Commission Staff Working Paper. Proposal for groundwater daughter directive. Extended impact assessment. (COM/2003/550/F)
Date: 2003-10-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, dangerous substance, groundwater, pollution control measures, water protection

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 6.10.2003
SEC(2003) 1086

&200,66,21(cid:3)67$))(cid:3):25.,1*(cid:3)3$3(5

352326$/(cid:3))25(cid:3)*5281’:$7(5(cid:3)’$8*+7(5(cid:3)’,5(&7,9(

(;7(1’(’(cid:3),03$&7(cid:3)$66(660(17

^&20(cid:11)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:3)ILQDO‘

The White Paper on  European  Governance stresses  that  regulatory  proposals  should
be  prepared  on  the  basis  of  an  effective  analysis  of  whether  it  is  appropriate  to
intervene  at  EU  level  and  whether  regulatory  intervention  is  needed.  This  analysis
should  also  assess  the  potential  economic,  social  and  environmental  impact  of  the
proposal, as well as the costs and benefits of the chosen approach.  In this context, a
new integrated impact assessment method has been developed by the Commission, as
set  out  in  the  Communication  COM  2002/276  on  Impact  Assessment.1  The  aim  of
impact  assessment  is  to  help  structure  the  policy-making  process,  identifying  and
assessing  the  problem  and  the  objectives  pursued.  It  identifies  the  main  alternative
options  for  achieving  the  objective  and  analyses  their  likely  impacts.  It  outlines  the
advantages  and disadvantages  of  each  option  and  the  synergies  and  trade-offs.  So  it
should be considered as an aid to political decision-making, not a substitute for it.

This  impact  assessment  concerns  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  Directive
establishing strategies to protect groundwater against pollution. A two-stage approach
has been followed, namely:

– 

– 

a VKRUW(cid:3)SUHOLPLQDU\(cid:3)DVVHVVPHQW(cid:15) carried out in January 2003, identifying the
problem  tackled,  and  outlining  the  main  objectives  of  the  proposal  and  the
key issues to be considered for the impact assessment; and

an  H[WHQGHG(cid:3) DVVHVVPHQW  GHYHORSHG 
through  consultation  of  other
Commission departments, Member States and stakeholders during the period
January-April 2003.

The  impact  assessment  examines  the  main  features  of  the  proposed  Groundwater
Directive,  which  is  built  on the requirements of Article  17  of  the  Water  Framework
Directive  (2000/60/EC).2  In  particular,  it  assesses  the  options  for  evaluating  the
chemical status of bodies of groundwater, and for identifying and reversing significant
upward trends in the concentrations of pollutants. It also assesses measures to prevent
and control groundwater from point and diffuse sources of pollution.

impact  assessment  addresses  only 

This  extended 
the  economic,  social  and
environmental aspects of this particular proposal. It is therefore assumed that related
Directives  are  or  will  be  fully  implemented.  These  include  in  particular  the  Water
Framework  Directive  (WFD),  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Directive  (91/271/EEC),3  the
Bathing  Water  Directive  (76/160/EEC),4  the  Nitrates  Directive  (91/676/EEC),5  the
Plant Protection Product Directive (91/414/EEC),6 the Integrated Pollution Prevention
and  Control  Directive  (96/61/EC),7 
the

the  Landfill  Directive  (99/31/EC),8 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

COM(2002)276 final
Council Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy
Council Directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment
Council Directive of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water
Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
Council Directive of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the
market
Council  Directive  of  24  September  1996  concerning  integrated  pollution  prevention  and
control

2

                                                
Construction  Products  Directive 
Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC).10

(89/106/EEC)9  and  of  course 

the  current

This  Extended  Impact  Assessment  describes  various  options  including  the  choices
which  have  either  been  made  or  which  are  being  considered.  It  also  considers  the
costs and benefits of these options/choices.

(cid:20)(cid:17)

7+((cid:3),668((cid:3)7$&./(’(cid:3)%<(cid:3)7+((cid:3)352326$/

The  Water  Framework  Directive  adopted 
in  December  2000  provides  a
comprehensive  framework  for  the  protection  of  inland  surface  waters,  transitional
waters, coastal waters and groundwater.  In essence, it requires water resources to be
managed in an integrated way at river basin level. It sets  as one of its objectives for
groundwater the achievement of good chemical status by 2015. However, it gives no
clear  indication  as  to  what  constitutes  good  chemical  status.  It  also  requires  that  all
significant and sustained upward trends in pollution of a groundwater body should be
reversed. However, there is no precise definition of a significant upward trend.

