* Tir COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 01.10.1997 
COM(97) 473 final 
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
The Implementation of Council Directive 
91/676/EEC concerning the Protection of 
Waters against Pollution caused by 
Nitrates from Agricultural Sources 

1. INTRODUCTION. j 
2. BACKGROUND TO T*HE DIRECTIVE 4 
2.1 The Nitrate Problem 4 
2.2 The Causes of the Nitrate Problem 5 
2.3 History of Directive 5 
2.4 Outline of Directive 6 
3. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 8 
3.1 Transposition into National Law 8 
3.2 Codes of Good Agricultural Practice 9 
3.3 Designation of Vulnerable Zones 10 
3.4 Monitoring 12 
3.5 Action Programmes 12 
3.6 Summary Reports... 14 
4. INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS : 16 
5. A REVISION OF THE DIRECTIVE? 17 
6. CONCLUSION 17 
1. INTRODUCTION 
Six years after the adoption of the Nitrates Directive1 most Member States have 
failed to implement it. As a result, the pollution of waters by nitrates continues to 
be a problem in all the countries of the Community. Many sources of drinking 
water exceed the 50 mg/1 level set on public health grounds in both the "Surface 
Water for Abstraction of Drinking Water"2 and the "Drinking Water Directive"3. 
Environmentally, the inputs of nitrate from Member States to the North Sea, Baltic 
Sea, Mediterranean and Black Sea are particularly significant in causing 
eutrophication. The diffuse nature of nitrate pollution makes its reduction a 
challenge for Community environmental policies, a fact that is compounded by the 
principal polluters, the agricultural industry, being particularly vulnerable to land-
use changes which impact upon their economic viability. 
Six years ago, in 1991, the Council adopted the Nitrates Directive, which sought to 
reduce water pollution caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources and to 
prevent further such pollution. This represented an important step in the 
development of water policy with the Directive adhering to both the polluter pays, 
and the prevention at source principles, and seeking to tackle diffuse pollution. 
Although the most significant of the Directive's measures remain to be taken in 
many of the Member States it is apparent already that there is strong resistance to 
the requirements of the Directive in certain quarters, which is likely to be 
contributing to the poor state of implementation across the Community. The present 
situation the Commission considers to be extremely grave. At the present time 13 
out of the 15 Member States are the subject of legal proceedings with respect to both 
the non-transposition and/or the incorrect application of the Directive. This 
implementation report, required under Article 11 of the Directive represents 
therefore a timely opportunity to highlight the significant lack of progress made by 
Member States in their application of the Directive. 
The report will commence with a brief examination of the background to the 
Directive before analysis of the current status of implementation is presented. The 
final section clearly demonstrates why, given the tardy state of implementation, the 
Commission considers it inappropriate to come forward with proposals for a 
revision of the Directive at this time. 
1 OJ No L 375 31.12.1991, pi. Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning die 
protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources 
2 OJ No L 194. 25.7.1975, p26. Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning die quality 
required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States 
3 OJ No L 229 30.8.1980. pi 1. Council Directive 80/778/EEC of l5.July 1980 relating to die quality of water 
intended for human consumption 
2. BACKGROUND TO THE DIRECTIVE 
2.1 The Nitrate Problem 
In the European Union the concentration of nitrate in drinking waters has been 
regulated since 1980 by the Drinking Water Directive. This establishes a guide 
level of nitrate of 25 mg/1 and.a maximum admissible concentration of 50 mg/1. 
These levels are now»widely accepted on human health grounds, and significantly, 
have not been challenged by Member States during the negotiations on the 
Commission's proposal for a revision of the Directive. Nitrate in drinking waters is 
considered to be a public health problem because nitrate rapidly reduces to nitrite in 
the body. The major effect of nitrite is the oxidation of blood haemoglobin to 
methaemoglobin which is unable to transport oxygen to the tissues. The reduced 
oxygen transport manifests itself particularly in young infants up to six months old, 
and causes the condition methaemoglobinaemia or blue-baby syndrome. This 
phenomenon has only been observed at nitrate levels significantly above the 50 mg/1 
level therefore this level delivers sufficient protection against this occurring. In 
addition, nitrite reacts with compounds in the stomach to form products which have 
been found to be carcinogenic in many animal species, although the link to cancer in 
humans is at the moment suggestive. Nevertheless, these two factors together 
totally justify a precautionary approach being taken in the establishment of this 
parameter4. 
