COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL - Developing a New Bathing Water Policy
Date: 2000-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, bathing water, quality of life, water analysis, water pollution

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 21.12.2000
COM(2000) 860 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Developing a New Bathing Water Policy

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Developing a New Bathing Water Policy

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.

2.

3.

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

4.6.

4.7.

4.8.

4.9.

5.

6.

Purpose of this Communication ................................................................................... 4

The context for the revision of the Bathing Water Directive......................................... 4

Principles Underlying the Revision .............................................................................. 7

Specific Issues in Bathing Water Quality Management ................................................ 7

Identification of bathing areas................................................................................... 7

Compliance .............................................................................................................. 8

Surveys and Monitoring ........................................................................................... 9

Trends in Water Quality ........................................................................................... 9

Standard setting and methods of analysis ................................................................ 10

Obligations to take action ....................................................................................... 11

Prediction of water quality...................................................................................... 12

Information requirements, public participation and reporting .................................. 12

Keeping the Bathing Water Directive up-to-date .................................................... 13

Scope of the New Bathing Water Directive................................................................ 14

How to React to this Document ................................................................................. 15

Annex I: Closely Related European Legislation and Policy .................................................. 16

2

INTRODUCTION

Although the current Bathing Water Directive is more than 25 years old,
its continued
importance is evident each bathing season as it protects the public from accidental and
chronic pollution discharged in or near European bathing areas. Furthermore, the overall
quality of bathing waters has improved considerably since the Directive came into force.

Changes in science and technology, however, oblige the Commission to revise and update its
legislation at regular intervals. It is now time for the Bathing Water Directive to be revised. Its
revision will be a keystone for streamlining the European environmental water legislation.

Based on the experience of implementing existing legislation, Community environment
policy has evolved towards an emphasis on the role of science and informed participation in
meeting environmental goals. Today, we can make use of the fast developments in science
and technologies to incorporate more sophisticated tools. We can also make use of the
knowledge and involvement of the stakeholders via an open process for the development and
the implementation of the legislation. This evolution will be reflected in the new Bathing
Water Directive.

The revision of the Bathing Water Directive will maintain, or possibly even upgrade, the
rigour of the existing Directive. The revised Directive will still contain specific targets which
will be tough and ambitious and which will have to be met within specific timeframes.

It is also the Commission’s intention to rationalise and optimise the implementation of
bathing water quality management through various steps, including reducing the number of
parameters to be monitored, and through introducing new tools and more robust parameters.
A revised Directive will above all provide better information to the public.

This document provides a rough sketch of the expected contents and implications of a revised
Directive, however the various elements have not yet crystallised into specific articles. The
Commission seeks constructive criticism on the approaches presented in this Communication,
and invites all interested and involved parties to participate in the consultation and to react to
this document.

3

1.

PURPOSE OF THIS COMMUNICATION

The purpose of this Communication is to launch an open consultation exercise with all
interested parties and stakeholders concerning a new Bathing Water Directive -- a new
Directive that will ensure at least the same environment and health protection as the current
Directive but at the same time will take into account new approaches and new science and
technologies. The objective of the consultation is to learn how we can improve our
bathing water legislation and its implementation.

The consultation exercise will culminate in a Bathing Water Conference during Green Week
(24-28 April 2001), to which all individuals and institutions who have responded to this
Communication will be invited. All comments and suggestions made during the consultation
exercise (either in writing or during the Conference) will be taken into account by the
Commission as it drafts its Proposal for a new Bathing Water Directive.

The Proposal is scheduled for adoption by the Commission around June/July 2001. The
Proposal will then be passed to the European Parliament and the Council for political
discussion and decision under the co-decision procedure.

This four stage process (i.e. Communication, Consultation, Conference, Proposal) that we
have chosen to use for developing a new Bathing Water Directive is similar to the one that
was used for the preparation of the Water Framework Directive. It is based on transparency,
stakeholder participation and commitment and shared responsibility.

The Commission does not attempt to provide all of the details of the future Directive but
merely to outline its skeleton. This Communication therefore highlights the strengths
and difficulties of bathing water quality management and presents possible approaches
for the new Directive, building upon experience in this area.

2.

