No C 77/2 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 30. 3. 77 
II 
(Preparatory  Acts) 
ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive  on the quality  requirements  for waters 
capable  of supporting  freshwater  fish 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  journal  of  the 
European  Communities  No  C 202  of 28 August  1976,  page  3. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 11 August  1976  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  100  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
146th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 23 and  24 February  1977. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  100  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the  request  for an opinion  on 11 
August  1976  by  the  Council  of the  European 
Communities, 
Having  regard  to the Decision  of the  Bureau  of the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  at its meeting  on 28 
September  1976  to entrust  the Section  for Protection 
of the  Environment,  Public  Health  and  Consumer 
Affairs  with  the  preparation  of an opinion  and  a 
report, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the  Section 
for Protection  of the Environment,  Public  Health  and 
Consumer  Affairs  at its meetings  held  on 23 February 
1977, 
Having  regard  to the  report  prepared  by  the 
rapporteur,  Sir John  Peel, Having  regard  to the discussion  at its 146th  plenary 
session  held  on 23 and  24 February  1977  (meeting  of 
23 February  1977), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by a large  majority,  4 voting  against  with  14 
abstentions: 
The Committee  approves  the  proposed  Directive, 
subject  to the following  comments: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Economic  and  Social  Committee  has 
already  welcomed  and  approved  a number  of 
Directives  dealing  with  the quality  standards  of water 
used  for  a variety  of purposes  and  with  the 
30. 3. 77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 77/3 
prevention  of pollution  caused  by the  discharge  of 
certain  dangerous  substances  into  the  aquatic 
environment  (1). 
1.2. This  Directive  differs  from  the others  in that  it 
is not concerned  with  direct  effects  on human  health, 
but is aimed  primarily  at the protection  of freshwater 
fish,  but  secondly  with  other  components  of the 
aquatic  ecosystem,  which  have  a bearing  on the 
well-being  of fish.  The  Committee  welcomes  the 
general  aims  of the Directive,  and  particularly  the use 
of water-quality  objectives  rather  than  fixed  emission 
standards  to achieve  those  aims.  However,  as the 
Commission  is at present  working  on  emission 
standards  for a wide  range  of chemicals  which  may 
be discharged  into  the  aquatic  environment,  the 
Committee  feels  there  is a danger  of pre-empting  its 
objective  of protecting  water  by setting  unnecessary 
restrictive  standards  in  individual  and  specific 
Directives  (for  example,  temperature  and  cadmium). 
1.3. Although  there  is ambiguity  with  regard  to the 
English  title  of  the  Directive,  the  Committee 
understands  from  the Commission  that  it relates  to 
water  suitable  for  supporting  fish  whether  or not 
there  is pollution  present.  The  Committee  feels  that 
leaving  it up to the  Member  States  to specify  those 
waters  capable  of supporting  freshwater  fish  (Article 
4) could  slow  up or even  rule  out  any  action  to 
improve  quality  standards  for  water  in a large 
number  of EEC  rivers. 
1.4. In  defining  the water  quality  requirements  of 
fish,  the  Directive  fails  to draw  any  distinction 
between  fish  populations  that  are exploited  only  for 
sport  and  those  exploited  as a food  resource.  In both 
cases  the fish  populations  must  be able  to thrive  and 
reproduce,  but in the latter,  marketable  fish  products 
must  be acceptable  to the consumer  from  the point  of 
view  of taste,  and  also  be free  from  known  risk  to 
health.  The  exclusion  of public  health  aspects  of 
fisheries  protection  should  be made  explicit  in the 
Directive.  Polluting  substances  causing  tainting  in fish 
should  be  considered  separately;  for  example, 
chlorophenols  and  petroleum  hydrocarbons  should 
be grouped  together  separately  from  the other  water 
quality  characteristics.  There  is also  a case  for  a 
separate  grouping  of those  characteristics  associated 
with  eutrophication  and  which  do not  have  a direct 
effect  on fish. 
M OJ No C 109,  19. 9. 1974;  OJ No C 108,  15. 5. 1975; 
OJ No C 248, 29. 10. 1975;  OJ No C 286,  15. 12. 1975; 
OJ No C 131,  12. 6. 1976;  OJ No C 197,  23. 8. 1976. 1.5. The  Committee  understands  from  the 
Commission  that  this  Directive  may  also  apply  to 
rivers  receiving  industrial  waste  waters,  providing 
that they  comply  with  the values  set out  in the first 
column  of the Annex.  The  Committee  welcomes  this 
fact because  some  rivers  in the Community  support 
fish at present  even  though  used  to receive  waste 
discharges. 
