Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 10 February 1999 - Strasbourg

12. Water policy

  President . – The next item is the report (A4‐0261/98) by Mr White, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, on the proposal and amended proposals for a Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (COM(97)0049 – C4‐0192/97, COM(97)0614 – C4‐0120/98 and COM(98)0076 – C4‐0121/98‐97/0067(SYN)).

I should like to say at the outset – as I will be repeating through the evening – that I shall have to be strict with regard to speaking time, since we have a very tight schedule which will take us late into the night.

  White, rapporteur. – Mr President, I am very glad to be able to present my report on the water framework directive for this first reading. The path of this proposal has been almost as tortuous as a salmon swimming upstream. I should like to acknowledge the personal contribution of my colleague, Mr Collins, in the long haul that has finally brought us to this first reading. In 1995 Mr Collins chaired Parliament's hearing on water policy that gave birth to the water framework directive. Perhaps we should call it the ‘water baby", and he will be heartened to see his ‘baby" at last christened by this Parliament before he leaves us later this year. I should like to pay tribute to the little puddle of water rapporteurs – also present at the christening ceremony – which include my colleagues, Mr Florenz, Mrs Schleicher, Mr Eisma and Mr Collins himself, who also has a water report. We have developed amongst us an esprit du corps , whereby we have become water‐minded, and that is a very useful thing to have done.

This proposal provides an historic opportunity to secure the Union's most basic need for adequate supplies of good quality water for today's and tomorrow's generations. Its outcome will determine the future of the Union's water resources well beyond the Millennium. Reform of the Union's water policy is overdue and welcome. Piecemeal evolution has resulted in an incoherent body of legislation, with differing and sometimes conflicting methods, definitions and aims. The perilous state of much of the Union's water resources is plain to see from the evidence provided to us by the Environment Agency in Copenhagen.

The first report on Europe's environment – the so‐called Dobris assessment – sets out the problems in a clear manner and last year saw the publication of another assessment by the Environment Agency. Comparison of the two reports shows that progress still has to be made. The Dobris assessment reported that a quarter of Europe's rivers are of poor or bad quality, with either sparse populations of fish or completely devoid of fish. Last year's assessment noted that there has been ‘no overall improvement in river quality". There has not been any significant improvement in groundwater quality since the first assessment. Europe's groundwater is endangered and polluted in several ways, we are told. ‘Problems include pollution by nitrates, pesticides, heavy metals and hydrocarbons, leading to eutrophication, toxic impacts in other parts of the water environment and possible effects upon human health". Moreover, despite the numerous international agreements and many statements of good intent, the implementation of Union water legislation remains poor.

The Commission, having taken part – and I am grateful to them for that – in the hearing which took place in 1995, produced its communication in February 1996. Following Parliament's response to the communication, a dialogue has been continuing between the Commission and myself. In that dialogue I voiced the concerns of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection about the early proposal. The Commission is to be congratulated on its response in providing detailed annexes and basic definitions missing from the original. I am also heartened by the constructive attitude of the present German presidency.

Before Parliament today there are 12 compromise amendments dealing with important issues where, in the spirit of the Amsterdam Treaty yet to be ratified, I am pleased to present the results of a recent trialogue between myself, the Commission and the Council. These compromise amendments show a new willingness to move towards the Environment Committee's position on wetlands, public participation, marine monitoring and underground gas storage.

This is, and has had to be, a complicated proposal. It aims to promote a sustainable use of water resources. Member States will be obliged to achieve good status for all surface and ground waters by a set date. Good status means a healthy ecosystem and a low level of pollution. These targets will be achieved by river‐basin management plans and backed up by Union‐wide limits on pollution. The proposal sets out how Member States must identify river basins, appoint river basin authorities and ensure that they produce plans. The plans will stipulate what must happen for good status to be achieved, including pollution control, promoting more efficient use of water, regulating obstruction and introducing a charging system.

