Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the quality of bathing water
Date: 2002-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bathing water, dissemination of information, health policy, quality of the environment, quality standard, safety standard, water analysis

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/127

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the quality of
bathing water

(2003/C 45 E/15)

COM(2002) 581 final — 2002/0254(COD)

(Submitted by the Commission on 24 October 2002)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. INTRODUCTION

Protection of bathing waters has been one of the first, and one of the most successful, elements of
European Water Policy. The 1976 Bathing Water Directive (1) has not only set binding standards for
bathing waters throughout the European Union, but also resulted in an unprecedented public awareness,
as bathing water quality is perceived by the citizens as directly touching upon their daily life. The annual
Bathing Water Report published by the Commission each year before the start of the bathing season,
clearly underlines substantial progress in the quality of our bathing waters.

The most recent report — concerning the 2001 bathing season — shows a high degree of compliance as
well as significant improvements in water quality during the past 10 years. Improvements are particularly
impressive in coastal bathing areas; but also inland bathing waters (rivers, lakes) have now achieved a good
compliance rate.

Year

1992

2001

EU coastal waters

EU fresh waters

Compliant (1)

84,9 %

95,8 %

Other (2)

15,1 %

4,2 %

Compliant

47,5 %

91,1 %

Other

52,5 %

8,9 %

(1) Compliant with mandatory standards of Directive 76/160/EEC.
(2) Bathing areas not compliant with mandatory standards of Directive 76/160/EEC, or insufficiently sampled or with ban on bathing.

However, changes in science and technology as well as in managerial experience oblige the Commission to
revise EU environmental legislation where appropriate. The 1976 Bathing Water Directive clearly reflects
the state of knowledge and experience of the early 1970s, as regards the technical-scientific basis, the
managerial approach and the involvement of the public.

Initiatives to revise the Bathing Water Directive actually started in 1994, with the Commission presenting a
Proposal for a revision. This Proposal saw first reading in the European Parliament, but was never further
negotiated by the Council. It was preferred that a new Directive was developed, based on new scientific
evidence and on a broad consultation. However, this Proposal gave the incentive for further studies and
developments on bathing water quality, as regards parameters as well as the managerial approach.

Further, the European Union has recently completely restructured EU Water Policy by adopting the Water
Framework Directive (2), providing a coherent managerial framework for all water-related EU legislation.
The provisions of the Bathing Water Directive must be fully compatible with this new framework.

(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (OJ L 31, 5.2.1976).
(2) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000).

C 45 E/128

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

A survey (1) conducted by the Commission showed in 1999 that 71 % of Europeans are concerned about
water, air and soil pollution. Pollution of the sea, coasts, rivers and lakes are primary concerns. When it
comes to judging their immediate living environment, Europeans value good bathing water quality even
higher than all other water topics.

This high interest is also shown at the level of the Europa Bathing Water Website (2). In 2001, more than 2
million requests were registered, whereof more than 60 % in the period people plan their holiday (May to
July), and a further 9 % in August.

The Commission bases its Proposal for a revised Bathing Water Directive on the following considerations,
reasons and principles:

— Coherence with the Sustainable Development Strategy, the 6th EAP and with the objectives singled out
by the European Council for future development in priority areas such as ‘public health’ and ‘natural
resources’ (3).

— Coherence with other EU water-related legislation adopted since 1976, in particular with the Water

Framework Directive, must be ensured.

— The parameters used for setting the standards shall be reviewed and streamlined, focusing on robust
microbiological indicators and taking into account the monitoring system established under the Water
Framework Directive; parameters and values are to be based on the latest scientific evidence and a high
level of protection, also with a view to sensitive groups of citizens such as children.

— Care for our bathing waters needs to progress from simply sampling and monitoring to integrated

quality management.

— To ensure better and earlier information to the public, making use both of locally and regionally
information

available facilities and technology approaches such as the Internet and geographical
systems.

— The participatory processes shall be enhanced and expanded. Such implementation efforts have to
local and regional bodies,

involve not only Member States and the Commission, but in particular,
stakeholders and NGOs and the scientific community.

— Revision efforts shall also provide a further example of Good European Governance as outlined in the

Commission White Paper of October 2001.

2. THE CONTEXT FOR A NEW DIRECTIVE

2.1. European Water Legislation

2.1.1. The Water Framework Directive

On 23 October 2000 the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Water Framework Directive
establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

(1) Eurobarometer 51.1 http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/ebs_131_fr.pdf
(2) http://www.europa.eu.int/water/water-bathing/index_en.html
(3) Agreement achieved during trilogue March 2002; formal adoption by EP Plenary and Council foreseen May 2002.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/129

Whilst the Bathing Water Directive has a distinct contribution to the integration of policies on the
environment and tourism and a clear, separate identity, it will need to be closely coordinated with the
Water Framework Directive. This approach is made operational through provisions established under the
Water Framework Directive, with a general objective of achieving ‘good ecological status’ for all waters and
specific objectives for so-called ‘protected areas’ such as bathing waters (1).

2.1.2. The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive

The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (2) addresses key point sources of pollution from urban and
industrial discharges. Urban waste waters impact on waters both in terms of biodegradable material and
the addition of nutrients, which contribute to eutrophication. Many lakes as well as parts of our regional
seas (North Sea, Baltic Sea, parts of the Mediterranean) show significant eutrophication with large accumu-
lations of microscopic and macroscopic algae,
leading to marked changes in the ecosystem. These
conditions are unpleasant for bathers, and have a significant negative impact upon the bathing water's
reputation and on the tourist Industry.

The Directive sets out a high level of protection, as a rule secondary (biological) treatment, and even more
advanced treatment in ‘sensitive areas’ (nutrient removal). Implementation deadlines are phased from 1998
to 2005, depending on the size of the discharge and the characteristics of the affected water.

The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive contains a provision calculating the load taking into account
possible increase during the touristic season. Non respect of these provisions is a frequent cause of
bacteriological pollution of bathing water.

2.1.3. The Directive on Nitrates Pollution from Agricultural Sources

The Nitrates Directive (3) aims at reducing nitrogen pollution from agricultural sources, and at preventing
further such pollution. Pollution by nitrates impacts on eutrophication of both inland and coastal waters
(causing effects as described above).

In areas subject to eutrophication or potential eutrophication, legally binding measures have to be taken
(manure storage capacities, restrictions in application of manure etc.).

Recent experience gained by Member States has shown that run-off, leakage and direct access of cattle to
rivers may cause significant diffuse microbiological pollution of bathing waters (4) (5). As such, bathing
water quality control will contribute to the creation of good agricultural practices as foreseen under the
Nitrates Directive.

(1) Annex IV of the Water Framework Directive lists the areas: areas designated for the abstraction of drinking water, for
the protection of economically significant aquatic species, recreational waters including bathing waters, nutrient-
sensitive areas (including areas designated under the Nitrates Directive and under the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive), as well as areas designated for the protection of habitats or species.

(2) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 (OJ L 135, 30.5.1991).
(3) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 (OJ L 275, 31.12.1991).
(4) Faecal Indicator Organism Sources and Budgets for the Irvine and Girvan catchments, Ayrshire — a report to West

of Scotland Water, Sepa and South Ayrshire Council by the Centre of Environment and Health, 1999.

(5) Economic Evaluation of the Bathing water Directive (76/160), Fylde Coast case study, European Commission,

2001-2002.

C 45 E/130

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

2.2. Related European Union Policies

2.2.1. Access to Environmental Information

Since 1976 policy and legislation on environmental
information and public participation has evolved
considerably. The 1990 Directive on the freedom of access to information on the environment (1),
constitutes a cornerstone in EU legislation on public awareness and involvement, as it catalysed the
way public authorities approach the process of openness and transparency.

