REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources based on Member State reports for the period 2008–2011 
Date: 2013-10-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical salt, groundwater, pollution control, pollution from agricultural sources, surface water













EUR-Lex - 52013DC0683 - EN











|



52013DC0683

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources based on Member State reports for the period 2008–2011 /* COM/2013/0683 final */









REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
on the implementation of Council Directive
91/676/EEC concerning the protection 
of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources based 
on Member State reports for the period 2008–2011

1.           INTRODUCTION
Council Directive 91/676/EEC (the Nitrates
Directive) aims to reduce water pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural
sources and to prevent such pollution through a number of steps to be fulfilled
by Member States: 
·              
water monitoring of all water body types (with
regard to nitrate concentration and trophic status); 
·              
identification of waters that are polluted or at
risk of pollution, on the basis of criteria defined in Annex I to the Directive;

·              
designation of nitrate vulnerable zones, which
are areas that drain into identified waters and contribute to pollution; 
·              
the establishment of codes of good agricultural
practices, implemented on a voluntary basis throughout the Member State territory; 
·              
the establishment of action programmes, which
include a set of measures to prevent and reduce water pollution by nitrates and
are implemented on an obligatory basis within designated nitrates vulnerable
zones or throughout the entire territory; 
·              
the review and possible revision at least every
4 years of the designation of nitrate vulnerable zones and of action
programmes; and
·              
the submission to the Commission every four
years of a progress report on the implementation of the Directive.
Reports submitted by the Member States under Article
10 of the Nitrates Directive should in particular contain information pertaining to codes of good agricultural
practice, designated nitrate vulnerable zones, results of water monitoring, and
a summary of the relevant aspects of action programmes drawn up for nitrate
vulnerable zones.
Based on these reports, this report fulfils the
Commission's obligations under Article 11. It is mainly based on the
information submitted by the Member States referring to the period 2008–2011
and is accompanied by a Staff Working Document (SEC(2013)xxx), which
includes maps and tables on indicators of nutrient pressures from
agricultural sources, water quality and designated nitrate vulnerable zones,
both at EU level and per each Member State. 
This is the second time that all 27 Member
States have submitted a report. A comparison with the previous reporting period
is now possible for all Member States. Reports were submitted in 2012, with
additional information submitted in early 2013.
2.           EVOLUTION OF PRESSURES FROM
AGRICULTURE 
Livestock population
Livestock population is one of the main
agricultural pressures on the environment. Large numbers concentrated locally
or regionally pose high risks to the environment as manure production is out of
balance with land availability and crop needs. This imbalance creates a surplus
of nutrients, much of which is sooner or later lost to water (nitrates and
phosphates) and air (ammonia and nitrogen oxides), if not exported out of the
region. 
Because not all Member States have submitted comprehensive
data on the number of livestock[1],
official statistics from Eurostat are presented below. 
As regards cattle[2], the comparison between the
reporting periods 2004–2007 and 2008–2011 shows a slight decrease in
EU-27 (-2%)[3].
Largest relative decreases occurred in Romania (-20%), Malta (-17%), Bulgaria (-13%), and Slovakia (-9%), while an increase was observed especially in the Netherlands (+6%), Poland (+4%) and France (+4%).
In EU-27, dairy cattle numbers decreased by 5%
between 2004–2007 and 2008–2011[4].
The biggest relative decreases were in Romania (-18%), Slovakia (-15%), Spain (-14%), Bulgaria and Portugal (-13%), Estonia, Malta and Greece (-12%), Hungary and Lithuania (-11%), while the population increased in Luxembourg (+8%), the Netherlands (+4%) and Denmark (+3%).
Pig numbers decreased by 5% in EU-27 between
the reporting periods 2004–2007 and 2008–2011[5].
The largest relative decreases were in Slovakia (-36%), Czech Republic (-33%), Slovenia (-28%), Bulgaria (-26%), Poland (-22%), Hungary (-19%), Malta (-18%), Lithuania (-16%), and Romania (-14%). The population increased in Greece (+10%), the Netherlands (+7%), Luxembourg (+6%), and Estonia (+3%).
For poultry, Eurostat data are only available
for years 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2010[6]
and show no change on average in EU-27, despite large variations across Member
States. Numbers increased significantly in Latvia (+28%), Slovenia (+22%), Austria (+19%), and the Netherlands (+13%), while decreases took place in Cyprus (-21%), Bulgaria (-16%), Estonia (-17%), Finland (-11%), and Ireland (-10%).
Large variations in sheep numbers were also
visible[7],
with a strong relative increase between the two reporting periods in Lithuania (+67%) and a strong relative decrease in Portugal (-30%), the Netherlands (-28%), and Poland (-26%).
According to the data reported by Members
States, the manure N use decreased between the two reporting periods by more
than 10% in Czech Republic, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, and Northern
Ireland, while it increased by more than 10% in Cyprus, Hungary and Sweden. Not
all Member States have reported data on manure N use, hence a total for EU-27
cannot be calculated.
Mineral fertilizer use
According to Eurostat and Fertilizers Europe[8], the mineral N fertilizer use in
EU-27 in 2008–2010 decreased by 6% compared to that in 2006–2007[9]. Since 2010, the N fertilizer
use remained stable[10].
Annual N fertilizer consumption in the EU is currently about 11 million tonnes
– almost 30% below the peak of twenty five years ago. The use of P and K
fertilizers was about 2.5 million tonnes in 2010 – almost 70% down on their
peaks of the late 1980s[11].

