WRITTEN QUESTION E-4067/03 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Cofinancing of the Júcar-Vinalopó conduit and environmental conditions.
Date: 2004-01-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, co-financing, ecology, eligibility criteria, fund (EU), hydrology, inland waterway, project management, watercourse

C 84 E/142

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

The Commission takes the view that flight paths for landing and take-off need to be established on the
basis of the local situation of each airport. Accordingly, and in view of the considerable variety of local
situations, it is appropriate for decisions in this field to be taken at local/national level.

Consequently, given the answer to the previous question, it falls to the local/national authorities to specify
the optimal number and the location of equipment to monitor the level of noise emissions.

As indicated above, the Member States have the means (cid:1) in the form of Directive 2002/30/EC (cid:1)
to impose restrictions on the number of night flights, should they so wish, while respecting a minimum
number of harmonised rules.

As the situation regarding excessive noise emissions varies from one airport to another, account needs to
be taken of the number of people actually affected by the noise and of the results of a cost/benefit analysis
to assess the economic and social impact of such a measure.

More generally, European legislation will, in future, allow noise problems around airports to be addressed
within a wider framework, under the provisions of Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and
management of environmental noise (2). According to this Directive, competent authorities in Member
States are required to produce noise maps around major airports (3) (no later than 30 June 2007), to
inform the public about noise exposure and its effects, and to draw up action plans (no later than 18 July
2008) to reduce noise where necessary and to maintain environmental noise quality where it is good.

(1) Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of
rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports.
(2) Directive 2002/49/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and

management of the environmental noise, OJ L 189, 18.7.2002.

(3) Civil airports having more than 50 000 movements per year (cid:1) a movement being a take-off or a landing (cid:1)

excluding those purely for training purposes on light aircraft.

(2004/C 84 E/0180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4067/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Cofinancing of the Júcar-Vinalopó conduit and environmental conditions

On 18 December 2003 the Commission gave its definitive approval to the cofinancing of the Júcar-
Vinalopó diversion. The conditions which the Spanish authorities have to fulfil to receive the funds are:
carrying-out of studies to determine an ecological volume for the Júcar before proceeding to the transfer of
resources to the Vinalopó, as well as an ecological volume for the coastal wetlands such as the Albufera;
guarantees that the waters of the Valencian river will not be mingled with those of the Ebro and that the
latter will not be used to offset any deficits attributable to the diversion to Alicante; and compliance with
the framework water directive (including full integration of costs when setting the price of water).

On the same day, according to the newspaper ‘Heraldo de Aragón’ (18 December 2003), Mr Pascual
Fernández, the Spanish secretary of state responsible for water, said in Saragossa that the only option ruled
out was that of ‘using the Júcar-Vinalopó channels to transport water to the Ebro’, and that, in any case,
‘there are many other rivers in the Júcar basin and the document refers only to the Júcar, not the basin’.

The representative of the Spanish Environment Ministry did not specify whether there are plans to divert
water to the Júcar when he cited Article 17 of the law on the National Hydrographic Plan, which specifies

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/143

how the Ebro is to supply each of the recipient basins (for the Júcar basin, 315 cubic hectometres).
He added that ‘the distribution of volume within each basin will be decided when the diversion is
completed’.

1. What action will the Commission take to ensure that the above-mentioned conditions for granting of
the funds are applied in full?

Can the Commission guarantee that the funds will actually be made over only once the Spanish

2.
authorities have complied with the conditions both in law and in reañity?

3. What is the Commission’s position on the statements by Mr Fernández concerning the possibility of
diverting water from the Ebro to the Júcar basin without making use of the Júcar-Vinolopó conduit?

4. Will the Commission consider suspending the financing until the Spanish government has clarified
its intentions on the matter beyond all reasonable doubt?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

In relation to any funding requests related to the Ebro transfer, the Commission will ensure that the
relevant rules and procedures for the assessment, award and monitoring of projects are adhered to.

Concerning the relationship between the Ebro transfer and the Jucar-Vinalopo transfer, the Honourable
Member is referred to the Commission’s reply to written question P-0019/04, by Mr Ferrandez Lezaun (1).

(1) See page 151.

(2004/C 84 E/0181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4070/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Conventions, Charter and Constitution: the costs

(14 January 2004)

A great deal of work was done at European level to draft a new treaty entitled ‘Constitution for Europe’.
The same can be said for the preparation, prior to that, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is
now supposed to form Part II of the Constitution.

With reference to:

(cid:1) the two Conventions, and

(cid:1) the public information campaigns carried out all over the European Union, including the publication

of both documents,

can the Commission say:

(cid:1) whether it can supply comprehensive information broken down by sector, about the costs incurred in
the preparation and presentation of the Charter and Constitution and borne by the Community budget
in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003;

(cid:1) whether it can provide an analysis of these costs, duly broken down by year and making a distinction
between the costs of the direct operation of the two Conventions on the one hand and any other costs
incurred by EU bodies on the other, in particular for information or other measures?