With the signing, in 1998, and ongoing ratification of the UN-ECE Convention on Access to Information,
Public Participation in Decision Making (‘Aarhus Convention’), the European Union and its Member States
are committed to increased information and participation. The Commission has adopted a Proposal for a
Directive on public access to environmental information, in order to adapt the 1990 Directive to the
electronic media and to deliver on the EU's commitments under the Aarhus Convention (2). The new
Bathing Water Directive must be coherent with this proposal. In practice, better information would mean
presenting real-time information on beach conditions, management practices and bathing water quality.
This would have to be done at a local level, and beyond the local level on the Internet.

2.2.2. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (3)

is a multi-disciplinary approach to promote sustainable
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)
information collection, planning (in its
management of coastal zones.
broadest sense), decision making, management and monitoring. ICZM uses the informed participation
and co-operation of all stakeholders to assess the societal goals in a given coastal area. The revised
Bathing Water Directive will take into account ICZM principles.

It covers the full cycle of

3. THE RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON A NEW BATHING WATER DIRECTIVE

3.1. Council

In December 2000 the Commission published a Communication ‘Developing a new Bathing Water
Policy’ (4). The Council responded to the Commission's Communication by Council Conclusions of 8
March 2001,

— welcoming the foreseen review and requesting that the forthcoming legislative proposal adhere to

certain principles;

— supporting the emphasis on water quality management and long-term trends;

— requesting clear and unambiguous definitions, further clarification on the relationship with other water

directives as well as cost-benefit considerations;

— supporting early and better information of the public.

(1) Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 (OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56).
(2) Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on public access to environ-

mental information of 29 June 2000, COM(2000) 402.

(3) COM(2000) 547.
(4) COM(2000) 860.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/131

3.2. European Parliament

The European Parliament did not adopt a report on the Commission Communication ‘Developing a new
Bathing Water Policy’, but stressed on earlier occasions the importance of bathing water protection and the
need for coherence with the Water Framework Directive. Further, the European Parliament demanded an
expansion of the scope of the Directive to include recreational waters (1). The agreement between Council
and Parliament on the 6th Environmental Action Programme confirmed the support for a revision of the
Bathing Water Directive (2).

3.3. Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions attached particular interest to monitoring and assessing eutrophication,
caused both by natural source or impact of human activities. It emphasised the need to take into account
regional differences when defining elements such as the length of the bathing season or sampling
regimes (3).

3.4. Consultation of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment

(SCTEE)

The Commission has consulted the Scientific Committee on the choice of parameters and the values
the two chosen
attached to them. On the question ‘Does the Scientific Committee consider that
indicators (4) (by the Communication COM(2000) 860) and the suggested limit values are appropriate
for the protection of humans,’ the CSTEE delivered the following opinion (5):

— Even though the two studies taken into consideration by the Commission are recognised as scien-

tifically sound, the CSTEE recommends to make use of all the available information.

— The two parameters are representative of the most reported episodes of contamination and they are
correlated with health problems. Assessment of both indicators in coastal and fresh waters will provide
more information and could help determining the sources of contamination. Nevertheless, research on
viral indicators remains necessary. Under the current state of knowledge it is difficult to determine a
threshold limit for Escherichia coli and Intestinal Enterococci
(below which no adverse effect are
the
observed) and that any chosen limit will not at all
Committee confirms that under the current state of knowledge, the Communication's suggestions
are in the right range, but relying on data obtained from different assay methods to fix values is
questionable.

times be universally true. However,

— Indicator organisms should be assayed using intercalibrated, standardised procedures such as ISO CEN

methods.

— The need to consider the variability of bathing conditions within Europe must be taken into account in

the proposal.

3.5. Further consultations with Member States, stakeholders, experts, non-governmental organi-

sations and the wider public

Following the Communication the Commission facilitated a large-scale consultation of all interested and
involved parties. Comments and suggestions were received in writing, by email and on the Internet, but
also during specific consultation meetings. One of the key elements of the consultations was a 3-day
Bathing Water Conference during Green Week in April 2000.

(1) European Parliament, December 1996 plenary session, 1st reading of Commission Proposal for adaptation of

Directive 76/160/EEC, document A4-0395/96.

(2) Agreement achieved during trilogue March 2002; formal adoption by EP Plenary and Council foreseen May 2002.
(3) COM-4/048 of 14 June 2001.
(4) Escherichia coli and Intestinal enterococci.
(5) Opinion expressed at the 23rd CSTEE plenary meeting on 24 April 2001.

C 45 E/132

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

Main findings of this consultation process:

— general support for developing a new Bathing Water Directive;

— parameters and values to be based on latest scientific evidence;

— coherence with the new Water Framework Directive as regards monitoring, management approach and

obligations, as well as public participation;

— more, better and earlier information to the public;

— differences of opinion on the scope of a new Bathing Water Directive, i.e. certain types of recreational

waters (for windsurfing etc.) to be included in the scope or not.

Between July 2001 and February 2002 the Commission organised further expert meetings with Member
States and regions, stakeholders, non-governmental organisations and the scientific community. The
complementary findings can be summarised as follows:

— The Scope of the Directive: Reservations by many Member States to expand the scope of the Directive
to recreational waters (used for windsurfing, canoeing etc.); reservations were largely related to costs
implications.

— Parameters: General agreement on restricting the choice to a limited number of microbiological
parameters; agreement on the epidemiological correlation between numerical values for
these
parameters and the ensuing health risk, as put forward in section 4. The available epidemiological
correlation provide a coherent basis. Agreement that defining the permissible risk is a political, not a
scientific decision; the Commission stressed in this context the need for a high level of protection
(article 174 of the Treaty).

— Management approaches: Agreement that the Directive should set out principles whilst leaving further
details to implementation efforts. On implementation, a broad participation base of national auth-
orities, regional and local bodies, stakeholders, non-governmental organisations and of the Commission
was generally supported.

4. THE MAIN LINES OF A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW BATHING WATER DIRECTIVE

4.1. The Continued importance of EU Bathing Water Policy; coherence with the 6th Environ-

mental Action Programme

It remains important to protect citizens from risks of bathing in waters of insufficient quality. Waters do
not respect administrative and political borders, neither do the impacts of pollution on those waters.
Appropriate measures should be based on common quality standards ensuring a high level of protection
(article 174 of the Treaty). Whilst the framework and its standards should in a coherent way be provided
at EU level, the approach should also provide for sufficient flexibility at the local and regional level. It is at
this level that that appropriate and cost effective management approaches can be taken.

4.2. Coherence with EU water policy, in particular the Water Framework Directive

The EU has recently thoroughly restructured its water protection policy. A new Bathing Water Directive
needs to ensure coherence with the Water Framework Directive and form an integral part of this water
protection policy. This approach is made operational on the one hand through provisions established
under the Water Framework Directive (meaning general objective of ‘good ecological status’ for all waters
plus complementary objectives for so-called 'protected areas' such as bathing waters, with river basin
management plans and programmes of measures as the managerial instrument), and on the other hand
by choosing parameters, measures, managerial approaches and deadlines for the revised Bathing Water
Directive which are compatible with those under the Water Framework Directive efforts.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/133

4.3. Scope

The 1976 Directive's main aim was improving water quality and thereby protecting the health of citizens
who use natural water bodies for bathing. At that time, bathing meant mainly ‘swimming’. During the past
25 years, a lot of social and technical changes have occurred. New water activities like surfing, wind-
surfing, kayaking, etc. have developed. In all these activities, falling into the water, submerging and
swallowing of water is commonplace. This also applies for canoeing and kayaking on fresh waters,
especially when the sport is practised in a family context,
i.e. by non experienced users, as water
contact and immersion are rather likely.

These new patterns of recreational water use present significant challenges. First of all, at any given site,
windsurfing, kayaking, sailboarding are often practised at significant distances (1 km or more) from the
shore. In contrast bathing/swimming typically takes place within a distance of 50 to 100 metres. Secondly,
practitioners of these more physically demanding water sports are often prepared to go to sites, which are
not suitable for bathing/swimming. Thirdly, with the development of new materials, recreational water
sports can now be undertaken over an extended period: far longer than the traditional bathing season.
Finally, some of the new recreational uses of water are not always compatible with swimming and bathing,
necessitating the division of a bathing area into different zones.