The Dobris assessment5 quotes model concentrations of nitrate leaching from 
agricultural soils that indicate that 87% of the agricultural area in Europe has nitrate 
concentrations in the groundwater that are above the guide level value of 25 mg/1, 
and 22% that are above the 50 mg/1 level. In many areas these levels are increasing 
with existing sources of drinking water having to be closed or being subject to 
expensive treatment processes at the expense of the consumer. 
Elevated levels of nitrates are also significant contributors to eutrophication, 
particularly in marine and coastal areas. In these areas, they stimulate high levels of 
algal growth which lead to marked changes in the nature of the ecosystem, usually 
to its detriment. Large areas of the North Sea coastlines have been identified as 
suffering from eutrophication, as well as areas of the Mediterranean. The most 
efficient way of reducing such eutrophication is to reduce the inputs of nitrate and 
other nitrogen sources. 
4 It is also relevant to note that in April 1997. the World Health Organisation reviewed tlieir guideline 
value for nitrate and nitrite in drinking water, and concluded thai on the basis of the latest scientific 
evidence, the value of 50 mg/1 should be maintained. 
5 Stanners D. Bourdeau P. Eds.. (1995) Europe's Environment. The Dobris Assessment. EEA. 
2.2 The Causes of the Nitrate Problerii 
Post war agricultural policies have focused on maximising production. Price 
support and guaranteed markets have tended to result in intensive production 
methods. This has been the case in the EU with the Common Agricultural Policy as 
in other countries. Overall, the policy, which has been very successful in achieving 
increased production, has had what can now be seen to be a detrimental effect on the 
environment. In the context of nitrate pollution, intensive production has resulted in 
increased use of chemical fertilisers, and more significantly large numbers of 
livestock being concentrated on small areas of land. In some regions of the EU 
intensive livestock production has led to structural exceedances of the quantities of 
manure produced. In other words there is more manure than can be disposed of on 
land without causing nitrate pollution. 
It can take many years for nitrate pollution to reach a water body once it has left the 
soil rooting zone. Indeed much of the high concentrations of nitrate in waters today 
has been caused by agricultural practices of past decades. It also follows that 
today's agricultural practices will determine future nitrate pollution levels6. There is 
no doubt that agricultural practices have improved from an environmental point of 
view during the last decade, but it is still the case that agricultural practices and 
structural exceedances contribute to nitrate pollution. It remains necessary, 
therefore, for there to be changes to current agricultural practices. The European 
Community is committed to the application of the polluter pays principle. In the 
context of the Nitrates Directive this means that the cost of the measures necessary 
to change current practices to reduce pollution should be borne by the agricultural 
operators themselves. Changes in the Common. Agricultural Policy, such as the 
MacSharry reforms of 1992 that led to reductions in support prices and the Agri-
Environment Regulation7 will assist this policy, as could any further reforms that 
shift the emphasis away from support for production. 
2.3 History of Directive 
In 1988 the Frankfurt ministerial seminar on water reviewed the existing legislation 
and identified a number of improvements that could be made and gaps that could be 
filled. So far this has resulted in the adoption by the Council of the Urban Waste 
Water Treatment Directive8 and the Nitrates Directive. 
6 This is of particular pertinence to tlie Associated Countries of Central and Eastern Europe as it is likely 
that any intensification of agriculture similar to that which occurred in Western Europe during the 
post-war period will lead to an increase in tlie pollution of walcrs by nitrates from agricultural sources. 
7 OJ No L 215 30.7.1992. p85 Council Regulation No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production 
methods compatible with tlie requirements of tlie protection of the environment and the maintenance of 
the countryside. 