My suggestions for the reform of the Commission proposal are designed to address the considerable problems which continue to undermine the implementation of Union water policy. At the same time, my amendments seek to create a water policy framework which is both practical and ambitious. I urge that a tougher regime of pollution control is needed, the goal for the longer term, already contained in international conventions such as OSPAR, HELCOM and Barcelona, to which the EU and Member States are signatory, is the eventual phasing out of toxic substances.

In conclusion, I should like to repeat the importance of the proposal before us. What can be more important to the future of the Community than secure and abundant supplies of healthy water. This is the first piece of Community water legislation to apply to all surface and ground waters. It bases the management of these waters firmly on the principle of sustainable development.

  d"Aboville (UPE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries. – (FR) Mr President, water quality, particularly in coastal waters, is vitally important to the fisheries and aquaculture industries.

The seas are generally the end recipients of pollutants emitted into the water, particularly their coastal fringes, which are vital for the reproduction of many species.

The proposal for a directive directly affects those who live off these activities, particularly as it will repeal two former directives, one on fish waters and the other on shellfish waters.

We have therefore tabled amendments in this respect. Amendment No 154 extends the directive"s scope to include coastal areas and estuaries. This amendment falls within the context of recital 11(a) adopted by the Committee on the Environment and specifies that the Member States will have the option of taking into account pollution in coastal areas in order to assess its consequences on fishing activities. Amendments Nos 153 and 156 state that fishermen cannot be classified as users of water in the strict sense since their activity is not detrimental to this resource in quantitative or qualitative terms and since they are primarily the victims of any pollution. Finally, Amendment No 155 proposes support for the more vulnerable economic categories, in particular, the small aquaculture plants which must take measures to protect themselves against the pollution which they may cause.

This would not involve tax exemption measures but rather support for filtration and purification equipment.

Finally, on behalf of the UPE Group, I must express our support for the concept of management by river basin. This has demonstrated its worth in certain Member States and is the key issue in the Commission"s proposal. It must therefore be safeguarded.

  Cunha (PPE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. – (PT) Mr President, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following conclusions in its report.

Firstly, the Agriculture Committee stresses that farmers use water for the benefit of consumers in general and that they are the first to be concerned about obtaining good water in order to ensure quality agricultural production.

Secondly, the committee acknowledges that, in addition to the objectives of protecting water against degradation of aquatic ecosystems and the long‐term conservation of water resources, further steps need to be taken to reduce the adverse effects of floods and droughts.

With specific regard to agriculture, the committee rejects the idea of full cost recovery in respect of services provided for water, as advocated in Article 12 of the proposal for a directive. However, it does agree with the principle of amortising the costs of water services, taking due account of the social, environmental and economic consequences of amortisation and the geographical and climatic situation of the regions concerned.

In particular, the hydrological regime of the Mediterranean and southern areas of the European Union requires specific solutions in this respect. Without these and also without irrigation systems, which often involve extremely high water storage and distribution costs, it would be impossible to ensure the modernisation and long‐term survival of these areas. Without a specific solution, agriculture in the southern regions of Europe would not be able to survive in competition with the northern areas which have rain throughout the year.

Fourthly, the Agriculture Committee suggests, with regard to the definitions and annexes, that specific reference be made to bodies of water used for irrigators, namely aqueducts, and to the way in which their quality and quantity is to be assessed, and also to irrigation farming as a distinct form of cyclical water use.

Fifthly, it proposes involving irrigators' associations so that they can participate in the use and management of water basins and water in general.

Finally, as a Portuguese national, I must stress the importance of establishing more stringent rules for the management of cross‐border water basins in order to ensure basic quality levels and rates of flow of the water in these international rivers.

