EN Official Journal of the European Union C 17/91

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Priority substances in the field of water policy’

2013/C 17/14

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

— welcomes the European Commission's proposal to increase the list of priority substances in the field of water policy and believes that to meet the objectives of the proposal, it is essential to include pharmaceutical substances in the list of priority substances and priority hazardous substances or at least to consider this;

— asks the relevant departments of the European Commission to examine the authorisation of the pharmaceutical substances without delay and to make a recommendation on their use on the EU market; considers it important that reducing the impact on the environment already be taken into account when manufacturing, and authorizing pharmaceutical substances; notes that steps must be taken to ensure that monitoring measures for local and regional authorities are cost-effective;

— requests to extend the deadline for Member States to comply with the Directive to 24 months after its adoption, in order to allow for an accurate assessment of the effects of the national legislation, and to spread the costs incurred for local and regional authorities over a longer period;

— requests that the Member States shall apply the EQS for substances 2, 5, 15, 20, 22, 23, 28 and 34 to 48 beginning with the revision of the RBMP only in 2021, with the objective of achieving a good chemical status for these substances by 2027;

— recognises the need for Member States to monitor the substances on the watch list, but considers that it would be appropriate to begin to do so within at least 12 months from the inclusion of a substance on the watch list, to give enough time for preparation; Member States may also cooperate across borders in monitoring the substances in the watch list;

— stresses the importance of allowing access to information on hazardous substances and ensuring transparency in this area; believes that the public should be informed about the status of the aquatic environment and the measures planned for its improvement.

Rapporteur Urve ERIKSON (EE/EA), Member of Tudulinna Municipality Council Reference document Proposal for a Directive amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy COM(2011) 876 final – 2011/0429 (COD)

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

A. General observations

1. welcomes the Commission's proposal concerning the list of priority substances in the field of water policy - that is to say, concerning the chemicals listed in Annex X to the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), which pose a significant risk at EU level to or via the aquatic environment;

2. considers that the proposed amendments reflect the EU strategy on biodiversity to 2020. The proposed amendments to the directive concerning priority substances in the field of water policy are a reflection of, and complement to, the objectives set out in the biodiversity strategy;

3. welcomes the clarification of the definition of "priority hazardous substances" and supports the approach to expanding the list of priority substances and creating a list of "priority substances for review"; and underlines that any additions to the list must be based on sound scientific evidence regarding the effects of the substances in question on humans, animals and plants, and the feasibility and cost of monitoring and eliminating these substances from the water cycle;

4. believes that water quality must be further improved, since maintaining a balanced aquatic environment is crucial to the ecosystem as a whole and to human health. Notes, moreover, that the proper management of both running and stagnant water resources has benefits for the aquaculture economy;

5. supports the watch list mechanism as a measure for improving the protection of water resources in the EU; the mechanism is designed to support prioritisation exercises in the context of future revision of the list of priority substances, through targeted monitoring of potentially hazardous substances within the EU;

6. emphasises the particular importance of the local and regional contribution to environmental protection. This results from the ability to make use of existing local knowledge, as well as the fact that these local and regional communities are disproportionately affected by priority substances and priority hazardous substances that harm the aquatic environment;

B. Policy recommendations

7. supports the Commission's proposed amendments, according to which standards for chemicals must be established not only at national level, but also at local and river-basin level, so that all EU waters achieve good ecological status, while noting that Member States must be given enough time and additional resources, to bring the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions into force and be able to implement provisions that ensure waters achieve good chemical and ecological status;

8. supports the principles for the monitoring of hazardous substances, which require causes of pollution to be identified at source, as soon as possible and as close as possible to the source, in the interests, inter alia, of economic sustainability and environmental protection. If further measures are not taken, the result could be serious and lasting damage to the environment. It is therefore very important to investigate and monitor potential sources of pollution in order to determine as early as possible the scale of pollution and the risks it poses to the aquatic environment. Possible routes into the environment for hazardous substances must also be tracked using appropriate matrices. The Committee therefore advocates putting effective caps on emissions at EU level;

9. agrees that persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances (PBTs) and other substances that behave like PBTs can affect the aquatic environment for decades, even if extensive measures to reduce or eliminate emissions have already been taken. At the same time, it points out that hazardous substances are defined in this directive on the basis of the concept of hazard, not that of risk. The draft directive therefore sets fixed concentration caps for substances, but disregards the risks arising from reactions with other substances in the aquatic environment. It would be more appropriate, from both an analytical and a financial point of view, to take account of the chemical compounds of the substances found in inland waters, especially since these compounds can affect the aquatic environment even in extremely small concentrations;

10. stresses the importance of allowing access to information on hazardous substances and ensuring transparency in this area; believes that the public should be informed about the status of the aquatic environment and the measures planned for its improvement;

11. recognises the need for Member States to monitor the substances on the watch list, but considers that it would be appropriate to begin to do so within one year from the inclusion of a substance on the watch list, to give enough time for preparation;