1.6. Waters  intended  for  fish  farming  are 
specifically  excluded  from  the  Directive,  but  no 
mention  is made  of tidal  brackish  waters  in estuaries 
of rivers.  The  quality  of the  water  in these  areas, 
which  in many  instances  are  the  sites  of heaviest 
pollution  is of vital  concern  to the  well-being  of 
migratory  fish  (e.g.  salmon  and  sea  trout).  The 
Committee  thinks  that  the  enforcement  of rigid 
quality  standards  in the  upper  reaches  of a river 
would  be of no value  for  these  fish  if they  were 
unable  to enter  or leave  the  river  because  of 
pollution,  and  suggests  that  brackish  estuarine  waters 
should  be the  subject  of a separate  Directive  which 
should  be introduced  as soon  as possible. 
1.7. In  the  explanatory  memorandum  the 
Commission  recognizes  that  the  data  available  on 
certain  aspects  of water  quality  is too  incomplete  at 
present  to enable  numerical  values  to be proposed, 
and that  further  research  is needed  and  is in fact 
being  undertaken  and  the Committee  welcomes  this. 
Extensive  investigations  have  been  carried  out  by 
water  authorities  in the United  Kingdom,  which  show 
that very  many  rivers  have  high-calibre  fisheries  in 
spite  of the fact  that  the waters  do not comply  in all 
respects  with  the limit  values  laid  down  in the Annex 
to the  Directive  at I and  G levels.  This  strongly 
suggests  that  the standards  set in the Annex  are not 
entirely  realistic  in every  instance  and  the Committee 
believes  that  more  time  should  be allowed  for further 
research  and  negotiation  before  rigid  mandatory 
standards  are introduced.  Otherwise  it is likely  that 
Member  States  will  specify  only  those  waters  which 
do currently  comply  with  the standards  enumerated 
in the Annex  to the Directive  and  exclude  those  that 
do tiot. 
1.8. Since  the  values  proposed  are  to  be 
mandatory,  the Committee  suggests  that  in order  that 
realistic  updated  standards  should  be defined  as soon 
as possible,  the Commission  should  take  immediate 
steps  to initiate  and  coordinate  the  necessary 
collation  of information  on fish  populations  and 
monitoring  of water  quality  by  Member  States, 
No C 77/4 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 30. 3. 77 
together  with  the critical  appraisal  and  publication  of 
the results  obtained.  The  standards  should  be based 
upon  the  boundary  conditions  for individual  water 
quality  characteristics  at which  good  fish  populations 
are still  able  to thrive  and  where  any  increase  in 
pollution  would  cause  them  to be harmed. 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. The  stipulation  of simple  numerical  values  for 
the level  of  each  particular  water  quality 
characteristic  can  sometimes  lead,  on the  one  hand, 
to the imposition  of unnecessarily  stringent  standards 
and concomitant  waste  of resources  to achieve  these 
standards  and,  on the  other  hand,  to lax  standards 
which  would  fail  to protect  fisheries  adequately. 
This  is because  the  natural  differences  in water 
quality  such  as hardness,  temperature,  pH  values, 
and dissolved  organic  substances  and  suspended 
solids  can  have  a profound  influence  upon  the toxic 
effects  on fish  of substances  such  as heavy  metals  and 
ammonia,  and  have  to be  taken  into  account 
explicitly  in standards.  The  Committee  broadly 
approves  of the way  in which  this  has been  attempted 
for zinc  and  ammonia. comments  are  prompted  by a lack  of clarity  in the 
Articles  of the draft  Directive  as they  relate  both  to 
the implementation  of  the  Directive  and  to 
exemptions  from  the  standards  laid  down  in the 
technical  Annex. 
2.4. Article  1 (1) 
2.4.1.  This  paragraph  refers  to  the  quality 
requirements  of  waters  capable  of  supporting 
freshwater  fish,  and  it is understood  to mean  water 
suitable  for supporting  freshwater  fish  whether  or not 
there  is pollution  present.  The  Committee  therefore 
suggests  that  the wording  of the paragraph  should  be 
changed  accordingly. 
2.5. Article  1 (2) 
2.5.1.  It  is understood  from  the Commission  that 
the statement  'species  whose  presence  is judged 
desirable  for water  management  purposes'  should  be 
taken  as'...  desirable  by those  responsible  for  water 
management'  and  includes  non-indigenous  species, 
and the wording  of the paragraph  should  be changed 
accordingly. 