  Myller (PSE). – (FI) Mr President, the primary purpose of the framework directive on Community action on water policy is to ensure that every citizen has a right to good quality water, both as something that sustains life and as something that exists in the environment. Water quality has been argued over a good deal, however, as pollution has been difficult to regulate. For this reason, as a binding guarantee of people"s entitlement to good quality water, provision must be made for the polluter pays principle, effective monitoring to ensure that water is of good quality with the smallest number of exemptions possible, and the examination of materials that harm water quality, primarily from the health point of view. Negligence and irresponsible action can have disastrous and irreparable consequences.

There is much that is good in this report, so I would like to thank the rapporteur. It contains a particularly welcome amendment with Article 3(a), which provides for the monitoring of the implementation of the River Basin District Management Plan. The authorities in the Member States must be committed to better monitoring of water quality. However, there is one problem with the report, in my opinion, which is to do with how water charges should be regulated. To my mind, at least as far as Finland is concerned, this is a matter of local democracy and the right of the local authorities to regulate charges, and this should therefore not be interfered with.

Special attention must be paid to groundwater. No‐one should ever think that the situation is hopeless, and that the water is so polluted that it is not worth doing anything about it. There are plenty of examples of problems being solved, not perhaps returning water to its natural state, but at least making it safe for humans.

  Florenz (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the presidency of the Council, the fact that we are discussing a framework directive today is thanks not least to Ian White. A few months ago the situation still looked quite different. The Commission wanted to present us with a communication – at the time I was the rapporteur and together we ensured that we would achieve this result today, in face of the rapid‐fire decisions the Council wanted to take. That is in itself a success. As Members of this Parliament we must not forget that.

The object of the directive is not, as many of my colleagues believe, especially Austrians, that we want to regulate the ownership of water. Quite the contrary: we want to protect the quality of water; that is the purpose of the directive. Now it seems to me that the Council and the Commission want to propose that we should promise one another to protect the water, but how we protect it should be left to the Member States to decide. I am not quite sure this is the right European approach. I am not in favour of issuing thousands of bans, but I am in favour of issuing a few important bans and making them applicable throughout Europe. They need to have sound scientific backing.

We decided to create the single market and one of the main objectives of the single market was to harmonise standards in the European Community, not necessarily to make them exactly the same, but to approximate them more closely. We seem to be moving away from that at present in environmental policy. You know what I am criticising. Unfortunately, the directive on a framework for Community action in the field of water policy does not define Europe‐wide quality standards and emission standards, at least not the way the Council and the Commission formulate it although that is certainly what Parliament wants to do. I believe it is important to take this combined approach, which we want to and will continue to pursue in future too.

As someone who lives beside the Rhine – my house and my farm are a few hundred metres from it – I believe it is important that the local residents, whoever they are, make a start further up the river. If they do not make a start there, if we Germans do not continue setting high standards, our colleagues in the Netherlands will soon be drowning in dirty, polluted water. This cannot after all be a matter for individual, national policy‐making; we need European standards, not hundreds of them but perhaps 40 or 50. I believe the Rhine, the Rhone, the Mosel need these European standards if we are to make any progress here in the future.

The Council did not show any very serious commitment. We turned 188 amendments into ten compromise amendments. So we have done a little better than the Council. The presidency of the Council has certainly achieved much in administrative terms. But in my view Parliament"s proposal was the better one. We believe that if we get what the Council wants, we will find it complicated to regulate matters at national level and will end up with a Babylonian environment policy.

  Eisma (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, the decision‐making surrounding this water framework directive has certainly been a clumsy affair as a result of the informal political agreement that the Council reached without waiting for Parliament"s first reading. The enormous gulf between the substance of that agreement and what Parliament wanted, reflected in over 200 amendments, forced Parliament and the Council to the highly unusual step of informal consultation, something which is not yet provided for in the European Treaties, though it may well be in future.

Mr White has been our guide through this political jungle, and I must congratulate him. He did a good job of defending Parliament"s views before the Council and succeeded in winning a number of points. He refused to succumb to pressure from the Member States on the points we feel are important, such as the priority list and the combined approach. Despite the pressure of work and the complicated nature of the discussions, he also managed to keep us all as up to date as possible. However, it is now Parliament"s job to deliver a report at first reading clearly setting out how the quantity and quality of ground, surface and coastal waters can best be protected. Strict definitions, clear targets and transparent procedures are needed here.

