WRITTEN QUESTION P-2301/99 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Implementation of the nitrates directive (No 91/676/EEC).
Date: 1999-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: chemical pollution, chemical salt, directive (EU), eutrophication, evaluation method, groundwater, industrial pollution, nitrogen, organic fertiliser, organic pollution, pollution from agricultural sources, surface water, wastewater, water pollution, water protection, water treatment

C 225 E/92

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

such an assessment has not yet taken place. The long term effects should be included in this assessment. In
particular the precautionary principle has to be taken into account. If the assessment demonstrates that the
extraction will have negative implications, Article 6(4) of the Directive applies. This implies that the Dutch
authorities have to demonstrate that there are no alternative solutions for the extraction and that a reason
exists based on the overriding public interest in carrying out the extraction. If such negative implications
can be demonstrated, compensatory measures in the sense of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC should
be taken before the extraction takes place, in order to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is
protected.

The Honourable Member is referred to point 3 above. To this can be added that the word (cid:145)significant

4.
effect(cid:146) in Article 6(3) has a broader meaning than only (cid:145)irreversible effect(cid:146).

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2000/C 225 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2301/99

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Implementation of the nitrates directive (No 91/676/EEC)

In reply to my question P-1725/99 (1) of 15 September 1999 the Commission said that it was
1.
possible to distinguish between nitrates derived from industrial sources and from other sources. Does the
Commission intend to recommend that the requisite monitoring should be carried out for this purpose?

2.
The Commission also says in its reply that it is possible by means of isotope analysis to distinguish
between organic N of human or animal origin on the one hand and chemical N from artificial fertiliser or
factories on the other. Does the Commission consider that organic N of human origin can affect the
readings, and hence also the implementation of the nitrates directive (no 91/676/EEC) (2)? Does the
Commission believe that leaky sewers in the Netherlands could have a distinct impact on nitrate readings?

See page 14.

(1)
(2) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

The question posed is basically whether there are other relevant sources of nitrates pollution of waters by
nitrates than those from agriculture, in particular waste water.

It is significant, both as regards the political decision and the practical implementation, that the European
legislator addressed, within the same year of 1991, nitrates pollution of waters (groundwaters and surface
waters, including marine waters) from agricultural sources (cid:129) by Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning
the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1), (cid:129) and nitrates
and other pollution of waters from waste water sources (cid:129) by Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May
1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (2).

Wherever such nitrates pollution (elevated concentrations of nitrates in surface waters or groundwaters;
eutrophication of surface waters including marine waters) is observed, the necessary measures have to be
implemented, targeted on agricultural and waste water sources. A 1999 judgement by the European
court (3) confirms in this context that mandatory measures (action programmes) under the nitrates directive
have to be established and implemented even if in a particular situation agriculture is not the main source
of pollution.

The choice of the necessary monitoring is the responsibility of Member States. The draft guidelines on
monitoring currently discussed with Member States will list elements of monitoring, including various
methods of analysis and assessment, but do not give recommendations in individual situations. Amongst

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/93

the methods of analysis and assessment, isotope analysis is one, based on the fact that the ratio between
two nitrogen isotopes, N14 and N15, is different for organic fertilisers (manure, slurry etc.) and chemical
fertilisers. Such analyses can be done by specialised laboratories, but are however rather expensive
(€ 100 per analysis). Such analysis might therefore be advisable in particularly complex cases, together
with other methods, to assess the different origins of nitrogen, as well as to assess the impact of changing
practices in a particular area. Other analytic techniques for similar purposes complementing these are
tracing boron (as boron is present in domestic waste waters), or fat acids and other organic compounds
specific of different types of animals. Given the particular conditions, isotope analyses on hydrogen and
oxygen might prove useful as well (to show the (cid:145)age(cid:146) of groundwaters, and times of transfer of polluted
waters in the soil and subsoil).

Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment obliges Member States to take the
necessary steps,
for the
prevention of leaks in urban waste water collecting systems. According to information provided by the
Dutch Ministry of the Environment, concentrations of nitrates are generally lower in groundwaters under
urban areas than in rural areas with intensive agriculture.

technical knowledge not entailing excessive costs,

in accordance with best

Nitrates pollution of waters (groundwaters and surface waters, including marine waters) has several main
sources such as agriculture and waste water. Existing Community legislation addresses, in a legally binding
way, both agricultural and waste water-related nitrates pollution. A range of methods to analyse and assess
the impact from different sources exist. The Commission will carefully observe the implementation, and
will take the necessary legal steps (infringement procedures, including request for the imposition of penalty
payments) where appropriate.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.
(2) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
(3)

Judgment in case C-293/97 of 29.4.1999, The Queen / Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte
Standley and others.

(2000/C 225 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2306/99

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Extermination of the hawksbill sea turtle?

The critically endangered hawksbill sea turtle has been listed in Appendix I to CITES since 1975. Cuban
and Japanese reservations allowed Cuba to export thousands of hawksbill shells to Japan between 1975
and 1992, when Japan withdrew its reservation. Since 1992, the international trade in hawksbill shells has
been banned. In 1997, Cuba proposed to transfer the (cid:145)Cuban population(cid:146) of hawksbills to CITES Appendix
II, to export up to 500 shells to Japan each year and to export over 5 000 kg of government-held shell
stocks to Japan; this proposal failed by a narrow margin. In preparation for the next CITES meeting
(April 2000), Cuba invited scientific authorities from the European Parties to assess their hawksbill
management programme. The UK, the Netherlands and Spain visited Cuba and may recommend that
European Parties support Cuba(cid:146)s proposal.

How does the Commission plan to address concerns that the Cuban proposal does not meet the

1.
criteria established at the ninth Conference of the Parties for down-listing to Appendix II?

2.
Given concerns that any reopening of the legal trade in sea turtle products would probably fuel
demand for shell around the world and cause increased poaching and illegal trade, should the Commission
encourage trade in such a critically endangered species?

3.
Given that experts have determined that there are no more than 5 000 nesting female hawksbill
annually in the wider Caribbean, how does the Commission plan to address the fact that the annual
removal of 10 % of the population will have a detrimental impact on this critically endangered species?