Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the quality of bathing water" (COM(2002) 581 final — 2002/0254 (COD))
Date: 2003-06-19
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: bathing water, health policy, quality of the environment, quality standard, safety standard, water analysis

16.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/39

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council concerning the quality of bathing water’

(COM(2002) 581 final — 2002/0254 (COD))

(2003/C 220/09)

On 13 November 2002 the Council, in accordance with Article 175(1) of the Treaty establishing the
European Community, decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee on the above-
mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the matter, adopted its opinion on 26 May 2003 (rapporteur:
Mr Buffetaut).

At its 400th plenary session of 18 and 19 June 2003 (meeting of 19 June), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted this opinion by 81 votes to one, with no abstentions.

1. Gist of the Commission document

1.3. Achieving genuine bathing water management

1.1.

Scope

1.1.1.
The proposal concerns bathing water and not rec-
reational waters on which people indulge in sporting or leisure
falling into water,
activities presenting a serious risk of
swallowing water or being submerged, such as surfing, wind-
surfing, canoeing and kayaking. The Commission considers
nevertheless that it is desirable to improve the protection of
persons who practise such aquatic activities, in particular by
providing them with better information.

1.2.

Parameters

1.2.1.
The main new element lies in the drastic reduction
in the number of parameters, from 19 to 2 key microbiological
parameters, complemented by visual inspection (algae bloom,
oil) and pH measurement in fresh waters.

1.2.2.
The Commission considers that the two faecal indi-
cator parameters retained (Intestinal Enterococci and Esche-
richia coli) provide the best available match between faecal
pollution and health impact. In fact bathing water is classified
and assessed according to the risk of a person becoming ill
following a bathe in it.

1.2.3.
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. These standards (Annex I), which are based on
the level of acceptable risk, are much stricter than those
currently in force. They are equivalent to a risk of 5 % (‘Good’
Standard) and 3 % (‘Excellent’ Standard) for contracting gastro-
interitis and to a risk of 2,5 % (‘Good’ Standard) and
1 % (‘Excellent’ Standard) for contracting an acute feverish
respiratory illness (AFRI).

1.3.1.
The Commission has shown a certain flexibility in
laying down bathing water monitoring frequency (2 analysed
samples per month for routine monitoring) in Annex IV and
harmonised standards for the handling of samples in Annex V,
so as to ensure that the analyses carried out in the various
Member States can be compared.

1.3.2.
In addition to these rules, it would like the authorities
responsible to achieve genuine integrated bathing water man-
agement involving the development of bathing water profiles
(Annex III), the identification of potential sources of bathing
water pollution, the collection, analysis and interpretation of
information on water quality and its transmission to the public,
and the measures to be taken in exceptional circumstances.

2. General comments

2.1.
The protection of bathing water and the control of its
quality were among the first elements of European water
policy. The first directive, which dates from 1976, had very
positive results and heightened public awareness. The reports
published annually by the Commission clearly show that
substantial progress achieved as regards the quality of bathing
water. The most recent report (concerning the 2001 bathing
season) shows a high degree of compliance with EU criteria as
well as a significant improvement in bathing water quality, not
only in coastal areas but also inland (rivers and lakes).

The EESC considers that

2.2.
the principle of a new
proposal is justified in view of the scientific and technical
progress made and the adoption of new EU directives on water
policy, in particular the Framework Directive of 23 October
2000 (1).

(1) The current proposal concerning the quality of bathing water is
an integral part (Action 16) of the strategy to protect and conserve
the marine environment proposed by the Commission, on which
the EESC has also issued an opinion.

C 220/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2003

2.2.1.
It considers that while the definition of acceptable
risk remains a political decision, it must be based on the most
up-to-date scientific knowledge.

2.2.2.
However, it stresses the need to avoid any duplication
of other texts, so as to avoid a proliferation of pointless
restrictions.

2.4.2.
Risk levels may still seem high. But it should be
noted that, if the old and the new standards are compared, the
1976 Guide standards (‘Excellent Quality’) correspond to a risk
of 5 % for contracting gastro-enteritis and the 1976 Imperative
standards to a risk of 12 to 15 %. The new standards of
‘Excellent Quality’ are moving towards the total absence of
contaminants and the ‘Good Quality’ standards correspond to
the risk of a family member catching the flu; the real risk lies
in exceeding the proposed standards.

