EL News - Catalonia is facing problems of water quality and short supply. In Europe as well there are several problems like contamination of underground water, polluted international rivers and territories seriously threatened by desertification. At the same time, privatization of water sources and public supply is undergoing in some European countries; Ricardo Petrella says that “converting water into a commodity is the dominant trend”.  What could you propose at the European parliament or in treaties relating to water policy?

Nuria Lozano - The water Directive (2000/60/CE) has the purpose of managing the continental water from a sustainable point of view of the entire cycle, under the sufficiency or river basins’ unity principle. Water is a key piece of the ecosystem and the basis of biodiversity. From this point of view, it can’t be considered just as a limited resource or as a raw material, transported and distributed without any restriction other than the operational and logistical costs. We must avoid water becoming a new measure of the countries’ wealth, creating two speed countries: water well supplied countries, and thirsty countries, due to the lack of it pollution of their hydro resources.

The National Hydrographical Plan derogation allowed advancing into a hydrographic resources sustainable management, thanks to the Water Directive, and according to the new water culture. In the same line, ICV – EuiA will keep the same opposition to the proposals linked to old fashioned models, like the Roine water consume.

We will also keep on impelling the new water culture, whose Catalonia is a pioneer. This new culture is based in saving and reducing the consumption, the recycling and efficiency in distribution, and recovering water resources in order to increase their availability. The new water culture means a new different territory model, which decreases the pace of ground occupation, pushing for the “Mediterranean town”, an unified one, as the opposite to a town based in large urban projects which promote a huge water consume.

 

EL News - How do you interpret the so called institutional deadlock in the EU? Is it a real problem? Could the Spanish autonomic experience contribute in some way to enlighten a solution?

Nuria Lozano - The institutional deadlock is the result of the lack of a Europe of nations. Therefore, every State feels the need to defend its own interests, without real European common policies or, in other words, a political union rather than mainly concerned to economical and financial questions.

On the other hand, this problem arises logically when we consider that there are no democratic means to take decisions adopted by institutions like the European Commission or the Council of Ministers (which are not chosen by European citizens). At the same time, the only institution they vote for, the European Parliament has relatively weak powers.

As for the Autonomic Spanish model, it has a very different operating way from the European Union. First of all, it is based on a distribution of competences consecrated in the Spanish Constitution, which assign them to the State or Autonomic Communities, depending on the matter.

As a result, in matters of State competences, Autonomic Communities take part in the discussions through consultation Council, but they can’t stop the decisions in case of disagreement. And the same position has the State in autonomic competence matters.

It’s necessary to remember that decisions are taken by legislative and executive powers, both of them democratically chosen, according to the 1978 Constitution, and thus as a result of the will expressed by the citizens.

Only when the State government or a Community government considers the decisions, taken by other institution, go against the Constitution, there’s a control device: the Constitutional Court.

I think it is a very different system from the European One. Only a process of real political unity, with separate competences between States and the EU, would work in a proper way.

EL News - Do you consider there’s any serious external or internal threat to Europe’s peace in the short, medium or long term? Can Europe deter external threats only through diplomacy and efforts to build partnerships? With an increasing majority of Member States belonging to NATO is it feasible or desirable to have a Common Foreign Policy? Should we “pragmatically” increase our military expenses, even in times of economic crisis?

Nuria Lozano - Obviously, the meaning of the term “threat to peace” is very different depending on who you are talking to. But in objective terms, the potential threats against peace in Europe have more to do with the extension of wild capitalism, exploitation of other nations, and the globalization of the neoliberal predator policies, than with any other question.

European Union has a wide delay in the common foreign politics for development. Impelling a real common foreign politics is a basic element to the European countries. Only through the development of its own foreign policy instruments, Europe may keep having a relevant position in the international scene.

This delay affects also to the Common Defense Policy. Today European States are generating a huge budget for military expenses, and they work in a non coordinated way, under the NATO direction, avoiding any kind of European autonomy in this matter.

We need to develop conflict prevention tools, focusing foreign policy on civil instruments. It should also be compulsory to reduce, in an extremely radical manner, the volume of military expense (an amount of 242.000 billion Euros).

In Spain, the military budget for 2009 is 18.609,6 million Euros. This means that a country with more than 4 million unemployed people, and a government claiming for their lack of means to help people improve their life and working conditions, they’re paying 50,98 million Euros a day in army and weapons. Putting it in another way, every Spanish citizen will pay 408€ a year for army and weapons.

In a context of crisis like the one we’re suffering nowadays, we must prioritize wages, public pensions, public services, social expenses and benefits to help people to face the situation, instead of paying soldiers to maintain the military complex and organizations engaged on the foreign affairs and defense policies.