The Committee on the Environment has put forward some excellent proposals, and I cannot understand why the Council is prepared to accept so few of them. It even has difficulty with amendments designed to ensure that environmental standards are met in line with other European directives such as the nitrates directive, and with international conventions such as the OSPAR Convention. It is quite incomprehensible. I have no idea why the Council is against them. But we need not worry, as the common position will not be dealt with in this parliamentary term, and by the time the new parliamentary term begins, the Amsterdam Treaty will have entered into force, so the second reading will come under the codecision procedure.

The Council will then have no choice but to take account of our views. I hope it realises how it cut off its own nose in concluding the informal political agreement, and draws the relevant conclusions from this.

  González Álvarez (GUE/NGL). ‐ (ES) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for all his hard work on today"s report, which takes account of the need for a more transparent framework directive that has a higher level of participation. As the rapporteur himself says, echoing the concerns expressed in the Committee on the Environment, one third of European rivers are polluted and coastal waters and groundwater are being overexploited. It is therefore extremely difficult to obtain enough drinking water for the population. It will be even more difficult in the future, particularly in some southern countries.

That is why we are in favour of the proposal and why we were even more in favour of the previous proposal. For example, Amendment No 38 by Mr White was, in our view, an improvement as it was more complete. However, we must work to ensure that there is a high level of participation in the river basin management plans in order to create a common, transparent framework and to promote cross‐border cooperation. Along with our Portuguese colleagues, we visited the River Tagus and we realised that the Portuguese were anxious to ensure that Spain made good use of its resources. That will be the only way of guaranteeing cross‐border cooperation between our two countries.

  Crowley (UPE). – Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his tremendous work. These proposals are very welcome indeed because they attempt to establish an integrated approach to water management and protection, which are very important.

The underlying basis of all of this, the polluter pays principle, is one that we should be pushing most of all here. However, the terms of the analysis that has been carried out must be broadened to consider the very important social consequences of what is essentially a unique social service. The provision of water for domestic needs, as a necessity of daily life, for economic needs and for farming and other activities must be guaranteed. I would refer Members in particular to Amendment No 22 dealing with Article 12 (1) which provides that there will not be universal charges for water where special social and other conditions apply. These distinctions are important and, in particular, we must ensure the continued free service for those who most need it.

  Breyer (V). – (DE) Mr President, in discussing the water framework directive tonight, we are unfortunately talking not about water protection but about a piecemeal policy. The proposal makes that clear. There are too many exceptions, no clear limit values and standards, quality targets that are in no way binding, that follow the English principle of: let"s water it down and nobody will notice. Then there are the excessively long transition periods of up to 34 years, which make it clear that water protection is basically being postponed to some never‐never day. That makes a mockery of consumer protection. But for me the worst of all, the ecological Waterloo, is the question of the discharge of hazardous substances. In spite of the OSPAR convention, this quasi‐common position proposes that nothing, nothing at all should be done.

I believe we must realise that water is too precious a resource to be used as a rubbish dump. In that regard I expect us to give a very clear signal during the vote tomorrow. I also hope that we will reach agreement tomorrow on setting limit values for radioactivity, as we did in the case of the drinking water directive ...

(The President cut the speaker off)

  Escolá Hernando . ‐ (ES) Mr President, in my autonomous community of Aragon, we believe that our future depends on water. We also believe that it is not that there is too much water in our territory, but that we are lacking the investment needed to use and make the most of what there is. We are very aware of the fact that without water, there can be no development. It is essential in order to preserve the environment and to generate wealth and employment, in both the agricultural and industrial sectors.

