WRITTEN QUESTION P-0689/03 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Report on the National Hydrological Plan (Spain).
Date: 2003-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, hydrology, project evaluation, report, water resources

C 242 E/160

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

The Polytechnic University of Cartagena (Murcia) recently published a report dated 7 January 2003 and
entitled ‘A Technical Review of
the Spanish National Hydrological Plan (Ebro River Out-of-basin
Diversion)’, which the Commission is currently examining.

The authors of this report state that the European Union asked Alexander J. Horne and John Dracup to
form a team of six experts with a view to drawing up the report, with their client and contact person
being Amalio Garrido.

This begs the following questions:

1. Did the Commission or members of its staff play a part in the decision to prepare this report, in the

choice of its authors, in its drafting or in anything relating to it?

2.

If so, what part did the Commission or members of its staff play, and what was the aim of this
involvement?

3. What relationship developed between the European Commission or members of its staff, the Regional
Government of Murcia’s commissioner for sustainable development and the University of Cartagena
with regard to the preparation of this report?

(2003/C 242 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0689/03

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Report on the National Hydrological Plan (Spain)

(3 March 2003)

the Commission’s
During the latest debate on the NHP held in the EP’s Committee on Petitions,
representative informed us about two important issues (cid:1) the forthcoming meeting to be held by the
Commission with Spanish government officials to discuss possible ‘inconsistencies’ in the NHP as regards
Community law, and the detailed study they were carrying out on the report commissioned from a group
of scientists at the University of Berkeley (California).

Can the Commission say whether it was involved in the decision to request this report and in choosing the
American experts who drew it up? Does it know that a client and contact of the experts is Amalio Garrido,
representing the local government of Murcia in Brussels?

If so, does it know whether, during their trip to Spain (last June) designed to find out people’s views on the
spot, the experts had contacts with any Spanish scientists who oppose the NHP? Did the experts have any
contact with the representatives of the ‘Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua’, a platform for the defence of
the river Ebro, or with any other representative of the communities affected who attended the meeting
which the delegation from Parliament’s Committee on the Environment held recently in Deltebre?

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-638/03, P-0653/03 and P-0689/03
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Contrary to what might be said in the report, the Commission did not request the formation of a team or
the production of a report.

There are many divergent statements, opinions, claims and counter claims concerning the Spanish
hydrological plan in general and the proposed Ebro transfer in particular. The volume of material, which
exists on this subject, is immense. In contacts with the Spanish officials and others, the Commission raised
the possibility of an independent assessment being carried out in order to try and reconcile some of the
divergent positions. Given the experience with inter-basin transfers in the United States and the similarities

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/161

which exist between the parts of South-East Spain and the Western United States, it was thought that
American experts might be able to provide a valuable insight into some of the key issues associated with
the proposed Ebro transfer.

The Commission provided the names of prominent American experts but was not involved in the decision
to establish a team of experts nor in the choice of the experts. The Commission did not have any direct
contact with the experts and was not involved in their investigation although it was informed of its status
on a regular basis. The Commission advised that the experts be given access to a wide selection of material
concerning the proposed Ebro transfer, including not only official documents but also reports from non-
governmental organisations, academics and others that had raised concerns in relation to the proposed
transfer. The Commission also advised that the report be made public and widely accessible.

The idea of an independent investigation was very strongly supported by Mr Amalio Garrido from the
region of Murcia.
It is understood that Mr Garrido has an unpaid position as a Commissioner for
sustainable development with the regional government in Murcia. He also represents a municipal drinking
water supply company in the Murcia region. The information and advice referred to above was provided
to Mr Garrido. The host organisation for the commissioning and execution of the study was the University
of Cartagena in Murcia.

(2003/C 242 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0667/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject: Transposition dates for DG Environment directives

Can the Commission state the transposition dates for all DG Environment directives since September 1999
and the dates (if any) on which the UK Government confirmed to the Commission that they had been
transposed into UK law and in which cases the Commission has commenced proceedings in order to
secure compliance?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2003)

There are twenty-six directives for which Directorate General Environment is responsible, which are
relevant for transposition by the United Kingdom and for which transposition was due after September
1999. These are listed in the table which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat. As can be seen from the table, six of the Directives listed have been transposed. For the rest,
infringement proceedings are on-going. Eleven of the cases listed relate only to the failure to transpose in
Gibraltar.

(2003/C 242 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0681/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: Incorrect transposition of the Birds Directive into Spanish law

The European Commission brought infringements proceedings against the Kingdom of Spain for failing to
correctly transpose and implement Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds. The
irregularities detected by the Commission at the initial stage related to the seventh additional provision of
Law No 4/1989 on conservation of the countryside and wild fauna and flora, which provided that
authorisation for the hunting of partridge using decoys could be granted by the relevant autonomous
administration, with the limitations required to ensure conservation of that species, in places where this