THE CONTEXT FOR THE REVISION OF THE BATHING WATER DIRECTIVE

The adoption of the Water Framework Directive

The adoption of the Water Framework Directive was the decisive step in bringing together
all of the Community water-related environmental legislation, emphasising that all of
the water directives are to be implemented coherently.

For the public at large1, the Bathing Water Directive is key to improving water quality in
general, and the health impacts in particular. Together with the Drinking Water Directive,
which also requires specific results in terms of healthy water quality, the Bathing Water
Directive should be the driver for a focussed implementation of the Water Framework
Directive, the Nitrates Directive and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

1

Water quality in general and Bathing Water quality in particular is very much in the focus of interest of
the citizens. The most recent Eurobarometer (51.1 of September 1999) – a regular opinion poll
organised by the Commission – shows for example that European citizens are still most concerned
about water quality. For many years, the ‘water homepage’ of DG Environment has been among the top
10 most visited sites on the EU's Europa internet site.

4

The Bathing Water Directive is now more than 25 years old. In light of the integrated
approach of the Water Framework Directive and of the progress made in water quality
science, technology and management, a thorough revision of the Bathing Water Directive is
needed. The revision of the Bathing Water Directive will be another step in the overhaul of
the Community water legislation, in line with the principle laid down in the Water Framework
Directive.

Annex I contains further information about the Water Framework Directive and other related
Community legislation and policy.

The Bathing Water Directive and its revision

By providing sound and clear information about the water quality of coastal beaches and
the 1976 Bathing Water Directive2 has created an
bathing areas on lakes and rivers,
unprecedented public awareness about an environment and health issue that touches directly
upon the public’s daily life. This Directive has also urged Member States to tackle waste
water discharges to the aquatic environment, even prior to the development of the Urban
Waste Water Treatment Directive.

Each year, the Commission presents information concerning bathing water quality and the
implementation of the Directive in an annual report. The most recent report – concerning the
1999 bathing season - shows that there has been a constant and significant improvement in the
water quality of bathing areas. As the table below indicates,
the water quality standards set
by the Directive are now respected at more and more bathing areas. This is particularly true in
coastal bathing areas. Improvement of inland, fresh bathing water quality has proved much
more difficult; this is probably because fresh waters are in general more fragile and are much
more influenced by diffuse sources of pollution.

Year

EU Coastal Waters

EU Fresh Waters

Compliant* (%) Other§ (%)

Compliant (%)

Other (%)

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

84.9

73.9

82.3

85.3

91.4

93.3

94.6

95.6

15.1

26.1

17.7

14.7

8.6

6.7

5.4

4.4

47.5

29.7

41.6

51.7

68.9

79.8

86.5

90.5

52.5

70.3

58.4

48.3

31.1

20.2

13.5

9.5

*"Compliant" indicates compliance with the mandatory standards of Directive
76/160/EC
§ "Other" includes bathing areas which are not in compliance, those which are
insufficient sampled and those where bathing is banned.

2

Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water, OJ L 31 of 5.2.1976

5

It must be acknowledged however that, in recent years,
there has been less additional
improvement of coastal bathing water quality. Have we reached the limit of what is feasible?
We do not think so. Perhaps the current Directive cannot lead to further amelioration of
conditions in bathing waters. But we believe that a new Directive will certainly provide scope
for further improvements in bathing water quality. Building on the experience and results of
implementing existing legislation, we can incorporate more sophisticated tools and reinforce
the emphasis on the use of information and public participation.

Although the implementation of the 1976 Bathing Water Directive has clearly improved
bathing water quality in Europe, over the years since its adoption, the Directive has been
increasingly criticised on technological, scientific and managerial grounds. Some of the
technical and scientific criticisms are that:

• Some parameters set out in the current Directive are outdated and others are no longer

relevant.

• Monitoring of the waters was done only for compliance checking and not in order to gain a

better understanding of the bathing waters.

• The Directive did not specify analysis methods, so laboratories have used a variety of

methods and the results are not fully comparable.

• Microbiological analysis requires considerable time which means that, in case the water
sample is confirmed to be non-compliant, any (re)action to address that non-compliance
will be too late and people might have been exposed to pollution.