It also stresses the need for clear and easy to apply
2.2.3.
transitional measures during the changeover from the old to
the new rules, in particular to avoid conflicts of interpretation
between old and new parameters.

2.3.

Scope

2.3.1.
It should be pointed out that water activities are
practised farther from the shore than is the case with
swimming, often in areas which are unsuitable for swimming
or bathing, in rougher water and over a longer period of the
year. So, including such ‘recreational waters’ in the directive
would significantly increase the obligations of the Member
States both in space and time, without the usefulness of such
new restrictions being proven.

Because of the differences in the nature and character-
2.3.2.
istics of bathing and recreational waters,
the very great
difficulty — or even technical and scientific impossibility — of
carrying out reliable measures at sea, especially in rough
waters, and the weakness of the available scientific data on the
health risks associated with indulging in water sports in
recreational waters, the EESC feels that limiting the proposal’s
scope to bathing water is justified. After all, in waters that are
the starting point of recreational activities, where in practice
the risk of capsizing or of falling into the water is at its highest,
the problem does not arise because these are also used for
bathing.

2.4.

Parameters

2.4.1.
Under the current rules, only 3 microbiological
parameters have been used in practice to determine water
compliance with European standards. The other data (oil,
pH etc.) have been collected for statistical and information
purposes.
In most cases, microbiological pollution is the
main obstacle to good water quality. Moreover, the Water
Framework Directive has already established a comprehensive
chemical and biological monitoring system for all waters, and
legislative duplication should be avoided.

2.4.3.
The EESC would stress that the key elements of the
proposal are the definition of parameters and the principle of
managing bathing waters. The new parameters for both ‘Good
Quality’ and ‘Excellent Quality’ water impose notably stricter
requirements for bathing water than the 1976 Directive. With
this in mind, the EESC requests that the epidemiological study
carried out to determine the thresholds be properly endorsed
and, in particular, that it be based on the analysis of a sufficient
number of cases. While the microbiological parameters selec-
ted are relevant, the statement that research on viral indicators
is still necessary seems unfounded in view of the current state
of knowledge and at a practical
level owing to the great
variability of viral dilution in water, which rules out any stable
and reliable measurement.

2.4.4.
The EESC feels that the request of public opinion to
be able to benefit from bathing water of high quality is natural
and justified. The difference between the proposed criteria for
‘Good Quality’ and ‘Excellent Quality’ water seems, on first
analysis, to be so small that some specialists wonder what the
real gain is in terms of public health by differentiating between
the two, as proposed in the new text. The EESC requests the
Commission to provide more clarity and enlightenment here.
However, the mere existence of an ‘Excellent Quality’ category
can be a major incentive for the competent authorities to
improve bathing water quality so as to achieve excellence.
Thus there is an encouragement to constantly improve water
quality, whereby the competent bodies themselves can best
decide between the economic cost and benefit.

It would like the impact assessment to provide more
2.4.5.
details about the consequences of implementing the new
parameters as regards the downgrading of bathing areas.

16.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/41

2.5. Monitoring and standards for the handling of samples

2.5.1.
The EESC approves of the flexibility allowed in
monitoring to take account of the specific features of the water
concerned and local characteristics, since this is in keeping
with the principle of subsidiarity.

2.5.2.
It also approves the harmonisation of standards for
handling samples and considers that such action is necessary
if one wants to compare water quality throughout
the
European Union. However, it stresses that comparisons will
only be really reliable if there is intercalibration of the methods
of analysis under consideration.

2.5.3.
It points out that there are, within the European
Union, two methods of analysis, one by microplate, which is
the most modern and the most effective, the other by filtration,
which uses an older technique. It considers that generalised
use of the most modern techniques would improve the quality
control of bathing water.

2.6. Bathing water profile

2.6.1.
Annex III (b and c) contains extremely wide-ranging
provisions on bathing water profile which do not seem entirely
practical or realistic. It calls for an identification — quantitative
and qualitative — of all potential sources of pollution and an
assessment of their potential to pollute bathing water. How
are such things to be measured on a large navigable river?
How far upstream? How should the risk of diffuse pollution
be assessed, particularly from agricultural sources? It should
be spelt out what kind of pollution is to be taken into account.

