WRITTEN QUESTION E-1183/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. EU enlargement and environmental protection.
3. 4. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 103 E/7 The Prime Minister of Bulgaria met the Commissioner responsible for Enlargement on 29 November 1999. On that occasion, the Commission and Bulgaria reached an understanding, signed by the Bulgarian Minister of Foreign affairs, on the issue of the closure and decommissioning of units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant. The Bulgarian Government committed itself to definitively close units 1 and 2 before 2003. The final decision on the closure dates for units 3 and 4 will be taken on the occasion of the 2002 review of the Bulgarian energy strategy. According to the understanding, closure dates for units 3 and 4 will be before the presently envisaged closure dates of 2008 and 2010, respectively. The Commissionís position is that the definitive closure of those units should take place in 2006 at the latest. Honouring these closure commitments, the Commission has undertaken to provide financial assistance to the implementation of the decommissioning of the Bohunice V1, Ignalina and Kozloduy 1-4 nuclear power reactors as well as in support of consequential measures in the energy sector. Financing memoranda on such support from PHARE funds from the 1999 budget have already been signed with Slovakia and Lithuania, committing € 10 million to each of these countries. The Commission has firmly indicated further annual support of € 20 million each over the forthcoming years. This support will amount to € 150 million for Slovakia as well as for Lithuania by the end of the present 2000-2006 financial perspective. As part of the understanding reached with Bulgaria, the Commission offered a multi-annual assistance package amounting to € 200 million for the period until 2006. The delivery of half of this amount will depend on the confirmation of the understanding on definitive closure dates for units 3 and 4 in 2002. The Commission has further engaged in preparatory steps to deliver the bulk of this financial support via European bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD)-managed international grant funds to be established during the course of this year. In addition, Euratom loans have been offered to the three countries. On 18 April 2000, the Commission approved a loan of € 212 million for Bulgaria. With regard to particular conditions which the three candidate countries set in return for their decisions to close these reactors, it needs to be noted that Lithuania and Bulgaria made the reservations to take the final decisions on the closure of Kozloduy units 3 and 4 and Ignalina unit 2 in the revised national energy strategies to be adopted in 2002 (Bulgaria) and 2004 (Lithuania). The debate in some of these countries has also exposed the wish of some political forces to link effective closure to financial assistance from the Community. The Commission has categorically rejected such linkage, whilst agreeing to provide support to the implementation of the decommissioning decisions as mentioned above. The Commission is closely monitoring the implementation of necessary steps towards closure and decommissioning and has made its financial assistance conditioned on the beneficiary countriesí compliance with the closure commitments. This includes the adoption of adequate provisions under domestic legislation. Apart from this, no particular águaranteesí in terms of action to be taken to decommission the reactors were agreed. The Commission and the candidate countries are, however, aware that the negotiation process on accession, in particular the opening and closure of negotiations on the energy chapter and the ratification of the accession instruments themselves, offer the Community appropriate means to ensure compliance with the closure commitments. The end of the decommissioning effort is not predictable at this stage. The decommissioning process covers a period of 50 to more than 100 years (final storage of spent fuel, nuclear waste and contaminated debris). Its precise end is also influenced by the technical solutions chosen within various decommissioning options. (2001/C 103 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1183/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission Subject: EU enlargement and environmental protection (12 April 2000) The disaster caused by the Baia Mare gold mine in Romania polluting the waters of the Danube with a huge quantity of cyanide has sounded more alarm bells concerning the parlous state of environmental protection in the countries seeking accession. The situation is alarming in that none of these countries meets all the requirements laid down by the EU. C 103 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 4. 2001 This being so: 1. Does the Commission regard as sufficient the € 50 billion earmarked for guaranteeing environmental protection in Agenda 2000? 2. Can the Commission state which countries are complying with the EUís rules in this domain? 3. Does the Commission agree that environmental protection, in addition to the environmental safety standards already called for in relation to nuclear power stations in the opinion adopted by the previous European Parliament, should be an essential prerequisite for EU accession? Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (26 May 2000) Agenda 2000 lays down the criteria for membership of the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The criteria include adopting and implementing the Communityís legal acts. Recognising that this would be a major task in environment, but aware of the need to avoid an áenvironmental gapí between the Member States and the candidate countries, Agenda 2000 calls for realistic strategies for compliance with Community legislation, and concrete funding plans for implementation. Therefore, under Agenda 2000, pre-accession aid and new instruments to assist candidate countries in the costs of accession have been foreseen. Among these, the Structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA) instrument will provide € 7 000 million over seven years from the year 2000. Half of this will be devoted to environmental infrastructure investment. Phare, from 2000, will provide € 1 500 million a year for economic and social development, industrial reconstruction and for developing administrative capacity. This instrument can fund municipal infrastructure and industry related investments in clean-up and reduction of hazardous waste and emissions. Finally, the Pre-Accession assistance for agriculture and rural development (Sapard) instrument provides € 500 million a year for agriculture and rural development schemes, including afforestation. However, as the Commission also stressed in Agenda 2000, the funding gap cannot be covered solely by the pre-accession aid. Important domestic and foreign financial resources, in particular from the private sector, will have to be mobilised in support of strategies for compliance with Community legislation. In the light of the accident in the Baia Mare gold mine, the Commission is currently reviewing its environmental legislation in this area. Compliance with the acquis by candidate countries is constantly monitored with progress being reported in the regular reports. However, all candidate countries which have entered accession negotiations on environment with the Community have indicated that they will be in a position to implement the relevant Community legislation upon accession. In its common positions, the Union has requested from the candidate countries information on their timetable for transposition and implementation of the Community legislation in order to assess the situation in each of these countries. Environment has high priority in the accession negotiations. In its general position for the accession conference opening the negotiations, the Community explicitly underlined the need to ensure a high level of environmental protection and in fact, the negotiating positions of the Community lay down a clear strategy to achieve this objective. This includes in particular giving priority to the transposition and implementation of industry-related legislation and legislation against trans-boundary pollution. In addition, the Community has called in its negotiating positions for all new investments in the candidate countries to comply with the environmental acquis already during the pre-accession period. On the other hand, in its composite paper accompanying the reports on progress towards accession by the candidate countries, the Commission also indicated that for those areas of the acquis where considerable adaptations are necessary and which require substantial effort, including important financial outlays, transitional arrangements could be spread over a definite period of time provided that candidates can demonstrate that alignment is underway and that they are committed to detailed and realistic plans for alignment, including the necessary investments