WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission. Catchment area management ‐ ESDP.
21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/163 expenses, etc. ). Moreover, certain items, such as the costs of constructing or modernising buildings, may be subject to different accounting processes. It should also be remembered that in the ideal case scenario the official statement of costs can only be provided at the end of year n+1, year n being the year in which the veterinary checks and inspections in question are carried out. On this subject, it is clear that the working documents used to establish standard amounts are for guidance only. Only the text of the Directive is legally binding. Paragraph 3 of the above-mentioned judgement of 9 September 1999 by the Court of Justice states that áin cases where a Member State has delegated to local authorities the collection of fees relating to health inspections and controls of fresh meat, Article 2(3) of Directive 85/73, as amended by Directive 93/118, authorises it to collect an amount higher than Community fee levels so long as it does not exceed the actual costs of inspection incurred by the competent local authorityí. If competence is delegated to local authorities, these are the costs incurred by the authorities in national territory. In the absence of such delegation, there is in principle no difference between the costs incurred at national level and the costs incurred by the authorities in national territory. With regard to the provisions of Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (a) of Directive 85/73/EEC, the text itself indicates that differences are possible between establishments. In order to cover increased costs, Member States may increase the standard amounts of fees as laid down in points 1 and 2 (a) for individual establishmentsí. The provisions of Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (b) do not refer specifically to this possibility. The relevant concept is that of áactual costsí. It is not made clear whether calculation of these costs can be for a given establishment or whether it should be done at the level of the competent authority, which can carry out an equalisation for the establishments for which it is responsible. The question needs to be clarified. In the context of Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (a) of Directive 85/73/ EEC, a Member State may as a general rule, in order to cover increased costs, provide for standard fees and increase these amounts for certain establishments meeting the conditions referred to. Such a system has its own internal coherence. The other option referred to in Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (b) for covering increased costs gives Member States the possibility of charging a special fee covering actual costs. This option also has its own internal coherence. It is therefore difficult to come up with a combination of these two systems. 2. In the context of Annex A, Chapter I, the standard amounts are laid down in points 1 and 2 (a) and not in points 4 (a) and (b). These amounts cover all the checks laid down by the Directives concerned and, therefore, the checks relating to the detection of trichinosis. (1) See the consolidated version in Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and certain animal products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC. (2) OJ C 402, 6. 1. 1999. (2000/C 330 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission (24 February 2000) Subject: Catchment area management ü ESDP In its recent publication entitled ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective (Potsdam unofficial council, May 1999) (1) the Commission writes (p. 68) that the proposal for a directive which inter alia covers integrated catchment area management is currently under negotiation. Can the Commission answer the following: 1. What is the exact title of the proposal, when was it drawn up and by whom? 2. At what stage are the discussions on this proposal for an EU directive? C 330 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 3. What positions have the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council adopted? 4. What is the Commissionís approach in this directive, and what implications will the directive have for countries with adequate water supplies? 5. What precisely does integrated catchment area management mean? 6. What action has the Commission taken so far to counter the problem of leaking public water supply grids in some Member States? 7. Does the Commission have data and information on water quality and water shortages in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and what is the gap between them and the data for EU Member States? (1) ISBN, 92-828-7656-X. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (23 March 2000) This is the Commission proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1). The Parliament in its plenary session of 16 February 2000 finalised the second reading (2), (3). On the majority of issues there is agreement between the points of view of Parliament, Commission and Council. There are divergent points of view on some issues, in particular deadlines, derogations, hazardous substances and charges for water and waste water. A detailed evaluation will be part of the amended Commission proposal to be adopted by the Commission in March 2000. The main objectives of the new Community water framework directive will be to expand water protection to all waters; to achieve and maintain ágood statusí within a set deadline; to base water management on river basins; to combine the approaches of emission criteria and water quality criteria; to ensure water pricing policy with adequate incentive for users to use water resources in an efficient way; to involve citizens more closely in planning and decision taking procedures; and to streamline legislation. One of the elements of for groundwater is a long-term balance between available resources and abstractions. These objectives are valid regardless of whether Member States have larger water resources or not. The objective of the directive is to achieve and maintain water quality, not to distribute water resources. Monitoring and measures to achieve the quality objective (ágood statusí) within a set deadline have to be coordinated with a river basin district. The operative part in this context is a programme of measures which ensures achieving the objective of ágood statusí. ágood statusí For public (drinking) water supply systems Community legislation defines the quality of water for the consumer at the tap. This is the 1980 drinking water directive, Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (4) amended by the 1998 drinking water directive, Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 (5). There is no obligation at European level to construct public water supply systems. However, construction and improvement of such water supply systems, including measures against leaking distribution systems, may be funded by the structural funds and the Cohesion fund. Water protection is an important factor in the current accession negotiations. Evaluations of the status quo, objectives and programmes for achieving the objective for the whole range of Community water legislation are an integral part of the accession negotiations. Water resources show a quite diverse pattern from country to country and from region to region, both in the 15 Member States and in candidate countries, a situation to be expected given the diverse geographical and hydrological situation. (1) OJ C 184, 17. 6. 1997. (2) Opinion of the European Parliament (1st reading) of 11. 2. 1999, OJ C 150, 28. 5. 1999. (3) Opinion of the European Parliament (2nd reading) of 16. 2. 2000 not yet published in the OJ. (4) OJ L 229, 30. 8. 1980. (5) OJ L 330, 5. 12. 1998