Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy'
Date: 2000-07-12
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: chemical pollution, environmental policy, pollution control, public health, water

19.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 268/11

14.3.
In conclusion, the Economic and Social Committee
feels it is essential for the European Union to reach, if possible,

an international consensus on arrangements for applying the
precautionary principle.

Brussels, 12 July 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and
Council Decision establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy’

(2000/C 268/05)

On 13 March 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21 June 2000. The rapporteur
was Mrs Sa´nchez Miguel.

At its 374th plenary session (meeting of 12 July) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 114 votes to one with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

One of the main obstacles to achieving the objectives
1.1.
set out in the WFD (Water Framework Directive)
is the
presence of increasing quantities of — and ever more diverse
— chemical substances in water, posing a serious risk to the
balance of eco-systems, the environment and human health.
The European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical
Substances (EINECS) has more than 100 000 entries and is
growing yearly.

1.2.
Despite the slowness with which risks are assessed,
there is increasingly firm evidence that exposure to even small
quantities of these substances is dangerous. At the moment
there is considerable concern over those substances which act
as endocrine disrupters and affect, among other functions, the
reproductive capacity of
including human
beings.

living species,

1.3.
Accordingly the primary objective of the Commission
proposal is to establish a new list of priority substances to
replace the list established under Directive 76/464/EEC, in
accordance with the proposed WFD.

1.4.
The method used for establishing this list combines
a procedure known under the abbreviated title COMMPS
(combined monitoring-based and modelling-based priority
the
setting) and an open and transparent discussion of
substances or groups of substances selected, culminating in
the list of priority substances.

The objective of establishing a new list is totally
1.5.
justified on account of the crucial role in future monitoring to
be played by the WFD, basically because:

1.5.1.
In the considerable time which has elapsed since the
adoption of Directive 76/464/EEC we have become more
knowledgeable — and socially concerned — about the effects
of new and historic substances in the aquatic environment,
especially those regarded as endocrine disrupters, which are
currently being regulated (including the UNEP-POP Conven-
tion).

1.5.2.
The WFD establishes a ‘combined approach’ requir-
ing harmonised quality standards and substance emission
limits to tackle the problems arising from point and diffuse
pollution of water bodies. This approach increases the number
of substances or groups of substances requiring more inspec-
tions and monitoring.

C 268/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.9.2000

1.5.3.
The application of the WFD in order to bring water
bodies up to a ‘good ecological status’ in all the Member States
requires that the substances to be monitored be identified and
water quality monitoring systems be adapted.

1.6.
To draw up the new list a ‘simplified risk-based
assessment procedure based on scientific principles’ has been
chosen which combines evidence regarding the intrinsic
hazard of the substance, evidence from monitoring of environ-
mental contamination, reinforced by other factors such as
volume of production and use of the substance concerned.
The other two — much more rigorous and demanding —
options mentioned in the proposal have been discarded as too
time-consuming.

1.6.1.
This procedure combines a system of preselecting
candidate substances (COMMPS), an assessment of ‘statistical
relevancy’ and arrangements for participation in the discussion
of the final selection. Four classification lists have been used
for organic pollutants and metallic pollutants, based on either
modelling or monitoring of sediment and surface water.

2. General comments

Although the option chosen is correct, the Committee

2.1.
would make various comments:

2.1.1.
The method chosen — according to which the use
of different sources of dangerous substances to draw up the
‘list of priority substances in the field of water policy’ is at
present necessary and adequate for developing the WFD in a
reasonable time — will not guarantee that the objectives are
attained.

As noted in the joint report of the European Environ-
2.1.2.
ment Agency and the European Regional Office of the UNEP
(United Nations Environment Programme) of October 1998,
and despite the existence of a very strict legal framework for
assessing the risk of chemical substances, the reality is that:

number of substances and groups of substances to the
32 described in the annex. This number could be higher,
giving better protection of water resources without creating
excessive problems for the effective application of the WFD. It
must be borne in mind that the last two factors represent
administrative or methodological limits to the extension of the
list, not scientific limits.

this methodological barrier; at

The assessment of the ‘statistical relevancy’ on the basis
2.3.
of data from three Member States or two trans-boundary river
basins may be sufficient given present
time constraints.
Nevertheless, the next review should establish, for information
purposes, a list of substances pre-selected for their hazard-
ousness or concentration which have not managed to sur-
mount
the same time it
should propose action for further developing the method and
reassessing these substances in the future. This initiative is
necessary because some substances may be very important in
specific areas (heavily industrialised cities, intensive farming
areas, ...) but less relevant on a national scale. These pollutants
should still be identified and action plans drawn up within the
framework of the ‘river basin management plans’ established
by the WFD.

The data confidentiality agreements with industry for
2.3.1.
certain substances set a limit to the scientific risk assessment.
The Commission should endeavour to remove this barrier by
means of ‘voluntary agreements’ wherever possible or other-
wise by regulation. These agreements may not only place a
serious responsibility on the shoulders of the Commission in
respect of the possible effects on the aquatic environment and
human health, but also run counter to the Commission’s own
proposed guidelines for the precautionary principle. This
limitation should be amended to ensure
methodological
that substances falling under this heading can be properly
reassessed in the next review.

— there is hardly any information on or surveillance of the
dispersion of these substances in water, atmosphere, soil,
food chain, etc. and in particular the effects of exposure
of human beings to these substances;

3.

Specific comments

— there are no toxicity or eco-toxicity data, including for
the more than 3 000 chemical substances produced in
‘large quantities’ (more than 1 000 t/year).

The definition of risk used, the way ‘statistical rel-
2.2.
evancy’ is interpreted and the existence of inexplicable ‘confi-
dentiality rules’ agreed with the industry have reduced the

3.1.
The final result (annex) after the expert opinion should
be regarded as sufficient for the initial deployment of the WFD.
However, to comply with the Commission’s guidelines on the
precautionary principle, the WFD must be made more effective
by supplementary initiatives, without
this adding to the
workload and cost involved in substance monitoring: for
instance, support for research programmes on the risks of old
and new substances,
incentives for pilot programmes for
replacing, eliminating or reducing the use of these substances.

19.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 268/13

3.2.
The Committee would point out that there are three
aspects which require special attention if the list of substances
is to be properly added to in future; given their importance
they must be highlighted, even though they are dealt with in
one form or another in the proposal:

— the identification and assessment of the risk from sub-
stances which affect groundwater; this is urgent given the
importance of such substances for the internal balance of
river basins and their specific features (long hydrological
cycle, extreme vulnerability of the quality of these waters);

— the need to standardise parameters and analysis methods
and to coordinate Member States’ monitoring pro-
grammes;

— the need to mitigate the lack of available, well-assessed

scientific information so that the risk from those sub-
stances which have been omitted for precisely this reason
can be adequately assessed.

3.3. Without these measures, the COMMPS procedure will
not be able to do its job of continually improving the
procedure for selecting substances which endanger the aquatic
environment.

3.4.
Finally, the idea that it is necessary to establish and
implement effective contamination reduction programmes
and measures for the selected priority substances prior to any
increase in the number of substances should be regarded as a
recommendation rather than a requirement. Circumstances
may necessitate a revision of the list although the Commission
and Member States have not reached the point where these
programmes are sufficiently defined or developed.

Brussels, 12 July 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI