WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/03 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), José Mendiluce Pereiro (PSE)and Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Spanish National Hydrological Plan, Structural Funds and cost benefit balance.
Date: 2003-03-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, Structural Funds, co-financing, cost-benefit analysis, hydrology, project evaluation, water management

C 242 E/162

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

was a traditional activity. The Kingdom of Spain responded to the Commission’s notification of this
irregularity by amending the original law by way of Law 53/2002, claiming that this brought it into line
with the Community legislation on birds.

However, while the new law prohibits hunting in the pre-mating and mating seasons and in migratory
periods (Articles 34 and 38), the national legislature has in no way altered the seventh additional provision
of Law No 4/1989, thereby entitling the competent administration (autonomous community) to maintain
the derogation for the hunting of partridge using male decoys in places where this is a traditional activity.
This means that the legislation on wild birds has still not been transposed correctly and in full.

Does the Commission feel that the new Law 53/2002,
in continuing to leave the above-mentioned
derogations to the discretion of the autonomous communities, correctly transposes the Directive on the
conservation of wild birds?

Does it believe that the central government’s delegation to the autonomous communities of powers to
grant derogations provides an adequate guarantee of compliance with Community legislation in this field?

Has the Commission given any follow-up to letter of formal notice No 4720 it sent to Spain in 1999?

What measures will the Commission take to ensure the correct transposition of Directive 79/409/EEC,
which does not provide for derogations such the one permitted by the Kingdom of Spain?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2003)

In the course of the infringement proceedings referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission
sent Spain a reasoned opinion regarding the improper transposition and application of Council Directive
79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. In the said reasoned opinion it asked Spain
to take the necessary steps to comply with the provisions of the Directive.

The Commission has yet to receive the Spanish authorities’ reply to the reasoned opinion. Nonetheless, it is
currently examining the conformity of Spanish Law No 53/2002 with the provisions of Directive 79/409/
EEC.

In any event, the Commission will take every measure provided for in the Treaties to ensure that the
Spanish authorities transpose and enforce Directive 79/409/EEC properly.

(2003/C 242 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/03

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), José Mendiluce Pereiro (PSE)
and Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: Spanish National Hydrological Plan, Structural Funds and cost benefit balance

The Commission is considering the Spanish Government’s request for EU co-funding for the planned
construction work on the National Hydrological Plan (NHP) and, in particular, the schemes for transfering
water from the Ebro to the Barcelona metropolitan area and the Spanish south-east coast.

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/163

A group of scientists (1) claims that the economic cost-benefit outcome of these transfers would be negative
in both cases, namely EUR − 2 204,02 million, if the cost of improving the transferred water for urban use
or the costs of climate change are not taken into account. If these latter costs are included, the figure rises
to EUR − 3 556,34 million. In view of this, the scientists suggest alternative formulas for water exploitation
and management (2), based on managing demand rather than increasing supply, and reflecting a sustainable
development policy taking account of the coast’s load capacity and the need for Integrated Coastal Zone
Management, as recommended by the Commission itself.

A recent Berkeley University study also confirms doubts as to the socio-economic viability of these water
transfers, endorsing the criticisms of the Spanish university scientists referred to above, and criticising the
lack of a financial study which would provide a firm answer to the question of who would pay and how
payment for these transfers is to be guaranteed. The same study cites similar projects in the USA which
were major financial disasters (3).

According to Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (4), structural intervention in major projects such as the Ebro
water transfer infrastructures need to be based on analysis of the costs and the socio-economic utility of
such projects, stating the forecast amount of use and the foreseeable effect on the development of
restructuring of the region concerned.

1.
Does the Commission not believe that the NHP water transfer policy has no solid base as far as cost-
benefit analysis is concerned, and that alternative proposals should therefore be taken into account, before
authorising co-funding from the Structural Funds and the ERDF in particular?

2. Would the Commission be prepared to use the monies requested by the Spanish authorities for the
Ebro transfers to alternative measures such as those cited in this written question?

(1) Arrojo Agudo P. and others, Análisis y valoración socioeconómica de los trasvases del Ebro, WWF European Office,

(2)

September 2002.
increase the efficiency of urban networks, reduce demand by means of
For the Barcelona metropolitan area:
domestic and industrial good practice programmes and, as a last option, desalinate sea water. For the Spanish south
east: control illegal irrigation operations, put in hand a socio-environmental programme for converting irrigated
land, develop a water bank which would allow the transfer, on a market basis under government supervision, of
concession or property rights between private individuals, increase the efficiency of urban networks and, also as a
last resort, desalinate sea water.

(3) A. Horne & others, A technical review of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan (Ebro river out-of-basin diversion),

Fundación Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, 7 January 2003.

(4) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2003)

In accordance with the subsidiarity principle,
projects to be co-financed by the Structural Funds programmes.

it is the competence of the Member States to select the

Nevertheless, Member States are obliged to notify those projects requesting community co-financing, and
whose cost exceeds the EUR 50 million threshold laid down in Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 (1). These projects will have to comply with all the requirements requested for major
projects and in particular, Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, as well as with any other
relevant applicable Community legislation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (cid:1)

OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.