WRITTEN QUESTION E-2966/03 by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission. Spanish National Hydrological Plan: the impact of the La Brena dam project on the Iberian lynx and protected raptors.
Date: 2003-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Andalusia, application of EU law, bird, engineering structure, hydrology, protected species, protection of animal life, wild mammal

C 78 E/444

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

3. What initiatives will the Commission take to harmonise security standards with a view to preventing
or reducing blackout risks?

4. What measures have been taken to encourage greater use of new energy sources, especially
the only guarantee against
renewables, given that, as decentralised energy sources,
blackouts?

these represent

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Ownership is not relevant to the question of network failures. Whether networks are owned by private
investors or government agencies, it is crucial that appropriate incentives are maintained on the companies
concerned and their employees to maintain, operate and develop the network. For the electricity industry,
this must be done with the oversight of the national regulatory authorities since they, in effect, control the
resources that are available to the transmission and distribution businesses.

Development of transmission infrastructure is,
in the main, the responsibility of the Member States
concerned. However, the Community does have an interest in ensuring security of supply in the context of
the emerging competitive market for electricity.
It also wishes to develop competition through cross
border exchanges. Accordingly, following the Commission’s proposal at the Barcelona European Council
(15 and 16 March 2002), the Council has adopted Guidelines for the trans-European network programme,
which identifies axes of priority of European interest. Relevant projects are considered favourably for TENs
finance.

The Commission has already taken measures on this issue by requesting, via the Florence Electricity
Regulators Forum, that the Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) develops an
Operation Handbook which will consolidate the various guidelines that currently exist. Parts of this
Handbook could be made legally binding in the context of Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the
Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border
exchanges in electricity (1).

There can never be a 100 % guarantee against blackouts. Having said that, decentralised generation such as
renewable energy sources and combined heat and power (CHP) can make a contribution to network
security. The Renewables Directive (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 (2)) requires Member States to set targets for the development of renewable
energy. A similar proposal relating to CHP generation is currently passing through the legislative process.

(1) OJ L 176, 15.7.2003.
(2) OJ L 283, 27.10.2001.

(2004/C 78 E/0466)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2966/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Spanish National Hydrological Plan: the impact of the La Brena dam project on the Iberian lynx

and protected raptors

Is the Commission aware of the problems likely to be encountered by the Iberian lynx, the Spanish
imperial eagle and other vulnerable species under the Spanish Government’s National Hydrological Plan, in
particular the La Brena dam project?

Can the Commission outline what plans it has to protect all the species under threat but in particular the
Iberian lynx and the Spanish imperial eagle?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/445

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the La Breña II dam project in the province of Cordoba, in the Autonomous
Community of Andalusia, in the South of Spain.

The Commission has opened an infringement procedure in relation to this project in order to ensure that
the Community environmental law is properly applied.

The La Breña II dam project has been the subject of various exchanges of information and meetings
between the Commission and the Spanish authorities. It should be noted that the Commission has received
wide-ranging information in relation to this matter, from the Spanish authorities and different persons,
associations and bodies, who have transmitted their points of view both in favour of and against this
project.

It is important to note that, in the framework of this case, the Spanish authorities have asked the opinion
of the Commission pursuant to Article 6.4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). The Commission is currently examining
this request. It is foreseen that the Commission will shortly deliver its opinion in relation to this project.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 78 E/0467)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2975/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Contracts with CESD

In December 2001 the Commission (EuropeAid) signed a contract worth EUR 999 780 with the firm
CESD, which was to help with a census in former Yugoslavia. The fact that this contract was entered into
is highly problematic. Firstly, the firm obtained the contract outside the customary tendering procedures.
Secondly, it was entered into in spite of the fact that the firm had already been shown to have swindled
Eurostat out of more than EUR 3 million.

Between 1996 and 2001, CESD entered into contracts worth EUR 31 655 756 with Eurostat, some of
which were awarded outside the customary tendering procedures. Eurostat-CESD contracts not in line with
tendering rules have been criticised by the Court of Auditors in its annual reports (1).

Would the Commission state whether it was unaware of the Court of Auditors’ criticism or whether it
deliberately chose to ignore it?

In a letter (29 September 2003) to Mrs Theato, Commissioner Patten stated that EuropeAid had no
knowledge of irregularities and fraud in connection with CESD before July 2003.

Would the Commission explain how it is possible for EuropeAid not to have known about the problems
surrounding CESD when the Eurostat audit department had established in two reports, in May and July
2001,
fraud and nepotism involving more than EUR 3 million.
The problems were so serious that both reports were forwarded to OLAF in November 2001.

there had been irregularities,

that

Would the Commission explain how it is possible that the Commission’s early-warning database had no
entry on CESD?

Would the Commission say whether it is standard practice for a directorate-general to enter into new
contracts with a firm which has been swindling another directorate-general on a large scale, or whether
rules have been broken?

(1) OJ C 327, 24.11.1994, OJ C 349, 3.12.1999 and OJ C 342, 1.12.2000.