Furthermore, it has become clear that the issue of bathing water quality was not just a matter
of ‘product control’ but of real quality management and quality assurance.

The present process to revise the Bathing Water Directive actually started in 1994, when the
Commission submitted a first Proposal for its revision. That Proposal was not adopted by the
Council for reasons that were scientific and technical, as well as political3. However, thanks
to the debates provoked by this 1994 Proposal, new studies and developments about water
quality management came to the surface. As well as confirming that the 1994 proposal had
itself become outdated and difficult to defend, these developments indicated clearly that a
revised Bathing Water Quality Directive needed to be linked to the Water Framework
Directive. So, rather than pursue the adoption of the 1994 proposal, the Commission has
started preparing a new proposal. (To clear the way for a new Proposal, the 1994 proposal has
been formally repealed.)

3

See Commission Proposal for a Council Directive concerning the quality of bathing water, Com(94)36
final; European Parliament 1st reading on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning the quality of
bathing water, A4-0395/96 of 13 December 1996; and Commission Amended Proposal for a Council
Directive on the quality of bathing water, Com (97) 585 final.

6

Principles Underlying the Revision

Based on the experience of more than 15 years implementing the existing Bathing Water
Directive, and considering the many studies conducted, the Commission affirms the following
principles:

1. Water quality standards are indispensable. They have to be ambitious and legally
binding. We have to be realistic and acknowledge that zero-risk cannot be guaranteed. Even
if all possible measures have been taken to achieve or preserve good water quality, there is
always the possibility that these measures will fail or that accidents will happen. For example,
water quality could be diminished through increased river flow following heavy rains, or as a
result of a breakdown of sewage treatment works. The possibility of failures or accidents,
however, strengthens the argument for ambitious standards. By minimising the regular impact
of human activity on bathing water quality and lowering the 'normal' level of contaminants in
a bathing area as much as possible, the impacts of an unexpected pollution event can be
reduced.

2. Bathing Water Quality Management is not just a matter of quality monitoring. It is
necessary to have a full understanding of all the processes involved in determining water
quality and its variability. However, it is also necessary to take action in order to preserve or
achieve good water quality and to minimise the impact of human activity. To do this, it is
important to look beyond what is happening at, or in the direct vicinity of, a bathing area -- to
also take into account the hinterland in terms of land use, discharges upstream, etc. Therefore,
as well as monitoring water quality in bathing sites, the new Bathing Water Directive will
tackle pollution sources, in particular waste water discharges and agricultural run-off. These
pollution sources will also have to be marked and addressed in the river basin management
plans foreseen in the Water Framework Directive.

3. As a consequence of the above two principles, it is more then ever necessary to have
good quality information in near-real time about the bathing area. Such information is
needed by the public to make informed choices about if and where to bathe; it is also needed
by the competent authorities to make long-term decisions about water quality management.
Comprehensive information should be actively provided by those who collect it – local,
regional or national authorities of the Member States – and in second instance by the
European Commission.

4.

SPECIFIC ISSUES IN BATHING WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT

4.1.

Identification of bathing areas

In many Member States, the public has a basic right to use surface waters (rivers, lakes or
coastal waters), unless particular zones have been clearly prohibited. This implies that every
stretch of water in the EU could potentially be used for bathing and should thus be monitored
and managed under the Bathing Water Directive. However, we have to be realistic and accept
that that is virtually impossible. (Nevertheless, if all EU water legislation is fully and properly
implemented, Europe’s waters will all reach a high quality suitable for bathing!)

Under Directive 76/160/EEC, there was no definition for “bathing” and the definition for
“bathing area / bathing water” left too much room for interpretation. The new Directive would
correct this by introducing clear and unambiguous definitions. These definitions will take into
account the reality that not all waters can be identified as "bathing waters" and will also

7

reflect the fact that the main use of bathing water is for recreation and tourism. The new
definitions could be along the following lines:

• The revised Directive would concern “the quality of bathing waters, with the exception
of water intended for therapeutic purposes, water used in swimming pools and of
confined waters that are subject to chemical disinfection.”

• “Bathing for the purpose of this Directive means any direct body contact with water

involving head submersion and/or risk of ingestion of water.

