WRITTEN QUESTION E-0190/02 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Implementation of Directive 91/676/EEC (the Nitrates Directive).
Date: 2002-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, derogation from EU law, environmental law, environmental monitoring, groundwater, pollution from agricultural sources, water protection

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/91

(2002/C 205 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0189/02

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Labour medicine

On 12 December 2001 the Italian Senate adopted Act No 824, by which decree-law No 402 of
12 November 2001 on urgent measures relating to health personnel acquires the status of a law proper.

Article 1a of this act extends the right to take responsibility, as ‘competent doctor’, for health and safety
measures in the workplace to doctors specialising in either hygiene and preventive medicine or legal and
insurance medicine.

Does the Commission not consider this law to be in flagrant breach of the EU directive on health and
safety in the workplace, under which this competence is reserved for doctors specialising in labour
medicine?

Does the Commission not consider further that doctors specialising in hygiene and preventive medicine or
legal and insurance medicine should be allowed to practice at national level only, given that their training,
unlike that of specialists in labour medicine, is not recognised at European level?

In addition, given the deficiencies of the existing training arrangements for specialists in hygiene and legal
medicine as far as workplace health and safety is concerned, does the Commission not consider that the
implementation of the above-mentioned Article 1a could jeopardise employees’ health and safety?

What action does the Commission intend to take to deal with this breach of Community law?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The Commission has just received a complaint alleging that Act No 824 adopted by the Italian Senate is in
breach of Community law.

The Commission will undertake a detailed analysis of the legislation in question and will then provide the
Honourable Member with a supplementary answer.

(2002/C 205 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0190/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 91/676/EEC (the Nitrates Directive)

the European Parliament adopted a resolution (2002/2110/INI (1)) on the
On 17 January 2001,
implementation of Directive 91/676/EEC (2) (the Nitrates Directive). In that resolution, the Commission
was asked to explain why the Directive was not being implemented effectively. Suggestions were also made
for improvements to the implementation of that Directive.

1.
The European Parliament takes the view that, on scientifically justified grounds, Member States
should be able to derogate from the limit of 170 kg N/ha, on condition that the 50 mg nitrate/l is not
exceeded in groundwater under any circumstances. What action has the Commission taken on this issue
set out in Parliament’s resolution?

2.
In its resolution, the European Parliament urged the Commission to have a study carried out into the
proportion of the nitrate content of groundwater coming from non-agricultural sources. Has that study
been carried out? If so, what were its findings?

C 205 E/92

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

In answer to my Written Question P-1725/99 (3), the Commission answered that new guidelines
3.
designed to harmonise the measurement and reporting of the nitrate content of groundwater would be
implemented in the Member States. What do those guidelines entail, and are they already in force? Do the
guidelines stipulate the depth at which the nitrate content of groundwater is to be measured? Does the
European Commission take the view that all the Member States are currently supplying objectively
comparable statistics so that a direct comparison is possible between the Member States?

(1) OJ C 262, 18.9.2001, p. 128.
(2) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.
(3) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 14.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2002)

1.
Pursuant to provisions of Annex III Paragraph 2 (b) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December
1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
(hereafter the Nitrates Directive), Members States already have the possibility to derogate from the limit of
170 kilogram Nitrate per hectare per year (Kg N/ha/year), on condition that this measure does not
the
prejudice the achievement of the objectives of the Directive, which implies the condition that
concentration of 50 miligram per liter (mg/l) nitrates is not exceeded in groundwater under any
circumstances. In conformity with the above-mentioned provisions, however, the derogation must be
justified on the basis of objective criteria including, for example, long growing season, crops with high
nitrogen uptake, high net precipitation in the vulnerable zone, and soils with exceptionally high
denitrification capacity. Moreover, the Member State concerned must inform the Commission, which is
called upon to examine the justification presented and take a decision, following the opinion of the
Committee established pursuant to provisions of Article 9 of the Directive (the Nitrates Committee). So far,
two Member States have notified the Commission of a request
for derogation: Denmark and the
Netherlands. The Nitrates Committee has recently expressed a positive opinion on a Draft Commission
Decision concerning the Danish request, and the corresponding written procedure is in progress. For the
Dutch request, an independent expert group has been set up in 2000/2001 with the aim of providing
advice to the Commission on the technical justifications presented by the Dutch authorities. The expert
group provided in September 2001 scientific advice and recommendations, in order to avoid excessive risk
of nitrates leaching to groundwater or drainage waters in the Dutch context. The conclusions and
recommendations formulated by that expert group will be the basis for drafting a Commission Decision on
the matter, to be submitted to the opinion of the Nitrates Committee, as soon as an agreement will be
reached with the Netherlands on the application of these recommendations.

