Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy'
Date: 1997-10-01
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU law, environmental policy, environmental protection, water management













EUR-Lex - 51997AC0994 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997AC0994

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy'  


Official Journal C 355 , 21/11/1997 P. 0083 





Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy` () (97/C 355/16)On 6 May 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 July 1997. The rapporteur was Mrs Sánchez Miguel.At its 348th plenary session (meeting of 1 October 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously.1. Introduction1.1. The Commission has published a proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (). The Economic and Social Committee had already given its opinion on the relevant communication (), which served as a discussion document not only for the Community bodies but also for the representatives of economic and social interests within the EU who are concerned with water policy.1.2. The result of this debate is the Commission proposal in question which, in the form of a framework directive, improves earlier legislation by clarifying the relevant rules through a total or partial repeal of those directives which have become obsolete in practice.1.2.1. Despite the repeal of these directives, the proposal retains the thinking behind present policy and incorporates it into the proposed rules. In this way it meets the request made by the ESC (), since it means that the acquis communautaire which has served to create the EU's water policy is retained.1.3. It should be pointed out that the approach of harmonizing through a framework directive has a practical basis in the application of existing legislation and its monitoring both by the bodies responsible for water policy and by all those concerned. This has made it possible for rules to be drafted correcting and improving the frequently uneven transposition of Community directives arising from differing climatic and economic conditions, and those affecting the human impact on the aquatic environment in the EU.1.4. The proposed directive contains some innovations compared with the communication, although not all of them result from the consultations carried out with Community bodies despite the fact that the process should be public and transparent.1.4.1. One of the innovations is the requirement for the competent authorities to send reports on the implementation of their river basin management plans to the Commission, thereby creating greater transparency in the application of water policy.1.4.2. Better knowledge of the operation of the river basin management plans will make it possible to monitor their implementation and intervene when this is called for by the authorities of the Member States or the Commission itself.1.4.3. The proposal also includes more advanced technical ideas, especially the 'combined approach` to combating pollution. Thus the adoption of the environmental quality standards (EQS) defined in Directive 96/61/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control () gains in importance, although the framework directive does not refer directly to the procedure and methodology for laying down these standards (see point 3.7).1.5. In the context of the strategies against pollution, the Committee is aware that the Commission is considering a modification of the proposal in order to include within the framework directive a simplified and updated version of the existing controls on pollution emissions to water from small installations under Directive 76/464/EEC (). The modification, which would mainly involve changes to Article 21 of the draft framework directive, would replace the provisions on dangerous substances set out in Directive 76/464/EEC; this directive would then be added to the list of repeals contained in the proposed Article 26.1.5.1. The Committee would deem such modification as a positive development, in particular with regard to the setting of environmental quality standards, and it is looking forward to assess the official text of an amended proposal.2. General comments2.1. The legal base for the proposed directive is Article 130s(1) of the Treaty; its aim is to maintain and improve the aquatic environment in the EU, the minimum objective being to ensure 'a good status` of surface water, groundwater and water in protected areas. To that end, it proposes establishing the administrative structures and procedures needed to manage and protect the quality and quantity of water resources.2.2. The ESC endorses the proposal for a framework directive as a whole. Nonetheless, it would make a number of comments with a view to improving the effectiveness of water policy, this being the ultimate aim of the proposal.2.3. The objectives of the framework directive are to be achieved in four basic ways:2.3.1. The definition of a general framework within which the Member States and the Community bodies will lay the foundations for sustainable use and protection of water resources, not only in EU countries but also in cross-frontier territories affected by the measures.2.3.2. The creation of a 'safety net` to deal with unsolved problems or specific emergencies, e.g. floods, droughts, etc.2.3.3. The collection and analysis of the information needed to check the state of the aquatic environment and to propose viable policies.2.3.4. Transparency in the information collected, through its publication and dissemination, to which the ESC would add the requirement that it be made public (as explained in point 3.9 and subsequent points).2.4. It should be made clear that the bulk of the framework directive deals with subjects relating to the quality of water and that quantitative aspects are considered in relation to quality - as a determining factor in meeting the criteria laid down for the quality objectives. This can be seen from the definitions in Article 2, most of which refer to quality-related concepts, while the remainder refer to cost-related factors.2.5. It is also necessary to highlight the inclusion of matters relating to the cost of water, which the communication did not cover. This subject can be regarded from the viewpoint of various interested parties - firstly that of the water companies, which at first sight appears to be the one mainly taken into account in drawing up the proposed rules.2.5.1. Environmental and socio-economic organizations interested in developing a new 'water