• “Water identified as bathing water includes all running and still inland surface waters,

transitional waters and coastal waters that:

- are actively promoted - locally, regionally, nationally or internationally - for bathing (or
which
and/or
so
- are regularly used by the local and/or visitor populations for bathing.

foreseeable

promoted

future)

likely

the

are

be

to

in

• “Bathing zone” means the defined/discrete location within a bathing water where, on

average throughout the bathing season, most bathers will be found.

• “Bathing season” means: the period during which bathers can be expected, in the light of
local custom, any local rules which may exist concerning bathing, and weather conditions.

Identified bathing areas will have to be made public and notified to the European
Commission.

Directive 76/160/EEC did not foresee any mechanism for de-identification of bathing waters.
It is possible that certain areas might lose their function as bathing area due to changes in
customs (e.g. local people going further down the river/coast), changes in the constitution of
the area (e.g. marina constructed nearby), changes in the use of the area (e.g. change from
bathing to shellfish area or nature protection area). The new Directive should foresee a
mechanism to de-identify bathing waters where such changes occur and can be demonstrated.

4.2.

Compliance

One of the weak points of the existing Directive is an excessive emphasis on monitoring, i.e.
for a bathing area to be in compliance, the only requirement is that a defined proportion of
water samples have to achieve the mandatory standard.

The revised Directive should have a greater emphasis on the application of suitable, prompt
management actions, without however forgetting the fact that water quality objectives also
have to be met. Under the new scheme, there will be requirements both for compliance
with the quality standards and also for reaction when these standards are breached. This
shift in emphasis from bathing water quality monitoring to bathing water quality management
is in line with the principles enshrined in the Water Framework Directive.

The new Directive should have formal obligations for immediate action during the season
to respond to occasional non-compliance, as well as for long-term action in case of
'structural’ non-compliance. The Directive would stipulate that, where a bathing water does
not meet the required standards, the managers would be required to undertake appropriate
management actions within a certain timeframe (which will have to be agreed by the

8

Commission) to reduce or eliminate the risk of pollution/contamination or to prevent human
exposure to pollution/contamination.

Depending on the circumstances, appropriate action might include posting warning signs,
implementing suitable infrastructure or discharge controls, developing beach management
plans or prohibiting bathing until the bathing water quality reaches the standard (again). A
wide variety of management action is thus possible, but such action should always include:
actively informing the public, investigating the problem, and establishment of a remedial
action programme (short and/or long term) with a suitable time table and budget.

4.3.

Surveys and Monitoring

The existing Bathing Water Directive 76/160/EEC obliges the Member States to monitor the
water during the bathing season. Quality status of the beach is then calculated on the basis of
the number of samples that either fail or pass the standards. This approach does not give any
additional, circumstantial information that allows for a correct interpretation of the sample
tools for a better
the beach manager nor
results. Neither
understanding of the ‘behaviour’ of a bathing water or zone.

the public gets the right

this information deficit,

the revised Directive would expect

the authority
To correct
responsible for the beach management to develop a beach profile, describing, quantifying,
understanding and mapping all potential sources of pollution or contamination on and in the
vicinity of the bathing area. Such a profile provides a considerable amount of circumstantial
information that can be used for long-term planning of preservation or improvement
programmes, as a checklist in case of a pollution event, as the basis for investigation and as an
important public information tool.

However, a one time survey is not sufficient for bathing water area management. Continued
monitoring of water quality is also necessary in order to know whether, when and how to take
action -- and to assess whether the actions taken are effective.

The existing Bathing Water Directive does require the Member States to set up a monitoring
programme. However, this monitoring is based on a uniform fortnightly sampling regime with
a possibility for reduced sampling in case of confirmed good water quality; this sampling
regime does not allow for the most efficient use of sampling resources. The revised Directive
will
indicate that monitoring programmes should be designed to ensure the most
effective use of sampling resources, aimed at those bathing areas, for example, that have a
higher risk of variable water quality. The new approach would be to allow a ‘minimum’
sampling regime (e.g. fortnightly) for beaches with a confirmed history of good water quality
and would require an enhanced sampling regime (e.g. weekly) for beaches with variable or
bad water quality. At the same time, provisions are required to address quality control of
sampling, transport of samples, methods of analysis and data-handling.