8 OJ No L 135 30.5.1991. p40. Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water 
treatment 
The Nitrates Directive.began life as a "Proposal for a Council Directive concerning 
the protection of fresh, coastal and marine waters against pollution caused by 
nitrates from diffuse sources"9. An amended proposal was published in 199010 
following the opinion of the European Parliament11. Overall the Directive took 
nearly three years to negotiate and was finally concluded under the Dutch 
Presidency, being signed on 12.12.1991 and notified to Member States on 
19.12.1991. 
2.4 Outline of Directive 
The objectives of the Directive are two-fold: to reduce water pollution caused or 
induced by nitrates from agricultural sources and; to prevent further such pollution. 
These the Directive seeks to ensure by requiring Member States to identify waters 
affected by pollution and waters which could be affected by pollution and" 
designating these areas as Vulnerable Zones12 on the basis of the results of 
monitoring requirements in the Directive. In these zones the Member States must 
draw up Action Programmes which contain mandatory measures concerning 
agricultural practices, including the stipulation of maximum amounts of manure that 
can be applied to land every year. Member States are also bound to establish at least 
one Code of Good Agricultural Practice which is implemented on a voluntary basis 
outside the Vulnerable Zones, and is mandatory within them. Member States are 
obliged to monitor the nitrate concentrations of waters to assess the impacts of the 
measures put in place. 
The timetable for the implementation of the Directive can be found in Figure 1. 
below. 
9 OJ No C 54 3.3.1989. p4 
10O.TNoC51 2.3.1990. p 12 
1 l OJ No C 158 26.6.1989. p487 
-> Technically where a Member States designates the whole of their territory under Article 3(5) of the 
Directive it is not labelled a Vulnerable Zone. However the rcquiremeiUs for these areas, are exactly tlie 
same and so where a vulnerable /.one is refened to this will include those Member States using Article 
?i(5)^ except where monitoring requirements arc being discussed. 
Figure 1: Tlie Timetable for the Implementation of the Directive 
—~—•——•—•————————»—^——^——^—.———^^—__—. i. m. ——— _-^_»rim_l^_^niTnT-rirMI_rri__ 
Requirement Relevant Stipulated 
Directive Completion Date13 
Article 
Transposition into National Law 12 20.12.1993 
Monitoring 5(6) or 6 20.12.1993 
Designation of Vulnerable Zones 3 20.12.1993 
Establishment of Code of Good Agricultural Practice 4 • 20.12.1993 
Establishment of first four year Action Programme 5 20.12.1995 
Submission of Summary Report to Commission 10 20.6.1996 
Completion of tlie Review of Designations 3 21.12.1997 
Start of tlie year during which maximum of 210 kg N ha 5 20.12.1998 
may be applied 
Completion of first Action Programme 5 20.12.1999 
Start of tlie year during which maximum of 170 kg N ha 5 20.12.2002 
may be applied 
Completion of second Action Programme 5 21.12.2003 
13 These follow Council Regulation (EEC. Euratom) I 182/71. of 3.6.71 determining the rules applicable to 
periods, dates and time limits. OJ L 124, 8.6.1971. pi 
3. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 
The implementation of the Directive should proceed at the same speed in all 
Member States. Austria, Finland and Sweden, who joined the EU on 1.1.1995 
receive no special dispensations. 
3.1 Transposition into National Law 
Article 12 of the Directive states that Member States must "bring into force the laws, 
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive 
within two years of its notification" i.e. by 20.12.1993. Four years after the deadline 
only four Member States have been judged to have complied with their obligations. 
Figure 2 indicates the date on which the Member State communicated transposing 
measures and whether the Commission considers that these fulfil their obligations. 