Our problem is not the quality of water, but the quantity of water, in other words, its scarcity. It is therefore almost an insult to us that the River Ebro, the largest river in the Iberian Peninsula, flows through Aragon for 200 kilometres, part of which is desert, yet we scarcely make any use of its considerable volume. This is mainly because of the Spanish Government"s historical lack of investment. In fact, it is precisely because of this lack of investment that some might say that there is an excess of water and thus justify transfers to other more developed areas. We therefore believe that it is extremely important to prevent these policies of transferring water between basins. Far from balancing the region, in practice they actually heighten the imbalance and lead to further depopulation. This is because the work involved is costly and it almost always harms the environment. Moreover, it does not guarantee sustainable development with an unlimited supply. Indeed, these transfers are merely the reflection of a policy where the strongest asserts its power over the weakest.

Tomorrow, we will vote on various amendments that have already been approved in committee. They aim to limit inter‐basin transfers to very specific situations where prior authorisation has been granted. It must also be demonstrated that the basins receiving the supply have taken all possible measures to reduce demand. In our opinion, this is the appropriate path to follow so as to ensure that our water policy is an effective instrument for European social and territorial cohesion.

  Aparicio Sánchez (PSE). ‐ (ES) Mr President, I would like to point out the differences that exist in some respects between the position of the Spanish Socialists and that of our political group. We fully support the idea of a framework directive for the Community"s water policy and we very much welcome the proposal for a directive. However, these legislative attempts to harmonise policies may become something of a farce if we disregard Europe"s special territorial characteristics. The issue of water in countries with sufficient rain cannot be dealt with in the same way as it is in other countries, such as my own, where water is a very scarce commodity. We cannot treat countries that are used to floods and droughts, such as the Mediterranean countries, in the same way as northern countries.

We have therefore tabled a number of separate amendments. We believe that it would be very unfair, for instance, to impose the strict obligation to recover full water costs. This generalisation would mean that a Spanish citizen or farmer would pay between 40 and 60 times more for water than British or Belgian citizens, for example.

Other amendments refer to situations involving infringements, some of which are impossible to resolve in certain southern regions, and to the requirements for transfers and the recharge of aquifers. They are all following the same line of thought. Parliament has legislative power that can be used on the basis of scientific and balanced criteria. However, it should not be used to try to make the various European regions seem the same, particularly given the differences that exist in terms of the quantity, quality and pattern of their rainfall.

  Valverde López (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, I fully agree with the speech just made by my colleague Mr Aparicio. It is clear that we must not forget the idea of unity in diversity, nor the fact that proactive measures can cost us dear. We must therefore remember that Spain"s water problem is a strategic one, as you are well aware, Commissioner. Amendments have been tabled in this respect and I hope that the Commission takes account of them and excludes cases of serious drought or flooding from the directive"s requirements. This is a factor that must be considered.

The directive must also allow Spain to build links between basins that are adequately balanced, as provided for in the National Hydrological Plan. It is only in this way that we can guarantee supply for the southern parts of our country.

We also need to adapt the principle of recovering full costs. We cannot add further difficulties on top of those that some countries are already faced with. We must avoid making the cost of water in countries with less water so expensive that individuals and multiple users cannot afford it.

I cannot support many of the amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment in this case as they are unreasonable. There are some things that do work, such as the interregional agreements between neighbouring countries. I therefore do not see why we need to have agreements on international river basin districts when these agreements are already working well. We should restrict this to consultation with the Commission, on the initiative of the Member States, if a problem arises so that it can resolve it and act as arbitrator, as it always does.

As regards the quantitative aspects, I am very concerned at some of the amendments tabled regarding transfers and the recharge of aquifers. This is standard practice in Spain and it allows us to derive much more benefit from our scarce resources. These are mere quantitative issues which, moreover, would prevent this directive from being approved.

  Marset Campos (GUE/NGL). ‐ (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I would also like to begin by congratulating the Commission and Mr White on the proposal and expressing my support for it. However, I would like to look at two issues that are the product of neo‐liberal fundamentalism and the democratic deficit in the European Union.

