2. Pollution by nitrates (procedure without debate)
A5-0386/2000
European Parliament resolution on implementation of Directive 91/676/EEC on nitrates (2000/
2110(INI))
The European Parliament,
Hdash having regard to Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution
from agricultural sources (1),
Hdash having regard to Commission reports to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementa-
tion of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution from ag-ricultural sources (COM(1997) 473) and on measures taken pursuant to Council Directive 91/676/EECconcerning the protection of waters against pollution from agricultural sources Hdash summary of reportssubmitted to the Commission by Member States under Article 11 (COM(1998) 16),
Hdash having regard to the its resolution of 20 October 1998 on the abovementioned reports (
2),
Hdash having regard to the pending and final case proceedings of the Court of Justice of the European Com-
munity,
Hdash having regard to European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for
Community action in the field of water policy (3),
Hdash having regard to the findings of a delegation from its Committee on the Environment,Public Health
and Consumer Policy to The Netherlands on 12 October 2000,
Hdash having regard to Rule 47(2) and to Rule163 of its Rules of Procedure,Hdash having regard to the report of its Committee on the Environment,Public Health and Consumer Policy
and the opinion of its Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A5-0386/2000),
1. Recommends that the immediate priority should be to implement the existing legislation rather than
to redraft and reform the Directive;
2. Considers in particular that,owing to inadequate implementation of the Nitrates Directive,the aim of
reducing nitrate pollution and preventing the problem of eutrophication is far from having been achieved;notes furthermore that the European Environment Agency states that nitrate concentrations in major EUrivers are largely unchanged since 1980; accordingly,there has been no radical reduction in nitrate pollu-tion of watercourses or in eutrophication of the seas (especially the North Sea and the Baltic Sea,but alsothe northen Adriatic);
3. Calls on the Member States to introduce forthwith specific measures for the transposition of the
Nitrates Directive,with particular regard to the action programmes in areas threatened by nitrates.
Immediate and vigorous action is required:
(a) because the watercourses frequently need many years before recovering (‘Supertanker Effect’); and(b) in order to minimise existing distortions of competition;
4. Considers that,with the notable exception of Denmark and Sweden,the implementation of the
Nitrates Directive has been extremely unsatisfactory and that the Commission has been slow to censureMember States for non-compliance; calls on the Commission to continue without hesitation to use theappropriate legal enforcement means within its powers to ensure the proper implementation of theNitrates Directive,whenever it detects a breach of the obligations of the Member States,and to imposeappropriate financial penalties;
(1) OJ L 375,31.12.1991,p. 1.
(2) OJ C 341,9.11.1998,p. 35.
(3) OJ L 327,22.12.2000,p. 1.C 262/128 EN 18.9.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 17 January 2001
5. Judges it necessary to speed up Treaty infringement procedures where Community environmental
and consumer protection legislation is not applied; considers that the delay in presenting cases before theCourt of Justice should be cut to six months or less to make sanctions a more effective deterrent; is also ofthe opinion that reducing the backlog of outstanding cases should be a priority for the Court of Justice;
6. Considers that,although the Commission has recently issued a standard format to assist Member
States in reporting the implementation and effectiveness of the Directive,direct comparisons and quanti-tative judgements are hard to make on the basis of information already provided in different formats; notesthat monitoring procedures and sampling techniques vary between Member States and that the Commi-ssion should introduce Community guidelines for the sampling of waters to allow direct comparisonsbetween the performance of Member States in achieving the aims of the Directive;
7. Calls for improved and continuous evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of the Direc-
tive and calls on the Commission to submit proposals forthwith for improved tools for sampling andevaluating the various sources of emissions and their effects,so that a direct comparison can be madebetween the results achieved by the various Member States in their efforts to meet the targets laid downin the Directive,taking into account each Member State’s starting level;
8. Considers that Member States may ask for derogations; believes that derogations should not apply to
the aims of the Directive,but only to the means (as stated in Annex III.2 of the abovementioned Directive)and that derogations in respect of the prescribed means should be allowed only if:
(a) it is guaranteed that the aims of the Directive are verifiably achieved (for example by a system of
mineral accounting),and
(b) the granting of a derogation does not result in a distortion of competition between Member States;
9. Believes that the Commission should take account of Member States which,on the basis of scientifi-
cally justified grounds,wish to derogate from the 170 kg N/ha limit,on condition that the 50 mg nitrate/llimit is not exceeded in groundwater,under any circumstances,and that an additional limitation on theuse of chemical fertilisers ensures that the limit values of Directive 75/440/EEC (
1) are met;