In the light of the above considerations it is legitimate to ask whether the level of protection (in terms of
water quality and management practices) which is currently afforded to bathers should be extended to
those pursuing other recreational water uses irrespective of location, or time of the year.

The Commission has taken the view that it would not be appropriate to include the new recreational uses
of water in the definition of bathing waters as to do so would oblige Member States to significantly
increase the extent, both physically and temporally, of water quality protection, monitoring and
management obligations.

However, the Commission does consider it appropriate that Member States should improve the level of
protection afforded to persons engaging in these newer water sports. To this end, Member States should
identifying clearly whether water quality
ensure that relevant information is provided to the public,
monitoring and other management practices ensure an equal
level of protection for practitioners of
these sports. This will have an impact on the classification (quality label) which the bathing waters will
receive.

4.4. Parameters

The 1976 Directive established 19 parameters, against the then prevailing background of knowledge and
experience, existing problems in water quality and the fact that the Directive was amongst the very first
pieces of EU water legislation. The Commission now proposes a drastic reduction in the number of
parameters, from 19 parameters to 2 key microbiological parameters in the new Directive, complemented
by visual inspection (algae bloom, oil) and pH measurement in fresh waters.

The reasons for this proposed drastic reduction are twofold. Firstly, an assessment of monitoring results
and trends leads to the conclusion that microbiological pollution is, in the vast majority of cases, the
limiting factor for achieving good bathing water quality. Secondly, the Water Framework Directive has
established a comprehensive chemical and biological monitoring system for all waters including coastal
waters, to be operational by the end of 2006.

In the 1976 Directive three microbiological parameters were monitored (Total Coliforms, Faecal Coliforms
and Faecal Streptococci), but the first two parameters are in the same family of bacteria, and the third
(Faecal Streptococci) was only taken into account as a guide to better water quality.

C 45 E/134

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

The two faecal indicator parameters retained in the revised Directive are Intestinal Enterococci (IE) and
Escherichia coli (EC), providing the best available match between faecal pollution and health impacts in
recreational waters. The choice of the microbiological parameters and values was based on available
scientific evidence provided by epidemiological studies (1).

It is thus evident that the drastic reduction of parameters in a new Bathing Water Directive will provide for
considerable reduction of costs, avoid parallel efforts, but at the same time not entail any reduction in the
level of protection for the citizens.

4.5. Parametric values

A WHO epidemiological study (2) examined the relationship between the level of microbiological contami-
nation (based on Intestinal Enterococci/IE as parameter) and the level of illness with people bathing in
contaminated water. WHO defined a 1 % risk for illness occurrence due to bathing as ‘an excess illness of
one incidence in every 100 exposures’, compared to non-bathers.

The dose-response relation between contamination risk and the 95th percentile value of the IE indicator
for contracting gastro-enteritis and AFRI (3) by bathing in microbiologically contaminated water is shown
in the following graph.

WHO — Risks for GI and AFRI due to EI exposure

(Risk on contracting Gastro-Enteritis (GI) and Respiratory Illnesses (AFRI)

A randomised epidemiological study on health risks from bathing in German fresh water bathing sites (4),
using the same protocol, confirmed WHO research on IE and indicated that an EC to IE ratio ranging from
2 to 3 would be appropriate to reflect equal risk.

(1) Institute of General and Environmental Hygiene University of Tübingen (DE) (2000, 2001), World Health Organi-
sation (Farnham Report) (2001), Institut de Veille Sanitaire (F) (2001), National Institute of Public Health and the
Environment (NL) (1997).

(2) Carried out in the UK from 1989 to 1992 (Kay et al., 1994).
(3) Acute febrile respiratory illness (Fleisher, 1996).
(4) Carried out by Wiedenmann et al. (2000, 2001).

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/135

Based on these latest studies and taking into account the Treaty requirement to ensure a high level of
protection, the Commission therefore proposes a legally binding ‘Good Quality’ value and an ‘Excellent
Quality’ guide value for Intestinal Enterococci and Escherichia coli concentration in bathing water as set
out in the following table:

Microbiological Parameters

Excellent Quality (guide)

Good Quality (obligatory)

Intestinal Enterococci (IE) in cfu/100 ml

Escherischia coli (EC) in cfu/100 ml

100

250

200

500

4.6. Considerations on health risk

The standards proposed are equivalent to a risk of 5 % (‘Good’ Standard) and 3 % for contracting gastro-
interitis and to a risk of 2,5 % (‘Good’ Standard) and 1 % for contracting AFRI.

the expertise of

the independent Scientific
These figures are in line with WHO research. Further,
Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment
(SCTEE) has been sought, the Committee
agreeing on both parameters. The Committee considered that the values proposed by the Communication
on Bathing Water Quality (1) seemed to be in an acceptable range, although on the basis of available data,
setting scientifically sound limit values was not possible. Nevertheless the risk level may look alarming. No
parent would be comfortable to let their children bathe if there was a 1 in 20 chance of infection.
the risk values indicated above are based on repetitive exposure to concentrations of
However,
contaminants, as high as the proposed ‘Good’ standards.
In reality, many bathing waters will have
water quality equal to or better than ‘Excellent’, and reaching the ‘Excellent’ standard will be a marked
positive point for the concerned bathing water. Furthermore, risk levels will be further reduced by
adequate information of the citizen at or close to the beach and managerial action taken, both based
on the profile for the particular bathing water and the results of monitoring.

A comparative assessment of old and new standards leads to the following conclusions: Bathing waters
complying with the Guide standards of the 1976 Directive carry a bathing risk of 5 % on gastro-enteritis,
those complying only with the Imperative standards a risk of about 12 % to 15 %. The majority of bathing
waters comply with the Guide standards of the 1976 Directive (> 85 % of coastal sites, > 70 % of
freshwater sites).

4.7. Monitoring of bathing waters

Under the 1976 Bathing Water Directive, Member States have been able to build up a long experience
monitoring bathing waters, yet complemented by the implementation of the Urban Wastewater, Nitrates-
Water Framework Directives. Monitoring points will be set up when establishing the bathing water profile
in places, which reflect the water quality to which bathers are exposed.

There will be flexibility on monitoring frequencies, allowing for a reduction of sampling in bathing waters
without major problems, and continued monitoring at routine frequencies in the case of ‘problem’ waters,
in particular to ensure early and adequate information to the citizen. Further, quality assurance measures
shall address the challenge of reliably providing a sound basis both for information to the public and for
managerial action where appropriate.

(1) Communication COM(2000) 860 brought forward 50 IE and 400 EC.

C 45 E/136

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

4.8. Standards for Handling of Samples

Relying on data from different assay methods to fix limit values is questionable. Standards on parameter
values must be accompanied by harmonised methods used for handling the samples. The way the sample
is taken and the way storage and transport is organised may influence the results of the microbiological
analysis. To ensure maximum comparability between the analyses carried out in the different Member
States,
it is therefore considered appropriate to establish guidelines for the handling of samples. The
Directive foresees adaptation to new (ISO-CEN) (1) standards which are currently in preparation.

4.9. From sampling and monitoring to adequate management of our bathing waters

The management of bathing water quality needs to be more than just sampling and monitoring. In the
proposed revision, authorities are given an important role in developing bathing water profiles, in ident-
ifying potential sources of contamination (with appropriate mitigation measures), in collecting, analysing
and interpreting information on water quality and providing information to the public. Also, authorities
should react on emergency events and particularly inform the public when bathing is not advisable.