Figure 2: Tlie Transposition of the Directive into National Law (as of 30.7.1997) 
Country Date of Communication Conformity of 
(Date due 20.12.1993] 4) Measures 
Austria 26.1.1996 Ch eck o ngoing 
Belgium 
Denmark 17.12.1993 Yes 
Finland 24 3 199515 No 
France 27.8.1993 Yes 
Germany 1.4.1996 No 
Greece 
Ireland 17.7.1995 No 
Italy 
Luxembourg 26.10.1994 Yes 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Spain 11.3.1996 Yes 
Sweden 25.1.1996 Check ongoing 
United Kingdom 28A1996 No 
14 For Austria, Finland and Sweden !. 1.1995 
15 Finland submitted further transposing measures on 23.10.1995 and 14.8.1996 
3.2 Codes of Good Agricultural Practice 
Article 4 of the Directive states that "Member States shall, within a two-year period 
following the notification of this Directive [i.e. by 20.12.1993], establish a code or 
codes of good agricultural practice to be implemented by farmers on a voluntary 
basis which should contain provisions covering at least the items mentioned in 
Annex II A". The majority of Member States have now completed this exercise as 
can be seen from Figure 3 below. However, when the Commission undertook a 
preliminary study of the Codes in late 1994 this was not the case. Although some of 
the requirements of the Codes can be considered quite unspecific the Codes 
represent important tools both in the context of the Directive and also in the 
integration of environmental considerations into agriculture. Therefore it is the 
Commission's intention to undertake a further study on them. This will look not 
just at the compliance of the Codes with the requirements of Annex II, but also at 
the consistency of the Codes between areas of similar cultivation patterns in the 
Community as well as the wider issue of agricultural good practice. 
Figure 3: Codes of Good Agricultural Practice (as of 30. ~.J99 ~) 
Country Date of Communication 
(Dateduc20.l2.199316) 
Austria 26.1.1996 
Belgium 
Denmark 17.12.1993 
Finland • 24.3.1995 
France 10.2.1994 
Germany 1.4.1996 
Greece 5.5.1994-
Ireland 20.8.1996 
Italy 22.12.1993 • 
Luxembourg 25.3.199f> 
Netherlands 5.1.1994 
Portugal 
Spam 
Sweden 25.1.1996 
United Kingdom 10.11.1994 
——— .———»»~———————— n II .m i i •——J— I. III 1.——» i 
16 For Austria. Finland and Sweden. 1.1.1995 
3.3 Designation of Vulnerable Zones 
Article 3(1) of the Directive states that "waters affected by pollution and waters 
which could be affected by pollution if action pursuant to Article 5 is not taken shall 
be identified by the Member States in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex 
I". Article 3(2) then goes on to state that "Member States shall, within a two-year 
period following the notification of this Directive [20.12.1993 n], designate as 
vulnerable zone's all'-known areas- of land -in their- territories -which drain into the 
waters identified in paragraph 1" 
Waters have to be designated if they meet one or more of the criteria laid down in 
Annex I. This means that for surface waters and groundwaters areas must be 
designated which contain or could contain more than 50 mg/1 of nitrate. In addition 
all waters which are found to be eutrophic or in the near future may become" 
eutrophic have to be designated. It is important to note that the definitions in all the 
points above apply to all waters and not just those currently used for the abstraction 
of drinking water. Therefore Member States are required to assess all waters, 
irrespective of whether they are used for drinking water. 
It is also necessary to stress that the 50 mg/1 level may not be sufficient to reduce 
eutrophication. Therefore this is not considered to be the defined limit in the 
Directive, indeed it is likely that it would be significantly too high to reduce 
eutrophication. 
Under Article }(5) Member States are exempted from the requirement to identify 
specific vulnerable zones if they establish and apply action programmes throughout 
their national territory. Thus far five Member States have used this possibility. 
Figure 4 indicates when Member States have desi&mated accordiim to Article 3, and 
if this has been completed, whether the zones have been designated, or the whole 
territory. As can be seen from this Figure most of the countries who have chosen 
not to use Article 3(5) have failed to fulfil this obligation, meaning that those areas 
requiring protection have not been identified, six years after the passing of the 
Directive. 
17 For Austria. Finland and Sweden. 1.1.1995 
10 
Figure 4: The Designation of Vulnerable Zones (as of 30. ~. 199.) 