10. Notes that there is no deadline in the Directive for achieving its aims; that deadline is laid down in
the Framework Directive on water policy;
11. Calls on the Commission to ensure,using the required notification,that any derogations in individ-
ual Member States (e.g. relating to livestock density and monitoring methods) do not result in a reduction
in the level of protection but,by taking specific regional conditions into account,lead to a more precise
implementation of the Directive;
12. Is of the opinion that farmers in Member States which comply with the Directive are at a compe-
titive disadvantage to those who do not meet the exacting requirements and that this is particularly true inthe case of Denmark; considers that Union-wide compliance with the Directive would remedy this unfairsituation and that the Commission must take all necessary steps to ensure full EU-wide compliance;
13. Considers that the reallocation of financial support for agricultural production to nature conserva-
tion,environmental protection and water management services in the European Union must be pursuedmore vigorously so as to offer farmers prospects for environment-friendly activity; calls on the Commi-ssion to take the necessary steps to ensure this happens;
14. Considers that the effects of other agricultural policies (such as set-aside rules) and crop subsidies on
water nitrate levels should be considered by the Commission when determining these policies and subsidylevels;
(1) OJ L 306,26.11.1975,p. 20.18.9.2001 EN C 262/129 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 17 January 2001
15. Considers that the Commission should make an assessment of nitrate pollution from non-agricul-
tural sources and put in place measures to counter any problems identified; that applies in particular to theimplementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (
1),concerning urban waste-water treatment,application
of which by the Member States is equally poor; calls on the Commission to take similar action,as a matterof urgency,against defaulting Member States and to initiate full-scale legal action forthwith;
16. Is of the opinion that the Commission should study in the context of the Sixth environment action
programme the contribution of phosphate to eutrophication and,if necessary,put in place measures toreduce this pollution;
17. Notes that nitrate use in the applicant states is at present relatively low and that in Poland nitrate
use is only a quarter of the western European average; believes that the applicant countries must maintaintheir good starting position and that policy measures aimed at developing and intensifying the agriculturalsector in new eastern European Member States should not be in conflict with the aims of the Nitrate
Directive; considers it necessary to monitor the potential environmental impact of policy in this area and
to modify policy if necessary;
18. Considers that the failure of Member States to fulfil obligations in this and other directives under-
mines the principle that new Member States should harmonise environmental legislation before accession;asks itself why these States should comply with rules that most current Member States are blatantly dis-regarding; believes that full implementation in the 15 current Member States would enable the Union topress for environmental improvements without being accused of hypocrisy;
19. Believes that the leaching of nitrates would be reduced and the aims of the directive more easily
achieved by avoiding the cultivation of set-aside land and hence encouraging long-term set-aside in Nature2000 designated areas,by sowing good wintercover crops on all agricultural lands after early harvest and,in some circumstances,by planting non-deciduous trees naturally present in that region in nitrate vulner-able zones outside the Natura 2000 network; considers furthermore that wetlands should be re-establishedwhere possible;
20. Calls on the Commission to examine the provision of aid for the extensive use of grassland and the
plantation of fallow or set-aside areas with certain renewable raw materials,with a view to reducing theleaching of nitrates,phosphates and other nutrients and thus also reducing eutrophication of water;
21. Is of the opinion that Member States that designate their whole territory should be made to justify
such a designation to the Commission and that if Member States have designated their whole territory in a
highly cursory manner,they should revise their designation; considers that it must be clear that the desig-
nation of the whole territory means that measures to reduce nitrate pollution are needed for the entireterritory and that the protection of one Member State’s territory should not be detrimental to the environ-ment of another Member State; considers,moreover,that in view of the fact that the designation of vul-nerable zones is a highly sensitive issue,objective criteria drawn up by the Commission are required todetermine the areas where action is needed;
22. Considers that analyses,specific information and expert opinions concerning the fertiliser require-
ments of particular soils and crops should be or could be more widely used by farmers with a view toachieving a balanced use of fertilisers; is also of the opinion that,in some cases,it could be useful as an
additional measure to have recourse to computer modelling to accurately predict fertiliser requirements;
23. Calls for better practical and technical support for farmers in the task of reducing nitrate leaching
from the soil and stresses in particular the need for free soil analyses and for aid as regards solid andsolidified manure and sustainable processing of animal manure (composting,separation of solids,biogasproduction,etc.);