4.10. From numerical ‘compliance’ to management driven conformity

At the end of each bathing season, monitored data collected during the last three years are assessed, as
explained in Annex I. Based on the outcome of the calculation, the bathing waters are classified (see Annex
II) as ‘Poor’, ‘Good’ or ‘Excellent’. ‘Excellent’ classification can only be obtained if the quality complies with
the standard set down in the directive and if management measures have taken into account the range of
recreational water uses practised at the bathing area.

A minimum classification ‘Good’ and full monitoring of all parameters are needed to assure Bathing water
in conformity to the directive. However, if ‘Good’ classification was not reached, a bathing water will still
be regarded as conforming with the directive on condition that appropriate measures are taken to bring
the water quality into compliance within a 3 year period. Measures must also be taken to inform the
public and to prevent human exposure to pollution.

4.11. Importance of research and technical development

Research and technical development has in the past contributed to improved knowledge and under-
standing, in particular on epidemiological correlations. At the same time efforts need to be continued
in this field to further develop parameters and methods of analysis delivering even higher reliability and
quicker and less costly results, as well as addressing new challenges in water quality. In particular, research
on virus detection methods is underway. Continued activity with the EU research programmes (2) will
contribute to that aim, allowing adaptation of the Directive to scientific and technical progress.

4.12. Regulatory Committee

A Regulatory Committee shall assist the Commission in addressing, where appropriate, adaptations to
scientific and technical progress. This concerns issues such as newly developed parameters ensuring the
same level of protection, even more reliable and less costly than the present ones, methods of analysis or
the development of guidelines on selected issues of implementation.

(1) (ISO 19458), not yet announced, likely 2004.
(2) Commission Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the multiannual
framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities aimed at contributing
towards the creation of the European research area of 21 February 2001, COM(2001) 94 final.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/137

4.13. Participatory approaches in developing and implementing the Directive — an example of

Good European Governance; subsidiarity

The Commission has developed the Proposal for a revised Bathing Water Directive in a broad consultation
with all interested and involved parties. Such an approach needs to be adopted not only in developing EU
environmental legislation, but also in implementing it. Implementation has to involve not only Member
States and the Commission, but in particular local and regional bodies, enforcement agencies, stakeholders
and NGOs and the scientific community. Such initiatives should provide a further example of Good
European Governance as outlined in the Commission White Paper of July 2001 (1).

The new Bathing Water Directive will provide for shared and coherent responsibilities between the EU and
Member States and their regions. There is need for defining coherent environmental and health objectives
at an EU level, as well as comparable methods of sampling, analysis and evaluation, at the same time
ensuring flexibility in issues such as monitoring frequencies or managerial action to address problems in
bathing water quality, taking into account local and regional circumstances and making best use of
knowledge and experience available in the particular region.

5. LEGAL BASIS

The Commission bases its Proposal on article 175(1) of the Treaty.

6. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS IMPACT ASSESSMENT

EU Bathing Water Policy has in the past, based on the 1976 Directive, delivered considerable
In many regions good
achievements, both in promoting tourism and in improving water quality.
bathing water quality has been a considerable factor in promoting the tourism industry; the enormous
interest by the public and the media in the Commission's annual Bathing Water Report underlines these
facts. Efforts for increased protection of waters have at the same time entailed costs for upgrading infra-
structure on waste water treatment.

Specific studies that have carried out comprehensive economic assessments of changes in the quality of
bathing water are rare in Europe, while several studies have investigated economic issues related partially
to water quality improvements. Studies demonstrate the economic importance of bathing water quality
improvements, for specific regions and bathing sites as well as for specific economic sectors and busi-
nesses. Overall,
improving bathing water quality leads to a reduction in human health hazard and
treatment costs, an increase in the turn-over of economic sectors (mainly tourism, but also fisheries),
an increase in property values and the economic value of land, as well as increases in non-monetised
effects such as aesthetic and cultural values. As illustrations:

— A GESAMP (2)/WHO study (3) — based on global estimates of the number of tourists who bathe
worldwide, and on WHO estimates of the relative risks at various levels of contamination -estimates
that bathing in polluted seas causes some 250 million cases of gastro-enteritis and upper respiratory
disease every year. Some of these people will be disabled over the longer term. The global impact can
be measured by adding up the total years of healthy life that are lost through disease, disability and
death using a new measurement — the Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY) — developed by WHO
and the World Bank. When this is done, the world-wide burden of disease incurred by bathing in the
sea, adds up to some 400 000 DALYs, comparable to the global impacts of diphtheria and leprosy. It
is estimated to cost society, worldwide, about USD 1,6 billion a year.

(1) Commission White Paper ‘Good European Governance’ of 25 July 2001, COM(2001) 428 final.
(2) GESAMP is a advisory body consisting of specialised experts nominated by the Sponsoring Agencies (IMO, FAO,

UNESCO-IOC, WMO, WHO, IAEA, UN, UNEP).

(3) A Sea of Troubles ISBN 82-7701-010-9.

C 45 E/138

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

— Studies undertaken for the Opal Coast in the Artois-Picardie river basin (1) in France estimated at
between EUR 300 million to EUR 500 million the yearly economic loss that the tourism sector
would suffer if
the quality of bathing water would deteriorate. These economic losses can be
compared with the overall EUR 150 million investments in sewerage and wastewater treatment that
have been spent over the last 10 years for obtaining the current bathing water quality;

— A study undertaken for Rhodos Island (2) in Greece assessed the overall benefits of avoiding degradation
to the coastal environment from an increasing pressure from tourism. Overall, avoiding degradation
would lead to benefits (avoided damage) of EUR 15 millions per year or 3 % of the GDP of the island;

— Studies in the United Kingdom (3) estimated for several sites the willingness of people to pay for
reducing the risk of illness as a result of revising the existing Bathing Water Quality Directive. On
average, people's willingness to pay was estimated at between EUR 25-45 per year.

In preparing the Proposal for a revised Bathing Water Directive, the Commission has, in 2001, commis-
sioned an economic study (4). The study selected case studies in various regions representing diverse
conditions

— coastal waters and freshwaters,

— Northern and Southern waters,

— waters with high and with low tourist presence.

The study, done in cooperation with Member States, regional and local bodies, focused on the following
case studies:

— Fylde coast in England (United Kingdom),

— Barcelona area in the Catalonia region (Spain),

— Célé river in the Aquitaine region (France), and

— Ayrshire coast in Scotland (United Kingdom).

The findings of the case studies lead to the conclusion that for most sites it will be feasible to achieve
water quality standards stricter than existing ones. As far as compliance to the current Bathing water
Directive is assured, costs remain below foreseen benefits. Given the importance of tourism as regards
benefits assessment, benefits will be higher where tourism is important, even for very strict standards.

In areas with a high density of population and/or with CSOs (5) immediately adjacent to bathing waters,
increased storage facilities and extensive treatment of urban waste waters are needed as a major measure.
In catchments with considerable impact of diffuse pollution, application of codes of good practices for
agriculture (in compliance with existing legislation) will already help improving bathing water quality.

(1) Agence de l'Eau Artois-Picardie: Qualité de l'eau, tourisme et activités récréatives: la recherche d'un développement

durable (1997).

(2) Constantinides, G. 1993: Costs and benefits of measures for the reduction of degradation of the environment from

land based sources of pollution in coastal areas. Case study of the Island of Rhodes.

(3) Georgiou, S. et al. 2000: Coastal bathing water health risks: developing a means of assessing the adequacy of

proposals to amend the 1976 EC Directive. Risk Decision and Policy, vol. 5, pp 49-68.

(4) European Commission. Economic evaluation of the Bathing Water Quality Directive 76/160/EEC and of its revision.
A study undertaken for DG Environment, European Commission by WRc in 2001 and 2002 This study is available
on http://forum.europa.eu.int and http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/Home/main (registration is needed).
(5) Combined sewer overflows. This is an overflow into a river or sea (or other receiving water body), due to weather
conditions like heavy rainfall, of a sewage system designed to receive combined rain water and sewage water.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/139

Some problems may remain in a limited number of cases requiring more drastic interventions and
solutions and where visitors to bathing sites (thus benefits) are very low. Examples to illustrate these
general conclusions:

— For the Barcelona area (Spain), where tourism is a significant part of the economy, benefits outweigh
costs for all scenarii tested. For example, benefits are estimated at EUR 12 per visitor per season when
the associated costs are only at EUR 4 per visitor per season, for standards fixed at 200 FS (1) with
95 % of the samples complying.

