WRITTEN QUESTION P-2776/03 by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission. Conflict between the objectives of Directive 2001/77/EC on renewable energy and the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Austria.
Date: 2003-09-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, decision-making, hydroelectric power, national implementing measure, power plant, reduction of gas emissions, renewable energy, water management

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/165

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The Commission has taken a number of specific initiatives in the context of establishing a European area
of justice that will be of benefit for an improved access to justice for personal injury claimants.

It has presented a proposal for a Council Directive on compensation to crime victims (1), focussing on
compensation from the state. The proposed Directive aims at establishing a minimum standard for all
crime victims in the Union and facilitating access to compensation in cross-border situations. The proposal
is currently under discussion in the Council and the Parliament.

The Commission has recently presented a proposal for a Council Regulation on the applicable law to non-
contractual obligations (2). The proposed Regulation would harmonise the conflict of laws of the Member
States for cross-border disputes involving torts or delicts, and will greatly improve the predictability and
clarity of the legal situation for personal injury claimants in cross-border situations.

The Commission supports projects carried out in this area also, which can serve to deepen the debate on
what further measures could be taken at European level and also help to make information on national
laws on personal injury more accessible for lawyers as well as citizens.

However, the Commission has no plans to launch measures towards harmonising personal injury laws in
general. The added value of such an initiative can be questioned and the existence of a legal basis in the EC
Treaty is unclear. Moreover, the main differences between the Member States would appear to be in the
in particular as concerns non-
way different losses are evaluated and compensated for by the courts,
pecuniary losses. This reflects among other things, socio-economic differences between the Member States.
It is not conceivable to proceed towards any kind of common European tariffs to even out such
differences.

(1) OJ C 45 E, 25.2.2003.
(2) COM(2003) 427 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0170)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2776/03

by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Conflict between the objectives of Directive 2001/77/EC on renewable energy and the

implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Austria

In Austria, small hydroelectric power plants are a vital source of energy, supplying 8 % of the electricity
market. They generate electricity cheaply and are environmentally benign, as they do not emit any
pollutants or consume any materials. Consequently, small-scale hydroelectric power makes a substantial
contribution to the attainment of the Kyoto objectives and of the objectives set forth in Directive 2001/77/
EC (1) on renewable energy.

The implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Austria will significantly hamper the
operation of the plants and further expansion and investment in this sector. The Water Framework
Directive will restrict opportunities for small hydroelectric power plants to operate because it introduces
new requirements concerning residual water. The Directive abolishes the fundamental right to use water as
an energy source, so that procedural operators may at any time encroach upon existing water rights.
Moreover, there is no provision to enable hydroelectric power plant operators to participate in the drafting
of national water plans in order to defend their interests.

C 78 E/166

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Therefore the following questions:

1. Does the Commission agree that the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Austria will
make it significantly more difficult to attain the Kyoto objectives there and the objectives set forth in
the directive on renewable energy?

2. Does the Commission agree that, in the case of the conflict between the Water Framework Directive
and the directive on renewable energy, the respective public interests need to be weighed up and that
under certain circumstances the interest in maintaining water in a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ condition
should be subordinated to climate protection and promotion of renewable energy?

3. What will the Commission do to enable a decision to be arrived at where the Water Framework

Directive and the directive on renewable energy conflict?

4. What will the Commission do to eliminate at legislative level the conflicts between the two directives

to which attention has been drawn here?

5. What relevant measures is the Commission aware of in other Member States?

(1) OJ L 11, 16.1.2001, p. 14.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Commission does not share the Honourable Member’s opinion that implementation of the Water
1.
Framework Directive (1) in Austria will make it distinctly more difficult to reach the Kyoto objectives as
well as those under the Renewable Energies Directive (2). In implementing the Water Framework Directive
the impact of all sectors of activity, including the electricity sector, will be integrated into the objectives/
assessment of the Directive. The Commission believes that small hydroelectric power plants can continue
to make a contribution to attaining the Kyoto objectives, given the right framework that takes full account
of the Water Framework Directive (2).