4.4.

Trends in Water Quality

Under the existing Directive, a water quality assessment is made on the basis of the sampling
results of one bathing season. This gives, however, only a snapshot picture of the water
quality and does not take into account the inter-annual trend – negative/positive/neutral – in
water quality. Certain bathing areas could thus be condemned for a particular bathing season
on the basis of one bad sample although, seen in the longer perspective, the water quality is
more than satisfactory.

9

It is therefore considered important to look at the quality record of each individual
bathing area over 3 to 5 years.

This does not mean that breaches of the standards during the bathing season are not to be
taken into account or that a particular bad bathing season for a beach is meaningless. Any
breach of the standards requires investigation and demands an explanation. However, before
deciding on any major measures,
to consider the long-term record and
is important
perspective of each bathing area.

it

4.5.

Standard setting and methods of analysis

The existing Directive contains both microbiological (public health) and physical-chemical
(environmental/ecological) parameters. Since the adoption of the existing Directive in 1976, a
number of other Directives have taken over some of these physical and chemical parameters.
Moreover, the Water Framework Directive will specifically address the ecological aspects of
water-bodies. In particular Art. 6 and Annex IV of the Water Framework Directive set out
in
provisions for “Protected areas” in the River Basin Management Plans. This means,
practice, that the Water Framework Directive covers specific “environmental/ecological”
standards. The revised Bathing Water Directive can therefore focus its attention on “health”
standards.

There has been a considerable amount of debate surrounding these “health” standards as a
basis for setting the water quality standards. The discussion concentrates, in particular, on the
scientific basis for the standards. It is acknowledged that there are certain limitations to the
studies (in particular epidemiological studies) that can be done in the field of bathing water
quality. However, the available studies do indicate clearly that there is a correlation between
(faecally) polluted water and public health.

Regarding standard setting, our experience with the new Drinking Water Directive has shown
that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendations can be used as the scientific
starting point in the development of Community standards. It is therefore our intention to
follow the same approach for the revised Bathing Water Directive, taking into consideration
public health protection and a realistic cost/benefit relationship. In its proposed draft
guidelines for recreational waters4, the WHO has proposed Intestinal Enterococci as the best
indicator for microbiological contamination of coastal waters. The WHO came to those
recommendations on the basis of a thorough review of all available scientific literature on this
subject and on the basis of an epidemiological study carried out by Kay et al5. The
Commission would propose in addition Escherichia Coli as an indicator for microbiological
contamination of fresh water bathing areas6.

However, the WHO guidelines are still under peer review. Without wanting to influence the
outcome of that peer review and without giving any assessment of their validity in terms of
parametric values for the revised Directive, the Commission would like put to the following
indicative values on the table to orientate the discussion:

4

5

6

Guidelines for safe recreational water environments: Coastal and fresh-waters -- draft for consultation ref.
EOS/Draft/98.14, Geneva, October 1998
Kay, D., Fleisher, J.M.,Salmon, R.L., Wyer, M.D., Godfree, A.F., Zelenauch-Jacquotte, Z. and Shore,
R; 1994 Predicting Likelihood of gastroenteritis from sea bathing; results from a randomized exposure.
Lancet, 344 (8927), 905-909.
Van Asperen IA, Medema GJ, Borgdorff MW, Sprenger MW, Havelaar AH. 1997 Risk of
gastroenteritis among triathletes in relation to faecal pollution of fresh waters. Int. Journal of
Epidemiology, (27) 309-315.

10

For coastal waters: 50 Intestinal enterococci/100 ml
For fresh waters: 400 Escherichia Coli/100ml

The Commission wishes to stress that at this moment it is not definitively proposing these
specific values, but that the final Commission proposal will reflect in its standards the
recommendations eventually put forward by the WHO.

Much of the discussion about standards stems from the variety of different analytical methods
used in laboratories across Europe (due to which results from different laboratories were not
always comparable). The main issue is the differences in accuracy/uncertainty of the different
methods. The Commission therefore advocates linking one single (ISO or CEN) method to
each parameter.