N-balance and N-discharge into the
environment
As regards the N-balance, large variations can
be observed across Member States. Large variations can be observed also for phosphorus[12]. 
The information on N-discharge into the
environment has not been provided by all Member States[13]. However, according to the
available data, a decrease in discharge has been observed. Agriculture remains
the predominant source of nitrogen discharged into the environment, as in the
previous reporting periods. The relative contribution from livestock manure, mineral
fertilizers and other sources of pollution varies among and within Member
States, depending on many factors including the population density, especially
in some coastal areas. 
3.           WATER MONITORING, QUALITY
AND TRENDS 
Monitoring networks 
Groundwater 
The total number of reported groundwater
monitoring stations in EU-27 has increased by around 10%, to 33 493 stations in
the reporting period 2008–2011 in comparison to 2004–2007. The average
density of the network in the EU is 8 stations per 1 000 km2 of land
area[14].
The highest densities are found in Malta and Belgium with almost 130 and almost
100 per 1 000 km2 land area, respectively. On the contrary, the
lowest densities are found in Finland and Germany with less than 1 station per
1 000 km2.
The average sampling frequency in the EU is
almost 3 times per year and varies between once per year in Latvia, Lithuania and Denmark and 5 times per year in the United Kingdom and Belgium[15].
Surface water 
The total number of reported fresh water monitoring
stations in EU-27 has increased by around 9%, to 29 018 stations in the period 2008–2011
compared to the period 2004-2007. The average density in the EU is 6.9 stations
per 1 000 km2 land area. The highest densities are found in the United Kingdom and Belgium. On the contrary, the lowest densities are found in Finland, Greece and Germany[16].

As regards saline waters, the total number of
monitoring stations in EU-27 has increased from 2 577 to 3 210 stations between
the two reporting periods[17].

The surface water sampling frequency (all water
bodies) varies from 3 times per year in Malta and Greece to almost 60 times per
year in Denmark[18].
Water quality
Groundwater 
In 2008–2011, in EU-27, 14.4% of groundwater
stations exceeded 50 mg nitrate per litre and 5.9% were between 40 and 50 mg[19]. This is a slight improvement
compared to the previous reporting period, in which 15% stations exceeded 50 mg
and 6% were between 40 and 50 mg. The lowest nitrates concentrations were found
in Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ireland. On the contrary, the highest
nitrates concentrations were found in Malta and Germany. Among the different
types of groundwater bodies, the best quality was found in confined groundwater
bodies, where almost 85% of the stations were below 25 mg nitrate per litre[20]. The percentage of stations
exceeding 50 mg was higher in phreatic groundwater at a depth of 5–15 m than in
deep phreatic water bodies, although the differences between the groundwater
levels were small.
Figure A. Frequency diagram of groundwater classes
(Annual average nitrate concentrations)[21],[22]. Results are presented for all groundwater stations at
different depths.
Fresh surface waters 
Based on annual averages of all reported
monitoring stations in EU-27, 62.5% were below 10 mg nitrate per litre, while
2.4% showed concentrations between 40 and 50 mg per litre and 2.4% exceeded 50
mg per litre[23].
This is also an improvement compared to the previous reporting period, in which
3% stations exceeded 50 mg per litre and 2.9% were between 40 and 50 mg per
litre. For winter average values, 2.9% exceeded 25 mg per litre and 2.4% were
above 50 mg per litre. The lowest annual average nitrate concentrations in
fresh surface water were found in Finland and Sweden, followed by Lithuania, Portugal and the Netherlands, and the highest in Malta, the United Kingdom and Belgium, where a high share of stations exceeded 40 mg nitrate per litre.
Figure B. Frequency diagram of average nitrate
concentrations in fresh surface water classes (annual average nitrate
concentrations).
The assessment of the trophic status varied
widely among Member States, not only regarding the parameters used, but also concerning
the methodologies for the definition of trophic status classes[24]. Moreover, some Member States
provided no data or incomplete data on eutrophication of rivers (Germany, Denmark, France, Cyprus, Malta, Romania and United Kingdom) and lakes (Cyprus, Czeck Republic, France, Luxembourg, Malta, and United Kingdom).
Of all reported river monitoring stations in
EU-27, 16.3% and 6.3% were eutrophic and hypertrophic respectively, while 35.4%
and 20.6% were oligotrophic or ultra-oligotrophic respectively. The highest
percentage of ultra-oligotrophic stations in rivers was found in Spain,
followed by Bulgaria and Slovenia, while the highest percentage of hypertrophic
stations were found in Belgium and the Netherlands, followed by Czech Republic
and Finland. High levels of eutrophication were also found in Lithuania and Luxembourg[25].

