WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3196/97 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Water pollution in Ireland
Date: 1997-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, MCKENNA
Subjects: Ireland, action programme, chemical fertiliser, dangerous substance, environmental standard, polluter pays principle, pollution control measures, water pollution

C 158/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25. 5. 98

(98/C 158/66)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3196/97

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(16 October 1997)

Subject: Water pollution in Ireland

An organization from the West of Ireland, the Carra Mask Angling Federation, has recently made a submission to
the European Commission on moves by the Irish Government to curb the overuse of phosphates in farming,
which has caused serious water pollution.

The submission was in response to a strategy document published by the Irish Department of the Environment,
Managing Ireland(cid:146)s Rivers and Lakes.

The Angling Federation argues that the best way to reduce water pollution is to apply the (cid:145)polluter pays(cid:146) principle
by introducing a tax on phosphate applications, which it believes would result in a substantial decrease in their
use in agriculture.

As  much  EU  legislation  subscribes  to  the  (cid:145)polluter  pays(cid:146)  principle,  would  the  Commisison  favour  the
implementation of such a tax? What action will it take on the basis of the recommendations made by the Carra
Mask Angling Federation?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 1997)

The Community(cid:146)s fifth action programme (cid:145)Towards a sustainable development(cid:146) (1) sets out various approaches
to environmental pollution complementing each other, such as setting emission limit values and water quality
criteria, and strengthening the (cid:145)polluter pays(cid:146) principle.

The proposed water framework directive (2)  would  oblige  Member  States  to  achieve  good  status  for  all  their
waters (groundwater and surface waters) by 2010, and, following a combined approach of emission limit values
and water quality objectives, to establish and implement legally binding programmes of measures where the
body of water in question does not yet achieve the objective of good status. However, the proposal also states
that, following a first step of (cid:145)full cost recovery(cid:146) charges for services related to water, the Commission should, if
appropriate, come forward with proposals concerning environmental and resource costs of impacts to waters as
well.

Further, in its communication on environmental taxes and charges in the single market (3) the Commission has
expressed its support for an increased use of fiscal instruments by Member States to make environmental policy
more efficient and cost-effective, as long as these environmental taxes and charges are used and implemented in
a  way  compatible  with  Community  legislation.  This  communication  lays  out  the  essential  conditions
(possibilities  and  constraints)  for  such  compatibility  of  fiscal  instruments  with  the  framework  of  the  single
market. It does not discuss the advantages and disadvantages in terms of economic efficiency and environmental
effectiveness  of  using  environmental  levies  at  Member  State  level.  In  general,  however,  the  Commission
appreciates their scope for more cost-effective environmental policy and acknowledges that environmental taxes
and  charges  can  be  an  appropriate  way  of  implementing  the  (cid:145)polluter  pays(cid:146)  principle,  by  including  the
environmental costs in the price for goods and services.

Finally, Council Directive 76/464/EEC (4) on the discharge of dangerous substances obliges Member States to
establish and implement programmes concerning the pollution reduction of certain dangerous substances. As
phosphorus compounds are listed amongst the dangerous substances, and Ireland has not fully established the
necessary programmes, the Commission has opened proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

(1)  OJ C 140, 11.5.1996.
(2)  OJ C 184, 17.6.1997.
(3)  COM(97) 9 final.
(4)  OJ C 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.