The analysis of microbiological parameters is still time-consuming (it takes 12 to 48 hours
before results are confirmed) and therefore not really suited for rapid or immediate (re)action
to a pollution/contamination event. We would therefore consider two ‘instant’ indicators that
could indicate that something unusual has happened: divergence from 'normal' pH and/or
turbidity for fresh waters and divergence from 'normal' salinity for coastal waters. It is
clear that we cannot set a global “normal” standard for these parameters because some fresh
waters are naturally more alkaline or acidic or more turbid than others, and there is a
difference in salinity between the North Sea and the Mediterranean. However, a change in
pH/turbidity or salinity from ‘normal’ conditions for the bathing area in question would, in
any case, indicate that there is/has been an influx of ‘strange’ water – for example rainwater
or waste water – worth investigating.

As soon as the rapid tests, presently under development, for in situ measurements are
considered robust and reliable, the Commission will evidently encourage and support their
use.

Mass growth of (toxic) algae and/or macrophytes is increasingly becoming a problem.
Although we do not yet know the mechanism for this growth or cannot identify under which
circumstances algae become toxic, we do know that there is a strong correlation between
these phenomena and high levels of nutrients and water temperature. Water temperature
depends on the weather, so there is little we can do about that, but high levels of nutrients are
caused primarily by human activity and can thus be controlled, or at least influenced. It
therefore seems logical to consider including a nutrients parameter in the new Directive. The
new Directive should, in any case, contain some sort of protocol setting out what to do
when algae and macrophyte blooms occur.

4.6.

Obligations to take action

The existing Directive does not include any obligation to act or react when the water quality is
bad or when it deteriorates (accidentally or chronically). A new Bathing Water Directive
should foresee an obligation to act in order to obtain results within a certain limited, but
reasonable, timeframe.

Possible actions are multiple, such as investigation of the water quality deterioration,
improvement of waste water collection and treatment, managing stormwater overflows, and
permanent or temporary closures of bathing areas. However, the actions undertaken should
not only include reaction to a water quality problem. Preventive measures should also be
considered, such as emissions control and emissions surveillance, and posting of warning
signs on bathing zones setting out under which conditions the water quality cannot be

11

guaranteed. Thus "actions" includes both pro-active action, and reaction in response to a
specific event.

It must also be underlined that these actions should not just be limited to those required under
other environmental legislation such as the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive or the
Nitrates Directive. On the contrary, all necessary measures should be taken to improve the
water quality and/or to avoid public contact with polluted bathing water.

Management teams, especially in the bigger resort bathing waters could also be encouraged to
take complementary measures beyond the basic obligations of the Directive in order to make
their bathing areas even more attractive.

4.7.

Prediction of water quality

The ideal situation in terms of water quality management would be if we could predict the
water quality at any moment in time. In many sites, however, this is not presently possible.
With the current knowledge of science and techniques, water quality monitoring is still to a
large extent an ex post assessment. A lot of research is presently ongoing to develop water
quality models which account for a wide range possible influences. This research has so far
given reasonable results when it concerns rather small catchments or catchments with only a
small number of different potential
implementing
sophisticated prediction models for all bathing areas seems sheer impossibility. Such action
should therefore maybe be reserved for bigger resorts. Nevertheless, further development in
predicting water quality needs to be encouraged and supported.

sources of pollution. However,

Besides sophisticated computer models, simpler methods of water quality prediction are
already in operation. For example, in areas where heavy rainwater influx via a river is likely
to temporarily impair water quality, warning flags on the beach can be linked to a stage
recorder on the river. The Commission considers that beach managers should seek to find or
develop a predictive approach suited for their bathing area. Maybe even one day, it will be
possible to predict water quality by using satellite imagery and remote sensing.

4.8.

Information requirements, public participation and reporting

Due to the specific nature of bathing waters, zero-risk cannot be guaranteed. For this reason
and since we cannot yet predict water quality, it is essential to give the public all the
elements necessary to allow them to make their own informed choice about where and if
to go bathing. The new Bathing Water Directive will put a bigger emphasis on information,
and in particular on actively providing better information.