As far as neo‐liberal fundamentalism is concerned, the desire to recover the full costs of water use is a comparative insult to Spain, as was pointed out by Mr Cunha, Mr Aparicio and other speakers. It would be particularly bad for regions such as Murcia, Andalusia, Aragon, and so on, where it would have serious consequences.

As regards the democratic deficit, I think it is important to consider involving the communities of irrigators such as the Tribunal de las Aguas and the Consejo de Hombres Buenos , which in some cases, such as in Valencia or in Murcia, have been working for over a thousand years. It is essential to ensure that there is democracy in this field too.

  Oomen‐Ruijten (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, the framework directive that we are discussing today and voting on tomorrow will be a breakthrough in the European management of water quality and quantity. But it will be more than just that. It is also the crowning glory of all the tireless hard work done by some of our colleagues. Let me mention here Karl‐Heinz Florenz, who initiated and championed our cause, my Dutch colleague Doeke Eisma, and of course the rapporteur Mr White, whom I congratulate on his report and on the compromise amendments that should enable us to achieve a large majority tomorrow.

The water framework directive is the only correct response to our hitherto fragmentary, inefficient and inadequate policy on water quality and the total absence of a policy on water quantity. Water plays a supremely important role in the lives of Dutch people. In one of our folk songs we sing about Limburg as ‘where the broad Meuse flows majestically to the sea", and the Zeelanders" motto ‘luctor et emergo " – I struggle and I emerge – refers to their struggle with the sea which, after the disastrous floods, eventually led to the Delta works, a dam that brought us worldwide fame. We also reclaimed land in the Flevo polder.

We struggle with water on a daily basis in the Netherlands – in the polders, the delta where the Meuse, the Rhine and the Scheldt flow into the sea. Anyone who dares to claim that we with our well‐organised Dutch water management system can solve the water quantity problem ourselves has only to look at the floods that have overwhelmed us in recent years.

  Ribeiro (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, I have just three points to make. Firstly, I support a water policy which promotes the rational use of water by encouraging rational control of its demand and discouraging irrational increases in its supply. Secondly, I would stress that river basins form the basic unit for surface water and groundwater management. These river basins do not stop at national borders: they always run from source to mouth, no matter what countries may lie in between. Finally, I must emphasise the understanding and collaboration achieved within our group between the Spanish and Portuguese Members. This recently led to the preparation of a water manifesto considered in this report and which is particularly symbolic as, because of our group, it involved Members of both these nationalities. Although we can be pleased with this motion for a resolution, the same is not true of the agreement on common rivers signed between the two governments. In this case, Community solidarity must be shown and cooperation between the Member States is called for.

  Schleicher (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, this directive had a difficult birth. On behalf of our colleagues let me after the event thank all those who played a constructive part in the work, including of course our rapporteur, Mr White, but also the Commission, which has showed signs of flexibility. I expect the German Presidency to scrutinise Parliament"s work carefully, otherwise there could be a bad surprise in store for it at the second reading in the European Parliament, in the form of rejection.

As rapporteur on the groundwater action programme, which is another extremely important area, I regard the following requirement as essential: to lay down comprehensive groundwater protection measures, ban direct discharges of harmful substances and, linked to that, not to lay down limit values for groundwater, to preempt what is called the watering down effect, and finally to remove and prevent where possible what are called indirect discharges into groundwater and of course to clean up polluted groundwater as far as possible by technical means.

Three of my amendments serve those goals. Let me point out again that I am particularly concerned with Amendment No 77 and do not accept the compromise amendment. I would warn against making exaggerated, unrealistic and impractical demands. Even if environmental protection has in the past had a raw deal in many other policy areas and too little attention has been paid to it, we must not repeat the same mistake by going too far in the opposite direction. That is why I and my group are firmly opposed to certain amendments, some of which are simply not feasible, either for financial reasons or because we do not have the available technical resources. Legislation that called for too much would not be credible.