Country Date Designations Completed Area Covered 
Pate due 20.12.199318) 
Austria 26.1.1996 Whole Territory 
Belgium 
Denmark 12.7.1993 Whole Territory 
Finland 
France - 46% of agricultural 
land* 
Germany 7.11.1994 Whole Territory 
Greece 
Ireland 17.7.1995 No Zones* 
Italy 
Luxembourg 19.10.1994 Whole Territory 
Netherlands 5.1.1994 Whole Territory 
Portugal 
Spain 
Sweden 25.1.1996 5 Vulnerable Zones* 
United Kingdom 10.2.1997 69 Vulnerable Zones* 
* These decisions are currently being examined by the Commission. 
The Commission is cognisant of the necessity of checking that all areas that should 
have been designated as vulnerable zones by Member States have been. To this end 
it intends to commission a study, once sufficient information has been received from 
Member States, to advise on such verifications. At the present time, such a study is 
not possible since only three of the Member States who have opted for designating 
vulnerable zones have completed their designations. 
Article 3(4) contains an obligation for Member States to "review and if necessary 
revise or add to the designation of vulnerable zones as appropriate and at least every 
four years, to take into account changes and factors unforeseen at the time of the 
previous designation". This will have to be completed by 21.12.1997 and 
communicated to the Commission by 21.6.1998. It is therefore too early to suggest 
whether the amount of territory in the Community covered by Article 3 is likely to 
change. 
18 For Austria. Finland and Sweden, 1.1.1995 
11 
3.4 Monitoring 
Monitoring is covered in both Articles 5 and 6 of the Directive. Member States who 
have chosen to apply Article 3(5) are exempt from the requirements of Article 6, 
except if they decide to change and designate zones under Article 3(2). In this case 
they would need to conduct the stated monitoring for a period of one year before 
making the change. Article 5(6) applies to Member States who make use of Article 
3(5). They are required to "monitor the nitrate content of waters (surface waters and 
groundwater) at selected measuring points which make it possible to establish the 
extent of nitrate pollution in the waters from agricultural sources". 
Member States who designate vulnerable zones have to comply with Article 6. This 
provides guidance as to the monitoring methods for all waters. Member States must 
review the eutrophic state of fresh surface waters, estuarial and coastal waters every" 
four years. The nitrate concentrations of fresh waters should have been measured 
over a period of one year between 19.12.1991 and 20.12.1993 and in every 
subsequent four year period (i.e. by 21.12.1997). The only exception to this and 
subsequent revisions is for sampling stations where during the last monitoring 
period all previous samples were below 25 mg/1 and no new factor likely to increase 
the nitrate content has appeared. In this case the monitoring programme need be 
repeated only every eight years. 
It is difficult for the Commission to judge the compliance or otherwise of the 
monitoring undertaken by Member States as the only obligation on the Member 
States to submit monitoring data to the Commission is contained in the Article 10 
Summary Report. Even information submitted in this manner need only be a 
summary. Nevertheless several Member States have noted in their Reports that their 
monitoring is, at present, insufficient to comply with that required by the Directive. 
Indeed a recent study19 concluded that many Member States have even yet to 
establish the monitoring and administrative infrastructures necessary to- deal with 
monitoring requirements from a range of Directives. 
3.5 Action Programmes 
Article 5 of the Directive states that "within a two-year period following the initial 
designation referred to in Article 3(2) or within one year of each additional 
designation referred to in Article 3(4), Member States shall, for the purpose of 
realising the objectives specified in Article 1, establish action programmes in respect 
of designated vulnerable zones". Action programmes last for four years; the first 
should have commenced on 20.12.1995 and is scheduled to end on 20.12.1999. A 
second action programme will then begin and last for a further four years, finishing 
on 21.12.2003. 
19 Evaluation of the Costs of Groundwater Inspection in Ihc Member Slates, study conducted for the 
European Commission. DG XI in the framework of contract B4-3()4(i/95/()()()345/MAR/Dl 
12 
The action programmes are the key requirements of the Directive as they require 
mandatory restrictions on the activities of farmers to achieve the objectives of the 
Directive. These are listed in Annex III. Of these two requirements are the most 
significant. Paragraph 1 of Annex III requires the land application of fertilisers to be 
based on a balance between the nitrogen requirements of the crops and the nitrogen 
supply to the crops from the soil and from fertilisation. 