The existing Bathing Water Directive requires Member States to report monitoring results to
the Commission by 31 December of each year. The Commission compiles all these data into
its annual report, which is published before the next bathing season, thus indicating what
bathing water quality might be expected. This reporting cycle/exercise has, however, some
considerable disadvantages: the information in the report is ‘old’ since the water quality
during the previous bathing season is not necessarily the water quality you can expect during
the next – improving works could have been done, the weather conditions may not be the
same, there is the possibility of new or different inputs. Furthermore, in this approach to
reporting, the preventive aspect is totally absent.

The Directive should require the competent authorities to adopt new methods to actively
inform the public about bathing water quality, including about all known factors that might

12

influence that water quality. This information should be available at all times at the bathing
zone. The public should also have easy access at all times to the profile of each beach and the
history of its water quality. The best medium would be the internet; bathing zone profiles,
maps, water quality monitoring, action programmes can easily be put on local, regional or
even national sites. These sites should be easily accessible for anyone, be it citizens, NGOs,
regulators or scientists, either via private personal computers, libraries or tourism information
offices. However, the information dissemination should not be limited to the use of the
internet, also the more conventional media should be used: local newspapers, leaflets in
public places, etc.

Beneficial ‘side effects ’ of making this information public would be that 1) the public could
signal pollution or presumption of pollution; 2) the public would have a better understanding
of the issues and of the efforts made by the quality managers.

When remedial action is necessary, in particular but not exclusively when it involves major
infrastructure works, the public should be allowed to participate in the establishment of the
required action programmes.

4.9.

Keeping the Bathing Water Directive up-to-date

Changes to environmental and health objectives and main managerial approaches should be
the responsibility of the European Parliament and the Council based on a proposal by the
Commission. However, we do not want a new Directive to be locked in for the next 25 years
without any possibility of rapid updating in response to technical and scientific progress. For
instance, ongoing research might lead to new indicators whose rapid inclusion would ensure
at least the same, if not higher, levels of protection through improved reliability, but at
diminished costs.

Incorporation of such changes should be possible by using a management committee
following Decision 1999/468/EC7. This procedure would operate within the margins of inter-
institutional relations, with respect for the European Parliament, and with respect for the right
of initiative of the European Commission. Such a management committee should have a role
in changing selected details of the technical and scientific provisions, based on the best
available information.

7

Council Decision of 28 June 1999, laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers
conferred on the Commission (OJ L184, 17.7.1999, p. 26)

13

5.

SCOPE OF THE NEW BATHING WATER DIRECTIVE

The new Bathing Water Directive will clearly not only be a ‘results’ directive, but rather
an ‘effort and results’ directive. It will look not only at monitoring water quality but also at
actively tackling pollution sources, in particular waste water discharges and agricultural run-
off. These sources will also have to be marked and addressed in the river basin management
plans foreseen in the Water Framework Directive.

The implementation of the new Bathing Water Directive will be a good indicator of the
effectiveness of the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and of the
Nitrates Directive. Moreover, as implementation of the new Bathing Water Directive will be
well on track before the first deadlines of the Water Framework Directive, the Bathing Water
Directive will help provide a steer regarding the establishment and execution of the river
basin management plans.

Based on the relevant provisions of the Treaty and in coherence with the recently adopted
Water Framework Directive, the Commission intends to base its forthcoming Proposal for a
revised Bathing Water Directive on article 175(1) of the Treaty. The procedure for adoption
will therefore follow article 251 of the Treaty (co-decision procedure).

14

How to React to this Document

Besides the European Institutions – the European Parliament, the Council, the Committee of
the Regions and the Socio-Economic Committee – all interested and involved parties, such as
the technical and scientific community, Member States, regional and local authorities, water
users, the tourism industry and environmental and consumer protection NGOs are invited to
send the Commission their comments regarding this document. The Commission seeks
constructive criticism including any suggestions to improve or alter the proposed
approaches.

Reactions to this Communication should be sent before 1 March 2001 to:

European Commission
Directorate-General Environment
Unit on Water protection, soil conservation and agriculture
Avenue Beaulieu 9, office 3/133
1160 Brussels
Belgium

Submissions by email are particularly encouraged by using the email mailbox:
Env-Water@cec.eu.int

15

Annex I: Closely Related European Legislation and Policy

There are three Directives of particular relevance to a new Bathing Water Directive, namely
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive which addresses the more obvious point sources
of pollution, the Nitrates Directive and the Water Framework Directives, both of which will
help to detect and to remedy diffuse sources of pollution.