Since  there  was  clearly  more  work  to  be  done  on  groundwater,  Article  17  of  the
Directive  requires  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  to  adopt  specific
measures to prevent and control groundwater pollution, acting on a proposal presented
by the Commission. In presenting this proposal, the Commission is meeting the legal
obligation  set out  in  Article  17  of  the  WFD.  For  that  reason  this  impact  assessment
does  not  discuss  justification  for  the  proposal,  but  only  examines  two  options  that
could be considered to meet that obligation.

(cid:21)(cid:17)

7+((cid:3)0$,1(cid:3)2%-(&7,9((cid:3)7+((cid:3)352326$/

Rules  to  groundwater  against  pollution  have  been  in  place  since  the  adoption  of
Directive  80/68/EEC,  which  prevents  and  limits  direct  or  indirect  discharges  of  a
number  of  pollutants  into  groundwater.  It  provides  a  protection  framework  by
preventing the direct discharge of high  priority  pollutants  (List  I)  and  subjecting  the
discharge  of  other  pollutants  (List  II)  to  an  authorisation  procedure  preceded  by  a
thorough investigation on a case-by-case basis. Monitoring is required only for those
specific  cases  of  authorisation  and  is  not  generally  required  for  all  bodies  of
groundwater.  According  to  Article  22  of  the  WFD,  Directive  80/68/EEC  should  be
repealed  in  2013,  after  which  the  protection  regime  is  to  be  continued  through  the
WFD and this Groundwater Daughter Directive.

In  addition,  the  WFD  requires  the  achievement  of  good  chemical  status,  and  so
includes  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  aspects  of  groundwater  in  the  monitoring
requirements  and  programme  of  measures  set  out  in  the  river  basin  management
plans. While the WFD provides a general framework for groundwater protection, its

8

9

10

Council Directive of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste
Council  Directive  of  21  December  1988  on  the  approximation  of  laws,  regulations  and
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products
Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against
pollution caused by certain dangerous substances

3

                                                                                                                                           
Article 17 requires the adoption of specific criteria for defining good chemical status
and for identifying and reversing significant upward trends, along with other specific
measures;  in  other  words,  it  requires  the  adoption  of  a  Groundwater  Daughter
Directive.

In  practical  terms,  the  groundwater  chemical  status  will  have  to  be  monitored  by
Member  States  through  the  River  Basin  Management  Plan  defined  by  the  WFD
(Article 13). The evaluation will be based on quality standards and/or threshold values
established for pollutants, and defined either at Community level or within each river
basin district. These can be used to judge whether bodies of groundwater have poor or
good chemical status. The identification of significant and sustained upward trends in
pollutant  concentrations  and  the  trend  reversal  requirement  will  complement  this
mechanism,  ensuring  that  the  no-deterioration  clause  set  out  in  the  WFD  can  be
achieved. Finally, specific requirements regarding direct and indirect discharges will
both  strengthen  the  existing  protection  regime  and  ensure  that  it  continues  after
Directive 80/68/EEC is repealed in 2013.

(cid:22)(cid:17)

7+((cid:3) 7:2(cid:3) 0$,1(cid:3) 32/,&<(cid:3) 237,216(cid:3) )25(cid:3) $&+,(9,1*(cid:3) 7+,6
2%-(&7,9(

(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:17)

)LUVW(cid:3)RSWLRQ

It is difficult to define "common indicators" that would ensure that the chemical status
of groundwater  is evaluated  in  the  same way  throughout Europe.  This is  because  of
the wide variety of types of groundwater – each with their own different parameters -
which  exist  in  Europe.  This  difficulty  was  highlighted  in  discussions  with
stakeholders  (see  Section  6)  and  during  a  workshop  on  groundwater  background
chemistry (BaSeLine project funded by DG RTD) held on 27 January 2003.

Given  this  difficulty,  the  first  option  was  to  require  Member  States  to  establish
thresholds  for  pollutants  (instead  of  fixed  quality  standards)  in  order  to  assess  the
chemical status of bodies of groundwater that are characterised as being at risk. The
pollutants  selected  would  be,  on  the  one  hand,  chemical  substances  that  might
originate  either  from  natural  or  anthropogenic  sources  (pollution  from  human
activities), and on the  other  hand,  synthetic  pollutants  that  do  not  occur  naturally  in
groundwater. Compliance with the rules on good chemical status would be based on
these thresholds, which would take into account the risks posed by these pollutants for
existing  and  intended  uses  of  the  groundwater,  related  aquatic  ecosystems,  and
directly dependent terrestrial ecosystems.

In addition, the requirement to identify and reverse trends in pollutant concentrations
would be included in this first option, with specific requirements for point sources of
pollution. These requirements are closely linked to prevention and control of the input
of pollutants into groundwater, by prohibiting direct discharges and limiting indirect
discharges resulting from an activity on or in the ground.

(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)

6HFRQG(cid:3)RSWLRQ

The  existing  WFD  requirements  on  the  chemical  status  of  groundwater  (Annex
V.2.3.2) are based on a definition of "good chemical status" that makes reference to

4

quality standards applicable under other relevant Community legislation. The second
option considered, therefore, was to establish a  regulatory  framework  whereby  good
chemical status would be assessed against a comprehensive set of legally binding EU
quality  standards  (maximum  permissible  concentrations  of  a  range  of  given
substances in groundwater), which would also represent restoration targets.

In  order  to  ensure  adequate  protection  for  pristine  groundwaters,  this  option  would
also include a provision to establish a new status class ("high chemical status"), which
was  not  explicitly  requested  by  Article  17  of  the  WFD.  In  addition,  there  would  be
specific  criteria  for  identifying  and  reversing  significant  and  sustained  upward
pollution trends, as required by Article 17.

(cid:23)(cid:17)

7+((cid:3)(;3(&7(’(cid:3),03$&76(cid:3)2)(cid:3)7+((cid:3)’,))(5(17(cid:3)237,216

The  proposed  Directive  is  part  of  a  larger  policy  framework  (Water  Framework
Directive,  Nitrates  Directive,  IPPC  etc.)  which  has  an  overall  economic,  social  and
environmental  impact.  The  purpose  of  this  Extended  Impact  Assessment  is  not  to
evaluate  the  impacts  of  those  existing  regulations,  but  to  focus  on  the  groundwater
protection  measures  covered  by  this  proposal,  i.e.  on  the  additional  impacts  of  the
proposed Groundwater Daughter Directive.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:17)

(FRQRPLF(cid:3)VWXG\

This  impact  assessment  is  underpinned  by  an  HFRQRPLF(cid:3) VWXG\11(cid:3) –  of  which  an
executive summary is provided in annex. The study gives examples by calculating a
range of costs and benefits (or avoided costs) for the two options. . The examples are
taken from two sources: sample zones and a review of literature. It evaluates different
types  of  costs  and  benefits  using  different  methodologies,  e.g.  financial  methods
(investment  costs,  maintenance  and  operating  costs,  amortisation)  for  marketable
costs (costs of mitigation and restoration measures). The study considers various cost
elements  ,  e.g.,  additional  treatment  of  water  (building/maintaining  a  plant),
decontamination of soil and water, search for alternative water resources (new bore-
holes, pipes) etc. It also evaluates ‘defensive costs’ (e.g. extra consumption of mineral
water  due  to  the  pollution  of  groundwater  resources)  using  interviews  with
consumers. Finally, it assesses environmental benefits on the basis of the willingness
of citizens to pay for the protection of groundwater because of its patrimonial value.
An outline of the content of the study is given in Box 1.

11

Economic 
3040/2002/339770/MAR/A1, 2003

assessment 

of 

groundwater 

protection, 

study 

contract 

B4-

5

                                                
%R[(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:29) Outline of the economic study on groundwater protection

The economic study is  in  three  main parts.  The first  one presents  the key  findings of a
review  of  the  literature,  reporting  results  of  case  studies  that  assessed  the  costs  and
benefits of groundwater protection and restoration. The second part focuses on the results
of three field studies conducted on the basis of primary data. These were studies of one
transboundary body of groundwater (between France and Germany), and two aquifers in
France and Denmark. The third part summarises the findings of an economic analysis of
the  Commission  proposal.  Some  of  this  data  has  been  used  for  this  Extended  Impact
Assessment.

As  explained  in  the  introduction,  protecting  groundwater  against  pollution,  under
either Directive  80/68/EEC or  the  WFD,  generates  (or  will  generate)  various  social,
economic  and  environmental  impacts  that  are  difficult  to  dissociate.  In  terms  of
economic impact, various costs are already covered by both Directives. These include
administrative costs (running costs of river basin authorities), monitoring costs, costs
to private households and to  agriculture  and industry (cost recovery  related to  water
use),  costs  of  physical  improvements  to  bodies  of  groundwater  (e.g.  replenishment)
etc.. Thesewill have to be evaluated in the framework of Article 5 of the WFD before
the end of 2004.

– 

– 

Under  Directive  80/68/EEC,  monitoring  is  only  required  for  specific  cases
(authorisations) and is not required for all bodies of groundwater.In any case,
assessment  of  pollution  risks  is  not  really  feasible,  as  there  are  no  quality
objectives  for  the  groundwater  chemical  status.  This  apparently  stringent
protection  regime  does  not  provide  the  data  needed  to  evaluate  "good
chemical  status"  since  it  only  concerns  aquifers  to  which  the  authorisation
rules apply.

As  for  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  without  the  requirement  of  Article
17,  the  absence  of  well-defined  criteria  would  hamper  the  efficient
implementation  of the  WFD  as  regards  management  of  groundwater  within
the river basin management plan. In other words, there is a risk that, without
clearer  legal  framework  and  guidelines  for  assessing  and  monitoring
groundwater  quality,  the  present  protection  regime  will  not  be  sufficiently
effective and that groundwater resources might deteriorate.

This is why it was decided to include Article 17 in the WFD during the  conciliation
process.

At  present,  investment  of  many  EU  countries  in  the  water  sector,  including  water
supply,  water  sanitation,  provision  of  irrigation  water,  river  basin  management  and
water  pollution  abatement,  represents  over  0.5%  of  GDP  (OECD,  2003),  of  which
groundwater  represents  only  a  part.  Expenditure  on  water  pollution  abatement  and
control  tends to be  higher in  densely  populated  countries.  The  relative  shares  of  the
investment  and  operating  components  within  total  pollution  abatement  and  control
expenditure also vary from one country to another. Efforts are being made by industry
to develop integrated pollution prevention and control technology, which will have a
positive economic impact on the long term. Currently, there is growing acceptance of
the need to move towards full cost recovery in the provision of household, industrial

6

and  agricultural  water  services,  which  is  partly  reflected  e.g.  by  pollution  and
abstraction charges. The purpose of the charges is to internalise the external costs of
over-exploitation  or  of  pollution.  Examples  of  environmental,  social  and  economic
costs or benefits (avoided costs) are given in Table 1.

Without any further requirements above those of Directive 80/68/EEC and the WFD,
there are likely to be more and more of derogation requests regarding the application
of WFD environmental objectives to "historically" polluted sites. If derogations were
granted, many sites would be left as they are with no further measures required other
than controls. This implies that the good groundwater chemical status of the affected
bodies of groundwater would not be achieved before the end of 2015 (as required by
the WFD). So groundwater would remain impacted by polluted sites  and this  would
be translated into a whole range of costs: increased household expenditure on water,
damage to wetlands, possible health hazards, water treatment (households, industry),
losses to industry and agriculture etc.

Apart  from  possible  economic  impacts,  not  having  well-defined  criteria  for
groundwater  quality  might  also  raise  possible  questions  about  decision-making  on
groundwater management issues, and might also maintain social distortions in terms
of equal access to "safe drinking water". Indeed, a very high level of uncertainty about
evaluation  of  groundwater  quality  goes  hand  in  hand  with  uncertainties  in  decision-
making,  so  there  is  a  risk  of  wrong  decisions  being  taken  (negative  or  positive)
regarding e.g. control or restoration measures. These uncertainties would have a direct
impact on society, in particular a loss of confidence in decisions taken by competent
authorities, which would directly affect the principle of cost recovery (questions from
consumers about the justification of water pricing).

7

7DEOH(cid:3)(cid:20) - Examples of studies on the cost of groundwater protection and restoration
(adapted from the economic study on groundwater protection, ref. 5)

5HJLRQ
VWXGLHG

Austria

Austria

(Danube
floodplains
)

Belgium

Italy

(Milano)

Finland

(Oulu)

France

Germany

(Hesse)

Sweden

)DFWRUV(cid:3)DVVHVVHG

5HVXOWV

5HIHUHQFHV

Drinking water
purification costs for
municipal water
suppliers

Value of wetlands for
groundwater
(willingness to pay for
protection costs)

Clean-up of
contaminated sites

Valuation of reduced
atrazine concentrations
in groundwater

Valuation of
groundwater as a source
for drinking water
(willingness to pay)

Cost for nitrate
treatment in 25 plants
from various regions

Cost of co-operative
agreements for nitrate
reduction

Cost of groundwater
protection measures
from transport-related
sources

…(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:3)WR(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)PLOOLRQ(cid:3)DV(cid:3)LQYHVWPHQW(cid:15)
and …(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:3)WR(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:3)PLOOLRQ(cid:3)UXQQLQJ(cid:3)FRVWV
(for drinking water use only)

Hofreither &
Sinabell, 1996

…(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:3)WR(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:3)PLOOLRQ

Kosz, 1996

…(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:3)VLWH(cid:3)DV(cid:3)DQ(cid:3)DYHUDJH(cid:15)(cid:3)ZLWK
60% of costs below …(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:3)DQG
some costs up to …(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:3)PLOOLRQ(cid:3)SHU(cid:3)VLWH

…(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:3)WR(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:24)(cid:28)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:3)KRXVHKROG(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:3)\HDU

…(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:3)KRXVHKROG(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:3)\HDU

Ecolas, 2002

Press &
Söderqvist,
1998

Tervonen,
1994

…(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:3)WR(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:3)P³ of abstracted
groundwater. …(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:3)WR(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:18)
inhabitant / year

Lacroix &
Balduchi,
1994

…(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:3)WR(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:3)P³ of abstracted
groundwater

Gramel &
Urban, 2001

…(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:3)WR(cid:3)…(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:3)SHU(cid:3)NP(cid:15)
depending on the measures

Ojala, 2000

Switzerlan
d

Value of forests for
groundwater protection
(avoided treatment cost)

…(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:23)(cid:3)PLOOLRQ(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:3)\HDU(cid:3)(cid:11)RQO\(cid:3)XVH(cid:3)RI
drinking water was considered)

Küchli &
Meylan, 2002

USA

USA

Cost of 28 clean-up
measures

US$ 1,9 million investment cost per
site (average) and US$ 190,000 /
year of running cost per site

US EPA, 1999

Complete groundwater
clean-up from a 40%
contamination

US$ 144 / household / year

McClelland et
al., 1992

8

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)

)LUVW(cid:3)RSWLRQ

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:17)

(FRQRPLF(cid:3)LPSDFW

The first option is based on three key elements:

4.2.1.1. Good chemical status

•  In  this  option,  evaluation  of  good  chemical  status  of  bodies  of  groundwater  as
required  by  Article  17  of  the  WFD  takes  into  account  the  natural  variability  of
aquifer  characteristics  and  distinguishes  between  chemical  substances  that  occur
naturally  and  pollutants  resulting  from  human  activities.  The  classification  of
bodies of groundwater is implicitly required by the WFD (Annex II) and does not
represent an additional cost to Member States over the WFD. This responds to the
objective of the proposed Directive in a flexible fashion.

•  The direct costs borne by this first option – which might be  regarded as having a
negative economic impact – are the systematic monitoring to analyse pollutants in
the  bodies  of  groundwater  characterised  as  being  at  risk.  However,  using  a
common  methodology  to  establish  pollutant  thresholds  will  have  a  harmonising
effect on the evaluation of groundwater chemical status throughout Europe, which
would not have been possible otherwise.

•  In  the  long  term,  the  comparability  of  data  and  using  similar  criteria  to  evaluate
chemical  status  will  facilitate  improved  groundwater  protection  through  better
decision-making  with  regard  to  pollution  prevention  and  control  measures.  This
enhanced  comparability  is  difficult  to  quantify  in  terms  of  (positive)  economic
impact but it is assumed to be largely superior to the costs generated by additional
monitoring requirements over those of the WFD.

•  The  positive  economic  impact  is  directly  related  to  cost  savings:  better  decision-
making  with  better  measures,  enhanced  confidence  in  monitoring  data  and
interpretation, avoiding repetitions of analyses  and  possible  wrong decisions with
(negative) side economic impacts.

4.2.1.2. Significant and sustained upward trends

•  The  requirements  to  identify  and  reverse  significant  and  sustained  upward
pollution trends is also in Article 17 of the WFD. This will imply additional costs
over  and  above  the  WFD,  mainly  linked  to  focused  monitoring  and  reporting
(higher frequency required in bodies of groundwater considered to be at risk). But
these  requirements  are  necessary  to  protect  groundwater  adequately  against
pollution, by enabling the swift identification of risks and the taking of timely and
proportionate  measures  to  reverse  pollution  trends.  They  basically  make  the  “no-
deterioration” clause of the WFD operational.

•  In  the  long  term,  this  approach  will  act  as  an  "alarm  bell"  which  rapidly  detects
pollution threats so early decisions can be taken on the most proportional measures
(control  or  remedial  action).  This  requirement  represents  a  considerable
improvement  in  protection  of  groundwater  against  pollution,  and  hence  has  a

9

highly  positive  economic  impact,  although  this  is  impossible  to  quantify  at  this
stage.

