WRITTEN QUESTION E-2499/03 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Beach cleanliness.
Date: 2003-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: bathing water, environmental standard, health policy, littoral, quality of the environment, quality standard, water analysis

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/173

Taking the above into consideration:

1.

Is the Commission aware that its proposal for a Forest Focus regulation does not tally with the recent
case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, which opposes the renationalisation of
policy on combating fires and argues that it should be dealt with under the codecision procedure with
Parliament? What arguments justify upholding this proposal in its current form?

2.

Is the Commission aware of the adverse consequences which its proposal for a Forest Focus regulation
might have as regards combating forest fires at Community level?

3. Will the Commission amend its proposal to bring it into line with the previous Regulation (EEC)
No 2158/92, particularly as regards restoring specific funding devoted solely to prevention and
management activities to protect forests against the risk of fire?

(1) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992, p. 3.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Community has helped its Member States in their efforts to prevent forest fires although the main
responsibility for the co-ordination and implementation of any forest policy is at national
level.
The Honourable Member is aware of the fact that a scheme to protect and monitor forests against fire
was established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 of 23 July 1992 which expired at the end of
2002.

the Commission submitted a proposal

for a Parliament and Council Regulation
On 15 July 2002,
concerning the monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (‘Forest Focus’).
This proposal aims to establish a new Community scheme for forest monitoring and environmental
interactions in order to protect the Community’s forests from events such as atmospheric pollution and
forest fires. However, the scope of this proposal is broader than the previous regulations, as other issues
will be covered (biodiversity, carbon sequestration, soils …).

This proposal
is clearly focused on monitoring activities. It is still under political debate and will be
discussed again in autumn 2003 within the Parliament, when it considers its second reading position
under the co-decision procedure.

Various forest fire prevention measures have been already incorporated for the majority of the regions of
the Southern Member States into their Rural Development Plans, drafted according Council Regulation (EC)
No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 (1). So far, they have not been incorporated in ‘Forest Focus’ because
Union legislation does not allow the same measures to be financed by different regulations.

Up to the year 2006 the Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 and ‘Forest Focus’ together would cover
all
fire measures, both prevention and monitoring ones, previously covered by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92.

the forest

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, OJ L 160,
26.6.1999.

(2004/C 58 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2499/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject: Beach cleanliness

Is the Commission satisfied that the current standards of sea water and beach cleanliness as monitored in
the beach flagging scheme are high enough to avoid any temporary health problems for sea bathers? Will
it comment on recent reports that sea bathers are still likely to suffer stomach upsets and other health

C 58 E/174

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

problems even on approved beaches? If the Commission is not fully satisfied, what measures does it
propose to introduce to improve sea and beach cleanliness?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Commission is aware of the fact that current health standards, taken up by the Council Directive
1976/160/EC of 8 December 1975 on the quality of bathing water (1) are outdated, as they are based on
scientific evidence of the nineteen sixties. This is one of the main reasons why, in October 2002, the
Commission proposed a revision of the Directive (2). Compared to the 1976 Directive, which is still in
force, this proposed Directive reduces the risks for bathers of contracting gastro-enteritis (stomach upset)
and AFRI (respiratory illnesses) almost by a factor 3 (3).

As its name states, the Directive deals with the (bacteriological) quality of bathing water, not with the
cleanliness of the beach. The Commission is not in possession of scientific evidence, showing a dose-
the new
response relation between beach contamination and visitor health problems. Nevertheless,
Directive foresees beach inspections on algae, tar, plastic and glass residues.

The proposed Directive is currently being negotiated by the Parliament and by the Council. Until entry into
force of the new Directive, reporting will be carried out according to the 1976 Bathing Water Directive.
Based upon measured bathing water quality, the Commission indicates annually whether bathing waters
comply with Imperative or Guide values. Other organisations may use this indication for establishing a
flagging scheme, but ‘flags’ are not awarded by the Commission.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
(2) OJ C 45 E, 25.2.2003.
(3) Based upon World Health Organisation (WHO) research, (Kay et al., 1994), published i.a. in Farnham report (2001).

(2004/C 58 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2508/03

by Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Proceedings for infringement of Community directives

(29 July 2003)

In response to reports from a number of private shipping companies,
the Commission instituted
infringement proceedings concerning the companies making up the Tirrenia Group and, on 21 June 2001,
issued Decision C(2001) 1684 concerning the Tirrenia di Navigazione company (1).

To sum up the decision, Tirrenia is required to:

(cid:1) separate the cost accounting relating to public services from that relating to commercial services,

specifying the cost of each route plied;

(cid:1) de facto, terminate the six agreements concluded with the Italian state for the 20 years from 1989 to

2008;

(cid:1) approve the 2000/2004 five-year plan and the corresponding economic aid on condition that it

reduces its transport capacity in the summer season by 30 % on an annual basis.

No steps have apparently been taken to date to comply in full and at the right time with the decisions
issued by the Commission.

Could the Commission make the appropriate representations to the Italian authorities to ensure that the
necessary action is taken to enforce Decision C(2001) 1684 and hence that the criteria implied in fair
competition are not undermined?

(1) OJ L 318, 4.12.2001, p. 9.