— For the Fylde coast (England) benefits estimated per season visit are higher than costs for a 500 FS
standard (at 95 % of the samples) but lower than the benefits per person for the 200 FS (at 95 % of the
samples) standard. But in reality, actions will be necessary to reduce the influence of agricultural diffuse
pollution in relation with the Water Framework Directive, the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive,
Nitrate and Shellfish Directive (2). Reduction of parameter values for these directives will have a
beneficial effect on faecal contamination. These measures could reduce the total diffuse pollution
abatement costs for the revision of the Bathing Water Directive.

— In Ayrshire, which has less bathers, costs per season visit are above benefits. The key problem is that

substantial efforts are needed to meet the existing Bather Water Quality Directive.

— River Célé has no costs for complying with the 200 FS (at 95 % of the samples) standard and moderate

costs for reaching the highest standard of 40 FS (at 95 % of the samples).

— The comparison between case studies showed the wide range of measures that would need to be
considered in the different bathing sites for reaching stricter bathing water quality standards and
dealing with key pollution sources. From more traditional measures, such as increasing CSO storage
in the case of Barcelona (Spain) or adding sewerage pipes to connect 100 % of the population in the
Célé river (France), to removing animals from saltmarshes in the Fylde coast (England) or developing
network storage on drainage for grazed fields in the Ayrshire basin (Scotland).

The study illustrates as well the impact of the proposal on monitoring costs. Current monitoring costs
linked to the 1976 Bathing Water Directive have been estimated at EUR 15 million per year. Monitoring
and management costs are likely to increase in the short term, as a result of the need to increase the
frequency of sampling. However, in the longer term, revision of the Directive will lead to a small reduction
in the monitoring costs as polluted bathing sites are cleaned and monitoring frequency reduced.

The results of the cost-benefit analysis suggests that in the case of some existing bathing beaches, waters
just cannot meet the proposed standards because of natural bacteriological pollution intrinsic to the site
(like birds). If so, it is clear that the proposed legislation could result in these beaches being classified as
‘poor’ or being removed from the list of bathing waters by the Member States.

Bathing water profiles will lead to new initial and maintenance costs, estimated at EUR 13 million per
year. However, it is expected that Member States will ensure best integration and synergies between the
development of beach profiles and the analysis of impacts and pressures as required for the Water
Framework Directive for 2004, and the river basin management plans by 2008-2009. Thus, extra costs
resulting from the development of beach profiles will be kept to a minimum. Overall, aggregated moni-
toring and beach profile costs remain very small as compared to costs of measures required for improving
bathing water quality.

(1) The study was performed on FS (Faecal Streptococci), which are equivalent to IE (Intestinal Enterococci).
(2) ‘Costing of the Revision to the Bathing Water Directive’, Report made by DEFRA, UK, May 2002.

C 45 E/140

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

It has not proved possible to carry out a full cost-benefit analysis of the implications of the proposed
legislation for the EU as a whole. The UK government has however recently published two studies
presenting more comprehensive benefits and costs estimates for 470 UK beaches. The benefits study,
based on a survey of public willingness to pay, found amenity benefits of some GBP 60 million and
health benefits of £62 million, amounting to a total of GBP 122 million. The study found a cost of
implementing the proposed 200 FS (95 %) standard of some GBP 250 million per year (1). However, a
significant proportion of these estimated costs is attributed to measures to reduce agricultural diffuse
pollution. In the report it is indicated that confidence in estimated costs related to agricultural pollution
is low. Furthermore, the report characterises these cost projections as ‘conservative over-estimates’.

(1) Derived using the UK Treasury's discount rate of 6 %: the respective net present costs of the standards are GBP 9,7

million and GBP 3 500 million respectively.

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE
EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and in particular Article 175(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social
Committee,

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions,

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article
251 of the Treaty,

Whereas:

(1) Building on the Commission's Communication on
sustainable development (1),
the European Council has
singled out objectives as general guidance for future devel-
opment in priority areas such as natural resources and
public health.

(2) Water

is a scarce natural

resource which must be
protected, defended and treated as such. Surface waters
in particular are renewable resources with a limited
capacity to recover from adverse impacts from human
activities.

(3) EU policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of
protection, and contribute to pursuing the objectives of
preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the
environment and of protecting human health.

(4) European bathing water policy's continued importance is
evident each bathing season as it protects the public from
accidental and chronic pollution discharged in or near
European bathing areas and the overall quality of
bathing waters has improved considerably since Council
Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning
the quality of bathing water (2) came into force. That
Directive reflects, however, the state of knowledge and
experience of the early seventies. Patterns of recreational
water use have changed as has the state of scientific and
technical knowledge.

(5) In December 2000 the Commission adopted a Communi-
cation to the European Parliament and the Council on
Developing a new bathing water policy (3) and initiated
a large-scale consultation of all
interested and involved
parties. The main outcomes of this consultation were a
general support for developing a new Directive based on
the
and giving particular
evidence
attention to wider public participation.

scientific

latest

(6) Decision [3618/1/02] of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 3 May 2002 laying down the Sixth
Community Environment Action Programme contains a
commitment to bring forward a proposal for a revision of
Directive 76/160/EEC.

(7) This Directive

should

in
use
implementing the most reliable indicator parameters for
predicting bacteriological health risk and achieve a high
level of protection.

scientific

evidence

(2) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Directive

91/692/EEC (OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48).

(1) COM(2001) 264.

(3) COM(2000) 860 final.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/141

the European Parliament and of

(8) In order to increase efficiency and wise use of resources
this Directive needs to be closely coordinated with other
Community legislation concerning water such as Directive
2000/60/EC of
the
Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework
for Community action the field of water policy (1),
Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991
concerning urban waste water treatment (2) and Council
Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning
the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources (3).

(9) Appropriate

information on planned measures

and
progress on implementation should be disseminated to
the community of stakeholders. New technology that
allows the public to be informed in an efficient and
comparable way
the
Community should be applied.

bathing waters

across

on

(10) This Directive should take into account new types of
water recreation, which have gained in popularity due
to social changes and to new types of sporting materials
and equipment.

(11) For the purpose of monitoring, harmonised methods and
practises of analysis need to be applied. Observation and
quality assessment over an extended period is necessary in
order to get a realistic bathing water classification. Moni-
toring actions and frequency should,
in their turn be
related to the bathing water's history and classification,
putting emphasis on bathing waters where risks may
occur. Conformity should be a matter of appropriate
management measures and quality assurance, not merely
of measuring and calculation.
In parallel, particular
attention shall be attached to adherence to quality
standards
from Directive
76/160/EEC.

transition

coherent

and

(12) To protect and inform the public timely on exceptional
events like floods or infrastructure breakdowns, appro-
priate emergency plans should be developed,
including
early warning systems.

(13) The UN/ECE Convention on Access to Information, Public
Aarhus
Participation
Convention (4),
to
human health and safety and ‘social economical factors’
to environmental decision making. This Directive should

Decision Making
‘environmental

in
relates

information’

(the

(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1. Directive as amended by Decision No

2455/2001/EC (OJ L 331. 15.12.2001, p. 1).
(2) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40. Directive as

last amended by

Commission Directive 98/15/EC (OJ L 67, 7.3.1998, p. 29).

(3) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.
(4) United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe, Fourth Minis-
for Europe’, Aarhus, Denmark,

‘Environment

terial Conference,
23-25 June 1998, ECE/CEP/43.

be in accordance with the Directive (5)
European Parliament and of
the Council of
public access to environmental information (6).