The management actions stipulated in the revised Bathing Water Directive for the coastal
the approach outlined in the Commission’s recent
bathing waters should also reflect
Communication on Integrated Coastal Zone Management8.
the
implementation of the Directive should be co-ordinated with other laws and regulations as
and Council
outlined in the Commission’s Proposal
Recommendation9 concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management.

a European Parliament

In that

context,

for

The Water Framework Directive and the Revised Bathing Water Directive: coherence
and reinforcement.

Community water policy has recently been thoroughly restructured by the adoption of the
Water Framework Directive10, which has the following main objectives:

• expanding water protection to all waters, groundwaters and surface waters including
coastal waters, and achieving 'good status' for those waters within a deadline of 15 years,
with a proper ecological dimension,

• integrated river basin management across administrative and political borders, with co-

ordinated programmes of measures,

• emissions and discharges controlled by a "combined approach" of emission limit values

and quality standards, plus a obligation to phase out particular hazardous substances;

• introducing water pricing policies, giving an incentive to use water in a sustainable way

and to protect resources,

• getting the citizen involved more closely by strengthening public participation.

When presenting its Proposal for the Water Framework Directive, the Commission stressed
the Bathing Water Directive's distinct contribution to the integration of environment policy
and tourism policy, as well as the benefits of its having a clear, separate identity. However,
the Bathing Water Directive (as indeed other elements of Community water legislation such
as the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive11 and the Nitrates Directive12) will need to be
closely co-ordinated with the Water Framework Directive. This approach is made operational
by the following provisions under the Water Framework Directive:

8

9

10

11

12

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Integrated
Coastal Zone Management: A Strategy for Europe (COM/2000/547).
Commission’s Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Recommendation concerning the
implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (COM/2000/545)
European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy, OJ references not yet available
Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment, OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991
Council Directive 91/676/EEC nitrates pollution from agricultural sources, OJ L 375 of 31.12.1991

16

• A general objective of 'good ecological status' or ‘good status’ (composed of chemical and

ecological quality) for all waters (article 4.1.a);

• In addition, specific objectives for so-called 'protected areas' such as for waters for the
abstraction of drinking water, for bathing waters, or for areas designated for the protection
of habitats or species (articles 4.1.c, 6 and 7)

• Integration, in a coherent way, of the provisions for bathing water protection into the river

basin management plans and the programme of measures (articles 13 and 11).

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

The main objectives of the Directive are:

• Protection of the environment from adverse effects of urban waste water discharges as well

as industrial discharges of certain industrial sectors with biodegradable waste water.

• Obligation for collecting and treating waste water in all areas where population and/or

economic activity are sufficiently concentrated (‘agglomerations’).

• Waste water treatment according to defined environmental criteria.

• Secondary (biological) treatment as a rule, with more advanced treatment obligatory in the
catchment of so-called ‘sensitive areas’; such sensitive area are eutrophic or potentially
eutrophic waters, waters used or intended for drinking water abstraction and subject to
elevated nitrates contents; and waters where advanced treatment is required to comply with
other Directives (e.g. the Bathing Water Directive); as an exception for discharges to
marine waters, primary treatment as a derogation option, subject to Commission approval.

• Deadlines: end-1998, end-2000 and end-2005, depending on the size of the discharge and

the characteristics of the affected water.

The Nitrates Directive

The objective of the Nitrates Directive is simple: Reduce existing, and prevent further,
nitrogen pollution from agricultural
less
eutrophication in seas, rivers and lakes and no nitrates level greater than 50mg/l, due to safer
storage and spreading of animal manure and fertilizers, and enhanced protection of soils
against erosion, through codes of good practice and action programs.

sources. This means

in practical

terms:

As well as impacting water by increasing levels of nutrients, pollution from agriculture can
also cause microbiological pollution through leakage or run-off of animal manure. This
creates problems which are sometimes difficult to solve in case of rainy summers for beaches
influenced by a river or by drainage areas with high livestock densities. Good agricultural
practices as foreseen under the Nitrates Directive can prevent or reduce significantly this type
of pollution.

17