Although the EESC understands the Commission’s
2.6.2.
wish to urge the Member States and the local authorities to
establish bathing water profiles, it feels that the recommen-
dations are so broad as to become unrealistic or impossible to
satisfy. It would therefore be necessary to define the type of
pollution under consideration and the potential sources of
pollution more precisely. It would also be more realistic to
concentrate on the main sources of potential pollution, rather
than aim at an impossible level of exhaustiveness.

3. Specific comments

cost-effectiveness of the measure is best assessed by the
competent bodies themselves, but is positive that the mere
existence of an ‘Excellent Quality’ category can be a major
incentive for the improvement of bathing water quality, which
will both benefit the environment generally and can constitute
a competitive advantage for certain regions.

3.1.2.
the new
The EESC requests that the impact of
parameters on the downgrading of bathing areas be measured
properly and that the epidemiological study carried out to
determine the thresholds be properly endorsed.

3.2. Article 10: Studies and analysis following classification

3.2.1.
The timing of the studies and analyses following
classification suggests that the Commission considers the
results noted to be lasting. In practice the local authorities will
carry out more frequent checks in very popular bathing areas.
It should therefore be made clear that the provisions of
Article 10 are minimum recommendations.

3.3. Article 11: Harmonised standards

3.3.1.
The EESC is wholly in favour of harmonised stan-
dards but stresses that these can only be really effective if there
is intercalibration of the methods of analysis to ensure that
analyses are really comparable.

It also regrets that nothing has been done to encour-
3.3.2.
age adoption of the most modern and effective methods of
measurement (microplate method).

3.4. Article 12: Emergency plans

3.4.1.
The EESC considers that the provisions of Article 12
go into practical details which are matters for civil protection
organisations and have no place in this proposal. The article
could be limited to its first paragraph, or even deleted.

3.1. Article 4: Quality status

3.5. Article 13: Conformity

3.1.1.
Given the apparently only small difference between
‘Good Quality’ and ‘Excellent Quality’ water, the EESC requests
the Commission to provide more clarity and enlightenment,
so that one can assess the doubts that some specialists have
over what real benefits in terms of public health are gained by
achieving ‘excellent quality’ status. The EESC is sure that the

Article 13(2) allows poor quality water to be tolerated
3.5.1.
for three years.
In practice this amounts to a temporary
exemption. During this period the public should be provided
with clear information about the steps taken to improve
bathing water quality and the results achieved.

C 220/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2003

3.6. Article 14: Assessment of physico-chemical parameters

nonsense. It would be reasonable merely to ask for identifi-
cation of the main potential sources of pollution.

The EESC stresses that it would be more useful and
3.6.1.
effective if the physico-chemical tests were carried out on
sediments rather than on water.

As regards toxicity tests, ecotoxicity exposure tests
3.6.2.
on mussels, fish or algae, for example, are more relevant as
regards chronic toxicity than the tests on mice mentioned in
Annex I.

3.7. Article 16: Information to the public

There is no mention of daily chromaticity tests or
3.7.1.
microbiological indication tests, which are in the process of
being approved but which would be an aid as regards
prevention, information and, ultimately, decision-taking for
local authorities, who have to react in real time if water quality
deteriorates.

3.8. Article 19: Technical adaptations

3.8.1.
Article 19(2) mentions the integration of virus
detection data, but with the techniques in normal current use
it is technically almost impossible to obtain reproducible and
reliable data in this field for bathing water, and all the more so
for rough waters.

3.12.2.
Point (e) cannot have any serious practical appli-
cation. The fact that it is mentioned in the ‘excellent quality’
profile makes it impossible for such a rating to be obtained.
The EESC therefore asks that point (e) be deleted.

3.13. Annex IV: Monitoring frequency

3.13.1.
The minimum frequency of two samples taken per
bathing season is low and does not reflect practice in popular
areas. What is more, it does not enable relevant statistical data
to be obtained.