[. . .] of

the
[. . .] on

(14) The measures necessary for the implementation of this
Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council
Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the
procedures
implementing powers
the exercise of
conferred on the Commission (7).

for

(15) Since the objectives of the proposed action, which aims at
reaching throughout the Community good bathing water
quality and a high level of protection, cannot be
sufficiently achieved by the Member States, without
common standards and can therefore be better achieved
at Community level, the Community may adopt measures,
in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out
in Article 5 of
In accordance with the
principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article,
this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in
order to achieve those objectives.

the Treaty.

(16) Directive 76/160/EEC should be repealed accordingly,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Objectives

For the purpose of preserving, protecting and improving the
quality of the environment and of protecting human health this
Directive lays down provisions for the monitoring and classi-
fication of bathing water quality and for providing information
to the public thereof.

It shall, with particular emphasis on environment and health,
complement objectives and measures set out
in Directive
2000/60/EC.

Article 2

Scope

This Directive shall cover all bathing water, with the exception
of:

1. waters used for therapeutic purposes;

2. waters used in swimming pools and spa pools;

(5) Second reading May 2002.
(6) COM(2000) 402.
(7) OJ C 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

C 45 E/142

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

3. confined waters subject to treatment;

4. waters in confined surface waters, artificially created and
separated from natural waters like groundwater, surface
waters, or coastal water.

Article 3

Definitions

For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions
shall apply:

1.

‘Bathing water’: all running or still
inland surface waters,
transitional waters and coastal waters (or parts thereof)
where:

a) bathing is not prohibited and is traditionally practised by

a large number of bathers, or

b) public bodies or commercial interests actively promote

bathing.

2.

‘Bathing season’: the period during which bathers can be
expected,
local customs and local rules,
taking into account climate and topological conditions.

in the light of

3.

‘Management measures’:
undertaken on bathing water:

the following measures that are

(a) establishing and maintaining a bathing water profile;

(b) establishing a monitoring calendar;

(c) monitoring the bathing water;

(d) assessing bathing water quality;

(e) classifying the bathing water;

4.

‘Other recreational activities’: those activities, where devices
are used to move across the water, involving a meaningful
risk of swallowing water, such as surfing, windsurfing and
kayaking.

5.

‘Transitional waters’ and ‘coastal water’ have the same
meaning as under Directive 2000/60/EC.

6.

‘Emergency condition’: an exceptional condition, impacting
on water quality, and which is not the result of ordinary
weather conditions like rainfall or changes in the river flow
that happen at regular intervals of less than five years.

7.

‘Set of water quality data’: the collection of data obtained as
a result of monitoring.

8.

‘Bathing water quality assessment’: the process of evaluating
bathing water quality,
following the calculation method
defined in Annex I and II.

Article 4

Quality status

1. Member States shall ensure that all bathing waters respect
a ‘Good Quality’ status, based on values of microbiological
parameters which are not less stringent than those set out
for parameters 1 and 2 in column C of Annex I, and which
are based on assessment and calculation by the method set out
in Annex II.

2. Member States shall by measures they consider necessary,
promote the achievement of quality standards which conform
to those set out in column B ‘excellent quality’ of Annex I, and
based on assessment and calculation by the method given in
Annex II.

Article 5

List of bathing waters

(f) assessing risks related to sources of pollution;

(g) setting up emergency plans and surveillance systems;

(h) giving information on bathing water quality to the

public;

1. Within two years of the entry into force of this Directive,
identified as
Member States shall establish a list of waters,
bathing water.

The list shall be reviewed and updated annually to take

2.
into account:

(i) performing actions

to prevent human exposure to

pollution;

(a) newly identified bathing waters;

(j) performing actions to reduce the risk of pollution and

contamination.

(b) waters that have been removed from the list since they no
longer fulfil the requirements for being identified as bathing
waters

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/143

3. Member States shall notify the Commission and the
public of the list mentioned in paragraph 1 each year, before
the start of the bathing season. At the same time Member
States shall notify the Commission and the public of any
changes to the list including the reasons for removing waters
from the list.

interval of any rainfall or extreme flows which have led to the
adverse water quality.

Article 8

Bathing water quality assessment

The reasons for removing waters from the list may include
changes in customs, changes in the constitution and use of
bathing areas, or changes in the topographical conditions of
the bathing site.

1.
On the basis of the monitoring of parameters 1 and 2 in
column A of Annex I Members States shall establish sets of
water quality data.

Article 6

Bathing water profile

A bathing water quality assessment shall be established
2.
on the basis of water quality data sets obtained during the
preceding three bathing seasons and in accordance with the
procedure set out in Annex II.

1. Member States shall ensure that a bathing water profile is
established for each bathing water in accordance with Annex
III. The first bathing water profile shall be established within
three years following the date laid down in Article 22(1).

3.
The first bathing water quality assessment shall be estab-
lished three years following the date laid down in Article 22(1)
at the latest.

2.
The bathing water profile shall be reviewed in accordance
with Annex III(f) or when significant construction works or
changes in the infrastructure have been carried out at or in
the vicinity of the bathing water, which are likely to have an
influence on the water quality classification.

4.
The assessment shall be repeated every year at the end of
the bathing season, taking into account the data collected for
that bathing season, as well as of the data for the bathing
seasons of the two previous years.

Article 7

Monitoring

1. Member States shall ensure that the parameters set out in
column A of Annex I are monitored in accordance with Annex
IV.

5. When significant construction works or changes in the
infrastructure have been carried out at or in the vicinity of the
bathing water, which are likely to have an influence on the
water quality classification, new bathing water quality data
have to be gathered and an assessment
to be made
without taking into account the bathing water quality data
collected before completion of this infrastructure.

is

2.
A monitoring calendar for each bathing water shall be
established and be made public in accordance with Article
16(2)(b) before the start of each bathing season and for the
first time two years after the entry into force of this Directive.

Article 9

Classification of bathing water quality

3. Members States may start monitoring the parameters in
Annex I during the first full bathing season following the entry
into force of this Directive, and may use the results for building
up the sets of water quality data, referred to in Article 8. As
soon as Member States start monitoring under this Directive,
they may cease monitoring of parameters in the Annex to
Directive 76/160/EEC.

During emergency conditions, the monitoring calendar
4.
referred to in paragraph 2 may be suspended.
It shall be
resumed as soon as practical after the end of the emergency
condition.

5. Member States shall report the suspension of the moni-
toring calendar to the Commission at the first available oppor-
tunity. The report shall outline the circumstances of
the
emergency and, if it is weather related, the calculated return

As a result of the yearly assessment of the sets of water quality
data, Member States shall classify the water quality of bathing
water as ‘poor’,
in accordance with the
criteria set out in Annex II. The first classification shall take
place three years following the date laid down in Article 22(1)
at the latest.

‘good’ or ‘excellent’,

Article 10

Studies and analysis following classification

1.
Bathing waters classified as ‘poor’ shall be subjected to a
thorough study and analysis of all the sources and circum-
stances likely to cause or contribute to its pollution or
contamination. These studies and analyses shall be repeated
periodically, but not less frequently than once a year. The
studies and analysis are aimed at updating the bathing water
profile set out in Article 6 and Annex III, and at understanding
the risks as a basis for targeted management measures as
defined in Article 3(3) points (f) to (j).

C 45 E/144

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

Bathing waters classified as ‘good’ shall be subjected to a
2.
bi-annual analysis of all the sources and circumstances likely to
cause or contribute to its pollution or contamination. This
analysis is aimed at updating the bathing water profile set
in Article 6 and Annex III, and at understanding the
out
risks as a base of targeted, preventive management measures.

3.
Bathing waters classified as ‘excellent’ shall be subjected
to a tri-annual analysis of the bathing water profile in order to
have a better understanding of all potential sources and risks of
pollution and contamination and to take appropriate measures
against them.