Of all reported lakes monitoring stations in EU-27,
24.1% and 12.7% were eutrophic and hypertrophic respectively, while 36.6% and 2.4%
were oligotrophic or ultra-oligotrophic respectively. The highest percentage of
ultra-oligotrophic stations in lakes was found in Latvia, followed by Spain,
while the highest percentage of eutrophic or hypertrophic stations were found
in the Netherlands, followed by Denmark, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, and
Belgium[26].
In general, the trophic status of rivers is better than the status of lakes[27]. 
Saline waters 
In saline[28]
waters, nitrate concentrations are lower than in fresh water concentrations[29], with 1.4% of the stations
exceeding 25 mg nitrate per litre and 72.5% of the stations below 2 mg, based
on annual average values. Similar figures are shown for winter average and
maximum values.
An EU-27 wide evaluation of the trophic status
is not possible because of the lack of data from many Member States[30], as well as a large variation in
methodologies. For instance, no data was provided by Cyprus, Romania, Germany, Denmark, France, Ireland, Portugal, and Sweden. For the United Kingdom, only Northern Ireland reported digital data. For Belgium, only Flanders reported data. Based on
the available information, Belgium reported all its saline waters as
hypertrophic, while Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Netherlands, reported all saline stations as eutrophic. 
Trends in water quality
Groundwater
Comparing water monitoring results from the
period 2008–2011 with those for 2004–2007, in EU-27 as a whole and in
many Member States, most stations showed a stable trend (42.7% in EU), while
the percentage of stations with a decreasing trend almost equalled the
percentage of stations with an increasing trend (30.7% and 26.6% respectively),
a situation comparable to previous reporting periods[31]. The highest percentage of
stations with a decreasing trend has been observed in Ireland, the most stable in Latvia, and the highest with an increasing trend has been reported by Estonia. 
Fresh surface water 
In EU-27, a decreasing trend in annual average
nitrates concentrations was observed in 42.1% of all freshwaters monitoring
stations, of which 12.1% showed a large decreasing trend[32]. 38.7% of the monitoring
stations showed stable concentrations and 19.1% of the stations an increasing
trend[33].
Fresh surface water quality in EU-27 has improved during the current reporting
period. The percentage of stations exceeding 25 or 50 mg nitrate per litre has
decreased compared to the period 2004–2007. No trends are available for
the trophic status of surface waters because of lack of data for most waters.
4.           DESIGNATION OF NITRATE
VULNERABLE ZONES
Member States are required to designate as
vulnerable zones all areas of land in their territory that drain into polluted
waters or waters at risk of pollution if no action is taken. At least every
four years Member States are required to review, and, if necessary, revise
nitrate vulnerable zones on the basis of the results of water monitoring.
Member States may, instead of designating specific zones, opt to apply an
action programme throughout the entire territory. Austria, Denmark, Finland,
Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovenia, the
Region of Flanders and Northern Ireland have followed this approach, ensuring
better protection for all waters and not only those fulfilling the criteria of
Annex I to the Directive.
Including the area of Member States that apply
a whole territory approach, the total EU area to which action programmes apply
was about 1 952 086.5 km2 in the year 2012, corresponding to about
46.7% of the total EU land area. 
As compared to 2008, the total area in the EU
designated as vulnerable zone has increased, with particular increases in Romania, Belgium-Wallonia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom[34].
5.           ACTION PROGRAMMES 
Member States are required to establish one or
more action programmes that apply within designated vulnerable zones or to the
whole territory. Action programmes include at least the measures referred to in
Annexes II and III to the Directive and relating, i.a., to periods when mineral
and organic fertilizers application is prohibited, minimum required storage
capacity for livestock manure, limitation of land application of fertilisers,
and land application near waters and on slopes. 