•  4.2.1.3.

Pollution prevention and control measures

•  Related measures to prevent and control groundwater pollution take account of the
requirements  of  Directive  80/68/EEC,  and  are  closely  linked  with  the  list  of
groundwater  pollutants  to  be  identified  by  Member  States  (for  which  thresholds
have  to  be  established).  These  are  measures  to  prohibit  direct  discharges  of
pollutants (as required by the WFD). There is also a clause on indirect discharges
which  shall  only  be  permitted  on  condition  that  they  do  not  put  at  risk  the
achievement of good chemical status. This is also in line with requirements under
Directive  80/68/EEC.  There  are  specific  measures  for  preventing/controlling
pollution  from  (historical)  point  sources,  whereby  sites  already  polluted  sites
should not affect the chemical status of the overall body of groundwater concerned.

•  So  the  first  option  is  a  flexible  system  whereby  action  will  have  to  be  taken  but
should  focus  on  the  risks  related  to  polluted  sites.  This  limits  costs  to  the
management  of  the  risk  zones,  which  will  be  economically  advantageous  on  the
long term. This argument is illustrated by the example in Box 2.

%R[(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:29) Example of restoration costs related to a point source of pollution

One  example  from  the  economic  study  is  a  case  of  groundwater  affected  by  a  point
source  of  serious  pollution  (potash  mining  waste),  the  chief  problem  being  chloride
concentrations  which  exceed  quality  objectives.  By  strictly  managing  the  point  source
(Some 4% of the total aquifer area) it was possible to restore some of it – at  a  cost  of
…(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:3) PLOOLRQ(cid:3) EHWZHHQ(cid:3) (cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:3) DQG(cid:3) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3) (cid:11)…(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:3) PLOOLRQ(cid:3) RQ(cid:3) LQYHVWPHQW(cid:3) (cid:16)(cid:3) H(cid:17)J(cid:17)(cid:3) SXPSLQJ(cid:3) ZHOOV
and infrastructure to artificially dissolve waste deposits - and  …(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:3)PLOOLRQ(cid:3)RQ(cid:3)RSHUDWLRQ
and  maintenance).  Another  …(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:3) PLOOLRQ(cid:3) ZLOO(cid:3) EH(cid:3) VSHQW(cid:3) EHWZHHQ(cid:3) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:3) DQG(cid:3) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:3) RQ
reducing  pollution.  Without  any  action,  the  waste  discharges  would  continue  to  be  a
major  source  of  pollution  for  more  than  180  years  (estimated  by  modelling).  Strict
management  of  the  polluted  site  made  it  possible  in  this  case  to  stop  the  pollution
spreading and to take suitable clean-up measures. Good chemical status (except for the
point  source)  will  be  reached  by  2015,  while  the  polluted  area  will  be  controlled  and
restored over a longer period (and should – according to models - reach good chemical
status by before ).

•  The requirement to check pollution sources is not specific to the proposed directive
since it is already covered by WFD requirements. In this context, the checks will
have  an  impact  on  agriculture  and  industry,  and  on  urban  areas  (municipalities),
which will be obviously higher in regions with lots of pollution sites. The costs of
the measures taken will  be charged  to  those  responsible  for  the  pollution  (in  line
with the "polluter's pay principle") when they are known, or to the Member States
in the case of "historically" polluted sites. This is illustrated in Box 3.

%R[(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:29)(cid:3)Example of restoration costs arising from diffuse agricultural pollution

The  example  of  the  Alsace  aquifer  demonstrates  that  costs  can  be  avoided  with  strict
pollution  control  of  nitrates  and  pesticides.  Out  of  a  total  population  of  1.7  million
inhabitants in the region, 432,000 are affected by pollution of the aquifer by nitrates and

10

pesticides.  This  has  resulted  in  a  total  restoration  cost  of  …(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:3) PLOOLRQ(cid:3) RYHU(cid:3) WKH(cid:3) SHULRG
1988-2002.  Strict  pollution  control  in  identified  risk  areas  could  have  prevented  a
substantial  part  of  these  costs,  which  are  borne  by  all  sectors  of  the  economy.  For
farmers, the  cost  has been  …(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:24)(cid:3)PLOOLRQ(cid:3)PDLQO\(cid:3)LQ(cid:3) FKDQJHV(cid:3)WR(cid:3) IDUPLQJ(cid:3)SUDFWLFHV(cid:17)(cid:3) $QG(cid:3) D
major  beer  manufacturer  had  to  invest  …(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:3) PLOOLRQ(cid:3) LQ(cid:3) D(cid:3) QHZ(cid:3) WUHDWPHQW(cid:3) SODQ(cid:3) DQG(cid:3) WKH
necessary connections. Households have paid about …(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)PLOOLRQ(cid:3)LQ(cid:3)H[WUD(cid:3)FRVWV(cid:17)