Paragraph 2 sets down a maximum of 170 kg N per hectare per year that can be 
applied to land in the form of animal manure. However, the Directive allows for up 
to 210 kg N per hectare per year during the first action programme Both of these 
maximum quantities apply in the fourth year of their respective action programmes, 
i.e. 210 kg N per hectare per year from 20.12.1998 and 170'kg N per hectare per 
year from 20.12.2002. This paragraph of the Directive also allows for Member 
States to have derogations from these quantities, but only where they are justified on' 
the basis of objective criteria and do not prejudice the achievement of the objectives 
of the directive. 
Member States should have started their action programmes on 20.12.1995. 
However, as can be seen from Figure 5, which also considers whether the action 
programmes are in compliance with the Directive, few Member States have done so. 
Given that these measures represent the key to the Directive this failure is difficult 
to justify. 
Figure 5: Action Programmes (as of 30. ~. 199") 
•—^_—————^—F——_——————T^-geM°",l"B»™™^'~-*,~*-'*-~-*~--~- ————r 
Country Date of Notification In Compliance'.' 
(Dale due 20.12.199.5) 
Austria 11.11.1996 U nder examination 
Belgium 
Denmark 8.1.1996 Under examination 
Finland 
France 
Germany' 1.4.1996 No 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 19.10.1994 No 
Netherlands (see below) 
Portugal 
Spain 
Sweden 25.1.1996 Under examination 
United Kingdom 
13 
, In addition it is important to consider the case of the Netherlands. On 22.12.1995 
the Dutch authorities submitted their action programme to the Commission and 
informed them that they would be using the derogation possibility in Annex III. The 
Commission, after examining the justifications for the derogation and discussing 
these with the Dutch authorities decided that they were not in a position to 
recommend to the Nitrates Committee that the derogation be accepted. During the 
7th meeting of the Nitrates Committee in November 1996 the Dutch authorities 
withdrew their action programme and informed the Commission that they were no 
longer seeking a derogation. 
If, at any stage of implementation of the Directive it becomes apparent that the 
measures laid down in the Directive are not sufficient to achieve its objectives, the' 
Member States are required by Article 5(5) to take such additional measures or 
reinforced actions as they consider necessary. To aid in the attainment of this 
objective all Member States are required, under the first paragraph of Article 5(6) to 
draw up and implement monitoring programmes to assess the effectiveness of action 
programmes 
3.6 Summary Reports 
Article 10 of the Directive states that "Member States shall, in respect of the four-
year period following the notification of this Directive and in respect of each 
subsequent four-year period, submit a report to the Commission containing the 
information outlined in Annex V". Annex V requires basic information on the items 
discussed in the above sections. 
Member States should have submitted this information to the Commission by 
20.6.1996. Under Article 11 of the Directive the Commission should have sent 
summary reports to the European Parliament and to the Council by 20.12.1996. 
From Figure 6, below it can be seen that most Member States were late in 
submitting their reports. It is for this reason that the Commission has had to delay 
the publishing of its report. 
14 
Figure 6: Summary Reports (as of 30. .P)9r) 
Country Date of Communication 
(Due date 20.6.1996) 
Austria 11.11.1996 
Belgium 
Denmark 2()'l2.1996 " "' 
Finland 19.9.1996* 
France ' 23.12.1996 
Germany 12.11.1996 
Greece , 19.11.1996 
Ireland 17.7.1995 
Italy 
Luxembourg 4.2.1997 
Netherlands 9.7.1996 
Portugal 8.10.1996 
Spain 
Sweden 4.9.1996 
United Kingdom 9.1.1997 
The reports received have been of differing formats and content, with considerable 
variations in length. Although the Commission will present a consolidated report on 
this information, the varying standards of response will not facilitate the production 
of the most useful document possible. During the 6th meeting of the Nitrate 
Committee on 1.6.1995, the Commission presented a draft for a common reporting 
format which was commented upon by Member States. However as a finalised 
version was not presented early enough this was not used by any Member State. In 
future the Commission intends to present to the Committee a framework in which 
results should be submitted, in order to increase the usefulness of the final 
document. 