culture` regard price as an instrument for encouraging water saving. The ESC considers this approach to be appropriate, provided it is not a response to purely commercial criteria and reflects productive and social realities. Against this backdrop, and if used judiciously, pricing could act as a deterrent to over-consumption of water. Similarly, pricing might be seen as a mechanism for backing penalties in the event of pollution, but without, under any circumstances, penalizing necessary and sustainable consumption and use.2.5.2. However, some clarification is required with regard to water pricing, since although in principle it can be a useful instrument in water policy, it should not be solely dependent on economic interests. The ESC takes the view that financial transfer mechanisms should be devised so that future increases in the cost of water can be reinvested in conservation measures (e.g. improving cultivation methods and irrigation techniques) and costs do not rise for those most affected, such as agriculture, industry and domestic consumers.2.6. Another innovation of the framework directive is that the management of hydrological plans is shared between various administrative authorities, sometimes belonging to a single country and sometimes to more than one EU country. In such cases, these authorities are required to comply with the objectives set out in Article 4.2.6.1. In order to provide guidance on the possible ways of complying with the objectives of transnational river basin management plans which include non-EU countries, the Commission is urged to introduce and/or strengthen the following:2.6.1.1. International institutional agreements covering both objectives and policies at a level higher than the Community, such as the Helsinki Convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes ().2.6.1.2. Action on more limited pollution problems, boosting voluntary agreements with non-Community productive sectors, official bodies, users etc. but applying the same approach as that set out in the fifth Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development ().2.7. The provision on better information, and particularly its centralization by the Commission and by the European Environment Agency, appears to meet one of the concerns expressed by the ESC in its opinion on the aforementioned communication.2.7.1. However, the ESC thinks it necessary for the proposal to state clearly that all the bodies and people interested in the implementation of the river basin management plans should have access to information. The information must be truly public to familiarize the citizens of the EU with the culture of pollution prevention and of water saving; this would be in line with the objectives not only of the fifth Community Programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development, but also of the present revised version of it.2.8. Regulating penalties for failure to implement river basin management plans will make them more effective. However, the ESC sees the fact that these penalties are to be laid down by the national authorities as a handicap, since the administrative authorities are responsible for putting the plans into practice. Similarly, the ESC considers that the absence of general criteria governing the content of the penalties may give rise to disputes on the grounds of inequality between different countries.2.9. The importance of the annexes should be stressed, since much of the material contained therein comes from the repealed directives. The ESC thinks it would be more appropriate for the conceptual part of them to be incorporated in the main text of the framework directive, leaving the technical aspects in the annexes so as to facilitate their amendment as necessary. If this is not done, much of the detailed implementation procedures will be left to the Committee established under Article 25.2.9.1. Whatever the outcome of the Council's examination, the ESC believes that adequate procedures should be adopted whereby 'user` organizations can be consulted prior to the adoption of changes to the annexes by the committee established under Article 25.3. Specific comments3.1. The ESC considers that the articles forming the basis of the draft framework directive constitute an appropriate response to the recommendations made in its opinion on the communication. Nevertheless, it would propose a number of additions and/or suggestions enhancing its general content.3.2. Article 2 (definitions)It is necessary to acknowledge the positive effort made by the Commission to synthesize a set of concepts which differ in meaning from one Member State to another, so as to avoid difficulties in the transposition of the directive into national legislation.3.2.1. It is recommended that the following uses of water be added to the definitions:- domestic;- industry and energy production;- agriculture;- leisure and sport.3.2.2. The quantity of water used for agriculture and the type of pollution caused (plant protection products, diffuse pollution, need to modernize irrigation techniques, etc.) differ from industrial use, and this requires a definition to be made of this type of use.3.3. Articles 3 and 4These introduce the most suitable arrangements for meeting the objectives of the proposed framework directive.3.3.1. River basin management plans must be implemented in their entirety irrespective of the way in which the authorities of each Member State may set up their administrative bodies; these bodies must be allowed considerable freedom in the way they work out the cooperation strategies necessary to meet the requirements and objectives proposed in the river basin management plans.3.3.2. It is accepted that exceptions must be made, but they should be as few as possible, very clearly defined, and reported to the Commission. In this respect, introducing into the framework directive concepts which are difficult and dangerous to interpret, such as that of 'prohibitively expensive` in Article 4(4)(a), does not assist its proper implementation. The ESC therefore calls for this reference to be deleted. Reference could, however, be made to the cost-benefit ratio, together with the need for this to encompass social and environmental benefits.3.4. Article 6Environmental impact studies must be carried out where required by directives - supplemented where necessary by environmental protection requirements - in the case of both water regulation and distribution works and economic activities which use and affect bodies of water.3.5. Article 8This