3.14. Annex V: Standards for the handling of samples

3.14.1.
Guidelines: in practice the number of bathers has
little influence on bathing water quality as defined in accord-
ance with the parameters in the present proposal.

3.14.2.
ance of intercalibrating methods of analysis.

Sampling: it would be useful to stress the import-

3.9. Article 20: Committee

3.15.

Impact assessment form

3.9.1.
The EESC does not dispute the establishment of this
committee but regrets that there are not more details about its
composition and the qualifications of its members.

3.15.1.
The EESC considers that the impact assessment
form is inadequate, both from the cost/benefits angle of the
proposal and as regards assessing the consequences of bathing
areas being downgraded.

3.10. Annex I: Parameters for bathing water quality

3.10.1.
In addition to the remark already made about the
‘good’ and ‘excellent’ quality water parameters, the EESC points
out that in column D (methods of analysis) the first ISO
standard mentioned is incomplete, as the last figure after the
dash is missing. On the other hand, while the second is
complete, it excludes the microplate measurement method,
which is more accurate, and allows only the filtration method.

3.11. Annex II: Bathing water assessment

3.11.1.
compromise, is unclear and should be deleted.

The last point, which is very clearly the result of a

3.12. Annex III: Bathing water profile

3.12.1.
Points (b) and (c) require information that, in all
seriousness, cannot be provided. Any modelling here is

4. Conclusions

4.1.
The EESC recognises the interest of a new directive
that takes account of scientific and technical progress, which
is a tool for measuring the quality of bathing water better and
improving its quality. It stresses the need to stick to realistic
recommendations that are of real interest to public health; in
this connection it supports the exclusion of recreational waters
from the scope of the directive and stresses the need for the
choice of new parameters and criteria to be based on
sound and relevant scientific and epidemiological studies. It
recommends encouraging the most modern and reliable
techniques and those which allow the authorities concerned
and the public to be informed as quickly as possible. It
considers that the bathing water profile defined in Annex III
should provide a better definition of the type of pollution
concerned and needs to be reviewed so that it does not contain
provisions that cannot be applied in practice. It asks that the
transitional measures between the old and the new standards
be spelt out clearly.

16.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/43

The EESC stresses that, above all, the public wants
information on bathing water

4.2.
clear, rapid and frequent
quality.

4.3.
Finally, given the great diversity of bathing areas
throughout the European Union, the EESC urges respect for
the principle of subsidiarity, which is the key to good
governance in Europe.

Brussels, 19 June 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and the Council on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic
compounds due to the use of organic solvents in decorative paints and varnishes and vehicle
refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC’

(COM(2002) 750 final — 2002/0301 (COD))

(2003/C 220/10)

On 23 January 2003, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subjects, adopted its opinion on 26 May 2003. The rapporteur
was Mr Sears.

At its 400th plenary session of 18 and 19 June 2003 (meeting of 18 June), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 73 votes, with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

2. Summary of the Commission’s proposal

Air quality over Europe continues to improve. Between
1.1.
1990 and 1998 sulphur emissions (SOx) fell by 41 %, nitrogen
oxides (NOx) by 21 %, and non-methane volatile organic
compounds (NMVOCs) by 24 %. Current priorities are to limit
emissions of particulates and of ozone precursors (NOx and
VOCs).

The core of the proposal is contained in two tables in
2.1.
Annex II, setting limits on VOCs in g/l of ready-for-use paint
in 12 groups of products used as decorative paints and
varnishes, and 5 groups of products used in vehicle refinishing.
New vehicle refinishing products should be fully reformulated
and in use by the end of 2006. A 2-phase approach is
suggested for the more complex decorative paint market, with
increasingly tight specifications to be in place by the end of
2006 and 2009.

1.2.
Existing legislation should ensure a 50 % reduction in
man-made VOC emissions in 2010, compared to a 1990
baseline, i.e., a reduction from 14 to 7,1 million tonnes over
20 years. A product-based approach is required to help close
the gap between this and the 6,5 million tonnes of annual
VOC emissions envisaged in the National Emissions Ceiling
Directive.

2.2.
A study (Decopaint 2000) suggested two options, one
close to a proposal from paint and resin producers, and a
second, used here, that has the effect of removing from the
market virtually all solvent-borne paints for internal or external