The following 23 Member States have adopted a
new or revised action programme during the years 2008–2011: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, and a number of regions in Italy and Spain. In the modified action programmes, the periods of land application of slurry and
fertilizer and – accordingly – the storage capacity of animal manure have
become more stringent in many cases. The same holds for the application of
manure and fertilizers during unfavourable climatic conditions, on sloping
areas and close to surface waters. 
As regards the effectiveness of the action programmes
in preventing and reducing water pollution by nitrates, very little information
has been reported by Member States, which gives cause for concern. The effects
of the action programmes on water quality should be evaluated by the Member
States, also in terms of timescale, so that informed decisions can be taken for
achieving both the objectives of the Nitrates Directive and of other
legislation on water protection. In a wide perspective, it can be noted that in
some Member States the implementation of the action programmes has determined
an improvement in water quality. For Member States with recently revised action
programmes, full impact of the new measures will be increasingly visible in the
future. In other Member States, improvement can be hampered by different
reasons, not only relating to the inadequacy of some action programme measures,
but also to the application of action programmes to small or to fragmented
territories (e.g. in Poland, France and Italy) or due to the numerous exceptions
which apply to general rules (e.g. exceptions to closed periods in the
Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg).
The overall limitation of fertilizer
application remains one of the most challenging measures to be implemented
across the EU. Some Member States have opted for defining limits of total
nitrogen (Netherlands, Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Flanders also have
limitations on phosphorus) for all crops, which is a simple and clear way to
inform farmers about their obligation and to facilitate controls. Others have
chosen to apply more complex systems which are less clear and hence likely to
be less effective for water protection. 
Storage capacity for livestock manure is
another important element which requires further attention. It represents an
important financial burden for farmers, although this burden is balanced by the
reduced use of mineral fertilizers (which also entails less greenhouse gas
emissions), due to the increased N efficiency in manure and better working
conditions for farmers. Enhanced action is needed in this area, including
gathering more information on currently available storage capacities at farm
level.
Control of action programmes is a
responsibility of the Member States and the use of cross-compliance with Common
Agricultural Policy support is an important aspect in ensuring respect by
farmers. Among the more noteworthy approaches to control, the Netherlands and Flanders have developed strict manure movement control regimes through the use of
GPS tracking systems.
6.           DEROGATIONS TO THE LIMIT
OF 170 KG N/HA/YEAR 
The Nitrates Directive envisages the
possibility to derogate from the maximum amount of 170 kg of nitrogen per
hectare per year from livestock manure, provided that objective criteria set in
Annex III to the Directive are met and that the derogated amounts do not
prejudice the achievement of the Directive objectives. 
Derogations are granted by means of a
Commission Decision, following the opinion of the Nitrates Committee, which
assists the Commission in the implementation of the Directive. At the end of
2012, derogations were in force in seven Member States, relative to the whole
territory (Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, Ireland) or
to some of their regions (Flanders in Belgium; Lombardy, Piedmont, Veneto, and
Emilia Romagna in Italy)[35].
The standards of management required of farmers in receipt of derogations need
to be higher than those of the action programmes with additional obligations
for nutrient planning and extra constraints on land management. The Commission will
continue to take appropriate action to ensure the quality of those programmes especially
in the context of granting a new derogation or extending an existing one and
also in the light of water quality trends. 
7.           FORECAST ON WATER QUALITY