4.
The studies and analysis mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2
and 3 shall make best use of the data obtained from moni-
toring
to Directive
done
2000/60/EC, and shall contain at least an assessment of:

assessments

pursuant

and

(a) the conditions prevailing up-stream in the case of inland

running water, and

(b) the ambient conditions, including conditions prevailing in
the catchment area in the case of inland still water and
coastal water.

Article 11

Harmonised standards for treatment of samples

Member States shall ensure that harmonised standards are used
for the handling, analysis, storage and transport of samples as
specified in column D of Annex I and in Annex V, in order to
reduce the risks of contamination of samples.

The Commission may adopt guidelines
for harmonised
standards for the handling, analysis, storage and transport of
samples under the procedure referred to in Article 20(2).

Article 12

Emergency plans

1. Members States shall establish emergency plans for events
such as floods, accidents or infrastructure breakdowns which
may have an adverse impact on bathing water quality. Such
impacts,
plans shall
establish surveillance
and
early warning systems
provide guidance on prevention or mitigation of damage.

identify potential causes and risks of

and/or

2. Member States shall ensure that comprehensive national
and/or local surveillance and early-warning systems are estab-
lished, improved or maintained which will:

(a)

identify incidents of pollution or significant risks of such
incidents which may have an adverse effect on bathing
water quality,
including those resulting from extreme
weather conditions;

(b) give prompt and clear notification to the relevant public

authorities of such incidents or threats;

(c)

risk to public health,
in the event of any imminent
disseminate to those members of the public who may be
affected all the relevant information that is held by a public
authority and which could help the public to prevent or
mitigate harm;

(d) make recommendations to the relevant public authorities
and, where appropriate, to the public about preventive and
remedial actions.

3. Member States shall ensure that the relevant public auth-
orities have the necessary capacity to respond to such incidents
or risks in accordance with the relevant emergency plan.

4.
Surveillance and early-warning systems, emergency plans
and response capacities in relation to incidents and threats to
bathing water quality may be combined with those in relation
to other matters.

Article 13

Conformity

Bathing water shall be considered to conform with this

1.
Directive if:

(a) at the end of the bathing season, the bathing water is

classified at least as ‘good’, and

(b) the parameters set out in column A of Annex I have been

monitored in accordance with Annex IV.

2.
Bathing water classified as ‘poor’ shall nevertheless be
considered to conform temporarily with the provisions of
this Directive, if the following conditions are met:

(a) management measures have been undertaken during the
bathing season, to prevent human exposure to pollution/
contamination and to reduce or eliminate the risk of
pollution/contamination, and

(b) the causes and reasons for non-conformity are identified,

and

(c) measures to prevent, reduce or eliminate the pollution/
implemented and are expected to

contamination are
produce positive results within three years, and

d)

the public is informed of
the causes of
contamination and all measures undertaken.

the pollution/

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/145

If bathing water has still not reached the classification ‘good’
within three years,
it shall be considered as not being in
conformity with this Directive.

of the year that the removal takes place and the following
year. Such notice shall also indicate to the public the
nearest available bathing water.

Article 14

Assessment of phytoplankton blooms and macro-algae
proliferation and of physico-chemical parameters

to specific

toxic phytoplankton blooms or

For bathing waters which have been revealed physically
1.
to
sensitive
macro-algae proliferation, analytical measurement
shall be
undertaken to establish the status of the bathing water in
relation to the microbiological parameter 3 in column A of
Annex I. For this parameter, positive results obtained on the
tests, specified in column D of Annex I, shall be addressed in
terms of
investigation and remediation where appropriate,
involving public participation as set out in Article 15.

2. Member States shall use appropriate media and tech-
to actively and promptly
nologies,
disseminate
bathing water
referred to in paragraph 1 and also the following information:

the Internet,
information

such as
the

concerning

(a) the bathing water's profile and the bathing water's classifi-
information in relation to other

including

cation,
recreational activities,

(b) the monitoring calendar,

2.
Visual inspection and analytical measurement, conform to
the tests specified in column D of Annex I, shall be undertaken
to establish the status of the bathing water in relation to the
physico-chemical parameters 4 to 6 of Annex I. For these
parameters, test results deviating from specifications given in
column C of Annex I, shall be addressed in terms of investi-
involving public
gation and remediation where appropriate,
participation as set out in article 15.

(c) a history of incidents, requiring management measures, in
particular of targeted, preventive management measures,
improve bathing
undertaken in order
water quality, to protect waters against deterioration, and
measures which have been undertaken during the bathing
season, to prevent human exposure to pollution/contami-
nation and to reduce or eliminate the risk of pollution/
contamination.

to preserve or

Article 15

Public participation

Member States shall ensure that all
interested parties are
establishing,
consulted
reviewing and updating the list of bathing waters, bathing
water profile and the management measures.

participate

allowed

and

to

in

Article 16

Information to the public

1. Member States shall, in the immediate vicinity of each
actively
bathing water,
disseminate,
the
bathing water:

and
concerning

promptly make

information

following

available

the

(a) a non-technical summary of the bathing water profile and
the bathing water classification over the last 3 years;

(b) an assessment as to whether the monitoring data are

relevant for other recreational activities;

(c)

in the event of a bathing water being removed from the list
of bathing waters a notice advising the public of such a
removal and giving the reasons for it, shall be put up in the
immediate vicinity of the water during the bathing season

3.
Information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be
made available for the first time three years following the date
laid down in Article 22(1).

4. Member States shall encourage the active involvement of
all interested parties in the public information process, and in
the involvement of the public in issues related to good bathing
water quality.

Article 17

Reports

1.
For each bathing water, Member States shall provide the
Commission annually, by 31 December at the latest and for the
first time within three years following the date laid down in
Article 22(1), with the results of the monitoring data, together
with an indication as to whether those data are relevant for
other recreational activities in waters adjacent to the sampling
points. Member States shall provide the Commission the
bathing water assessment annually by 31 December at the
latest, for the first time three years following the date laid
down in Article 22(1).

2. When monitoring of data has started under this Directive,
annual
reporting to the Commission in accordance with
paragraph 1 shall continue to be done under Directive
76/160/EEC until a set of water quality data for three years
has been made available and a first assessment can be made
under this Directive.

C 45 E/146

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

During that three year period parameter 1 of the Annex to
Directive 76/160/EEC shall not be taken into account in the
annual report and for reporting purposes, as well as parameters
2 and 3 of
the Annex to Directive 76/160/EEC shall be
assumed to be equivalent to parameters 2 and 1 of column
A in Annex I to this Directive.

2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and
7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the
provisions of Article 8 thereof.

The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC
shall be set at three months.

The Commission shall publish an annual

report on
3.
bathing water quality in the Community,
including bathing
water classifications, conformity with this Directive, and
significant managerial measures undertaken. The Commission
shall publish this report four months after receiving the reports
from Member States. When establishing the
the
Commission shall, wherever possible, make best use of data
collection, assessment and presentation systems under related
Community legislation, in particular Directive 2000/60/EC.

report

Guidance on the use of such systems may be developed in
accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 20(2).

and the Commission shall provide
4. Member States
information to the public where possible based upon
geo-referenced technology, and presented in a harmonised
way and through harmonised formats, as set out in Article 16.

Article 18

Cooperation on transboundary waters

Wherever Member States share river basins,
boundary impacts on bathing water quality,
cooperate as appropriate in implementing this Directive.

involving trans-
they shall

Article 19

Technical adaptations to the Directive

1.
The methods of analysis for the parameters set out in
Annex I may be adapted to scientific and technical progress
in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 20(2).

Scientific results obtained on virus detection may also be
in

2.
integrated, completing the list of parameters in Annex I,
accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 20(2).

The Commission may in accordance with the procedure
3.
technical guidelines on
referred to in article 20(2), adopt
selected issues of
implementation relating to bathing water
management strategy, information and reporting strategy and
approach.

Article 20

Committee

3.

