WRITTEN QUESTION P-1620/03 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Extinction of artic char in Lough Conn, Ireland.
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, application of EU law, degradation of the environment, eutrophication, lake, pollution control measures, protection of animal life, water protection

C 33 E/146

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

The interview of the Member of the Commission responsible for Enlargement, and in particular the
statement mentioned by the Honourable Member, was variously reported in several Portuguese newspapers
(Diário Económico, Correio da Manhã, etc.). He was in fact referring to the well-known position of the
Commission that the so-called ‘statistical effect’ of enlargement should be taken into account for the period
2007-2013, to avoid penalising certain regions of the present Member States that otherwise would not be
eligible for Objective 1 support in an enlarged Union.

In the third cohesion report at the end of 2003, the Commission will present its economic and social
proposals for future cohesion policy after 2006. The financial perspective proposals for the post-2006
period will be presented later. The Commission can already inform the Honourable Member that it will be
seeking a fair and meaningful solution for the regions that will suffer the ‘statistical effect’ due to the fall in
the Community’s average per-capita gross domestic product (GDP).

(2004/C 33 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1620/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Extinction of artic char in Lough Conn, Ireland

A gill net survey by the Irish Central Fisheries Board in 1978 and 1984 on Lough Conn, County Mayo,
Ireland, showed a good stock of arctic char in the lake. Later surveys in 1994, 1998 and in 2001 recorded
no char and now this unique fish is deemed to be extinct in that lake. This extinction has been attributed
by scientists to the excessive enrichment of the lake. Although the nutrient dynamics are complex in the
lake, excessive algal accumulations, including blue-green algae, on the char spawning beds in autumn and
early winter in the early 1990s are believed to be the cause. (These still occur, particularly on mild winter
days with a gentle breeze.) These beds were covered by what can only be described as a thick jelly (made
up of almost pure cultures of anabaena which is known to become toxic under certain circumstances) of
silt, and it is accepted that char avoid silt and only spawn on clean gravel. The causes for extinction of
char in Ireland are varied, however experts believe that the case for Lough Conn relates directly to the
increased nutrient loading, particularly phosphorous in the lake.

Mid lake sampling (OECD classification) by statutory agencies, although useful to classify lakes, does not
necessarily reflect conditions along the lake margins,
for example accumulation of algae (measured
chlorophyll) along the margins of a lake during the critical period for arctic char. Recently the brown trout
stocks of that lake have also crashed, again this is attributed to the consequences of nutrient enrichment
(e.g. expanding cyprinid communities).

Although advances are being made to control human sewage sources, nutrient enrichment from the other
sectors continues to increase significantly.

Does the Commission agree that the continued enrichment of the lake is essentially a failure by the Irish
authorities to control and limit phosphorous inputs to Lough Conn and is therefore in breach of the
Dangerous Substances Directive?

Does the Commission agree that lakes with sensitive species like the arctic char require special measures to
protect them from the effects of nutrient enrichment, including phosphorous loading?

Should Ireland not restore the lake to conditions favourable for the native arctic char and the brown trout,
i.e., radically reduce the inflow of nutrients?

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/147

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of the fact that a range of lakes in Ireland have deteriorated in quality in the past
decades. Relevant Community legislation includes the Dangerous Substances Directive (1) and the Water
Framework Directive (2).

The Commission is also aware of the specific situation to which the Honourable Member refers, namely
the disappearance of Arctic char from Lough Conn during the 1980s. It considers that the probable cause
of this is the sedimentation of the spawning beds of the species in the littoral parts of the lake as a result
of eutrophication caused by increased discharges of phosphorous to the lake. It is estimated that, during
the 1980s, the phosphorous load to the lake from all sources doubled. It is also suspected that another
contributing factor might be the introduction of roach and pike, which are popular with anglers.

The Dangerous Substances Directive requires action to be taken on those substances or groups of
substances listed in the annex of the Directive. Inorganic compounds of phosphorus are part of list II of
this annex, entailing the obligation for Member States to develop and implement pollution reduction
programmes for these substances. These programmes are required to include phosphorous quality
objectives, and a system of authorisations with emission standards based on such objectives. The Directive
also provides that the application of measures under it may on no account lead, either directly or
indirectly, to increased water pollution (a so-called stand-still provision).

In 2002, the Commission lodged an application against Ireland before the European Court of Justice for
non-compliance with the Dangerous Substances Directive (3). It inter alia contended that Ireland had not set
quality objectives for phosphorous for Irish lakes in accordance with the Directive. More specifically,
whereas, under the relevant Irish legislation, water quality in Lough Conn is considered to be satisfactory,
the Commission contends that its water quality has suffered deterioration, as is inter alia evident in the
disappearance of Arctic char, and that the stand-still provision has not been respected. The judgement of
the Court is awaited.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that lakes hosting pollution-sensitive species like the
Arctic char need to be safeguarded from nutrient enrichment. Apart from the Dangerous Substances
Directive,
it would also draw attention to the Water Framework Directive, which provides for a
comprehensive water protection of all waters (rivers, lakes, coastal waters and groundwaters), addressing all
sources of impact and setting the binding obligation to achieve good quality (‘good status’) for all these
waters by 2015. Good status for surface waters like lakes will focus on ecological parameters (microfauna,
microflora, and fish fauna) and will allow for an only small deviation from pristine status (very good
status) to good status. These (cid:1) legally binding (cid:1) remediation efforts will reverse negative trends of the
past, and provide again for a sustainable ecosystem including adequate diversity and population of fish.
Designation of the necessary measures will be subject
to mandatory participation of citizens, non-
governmental organisations, stakeholders and interested parties; these will also have a legal right to access
to all relevant information, data and background documents.

(1) Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into

the aquatic environment of the Community, OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.

(2) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(3) C-282/02.

(2004/C 33 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1625/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject: Recognition of the egg sector vis-à-vis third country imports

Given that the EU egg industry is facing additional legislation in relation to food safety and animal welfare,
does the Commission agree that the egg sector should be recognised as a sensitive sector vis-à-vis third
country imports?