article requires an inventory to be drawn up for each river basin of all significant bodies of water likely to be used for human consumption at present or in future and the establishment of environmental quality standards designed to ensure that, after treatment, this water meets the requirements of Directive 80/778/EEC ().3.5.1. This measure must be backed up and supplemented by:- the obligation to carry out a periodic (annual) review of the state of these bodies of water;- public access to the inventory.3.6. Article 12This article deals with charges for the use of water, which is a particularly complex and delicate matter since it affects the living conditions of all citizens. It is therefore necessary to act with great caution and to use environmental protection criteria when assessing the need to revise water prices.3.6.1. Bearing in mind that based on the principle of subsidiarity, it is the Member States who are responsible for establishing charging arrangements for the various types of water use, the Commission must determine the content of such arrangements with the utmost clarity.3.6.2. The current wording of Article 12(1) fails to define a number of important concepts such as:- who is to recover costs (companies, administrations, ...);- who decides on prices;- in protected areas, how will costs affect landowners where constraints are imposed on their management of the land;- what happens in cases where there is a free market in water;- who bears the overall costs of a river basin (all consumers, or only the beneficiaries of a particular service).3.6.3. Climatic diversity, geographical and commercial conditions, models of urban and rural development, etc. mean that an effort must be made to define the criteria for exemptions to the directive. In doing so, it should be borne in mind that the pricing of water resources must respect the right of all citizens to the supplies they need, and that environmental costs must essentially be met by those responsible for excessive consumption and pollution of water resources.3.6.4. The ESC takes the view that in order to dispel existing uncertainty, all the necessary consultative mechanisms must be set up in order to draw up the subsequent technical details of pricing.3.7. Articles 13 and 21 (Community strategies against pollution of water)The ESC is pleased to note that, in line with the specific request made in its opinion on the communication (), 'for basic measures covering emission of pollutants`, the Commission proposes to apply 'a combined approach ... using control of pollution at source through the setting of emission limit values and the setting of environmental quality standards`.3.7.1. However, if this approach is to prove truly effective in combating water pollution, the framework directive must offer a uniform methodology for setting environmental quality standards at the level of the Community - where necessary - and of the Member States or non-EU countries forming part of Community river basins.3.8. Article 16Given the importance of river basin management plans for the proper management of water resources, the ESC thinks it desirable for much of Annexes V, VII and VIII to be incorporated in the main body of the directive in order to harmonize compliance with the recommendations and technical specifications in all countries of the EU. This would avoid the element of discretion which normally accompanies the transposition of annexes and give Article 16 its due importance among the directive's objectives.3.8.1. Management plans should not cause an increase in administrative costs as this would in turn increase the final cost of water.3.9. Article 20This article requires transparency and the exchange of information acquired in applying the framework directive between the Member States, the Commission and the European Environment Agency. The ESC considers that the amount of information required is satisfactory, but that it is also necessary to respect the rights of citizens as enshrined in Directive 90/313/EEC () on access to information on the environment.3.9.1. To facilitate this access, the competent authorities and administrative bodies should draw up a public register to centralize all the information in each state; this register should be periodically updated. Information must, in any case, be supplied at minimum cost.3.10. The ESC regards as inadequate the proposed directive's treatment of citizens' and social participation in the management of water resources. To improve this participation in practice, the ESC thinks it necessary to draw up a new article making it obligatory to:3.10.1. Set up consultative bodies within the competent authorities, involving consumers, socio-economic, agricultural and environmental organizations, experts and administrations concerned, which would monitor, inter alia, the preparation of the river basin management plans and their implementation - backing up the Commission - and which would carry out additional measures for providing information and raising social awareness.3.10.2. Establish public registers - at river basin district level - in respect of water quality control, emissions, licences, and any other data which are relevant to the implementation of the rules laid down in the framework directive.3.11. The ESC thinks that Annex VI should also include:- in Part A: a reference to Directive 90/313/EEC on access to information;- in Part B: '(iii) instruments for citizens' participation`.Brussels, 1 October 1997.The President of the Economic and Social CommitteeTom JENKINS() OJ C 184, 17. 6. 1997, p. 20.() COM(97) 49 final.() COM(96) 59 final, Communication on Community water policy. ESC Opinion OJ C 30, 30. 1. 1997.() Cf. point 7.2 of the opinion on the Commission communication in OJ C 30, 30. 1. 1997.() OJ L 257 of 10. 10. 1996 - ESC opinion in OJ C 195, 18. 7. 1994.() On the discharge of dangerous substances into surface water, OJ L 129, 18. 8. 1976. Large industry is already controlled under the IPPC directive.() OJ L 186, 5. 8. 1995 - ESC opinion OJ C 34, 2. 2. 1994.() Original version - OJ C 138, 17. 5. 1993 - ESC opinion OJ C 287, 4. 11. 1992; Revised version - OJ C 140, 11. 5. 1996 - ESC opinion OJ C 212, 22. 7. 1996.() Directive concerning the quality of water intended for human consumption - original in OJ L 229, 30. 8. 1980, proposed revised version in OJ C 131, 30. 5. 1995; ESC opinion in OJ C 82, 19. 3. 1996.() Cf. point 6.2 of the opinion on the communication, OJ C 30, 30. 1. 1997.() OJ L 158, 23. 6. 1990 - ESC opinion in OJ C 139, 5. 6. 1989.