The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.

Article 21

Repeal

1.
Directive 76/160/EEC is repealed three years following
the date laid down in Article 22(1). Subject to paragraph 2,
this repeal shall be without prejudice to the obligations of the
Member States concerning the time-limits for transposition and
application set out in the repealed Directive.

2.
As soon as a Member State has taken all necessary legal,
administrative and practical measures to comply with this
Directive, this Directive will be applicable, replacing Directive
76/160/EEC.

References to Directive 76/160/EEC shall be construed as

3.
references to this Directive.

Article 22

Implementation
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this
Directive by [. . .] (*) at the latest. They shall forthwith inform
the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain
a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a
reference on the occasion of
their official publication.
Member Sates shall determine how such reference is to be
made.

2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the
texts of the main provisions of national law, which they adopt
in order to implement this Directive.

Article 23

Entry into force
This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day
following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Communities.

1.
The Commission shall be assisted by a committee (here-
inafter referred to as ‘the Committee’) composed of represen-
tatives of the Member States and chaired by the representative
of the Commission.

Article 24

Addressees

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

(*) Specific date to be inserted, giving two years to the Member States

for the implementation of the Directive.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/147

1

2

3

4

5

ANNEX I

PARAMETERS FOR BATHING WATER QUALITY

A

B

C

D

Microbiological Parameters

Excellent Quality

Good Quality

Methods of Analysis

Intestinal
(IE) in cfu/100 ml

Enterococci

100 (1)

Escherischia coli (EC) in
cfu/100 ml

250 (1)

200 (1)

500 (1)

ISO 7899-

ISO 9308-1

Phytoplankton blooms
or macro-algae prolife-
ration (2)

Physico-chemical
Parameters

Mineral oils

Tarry
and
residues
floating materials such
as wood, plastic, glass,
rubber or
any other
waste substance

6

pH (5)

Negative result on tests Microscopic moni-

toring (3), toxicity tests (4),
visual inspection

Excellent Quality

Good Quality

Methods of Inspection

No film visible on the
surface of
the water
and no odour

Visual
inspection

and

olfactory

Absence

Visual inspection

6 to 9 No unexplainable
variations

Electrometry with cali-
bration on pH 7 and
pH 9

—

—

—

(1) Based upon 95 percentile evaluation.
(2) Only for sites which have been revealed physically sensitive to specific toxic blooms (eg dinophysis, alexandrium, blue algae).
(3) Determination and counting of cells.
(4) Mouse test, skin test or by direct toxin dosage in plankton cells or water.
(5) Only for fresh waters.

The 95 percentile value is calculated as defined as follows (1).

Based upon 95 percentile evaluation of the log10 normal probability density function of microbiological data acquired
from one bathing water; the 95 percentile value is derived as follows:

(i) take the log10 value of all bacterial enumerations in the data sequence to be evaluated,

(ii) calculate the arithmetic mean of the log10 values (µ),

(iii) calculate the standard deviation of the log10 values (σ).

The upper 95 percentile point of the data probability density function is derived from the following equation:

95 percentile ¼ antilog ½ðµÞ þ ð1; 65 (cid:1) σÞ(cid:2).

(1) Bartram, J. and Rees, G (Eds) Monitoring Bathing Waters. E and F N Spon, London.

C 45 E/148

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

ANNEX II

BATHING WATER ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION

Bathing waters whose 95 percentile values of microbiological enumerations, based on the bathing water quality data sets
gathered during the 3 previous calendar years' period, are worse (1) than the ‘Good Quality’ value of microbiological
parameters 1 or 2 stated in Annex I (column C) are classified as of ‘Poor Quality’.

Bathing waters whose 95 percentile values of microbiological enumerations, based on the bathing water quality data
gathered during the 3 previous calendar years' period, are equal to or better than the ‘Good Quality’ value of microbi-
ological parameters 1 and 2 stated in Annex I (column C) are classified as of ‘Good Quality’.

Member States may classify bathing waters as of ‘Excellent Quality’ if

— their 95 percentile values on microbiological enumerations, based on the data gathered during the 3 previous
calendar years' period, are equal to or better (2) than the ‘Excellent Quality’ value of microbiological parameters 1
and 2 stated in Annex I (column A) and,

— the length of the bathing season and management measures reflect other recreational activities practised.

(1) Meaning: ‘higher concentration values expressed in cfu/100 ml’.
(2) Meaning: ‘lower concentration values expressed in cfu/100 ml’.

ANNEX III

THE BATHING WATER PROFILE

With reference to Article 6, such a bathing water profile consists of

(a) a description of the physical, geographical and hydrological characteristics of the bathing water;

(b) an identification — quantitative and qualitative — of all potential sources of pollution;

(c) an assessment of their potential to pollute bathing water, thus impairing the health of bathers. This assessment
should be made, in terms of time — accidental or chronic risk potential — and in terms of the nature and volume
of all polluting and potentially polluting discharges and their effects assessed in terms of distance from the bathing
water.

Elements (a) and (b) should also be provided on a detailed map.

Other relevant information may be attached or included as deemed appropriate.

(d) a description of the monitoring points;

(e) an assessment whether this monitoring provides as well representative information for other recreational activities

practised with a similar risk of swallowing water as bathing (e.g. windsurfing, kayaking).

(f)

the bathing water profile will be updated following the attached schedule

Bathing Water Classification

Excellent

Good

Poor

Bathing water profile update

Every 3 years

Every 2 years

Aspects to be assessed

Update of (a) (b) and
(e)

Update of (a), (b) and
(c)

To be determined in
relation to the nature
and severity of the risk
but not less frequently
than once a year, at
the start of the bathing
season

Update of (a) (b) and (c)

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/149

ANNEX IV

BATHING WATER MONITORING FREQUENCY

The frequency for routine monitoring is set to 2 analysed samples per month, where a month is a four week period,
with each started week considered as whole. As a function of the bathing water classification, the monitoring frequency
is:

Bathing Water Classification

Excellent
(samples per month)

Good
(samples per month)

Poor
(samples per month)

During 1 period of 3 years

During 2 consecutive periods of 3
years

0,5

0,25

1

0,5

2

2

One extra sample is to be taken one week before the start of the bathing season. Taking into account this extra sample,
in no circumstance there should be less than two samples taken and analysed per bathing season.

ANNEX V

STANDARDS FOR HANDLING OF SAMPLES

1. Samples should be taken following the guidelines hereafter

The sampling point is on the location where on a bathing water, on average throughout the bathing season, most
bathers will be found.

2. Sterilisation of the sample bottles

— Sterilisation in autoclave for at least 15 minutes at 121 °C.

— Or dry sterilisation at 160 °C-170 °C for minimum 1 hour.

— Or use irradiated sample containers directly from manufacturer.

3. Sampling

— The volume of the sampling bottle/container depends on the quantity of water needed for each parameter to be

tested. The minimum content is generally 250 ml.

— Sample containers must be of transparent and non-coloured material (glass, polyethene or polypropylene).

— In order to prevent accidental contamination of the sample, the sampler should employ an aseptic technique to
maintain the sterility of the sample bottles. There is no further need for sterile equipment (such as sterile
‘chirurgical’ gloves or by means tongs or sample pole) if this is done properly.

— The sample should be clearly identified in indelible ink on the sample and on the sampling form.

4. Storage and transport of the samples before analysis

— The water sample should at all stages of the transport be protected from exposure to light, in particular direct

sunlight.

— The sample should be conserved at a temperature of around 4 °C, in a cool box or refrigerator (if possible) until
arrival at the laboratory. If the transport to the laboratory is likely to take more than 4 hours, then transport in a
refrigerator is highly recommended.

— The time between the sampling and the analysis should be kept as short as possible. It is recommended to
analyse the samples on the same working day. If this is not possible for practical reasons, then the samples must
be processed within maximum 24 hours, provided that the samples are stored in the dark and as close to 4 °C as
possible.