The methods applied by Member States to assess
developments in water quality are mostly based on trend analysis and / or computer
simulations, sometimes together with analyses of developments in agricultural
practices. Not all Member States have provided this information.
The results of the available analyses indicate
that most Member States predict a further reduction in nitrate concentrations
in groundwater and surface waters, due to the effect of changes in agricultural
practices driven by the Directive implementation and by several
agro-environmental measures contained in the Rural Development Programmes as
well as the application of the Cross-compliance. These predictions, however,
are hampered by large uncertainties, due to the large variations in climate and
soil conditions and their effects on water quality, especially groundwater.
8.           INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURES 
As of June 2013, ten infringement cases were
open against eight Member States (France on nitrate vulnerable zone designation
(NVZ); France on action programme (AP); Luxembourg on AP; Greece on NVZ; Greece
on AP; Poland on NVZ and AP; Slovakia on monitoring, NVZ and AP; Bulgaria on
AP; Italy on AP and Latvia on AP). In addition, seven pilot requests[36] were addressed to seven Member
States (Belgium-Wallonia on NVZ, AP and controls; Bulgaria on monitoring and
NVZ; Sweden on NVZ; Malta on AP; Cyprus on AP; Czech Republic on AP; Estonia on
AP), with the objective to clarify issues linked to some aspects of their
legislation implementing the Nitrates Directive.
The cases on NVZ designation are often linked
to incomplete identification of eutrophic waters and/or designation of areas
which drain into such waters. This is especially true for marine waters.
The cases on action programmes mostly concern
insufficient length of closed periods for fertilizer and manure application,
insufficient requirements for manure storage capacity, insufficient and/or
unclear rules for limiting the overall fertilization, insufficient rules for
preventing water pollution through rules on fertilizer application to steeply
sloping, frozen or snow-covered ground or near water courses.
9.           CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
CHALLENGES
The pressure from agriculture has decreased,
although not uniformly, in the period 2008–2011 compared to 2004–2007
regarding the numbers of cattle, pigs and sheep and remained stable regarding
poultry. At the same time, the consumption of chemical fertilizers has decreased,
continuing its long-term trend.
Monitoring of water quality has improved, with
an increase in the total number of monitoring stations for groundwater and
surface water. Of all reported groundwater stations, 14.4% exceeded 50 and 5.9%
were between 40 and 50 mg nitrate per litre, indicating a slight improvement
compared to the previous reporting period, but at the same time a need for
further action to reduce and prevent pollution. The situation is variable
across the EU, but in some Member States the action programmes already yield
good results.
Fresh surface water quality has improved regarding
nitrate concentrations. The percentage of stations exceeding 25 or 50 mg has
decreased compared to the previous reporting period. However, no conclusions
can be drawn regarding the evolution of trophic status, due to two important
factors: (i) different assessment methods used by Member States and (ii) lack
of data, especially for saline water bodies. However, transitional, coastal and
marine waters in many parts of Europe remain eutrophic (Baltic Sea and its
coastline, Black Sea, parts of the North Sea and of the Mediterranean coastline). Although this is also depending on other pressures (e.g. human
pressures especially in touristic coastline areas)
additional action is needed in terms of extending NVZ designation and reinforcing
action programmes. 
The general quality of the action programmes
has improved, with tightened measures, improved fertilization methodologies and
enhanced enforceability. Awareness of the Directive's obligations is also
improving. However, several issues remain, mostly linked to the limitation of
land application of fertilizers and the measures relating to the capacity and
construction of storage vessels for livestock manure. Other elements, such as
the recent development of energy crops and of the biogas industry (notably in Germany), pose new challenges that will need to be adequately covered by the action
programmes. Likewise, as milk yields rise in some Member States, it will be
necessary to adjust manure production coefficients per dairy cow. On a more
positive side, some feeding regimes for non-ruminant animals have been improved
with regard to dietary protein and phosphate content, which should further
reduce nutrient loads. 
Pressures from horticultural crops have not
been sufficiently addressed in action programmes, but work with Member States
and the scientific community is underway to improve understanding and practice
in this field. Considering that in some areas horticultural crops pose
significant risks to water, due to the intensity of cultivation and crop
characteristics, specific measures will have to be taken. 
An issue of continuing concern is that, in the
midst of generally improving farm practice and water quality, there remain 'hotspots'
where improvements are not yet forthcoming and which need greater attention in
future, especially with respect to action programme measures. While some of
these hotspots relate to intensive livestock or horticultural production,
others are associated with soil and geological formations (e.g. sandy and loess
soils, as well as karstic and other porous rocks). Member States will have to
address these aspects not least through the requirements and provisions of
Article 5(5) of the Directive. In accordance with this article, the Commission
will be particularly vigilant in the future to the need for Member States to
take additional measures or reinforced actions in the light of water quality
trends. 
The latest assessments of the Water Framework
Directive (WFD)[37]
implementation, as well as studies carried out in the framework of
international conventions, show that diffuse sources of pollution pose most
obstacles in achieving good status in EU waters. For this reason, the recent Blueprint
to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources[38]
identifies the Nitrates Directive as one of the key measures to achieve WFD
objectives.
Also, the Nitrates Directive has been shown to
contribute to reducing ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions, due to the overall
impact on better manure management and optimal fertilizer use limited to crop
needs. Extending nitrate vulnerable zones and/or applying the same rules
outside designated nitrate vulnerable zones will further decrease these
emissions to air.
Further implementation of the Nitrates
Directive will also help with the resource efficiency of both manure and
mineral fertilizers, in line with the consultative communication on the sustainable
use of phosphorus [COM(2013) 517].
[1]               Data submitted by Member States are presented in
Table 1 of Section I of the staff working document.
[2]               'Cattle' means all cattle categories.
[3]               See Table 2.1 of Section I of the staff working
document; the change in % was calculated as the change in average number of the
period 2008–2011 compared to the average number in the period 2004-2007:
[(average 2008–2011) – (average 2004–2007)]/[(average 2004–2007)] x 100. 
[4]               See Table 2.2 of Section I of the staff working
document.
[5]               See Table 2.3 of Section I of the staff working document.
[6]               See Table 2.4 of Section I of the staff working
document.
[7]               See Table 2.5 of Section I of the staff working
document.
[8]               Fertilizers Europe is an association of fertilizer
manufacturers.
[9]               See Table 4 of Section I of the staff working
document. Table 3 presents data on annual fertilizers and manure N use, as
reported by Member States.
[10]             See Figure 1 of Section I of the staff working document.
[11]             See Figure 1 of Section I of the staff working
document. 
[12]             See Table 5 of Section I of the staff working document.