12. is against toughening the monitoring requirements currently referred to in Article 8b of the draft directive, particularly in connection with the possibility of delegated acts;

13. believes that to meet the objectives of the proposal, it is essential to include pharmaceutical substances in the list of priority substances and priority hazardous substances or at least to consider this, since there is scientific evidence that pharmaceutical residues in water are not only damaging to the environment but can also be a threat to human health and lead to the "genetic pollution" of fish. The European Commission assessment shows that the pharmaceutical substances enumerated are hazardous to the aquatic environment and potentially also to people. The Committee of the Regions therefore asks the relevant departments of the European Commission to examine the authorisation of these substances without delay and to make a recommendation on their use on the EU market. Therefore considers it vital to develop research on treatments methods and their cost-effectiveness. The Committee of the Regions considers it important that reducing the impact on the environment already be taken into account when manufacturing, and authorizing pharmaceutical substances. Notes, in conclusion, that local and regional authorities must be consulted in the context of the revision and coordination of the legal acts currently in force concerning analytical methods and the best ways of monitoring, and that steps must be taken to ensure that measures are cost-effective;

14. notes that water pollution is a cross-border phenomenon. The establishment of Europe-wide water quality standards is therefore to be welcomed. Cooperation between regions is desirable in the context of the requirement for Member States to monitor priority substances in water and to report breaches of environmental quality standards. It is important to establish how, where and by what means biota should be monitored, in order to ensure that monitoring is comparable across all Member States. The CoR emphasises that the introduction of the watch list mechanism at EU level is a major contribution to the EU's efforts in recent years to improve environmental standards relating to soil contamination, air pollution, protection of biodiversity and sustainable development; stresses that it is essential to consult local and regional authorities on future projects so as to explore the best options and ensure the sustainability of environmental protection;

15. highlights the fact that various products containing priority and hazardous substances can also pollute waters if they get into the environment during or at the end of their life cycle. It is therefore very important to deal with the distribution in the EU of problematic products containing hazardous substances. The public must also be informed about these products and how to handle and use them correctly, so that less of the hazardous substances from these products end up in the environment. It often seems that, whilst products containing hazardous substances are not produced and no relevant chemicals are used, it is the environmental effects of imported goods and products that need to be dealt with. In the interests of good ecological status for water, the planned measures should be looked at in a broader context. Moreover it may be timely to revise the current Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for food, particularly with regard to food imports of plant origin to the EU;

16. by the same token, is dissatisfied that the Commission is still not proposing European-level regulation for emissions or the production and introduction of these substances or products containing these substances, which would enable Member States to ensure compliance with the proposed directive's requirements;

Local and regional relevance

17. agrees that preventing lasting damage to water must be a key concern of EU environmental policy. The Committee of the Regions, a body which represents the local and regional levels within the EU, has a clear mandate in this area. With the help of local and regional authorities, the Committee of the Regions can bring together knowledge from the local and regional level and can help with the monitoring which Member States are required to carry out. Investigating local and regional problems with the help of local and regional authorities and providing them with information and training can contribute to effective implementation of the amendments to this directive and to finding solutions to the issues that arise;

18. since ensuring good water quality is beneficial for both quality of life and the development of enterprises, local and regional authorities have a key role to play in contributing to it;

19. highlights the role of local and regional authorities in disseminating information to all levels of society on the chemical status of water and the related measures; the support and involvement of the public is a prerequisite for protecting water, identifying problems and the best measures to solve them, and determining the related costs;

The principle of subsidiarity

20. points out that shared river basins, which cut across national borders, cover 60% of the territory of the EU. Effective protection of water resources therefore requires a common approach at EU level. The document under consideration is limited to the identification of priority substances and to establishing common environmental quality standards. No additional EU measures are proposed, beyond those already available. Specific and additional pollution control measures are left to the Member States, which can choose the most effective way of achieving the objectives taking into account local conditions;

21. Since the nature of the objectives of the proposed measures is such that they cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone and they can, by reason of their scale and effects, be better achieved at EU level, the draft complies with the principle of subsidiarity set out in Article 5 of the EU Treaty. In compliance with the principle of proportionality set out in that Article, the draft does not exceed what is necessary to achieve those objectives;

22. although the explanatory memorandum of the Commission proposal states that there will be no budgetary implications, it is likely that in the Member States additional monitoring, identification of new substances and elimination of new hazardous substances will also increase costs at local and regional level. Since, however, something must be done to maintain a clean environment, it is appropriate to create the conditions for good ecological status for water. Far greater costs would otherwise be incurred in the future to preserve clean water. In the long term, water protection brings substantial benefits;

23. notes that the Commission's assessment is that the benefits of the implementation of the directive come primarily from the fact that drinking water purification would be less costly. Since the reduction of priority substances in water affects human health via drinking water and food, the reduction of health costs should also be considered as a benefit.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Article 2 of the amendment to Directive 2008/105/EC: rewording of Article 3