(1) OJ L 135,30.5.1991,p. 40.C 262/130 EN 18.9.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 17 January 2001
24. Believes that standardised testing methods and sampling criteria should be introduced for determin-
ing the proportion of the nitrate concentration in groundwater and surface water attributable to farming,so as to ensure even-handed application of the Directive. Such standardised methods and criteria must inevery instance relate to:
(a) standard measuring depths for the measurement of nitrates in groundwater;
(b) an even distribution of measuring points within the ‘vulnerable’ area;
(c) adjustment to take account of annual fluctuations in precipitation;
25. Calls upon the Commission to compile a catalogue of measures that have proved effective in coun-
tries where the Nitrate Directive has been implemented successfully; considers that such a catalogue couldhelp the whole European Union to benefit from the experience gained in those countries and that it
should, inter alia ,include the following measures:
(a) drawing-up of a national nitrate action plan covering all measures;
(b) detailed national mapping of all groundwater resources with a view to designating especially vulner-
able areas;
(c) rewarding farmers who,in such especially vulnerable areas,use particularly environment-friendly
methods of cultivation that surpass legal requirements;
(d) securing and continuous expansion of areas that are farmed organically,possibly with the aid of sup-
port schemes;
(e) use of nature itself as the basis for:
Hdash establishing cultivation buffers on the margins of rivers,watercourses,marine inlets,lakes and
seas,
Hdash increasing the area covered by water meadows,
Hdash increased afforestation,
Hdash establishing rules for crop rotation and repeated cropping;
(f) requirement to draw up fertiliser plans and set fertiliser limits for individual holdings,environmental
factors determining the amounts of fertiliser used;
(g) requirement for each holding to keep records providing a sound overview of total fertiliser use and a
basis for penalties (charges/fines) where a holding exceeds its fertiliser limits;
(h) the revenue from such charges or fines is to be used for establishing water meadows,afforestation and
restoring other types of natural features;
(i) requirement to store manure on individual holdings so that fertiliser is applied only when it can be
taken up by crops;
(j) the number of animal units on an individual holding must be in proportion to the cultivated area,so
as to ensure that the fertiliser produced is capable of being taken up;
(k) introduction of continuous monitoring and inspections;
26. Calls on the Commission,when implementing the common agricultural policy as reformed in
1999,to take consistent account of the transposition of environmental objectives and to report back tothe European Parliament thereon during 2001;
27. Points out that it is the Commission’s duty to submit a report on the implementation of the Nitrates
Directive; calls on the Commission to include in its next report:
(a) a comparative study of the impact of nitrate pollution in all the Member States,
(b) maps which show,as a comparative study,water quality and changes therein,18.9.2001 EN C 262/131 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 17 January 2001
(c) a comparative study of the measures taken to date (best-practice rules,action programmes,etc.);
calls,further,on the Commission to make those reports available to the public in a form which is easily
comprehensible;
28. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission and to the
governments and parliaments of the Member States.
3. Conservation of habitats (procedure without debate)
A5-0387/2000
European Parliament resolution on implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC on habitats (2000/
2111(INI))
The European Parliament,
Hdash having regard to the Convention on Biological Diversity,Hdash having regard to the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats,
Hdash having regard to the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information,Public Participation in Decision-
Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters,
Hdash having regard to the Commission Communication on ‘Wise Use of Wetland’ (1995) (COM(1995) 189)
and the Council Conclusions after public debate on wise use and conservation of wetland (1996),
Hdash having regard to the XVIth Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law (1998)
(COM(1999) 301),(
1)
Hdash having regard to its resolution of 20 October 1998 (2) on the Commission communication to the
Council and the European Parliament on a European Community biodiversity strategy(COM(1998) 42 Hdash C4-0140/1998 and (SEC(1998) 348 Hdash C4-0155/1998),
Hdash having regard to Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (‘the Habitats Directive’) (
3),
Hdash having regard to Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (‘the Birds Directive’) (4),
Hdash having regard to Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment (‘the EIA Directive’) (5),
Hdash having regard to its position of 6 September 2000 (6) on the Council common position for a European
Parliament and Council directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes onthe environment (5685/1/2000 Hdash C5-0180/2000 Hdash 1996/0304(COD),
Hdash having regard to Rule 47(2) and Rule 163 of its Rules of Procedure,
Hdash having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment,Public Health and Consumer Policy
(A5-0387/2000),
(1) OJ C 354,7.12.1999,p. 1.
(2) OJ C 341,9.11.1998,p. 41.
(3) OJ L 206,22.7.1992,p. 7.
(4) OJ L 103,25.4.1979,p. 1.
(5) OJ L 175,5.7.1985,p. 40.
(6) ‘Texts Adopted’,Item 4.C 262/132 EN 18.9.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 17 January 2001