Let me conclude with a question to the Commission. What is happening with the draft directive on ecological water quality? If the Commission has officially withdrawn that proposal, I am not aware of it.

  Flemming (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, in line with Parliament"s wishes this report introduces very important innovations in regard to protecting what is perhaps Europe"s most valuable asset, water. It clarifies and enshrines the combined approach, enshrines across‐the‐board water protection and sets ambitious quality targets for groundwater. For many Member States, the combined approach represents a real quantum leap in terms of clean water. It is high time to rethink our approach Europe‐wide. We do not have the right mercilessly to pollute and poison the rivers and seas; instead we have an obligation first of all to clean up all waste water, including industrial effluents, to the best of our technical ability, and then to divert it. We need strict emission standards, not just discharge standards.

I regard the attempts to enshrine water resource management in the directive in quantitative terms as negative, so I am very glad that the legal services of both the Council and the Commission take the view that enshrining it in this way is not compatible with the legal basis envisaged for the adoption of the directive. I am also glad that I have already managed to get an amendment through in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection that specifies quite clearly the kind of supranational authority that needs to be created. A Member State"s right to manage its water resources cannot possibly be restricted. If that is decided tomorrow, I will be happy to vote for the report, on which I warmly congratulate Mr White.

  Matikainen‐Kallström (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, the ample supply of good quality water is a basic need of the Community. Problems have been discovered both in the quality of the water in the rivers and with water being wasted in urban and industrial areas. Water resources in the different European states do not constitute the common property of Europe, as with any other natural resources which are used for trade. Each Member State, however, must, as a nation, become involved in improving the water quality of its own rivers, in developing and implementing action to save water, and in protecting its groundwater.

The idea of a common water policy should be made a reality through measures to protect areas of water that are shared by neighbouring countries and those affecting different states. Recently the condition of the Baltic Sea has deteriorated because untreated waste water has been pumped into it. Efforts must be made to prevent environmental disasters such as these, in accordance with northern dimension policy, and those responsible for the Community"s water policy should also be involved. The northern dimension will provide staunch support for this, as it does for other projects aimed at protecting the environment.

The desire is expressed in the proposal to introduce certain quality standards for water consumed in the European Community. It is good policy to incorporate such elements in a common policy, as long as we remember to leave sufficient scope for solutions to be found which correspond to specific national conditions.

  Redondo Jiménez (PPE). ‐ (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am the last speaker in this debate on water and since the problem is being looked at from the point of view of quantity rather than quality, I shall allow myself to take certain liberties. I will try not to repeat what has already been said by my Spanish and Portuguese colleagues and will talk about something that is not contained in this report.

I should merely like to put forward a specific argument regarding the issue of costs. We reject the initial proposal presented by the Commission that the full cost of water services – such as infrastructures – should be recovered from the users, who are mainly farmers. We also reject the proposal that the costs must be taken into account, since this could ruin the already fragile agriculture in the south.

We need to look at the technical improvements that are possible in industrial processes, taking account of the cost‐effectiveness ratio as well as the situation in the sector. We must abide by the political agreement reached by the Council of Ministers in June. We must look at eliminating hazardous substances and the environmental objectives we want to achieve in the light of the actual technical and economic possibilities open to us.

We nevertheless agree with the proposal to make an exception in cases of drought. Indeed, it is very important that an exception be granted for both droughts and floods. As far as the international river basin districts are concerned, I believe that the principle of subsidiarity should be applied. An agreement has already been reached with Portugal, which is responsible for our neighbouring basins. As regards the quantitative aspects, the conditions for transfers and the recharge of aquifers, the proposal offers no legal basis. The Treaty requires unanimity in this area and we are therefore not going to support this at the moment.

As far as the amendments I tabled are concerned, I would only say that three relate to definitions that have not been taken into account, such as the mass of artificial water ...