2.
The assessment of different nitrogen origins (domestic, industrial and agricultural sources) must be
done at the level of each main water body (groundwater, lake, or river watershed), it implies important
analytical and modelling tools, and local monitoring and statistics. Pursuant to provisions of Article 5,
paragraph 3(a), of the Nitrates Directive, such assessment is a specific task to be fulfilled by each Member
State in order to establish action programmes in respect of designated vulnerable zones. The general
assessment already made by some Member States shows a contribution of agriculture to nitrogen fluxes in
water between 50 % (Belgium, France) and 70-80 % (Germany, Ireland). The draft ‘monitoring guidelines’
under elaboration, as referred to in point 3 below, identify the tools which can be used at a lower scale for
a more precise assessment.

Groundwater monitoring is a complex item as well, on which complementary proposals will be

3.
presented to the next Nitrates Committee in June 2002.

From the year 2000 Member State reports and scientific discussions, it appears clearly that a two levels
monitoring is generally necessary in main waterbodies:

E sampling at the depth where groundwater drains naturally to surface water, or is pumped for human

use, which gives its ‘general’ quality status and trends;

E sampling in upper layers (oxygenated first meters of the saturated area), which shows more quickly

the impact of farmers’ practices and preventive measures impact.

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/93

A proposal in that direction, to be included in the monitoring guidelines, will be presented to the next
Nitrates Committee. With the view to securing reliability and comparability of statistics, frequency of
sampling will also be precised in that proposal, taking into account the hydrogeological context (e.g.
increased frequency for ‘karstic’ subsoil with quick circulation of waters).

(2002/C 205 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0208/02

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Human rights in Western Sahara

According to media reports, on 24 December 2001 several score of the Saharan prisoners in the notorious
‘black jail’ of El Aaiun (Western Sahara) began a hunger strike in protest against the inhuman conditions in
which they are being held. It appears that many of them have been subjected to torture, ill-treatment and
total isolation from the outside world. In support of them, their relatives held a peaceful march which was
violently suppressed by the Moroccan authorities.

In total contrast to this reappearance of human rights violations in Western Sahara. the Polisario Front has
simultaneously shown proof of its good will in its decision, on 2 January 2002, to release 115 Moroccan
prisoners of war.

What information can the Council supply on these developments? Has the Council asked the Moroccan
government for an explanation, and has it requested it to adopt positive measures? Does the Council not
consider it necessary to send an observer mission as soon as possible to verify the state of affairs at ground
level?

(2002/C 205 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0410/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Community mediation to obtain the release of prisoners in the Sahara conflict

The long-standing conflict in the Western Sahara has, among other consequences, led to the taking of large
numbers of prisoners on both sides. Prisoners who have been incarcerated for years are forced to wonder
why they should have to waste away their lives for decades on end, in severely overcrowded conditions
which are in breach of the applicable international conventions.

A political solution will eventually determine the future of this former Spanish colony. History will decide
on this, but meanwhile it is essential not to overlook the predicament of the prisoners who still see no
prospect of release, especially as no end to the conflict is as yet on the horizon.

Independently of the political considerations and excluding any pretension to mediate in any of the
proposed political solutions, does the Council believe that, in the context of the common foreign and
defence policy, it should propose a lasting humanitarian solution for all of the prisoners on both sides who
are incarcerated by reason of a conflict whose end is not yet in sight?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0208/02 and P-0410/02

(21 May 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member, Mr Carlos Carnero González,
knowledge of the events in the El Aaiún prison to which he refers.

that

it has no

More generally, the Council remains most concerned by the fate of more than 1350 prisoners of war who
are still in captivity, and have been, in most cases, for 20 years, requiring an early solution which complies
with the obligations under the Geneva Convention. It has steadfastly emphasised that one must not wait
for the end of the political process to begin seeking a solution to urgent humanitarian issues such as