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment 1. In accordance with Article 1 of this Directive and Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC, Member States shall apply the EQS laid down in Part A of Annex I to this Directive in bodies of surface water. 1. In accordance with Article 1 of this Directive and Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC, Member States shall apply the EQS laid down in Part A of Annex I to this Directive in bodies of surface water. Member States shall apply the EQS in bodies of surface water in accordance with the requirements laid down in Part B of Annex I. Member States shall apply the EQS in bodies of surface water in accordance with the requirements laid down in Part B of Annex I. 2. For the substances numbered 5, 15, 16, 17, 21, 28, 34, 35, 37, 43 and 44 in Part A of Annex I, Member States shall apply the biota EQS laid down in Part A of Annex I. For the rest of the substances, Member States shall apply the water EQS laid down in Part A of Annex I. 2. The Member States shall apply the EQS for substances 2, 5, 15, 20, 22, 23, 28 and 34 to 48 beginning with the revision of the RBMP in 2021, with the objective of achieving a good chemical status for these substances by 2027. 2 3. For the substances numbered 5, 15, 16, 17, 21, 28, 34, 35, 37, 43 and 44 in Part A of Annex I, Member States shall apply the biota EQS laid down in Part A of Annex I. For the rest of the substances, Member States shall apply the water EQS laid down in Part A of Annex I.

Reason

A new paragraph 2 is recommended. Under the draft directive, these substances should already be taken into consideration in the RBMP in 2015. Given how little time there is left, there will not be enough monitoring data to have sufficient information about the pollution level and condition of the water, which means there is no basis on which to plan measures. In addition, we still know very little about possible measures to reduce the level of pollution by these substances. Therefore, there is too little time left to properly take these substances into account before preparation of the second RBMP, which has to be released by the end of 2014.

Amendment 2

Article 2 of the amendment to Directive 2008/105/EC: insertion of Article 8b – watch list, paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment 4. Member States shall monitor each substance in the watch list at selected representative monitoring stations over at least a 12-month period commencing within 3 months of its inclusion in the watch list. 4. Member States shall monitor each substance in the watch list at selected representative monitoring stations over at least a 12-month period commencing within 3 12 months of its inclusion in the watch list. Each Member State shall select at least one station per, on average, 15 000 km2 geographical area, with a minimum of one per Member State. Each Member State shall select at least one station per, on average, taking into account the geographical area located in the affected zone, using15 000 km2 as a geographical area, guideline value. with a minimum of one per Member State Member States may also cooperate across borders in monitoring the substances in the watch list. In selecting the representative stations, the monitoring frequency and timing for each substance, Member States shall take into account the use patterns of the substance. The frequency of monitoring shall not be less than once per year. In selecting the representative stations, the monitoring frequency and timing for each substance, Member States shall take into account the verification of production volumes, use patterns of the substance, concentrations and effects on the environment. The frequency of monitoring shall not be less than once per year.

Reason

Under the current proposal, the monitoring of substances on the watch list (referred to in Article 8b, which is to be inserted in the directive) has to begin very soon after the inclusion of a substance on the list. Since the Member States do not have sufficient information on the details of the monitoring that is to be carried out in the future, it would appear to be extremely difficult, in the space of just three months, to establish a budget, secure financing, award contracts, take samples and analyse them using an appropriate method.

Cooperation in the monitoring of substances on the watch list is necessary and appropriate, particularly in the case of cross-border bodies of water. Disproportionately large amounts would otherwise have to be spent on developing new analysis procedures. Jointly organised monitoring and analysis would be more sensible financially and would make the analyses more comparable. Making cooperation possible in no way conflicts with the establishment of independent regional monitoring bodies. Jointly organised monitoring would be more trustworthy.

Amendment 3

Article 2 of the amendment to Directive 2008/105/EC: insertion of Article 8b – watch list, paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment 5. Member States shall report the results of the monitoring carried out under paragraph 4 to the Commission within 18 months of the inclusion of the substance in the watch list, and every 12 months thereafter while the substance is kept on the list. The report shall include information on the representativeness of the station and monitoring strategy. 5. Member States shall report the results of the monitoring carried out under paragraph 4 to the Commission within 18 24 months of the inclusion of the substance in the watch list, and every 12 months thereafter while the substance is kept on the list. The report shall include information on the representativeness of the station, and monitoring strategy and, if necessary, cross-border cooperation.

Reason

If Amendment 1 is accepted, the reporting deadline should also be extended accordingly.

Amendment 4

Article 3(1)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment 1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by at the latest (1). They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive. 1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by at the latest (2). They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.

Reason

The general impact assessment of the draft prepared at EU level does not permit a more precise assessment of the effects of the national legislation that is to be brought in. To make an accurate assessment of the effects of the national legislation, practical field studies need to be carried out, which would take 24 to 36 months and be very costly. Developing new methods of analysis requires time and considerable financial resources. The requirements of the proposal would be easier to comply with if the costs incurred could be spread over a longer period.

Brussels, 30 November 2012. The President of the Committee of the Regions Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

(1) 12 months after the adoption of this Directive.

(2) 12 24 months after the adoption of this Directive.