WRITTEN QUESTION E-0495/02 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. The 1991 Nitrates Directive.
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, agricultural area with environmental restrictions, drinking water, environmental standard, pollution control measures, pollution from agricultural sources, public health, scientific report, water protection

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/151

(2002/C 205 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0495/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: The 1991 Nitrates Directive

The UK National Farmers’ Union claims that the science on which the Nitrates Directive is based is not
proven, that evidence of the harmful effects of nitrates on human health is increasingly doubtful and that
there may be some benefits from nitrates within the human diet, and that an inappropriate limit of nitrates
in river waters of 50 parts per million has been imposed despite the lack of any empirical evidence.

It also claims that the blanket designation to include all freshwater catchment areas of ‘vast’ tracts of land
in England as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones is unwarranted, given that, as an island surrounded by much deep
water with vigorous tidal movements, the UK is less affected than many other Member States by
eutrophication in inshore waters.

What is the Commission’s response to those claims?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

Methaemoglominaemia,
linked to high levels of nitrates in drinking water, still exists, both in Eastern
Europe (hundreds of cases in Romania, Lithuania, or Poland, linked with high nitrates content of village
wells) and in the Unites States. The limit value of 50 milligram per litre (mg/l) set for drinking water in the
Union (Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality of surface waters intended
for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States) is one of the main factors together with higher
bacteriological quality, explaining the better situation in the Union as compared to other parts of the
world. The internationally recommended World Health Organisation (WHO) standard for nitrate content
in drinking water is a maximum limit of 50 mg/l; the same as the Union standard.

In addition to its effects on human health, nitrate pollution from agriculture and waste water treatment is a
major factor of eutrophication in both fresh and marine water. Nitrogen in the form of nitrate ions act in
synergy with phosphorus, promoting unnaturally high growth in planktonic algae, macroscopic algae and
macrophytes. In the extreme case this can result in severe disturbance to both freshwater and marine
habitats. It should be remembered that the ‘natural’ level of nitrate in water is below 10mg/l (and even
below 2mg/l in nordic or mountain waters). In marine waters nitrogen is recognised by the scientific
community as the limiting factor, causing for example huge problems of algal blooms and oxygen
variations (with fish mortalities) in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea (see technical reports from European
Environment Agency). The United Kingdom is engaged, through the Union marine protection policies and
the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention, in a common action for strong reduction of the nitrogen inputs (more
than 1 million tons/year, 60 % from agriculture, (1) from riverine countries to the North Sea.

The Nitrates Directive (Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 13 December 1991 concerning the protection of
waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (2)) is designed to protect the human
population from the toxic effects of nitrates and to reduce the eutrophication of lakes, rivers, coastal and
marine waters in the Union. The designation of nitrate vulnerable zones by Member States is part of the
approach foreseen in the Directive to protect water resources in areas, which are susceptible to nitrate
pollution. In the light of the explanations set out above, the Commission cannot accept the suggestion that
to human health and the environment. Nor can the
nitrate pollution does not constitute a threat

C 205 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

Commission accept that the Directive requires unnecessary or inappropriate designation of sensitive zones:
the identification and designation of such zones constitutes one of the primary tools for reducing pollution
in a targeted and balanced way.

(1) Source: European Economic Area (EEA)).
(2) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.

(2002/C 205 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0496/02

by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Impact of aquaculture on coastal fishing in the Canary Islands

In view of possible incompatibilities in the use of sea areas and coastal waters, can the Commission
provide information on the research carried out into the impact of aquaculture on coastal fishing in the
Canary Islands? Can it also provide information on aid granted under the FIFG during the period
1994-1999 and during the current programming period for the fishing industry in the Canaries, with a
breakdown of the amounts for aquaculture and for coastal fishing? What checks does the Commission
carry out on compliance with protection requirements? With what resources have these activities been co-
financed by the Spanish authorities?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Commission has not carried out any studies on the impact of aquaculture on inshore fishing in the
Canary Islands, and it is not aware of any research into this matter.

The Commission does have information on aid granted under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries
Guidance (FIFG) to aquaculture in the Canary Islands in the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 programming
periods. However, there are no separate figures for aid to small-scale coastal fishing, since the data refer to
aggregate aid to the fishing fleet as a whole under the measures implementing the FIFG programme.

The figures for 1994-1999 are as follows:

H Aquaculture: € 1 802 079;

H Fishing fleet: € 27 571 500.

As regards the period 2000-2006, by 30 September 2001 the Canary Islands authorities had made no
payment for either aquaculture or the fleet.

The protection requirements referred to by the Honourable Member are unclear. The Commission does not
directly monitor compliance with such requirements;
it is up to the Member States to check on the
application of regional planning provisions in accordance with national law.