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)

6RFLDO(cid:3)LPSDFW

•  The  social  impact  of  the  first  option  is  difficult  to  quantify.  Overall,  the  key
elements  are  all  considered  to  have  a  positive  social  impact.  First  of  all,
harmonisation of criteria for evaluating groundwater chemical status will represent
a  clear  improvement  over  existing  WFD  requirements.  Better  evaluation  of
groundwater quality has a directly positive social impact . The same is true for the
"trend  reversal"  principle,  which  should  prevent  groundwater  quality  from
deteriorating  (not  only  so  that  it  can  be  used  but  also  to  protect  its  patrimonial
value).

•  The proposed prevention and control measures are not radically new and imply a

VWDWXV(cid:3)TXR(cid:17)

•  Specific criteria for point sources of pollution will have social consequences in that
they will raise awareness of the risks related to polluted sites. The reason for public
concern to prevent the  deterioration of water  resources  from  polluted sites  is that
they  are  often  in  low-income  industrial  regions  where  the  social  benefits  of
preventing  pollution  will  be  higher.  So  the  idea  of  focused  measures  on  polluted
sites  is  a  good  way  of  combining  the  geographical  and  social  dimensions  of  the
pollution.

•  Finally, regulating groundwater on the basis of quality objectives (and not only by
issuing permits for discharges of certain pollutants, as under Directive 80/68/EEC)
should  benefit  users  by  better  control  of  pollution  risks.  Although  when  permits
were  issued  there  was  monitoring  to  evaluate  their  effectiveness,  without  quality
objectives  it  was  not  possible  to  make  a  proper  appraisal.  Under  this  proposal,
potential  risks  will  be  assessed  against  clear  quality  objectives  (good  chemical
status).

•  In many cases, the willingness of the population to pay for protecting and restoring
aquifers  demonstrates  the  patrimonial  value  of  groundwater,  i.e.  is  considered  a
common heritage.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:17)

(QYLURQPHQWDO(cid:3)LPSDFW

•  Environmental  impact  can  be  assessed  directly  from  the  economic  and  social
impacts.  All  elements  of  the  first  option  have  a  direct,  positive,  impact  on  the
environment:  through  improved  evaluation  of  groundwater  chemical  status,  a
tighter  no-deterioration  clause  (based  on  trend  studies),  measures  to  prevent  or
limit  discharges  of  pollutants,  and  tighter  control  of  polluted  sites  through
specifications  related  to  point  sources  of  pollution.  The  option  should  lead  to  an

11

improvement in the environmental quality of groundwater; this was not sufficiently
tackled by the current policy framework.

•  Bad  quality  groundwater  affects  how  wetlands  function  (self-cleaning,  water
storage). But wetlands have the natural capacity for dealing with waste water. They
have  a  self-cleaning  capacity  which  is  often  equivalent  to  the  annual  capacity  of
waste  water  treatment  plants  (e.g.  one  hectare  (or  10,000  m²)  of  wetland  has  a
sanitation  capacity  equivalent  to  the  annual  capacity  of  plant  serving  4,000
inhabitants).  Compared  to  the  cost  of  a  waste  water  treatment  plant,  the  value  of
one  hectare  of  wetland  could  be  estimated  at  about  …(cid:22)(cid:15)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:3) )RU(cid:3) WKH(cid:3) VWRUDJH(cid:3) RI
freshwater, the value of a wetland has been estimated at about …(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:18)P³.

•  The  harmonising  effect  of  using  pollutant  thresholds  to  evaluate  the  chemical
status  of  groundwater  characterised  as  being  at  risk  will  have  a  positive
environmental impact at EU level because (1) data will be made comparable from
one river basin district to another and (2) the groundwater will be managed in the
same  way.  This  means  that  there  we  shall  have  a  better  overall  picture  of  the
degradation  of  groundwater  resources,  which  will  make  it  easier  to  decide  what
measures  need  to  be  taken.  Exchanges  of  good  practices  and  past  experience
should help to keep costs reasonable.