15 
4. INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS 
The Commission can begin infringement proceedings according to Article 169 of 
the Treaty establishing the European Communities against a Member State where it 
fails to comply with the requirements of the Directive. As is evident from the above 
Figures the majority of Member States are behind schedule in implementation, some 
of them very significantly. Indeed,, as .was .recognised in the Commission's 
Communication on Implementing Community Environmental Law20 there is a need 
to take action against most Member States for the same infringements of this 
Directive. Naturally these proceedings develop at different paces depending on the 
nature of the infringement and the degree of dialogue that has occurred between 
Member States and the Commission. Some Member States also have two separate 
actions against them. 
At present the majority of infringement cases are based on either the non-
transposition of measures or the basic non-conformity of the measures taken with 
those of the Directive. At this stage therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that 
the measures laid down in the Directive will not have a significant effect on nitrate 
pollution when they have had the opportunity to take effect. This represents 
therefore the primary argument for the Commission not coming forward with 
proposals to modify the Directive. The status of infringement proceedings against 
Member States is shown in Figure 7. The information.in this table is presented 
according to Commission rules on information that can be disclosed, therefore it 
should not be assumed that there are not proceedings against Member States that are 
not listed, or. for any parts of the Directive not indicated for a particular Country. 
Figure 7: Tlie Status of Infringement Proceedings against Member States (as of 
30.7J 99') 
Country 
Belgium 
Finland 
France 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Spain 
UK Transposition 
FN 
FN 
Court 
RO* 
Court 
FN 
Court 
FN Designation 
RO* 
Court 
RO* 
Court 
Court 
Court Code 
Court 
Court 
Court Action Programme 
RO* Report 
RO* 
FN = Letter of Formal Notice. RO = Reasoned Opinion. Court = Proceedings before the Court of 
Justice 
* = Decision taken by the Commission and publicised in a press release, but yet to be executed 
20 COM(96) 500 final. 22.10.1996 
16 
5. A REVISION OF THE DIRECTIVE? 
As stated in section 4 the principle reason for the Commission not coming forward 
with proposals for the revision of the Directive is the late implementation of the 
Directive, which makes it impossible to assess the effectiveness or otherwise of the 
Directive. The Commission is however aware that it could be argued that the fact 
that so many Member States have failed to respect their obligations with respect to 
this Directive means'that-it is the Directive that-is at fault. The Commission 
believes that this argumentation is not sustainable as the" majority of the measures 
that have to be taken by Member States (i.e. transposition, monitoring, designations, 
codes of good agricultural practice and reporting) are straightforward. Whilst there 
may be problems in co-ordinating the efforts of different ministries (in particular 
Environment and Agriculture) these are simply procedural problems which can be 
surmounted. , * ' 
As there is no obligation in the Directive to report on the problems experienced in 
the implementation of the Directive it is not possible to provide accurate 
information on the grounds for the delays in implementation. The Commission is 
aware, however, that the lack of baseline information on the extent of nitrate 
pollution has been a problem, as has been the co-ordination between different 
ministries as mentioned above. 
6. CONCLUSION 
Six years on from the adoption of this Directive the status of its implementation in 
most Member States is unsatisfactory, so much so that any revision of the Directive 
would be inappropriate. The failure to implement the Directive fully, in addition to 
its legal aspects, constitutes a failure to deal with serious environmental and human 
health problems. Whilst the Commission will do all in its powers to ensure 
implementation of the Directive, in particular through the use of infringement 
proceedings, these may not, in themselves, attain the objectives of the Directive. It 
is therefore essential to seek all means to generate the necessary pressure for 
implementation immediately. 
17 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 473 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 14 03 
Catalogue number : CB-C0-97-488-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-25029-5 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
u