[13]             Only 15 Member States provided complete data.
[14]             See Table 6 and Figure 2 of Section I of the staff
working document.
[15]             See Figure 3 of Section I of the staff working
document.
[16]             See Table 7 and Figure 4 of Section I of the staff
working document.
[17]             See Table 8 of Section I of the staff working document.
[18]             See Figure 5 of Section I of the staff working document.
[19]             See Figure 6, Table 9 and Map 1 of Section I of the
staff working document.
[20]             See Figure 7 of Section I of the staff working document.
[21]             Groundwater
stations with long-term low nitrate concentrations were not measured every four
years in all cases. As a result, the figure may show a slightly over-populated
percentage of stations with high nitrate concentrations. 
[22]             Comparison of Figure A with
Figure 2 of the Commission Staff Working Paper accompanying document to the
report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on
implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of
waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources based on
Member State reports for the period 2004 -2007 may be hampered due to
substantial differences in the number of the monitored stations (e.g. Austria,
since it reported data for all monitoring stations in the period 2008-2011,
while aggregated data were reported in the period 2004-2007).
[23]             See Figure 8, Table 10 and Map 4 of Section I of the
staff working document.
[24]             See Member States summary sheets in Section V of the
staff working document.
[25]             See Figure 10 of Section I of the staff working
document.
[26]             See Figure 11 of Section I of the staff working
document.
[27]             See Figure 12 and Map 7 of Section I of the staff
working document. 
[28]             'Saline waters' means transitional, coastal and marine
waters.
[29]             See Figure 9 of Section I of the staff working document.
[30]             See Figures 13a-d of Section I of the staff working
document.
[31]             See Figure 14 and Map 3 of Section I of the staff
working document.
[32]             A large decreasing trend is defined as a difference in
nitrate concentrations higher than -5 mg per liter.
[33]             See Figure 15 and Map 6 of Section I of the staff
working document.
[34]             See Table 11 and Map 8 of Section II of the staff
working document.
[35]             See Table 12 of Section III of the staff working
document.
[36]             The EU Pilot is a system developed in 2008 following the
Commission communication Applying Community Law [COM(2007) 502 final],
with the aim of improving the working method between the Commission services
and the Member States' authorities.
[37]             Directive 2000/60/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the
Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000,
p. 1.
[38]             COM(2012) 673 final.