2.2. For  the  purposes  of the  proposal,  the waters 
covered  by  the  Directive  are  divided  into  two 
categories  — salmonid  and  cyprinid.  The  Committee 
welcomes  the  recognition  of  the  different 
environmental  requirements  of different  types  of fish, 
but the  simple  division  into  these  two  categories  is 
somewhat  artificial  and  approximate,  and  also 
incomplete  in that  there  are very  wide  differences  in 
sensitivity  between  different  species.  In some  rivers 
many  kinds  of fish  flourish,  and  in practice  it may 
not always  be certain  which  standards  are  to be 
applied.  For  example,  in some  rivers  trout  may  be 
introduced  into  waters  which  are considered  as being 
basically  cyprinid  in quality  and  it should  be 
indicated  in the Directive  if such  waters  are included. 
Also  migratory  salmonid  fish  ascend  rivers  which 
may contain  mainly  cyprinid  species  in their  lower 
reaches.  The  Committee  understands  from  the 
Commission  that  rivers  may  be divided  into  salmonid 
and cyprinid  zones,  but it foresees  difficulties  arising 
at the  boundaries  between  zones,  e.g.  in siting 
sampling  stations. 
2.3. In  paragraph  4 (3)  of  the  explanatory 
memorandum,  reference  is made  to concentrations  of 
harmful  substances  which  are  nil or very  low.  The 
use of the term  nil may  be imprecise.  In practice,  such 
concentrations  are  those  less  than  the  level  of 
detection,  which  should  be stated  in all cases.  Further 2.6. Article  2 
2.6.1.  The  phrase  'waters  to support  the  life  of 
freshwater  fish'  means  waters  suitable  for supporting 
fish life.  It should  be made  clear  that  this  could 
include  waters  in which  no fish  exist  at the present 
time. 
2.7. Articles  4 and S 
2.7.1.  The  Committee  believes  that  a five-year 
period,  apart  from  being  different  from  the 10 years 
allowed  in the Directive  dealing  with  the  quality  of 
bathing  water,  is too  short.  Not  only  will  it be 
necessary  to proceed  in stages,  but it will  depend  on 
which  waters  are  designated  by the  Member  States 
how long  will  be necessary  for the standards  to be 
applied.  In some  cases  it would  be easy  to apply  the 
standards  much  sooner,  but  in waters  which  are 
heavily  polluted  at present  five  years  could  well  be 
too short  a period.  In any  event  the time-scale  should 
be reconciled  with  that  relevant  to the  Directive  on 
dangerous  substances  and  must  take  account  of 
economic  restraints.  However,  the  Commission  has 
now indicated  that  it envisages  the implementation  of 
the Directive  in stages  and  has  welcomed  the 
suggestion  made  by the  Committee  that  for  this 
purpose  rivers  or zones  of rivers  might  be classified 
30. 3. 77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 77/5 
into several  categories,  including  one  for  those 
containing  good  fish  populations  and  one  for those 
presently  fishless,  so  that  priorities  could  be 
established.  The  Committee  recommends  that  this 
approach  be pursued  further  by the Commission. 
2.8. Article  6 
2.8.1.  This  Article  refers  to the sampling  frequency 
as the intervals  specified  in the Annex,  at the same 
sampling  point  and  over  a period  of 12 months.  The 
Committee  believes  that,  although  the  problem  is a 
difficult  one  to solve,  the  frequency  of sampling 
should  be much  more  closely  linked  to the  risk  of 
pollution  involved,  rather  than  to a formula  applied 
rigidly.  The  Committee  understands  that  the 
Commission  is currently  studying  this  problem  and 
very much  welcomes  this. 
2.9. Article  9 
2.9.1.  The  Committee  would  emphasize  that  some 
Member  States  have  a special  problem  in relation  to 
their  territories  bordering  on  the  non-member 
countries:  the  Commission  must  take  cognizance  of 
this fact. 2.10.  Article  10 
2.10.1.  As  regards  waivers  from  the Directive,  and 
particularly  the idea  of natural  enrichment  of water 
by certain  substances  without  human  intervention, 
the Committee  would  ask  the  Commission  to 
stipulate  that  this  is not  meant  to cover  substances 
reaching  rivers  as a result  of modern  agricultural 
practices. 
2.11.  Article  12 
2.11.1.  The  Committee  believes  that,  under  present 
circumstances,  two  years  is too short  a period  for the 
Member  States  to  bring  into  force  the  laws, 
to comply  with  this  Directive. 
2.12.  Annex 
2.12.1.  The  Committee  has submitted  a number  of 
detailed  comments  on the Annex,  which  are included 
in the  report.  However,  the general  point  has  been 
made  that  in several  member  countries  there  are 
rivers  that  contain  good  fish  populations  in spite  of 
the water  quality  being  lower  than  that  specified  in 
the Annex.  The  Committee  therefore,  feels  that  the 
values  in the Annex  should  be reconciled  with  reality. 
Done  at Brussels,  23 February  1977. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive  on toxic  and  dangerous  waste 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 194  of 19 August  1976,  page  2. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 5 August  1976  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  100  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community.