WRITTEN QUESTION P-0156/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission. Framework directive on water policy COM(1999) 271.
C 330 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 In addition, the Commission has brought a further action (2) against Spain before the Court of Justice for failure to communicate the vulnerable zone action programmes required by Directive 91/676/EEC. Regarding the drinking water problem, the Commission has recently instituted infringement proceedings in respect of the poor quality of drinking water in several municipalities of the Autonomous Community of Valencia, invoking improper application of Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (3). The Commission hopes these proceedings will help resolve the problem raised by the Honourable Member. It will, in addition, take all useful steps to ensure that Spain makes a full designation of vulnerable zones in all provinces in which nitrates from agricultural sources are threatening the quality of fresh or sea water, and that it introduces action programmes rapidly. The Commission would point out that, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (4), good farming practice is now a precondition for payment of compensatory allowances (Chapter V of the Regulation) and in the implementation of agri- environmental measures (Chapter VI of the Regulation). (1) Case C-71/97. Judgment of 1. 10. 1998. (2) Case C-274/98. (3) OJ L 229, 30. 8. 1980, amended by OJ L 224, 3. 9. 1993. (4) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 330 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0156/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission (26 January 2000) Subject: Framework directive on water policy COM(1999) 271 The Commission proposal for a directive establishing a directive for Community action in the field of water policy (COM(1999) 271) is initially a compilation of a number of directives regulating surface and ground water. Is the framework directive intended to tighten up the environmental objectives laid down in the current directives? The proposal would introduce a precautionary principle, not defined in greater detail, and phase out hazardous substances. What is meant by the term precautionary principle and what hazardous substances are to be phased out? On the matter of phasing out hazardous substances, the intention is to reduce discharges close to zero by 2002 on the basis of the 1995 figures. How is this phasing out to be achieved? It also appears that the intention is both to phase out emissions and discharges of hazardous substances and achieve the ultimate aim of concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances. What are naturally occurring substances and how are these ábackground valuesí to be determined? Do values áclose to zeroí mean what can be measured with currently available technology ü so over time absolute zero when the minutest traces of substances will be measurable? The proposal also speaks of áreversing any significant and sustained upward trend in the concentration of any pollutant in ground waterí. Does this mean that levels of nitrates for example in ground water will not be allowed to rise to the limit values that have been set? 21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/95 The directive allows individual Member States depart from the objectives in áexceptional circumstancesí. What is meant by áexceptional circumstancesí? The directiveís principal environmental objective is to achieve good surface water status and good ground water status. What is meant by good status? Will the directive generally amend the levels of protection in the EU? Has the Commission made any calculations of the implications of implementing this directive? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (29 February 2000) At its 14-18 February 2000 plenary session Parliament gave a second reading of the common position of 22 October 1999 (1) on the proposed water framework directive from 1997 (2). The Parliament in its first reading strongly welcomed the proposal and adopted 133 amendments, generally strengthening the objectives and implementation timetable. The environment committee on 25 January 2000 adopted 86 of a proposed total of 243 amendments. The proposal lays down a general principle for water management based on the geographical extension of the full river basin with associated groundwater, and in this context incorporates a number of older water directives addressing certain specific types of particular waters with various specific environmental objectives. The principle is that all protection and use of water must integrate groundwater and surface water objectives in an integrated planning. In addition to the existing predominantly physico-chemical quality objectives and standards, the proposal lays down a number of ecological objectives. The general objective for this water quality is called ágood statusí. Good status covers both the classical physico- lays down detailed definitions and chemical and the ecological parameters. Annex V of the proposal application of the concept ágood statusí. The proposal does not in itself define the áprecautionary principleí. However, the proposal is based on Article 175,1 (ex Article 130s) of the EC Treaty and thus follows the principles of Community environment policy, including the precautionary principle laid down in Article 174 (ex Article 130r) of the Treaty. The Commission on 2 February 2000 adopted a communication on the precautionary principle (3). In relation to áphasing outí emissions of hazardous substances, the first reading of Parliament of 11 February 1999 and the Commissionís amended proposal (4) aimed at incorporation of the commitment made by Member States in the framework of the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention for protection of the marine environment. Member States agreed on an essentially political commitment to progressively phase out the emission of hazardous substances, moving towards the aim of background concentrations of natural substances and close to zero for synthetic substances by 2020. No attempt was made to specify this objective or methods for verification. The proposal does not generally lay down detailed measures for achieving the objective. This is essentially left to Member States. However, the proposal specifies that a specific proposal addressing so-called priority substances will be adopted inter alia in pursuance of this objective. For groundwater, the proposal introduces a principle of trend reversal of significant and sustained upward trends in concentrations of pollutants. The Parliamentís environment committee on 25 January 2000 adopted amendments, which further request a state of insignificant anthropogenic pollution as an end target for trend reversal. The common position in itself implies an obligation to adopt measures for reversal of an upward trend before the concentration of substances reach the level laid down in existing legislation. However, this is an aspirational objective, which is not covered by the proposalís definition of good groundwater status, and thus will not in itself constitute a criterion for compliance. C 330 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 The common position lays down criteria following which Member States may extend the implementation period, and in certain cases set lower environmental objectives. These are, among others, unforeseen and extraordinary droughts, and flooding or regeneration of groundwater, which often for natural reasons will exceed the period laid down by the proposal. The first reading of Parliament and the recently adopted amendments of the environment committee suggest a strengthening of the criteria. The Commissionís evaluation of the consequences of implementation were presented in the explanatory memorandum to the original proposal. Council and Parliament have not commented on this evaluation in their respective readings of the proposal. (1) OJ C 343, 30. 11. 1999. (2) OJ C 184, 17. 6. 1997. (3) COM(2000) 1 final. (4) OJ C 342 E, 30. 11. 1999. (2000/C 330 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0165/00 by Rosa Díez GonzÆlez (PSE), Fernando PØrez Royo (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission (31 January 2000) Subject: Monitoring of state aid to the Spanish electricity sector With reference to the state aid for competition transition costs given to the Spanish electricity sector, and bearing in mind that Commissioner Monti has recognised that the sixth transitional provision of Law 54/97 on the Spanish electricity sector is a state aid which was granted without prior notification of the Commission, what view will the Commission take of the amounts already received by Spanish electricity companies when it comes to take a decision on this matter pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (9 March 2000) In accordance with the Courtís case law, the unlawful nature of a state aid measure, i. e. the fact that the aid was granted without prior notification to the Commission, does not prejudge its compatibility with the common market. The amounts already received will, therefore, be examined on the basis of the EC Treaty articles to determine whether they are compatible with the common market and whether they will have to be repaid. (2000/C 330 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0167/00 by Rosa Díez GonzÆlez (PSE), Fernando PØrez Royo (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission (31 January 2000) Subject: Competition transition costs (CTC) and market variables for the Spanish electricity sector Bearing in mind the funding system introduced by the sixth transitional provision of Law 54/97 on the Spanish electricity sector enabling electricity companies to receive aid to cover competition transition costs, has the Commission urged the Spanish government to amend this provision and link the granting of CTC to market variables (demand, price, interest rates, etc. ), as the Commission advocated in its analysis methodology for state aid linked to CTC?