(The President cut the speaker off)

  Bjerregaard, Commission. – (DA) Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking the Committee on the Environment and its rapporteur, Mr White, for their thorough consideration of the new proposal for a framework directive on water resources. As has been emphasised, Parliament has taken the reform of water policy very seriously, and I would like to take this opportunity to praise the substantial and very positive influence which Parliament has had both with regard to starting the reform and developing it further. The Commission's proposal on the treatment of dangerous substances and Annex V on ecological status are largely based on Parliament's constructive involvement.

The same constructive involvement lay behind the recent informal talks between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and as Mr Eisma pointed out, this was largely an innovation. On the whole, the results of these talks further improved the text, while they also brought the views of the two legislative institutions closer together. This is a positive development, and I can of course endorse the outcome which appears in the form of Compromise Amendments Nos 189 to 201. In fact, most of Parliament's amendments improve the technical quality and make the text clearer, and I am very pleased to be able to say that we endorse the thinking behind most of them.

We can in principle accept 85 of the 122 amendments in full or in part. The Commission is also able to endorse a number of the other amendments. We support Parliament's initiatives with regard to the treatment of dangerous substances, openness, the combined approach and the inclusion of radioactivity.

As you can see, Mr President, there are a great number of amendments, and it would be impossible for me to go through them all in a reasonable period of time. I shall therefore confine myself to mentioning some of the main areas. Firstly, there is the treatment of dangerous substances. This is a major problem, on which the report rightly focuses. It is important for us to be consistent with our obligations within international organisations in terms of discharges. However, a lack of information about the social and economic consequences means that it is not always appropriate to introduce legally binding requirements at the present time. We therefore intend to accept the principle behind Amendments Nos 6, 19, 47 and 83 and in Article 1 of the proposal of introducing a reference to elimination as a final goal. This is in line with the approach in the declaration of the North Sea Conference and all the relevant maritime conventions. The other amendments on this subject, i.e. Amendments Nos 22, 43 and 46, are therefore rejected.

As far as openness and involving the public are concerned, the discussions between the Council and Parliament have been particularly productive. The Commission can fully endorse the rapporteur's compromise amendment, which reflects the agreements reached concerning public inquiries or consultation, and both the Council's and the Commission's reporting. Amendments Nos 25 and 29 concern the need to define the combined approach, which the Commission accepts in principle, although we are proposing a slightly different wording in order to make the scope more precise in legal terms. The Commission is also able to accept in principle Amendments Nos 87 and 88, which call for a timetable for the Commission to introduce controls for priority substances. However, Amendments Nos 84 and 85 on reviewing the priority list do not allow sufficient time to deal with the substances. The Commission is therefore rejecting these amendments and is proposing to keep the existing review period of six years.

The Commission accepts in principle Amendments 34 and 122 concerning the inclusion of radioactivity in the proposal, although they may require some rewording. With regard to charges, which have featured strongly in the debate here this evening, a more complete integration of environmental and resource costs is essential, but the problem needs to be looked at more closely. Amendments Nos 67, 68 and 69 therefore cannot be accepted at the moment. However, Amendment No 66, which calls for charges to be set at a level which encourages the attainment of environmental objectives, is very helpful and can of course be accepted.

Then there are a number of amendments which the Commission is rejecting for technical reasons. There are also some which we are rejecting in the form in which they are presented, but which contain many elements which we think can be included in the amended proposal. I shall refrain from mentioning all of these.

In conclusion, I can only welcome this report, and the same applies to the progress which has already been made. Parliament has played a significant role, and the constructive approach which has been expressed in the discussions provides the basis for a good working atmosphere at future negotiations. In connection with such an important subject, it is clear that a number of issues will require in‐depth discussion before they can be resolved. I am convinced that the firm stance adopted by Parliament as the legislative process has progressed will help us to achieve our goal, which is a water policy we can be proud of. Let me just add, on the question raised by Mrs Schleicher, that in our view the proposal concerning ecological water quality is contained within this proposal, and is therefore now redundant.

  President . – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.