The Commission does not share the view that without exception small hydroelectric power plants
2.
provide only environmental advantages. Whilst it is evident that such plants do not produce greenhouse
gases in generating electricity,
they may, however, have a considerable impact on the ecological
environment, depriving rivers of their water flow, providing an insurmountable barrier for migrating fish,
interfering with the recharge of groundwater aquifers close to rivers etc. However, in the majority of cases
solutions can be found that can remedy these negative effects. The Commission is of the view that
environmental aspects cannot be subordinated to each other, but that in the interest of transparency, it is
essential that the benefits for and negative impacts on the environment of small hydro schemes are
assessed and put into the clearly defined perspectives of the Water Framework Directive while also taking
into account
the tasks when establishing the river basin
management plans, and subject to scrutiny by the Commission.

impacts. This will be one of

the global

3.
The Water Framework Directive established the legally binding obligation for Member States to
encourage the active involvement of all interested parties (including where relevant the electricity industry),
when the river basin management plans are produced, reviewed and updated. Further, those parties have
under the Directive the legal right of access to all relevant documents including background documents
and information. Thus the Water Framework Directive does not at all deprive Austrian operators of
hydroelectric power plants of their right of being consulted, on the contrary expanding their rights of
participation and ensuring a transparent and balanced decision-taking process.

The Water Framework Directive is
the subject of an extensive programme of cooperation on
implementation involving the Commission, Member States, stakeholders and non-governmental organi-
sations (NGOs). The electricity industry is fully involved in this cooperation via their European trade

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/167

organisation Eurelectric. Such cooperation at European level is complemented by national and regional
cooperation, such as the Austrian electricity industry being fully involved into the Austrian Ministry’s
implementation efforts, entailing inter alia a June 2002 workshop with the Association of Austrian
Electricity Operators with participation and contributions by Commission and Austrian Ministry.

4.
The Union and all its Member States ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 31 May 2002. Austria has taken
a commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 13 % by 2012 compared to 1990 under the
Union burden sharing agreement.

5.
Summarising, the Commission does not see any contradiction between the Renewable Energies
Directive 2001/77/EC and the Water Framework Directive. Stakeholders, including the electricity industry,
are fully involved into the ongoing implementation efforts. As regards detailed implementation regulations
from Member States fully taking into account the Directive, the Commission is (cid:1) against the background
of the implementation deadlines set out in the Water Framework Directive (environmental and economic
analysis by December 2004, river basin management plans by December 2009) (cid:1) not aware of such
documents being already available. However,
small
hydroelectric power plants as regards their impact on the environment, commissioned and published by
the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) (3).

the Commission is aware of assessments of

(1) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(2) Directive 2001/77/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity

produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, OJ L 283, 27.10.2001.

(3) German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt): Hydroelectric Power Plants as a Source of Renewable
Energy (cid:1) legal and ecological aspects (‘Wasserkraftanlagen als erneuerbare Energiequelle (cid:1) rechtliche und
ökologische Aspekte’), UBA-Texte 1/01, ISSN 0722-186X, Berlin 2001.

(2004/C 78 E/0171)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2782/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: EIA report and the Habitats Directive

In a June 2003 report on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (EIA), the Commission concluded that there are only few monitoring systems in place for
EIAs, that the results of EIAs are not adequately integrated into the decision-making process and that the
comments of the general public should be included.

Before the end of 2003 the Danish municipality of Vejle is expected to decide, among other things, to
construct a dual carriageway that will have adverse consequences for the countryside throughout the
Svinholt area. In view of its possible construction an altogether limited EIA assessment has been carried
out (Environmental assessment of Ødsted-Ny Højen-Vinding dual carriageway, Technical EIA statement,
August 2003) which has also been criticised by several members of the public for containing errors.

This being so, will the Commission explain whether the above EIA assessment satisfies all relevant
requirements, whether the procedure is in conformity with the directives relating to the Århus Convention
and whether, in its view, this road project can be expected to comply with the provisions of the Habitats
Directive. Lastly, will
it state clearly whether such a project can be commenced before appropriate
assessments have been carried out and before various complaints to the Commission, etc. have been
examined and the findings are available?