document at this stage as it is not aware of a ‘failure to implement’ Directive 75/
440/EEC as regards plant protection products and other pesticides. Secondly, given the clarity of the
provisions of Directive 75/440/EEC, the added-value of additional guidance is not evident at this stage.
Should the need arise, in the context of the repeal of Directive 75/440/EEC and the implementation of
Directive 2000/60/EC, the question of guidance can be reconsidered.

(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
(2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.
(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(4) OJ L 55, 26.2.2002.
(5) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.