•  The focus on pollution sites will make it easier to take appropriate action to limit
the  adverse  environmental  effects  of  polluted  groundwater  on  associated
ecosystems.  For  example,  in  the  case  quoted  in  paragraph  4.2.1.3  (potash  waste
dumps), the polluted groundwater was affecting forest growth. Tight management
of the site improved the situation.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:17)

6XEVLGLDULW\(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)SURSRUWLRQDOLW\

•  In the first option, Member States are responsible for establishing threshold values
to  serve  as  local  standards.  This  approach  represents  a  high  level  of  subsidiarity
since  they  fix  their  own  quality  objectives  according  to  the  characteristics  of  the
groundwater in  each  river  basin and the local  pressures  and  impacts.  Community
standards have to be followed only for  a  limited set  of pollutants.  Common  rules
are established for the identification and reversal of pollution trends, as well as for
measures  for  indirect  discharges  into  groundwater  which  put  at  risk  the
achievement of good chemical status of the groundwater body concerned. But this
is  left  up  to  the  Member  States  to  decide  how  they  will  implement  these
requirements.

•  In  terms  of  proportionality,  the  evaluation  and  monitoring  of  bodies  of
groundwater  on  the  basis  of  quality  standards  and  threshold  values  are  required
only  for  those  bodies  that  were  characterised  as  being  at  risk  (following  the
analysis of pressures and impacts carried out under the WFD). Authorisations are
required  only  for  those  activities  which  represent  a  risk  to  groundwater.  So  this
approach can be considered in that it focuses on actual risks, and does not require
an extensive appraisal of all ground waters.

12

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:17)

6HFRQG(cid:3)RSWLRQ

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:17)

(FRQRPLF(cid:3)LPSDFW

The second option is based on the three following key elements:

4.3.1.1. Good chemical status

•  In this second option, the establishment of boundaries between “poor” and “good”
chemical  status  is  based  on  the  establishment  of  fixed  groundwater  quality
standards for  a  range  of  pollutants,  similar  to  the  existing  nitrates,  pesticides  and
biocides.

•  The fixed quality standards are meant to act as restoration targets for all bodies of
groundwater  where  standard  concentrations  are  exceeded.  This  should  provide
technical
stringent  protection  against  pollution.  However, 
difficulties  because  of  the  natural  variability  in  groundwater  composition.
Furthermore,  fixed  standards  do  not  distinguish  between  inputs  of  pollutants  (of
human origin) and substances that are naturally present in the water.

there  could  be 

•  In fact, fixed standards would be too stringent in some cases (e.g. in cases where
"polluting"  substances  are  naturally  present  in  groundwater)  and  would  actually
imply  the  restoration  of  polluted  bodies  of  groundwater  without  any  flexibility
other  than  derogation.  The  economic  impact  of  achieving  good  chemical  status
would then be very high  due to the  disproportionate  costs  required  to  clean  it  up
(e.g.  sinking  wells  to  pump  out  the  polluted  groundwater).  Figures  are  given  in
Table 1. It would also create economic distortion between areas that contain high
concentrations  of  naturally  occurring  substances  that  are  potential  hazards  and
areas that are not "naturally contaminated". Setting similar standards would lead to
very different costs depending on each case.

•  In  addition,  the  Commission  would  undoubtedly  be  flooded  with  derogation
requests, which would be an additional administrative economic burden. To justify
these derogation requests would require more investment in the monitoring system,
possibly as much as …(cid:22)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:3)SHU(cid:3)PRQLWRULQJ(cid:3)SRLQW(cid:3)SHU(cid:3)\HDU(cid:17)

•  In  other  cases,  fixed  standards  might  be  too  lax  and  might  act  as  a  "license  to
pollute  up  to  the  standard  values”  for  bodies  of  groundwater  that  do  not  contain
high  concentrations  of  the  regulated  substances.  The  consequence  could  be  that
unpolluted  groundwater  could  deteriorate  while  no  legal  action  could  be  taken.
There  would  also  be  indirect  economic  impacts  in  terms  of  additional  water
treatment costs and increase consumption of mineral water.

•  Establishing  uniform quality standards for all  European  groundwaters  would  also
mean  that  all  bodies  of  groundwater  had  to  be  monitored  (even  those  not
considered  at  being  at  risk),  so  there  would  be  high  monitoring  costs  without
obvious long term benefits.

•  Finally, with fixed quality standards, it is not possible to evaluate how groundwater
interacts  with  associated  aquatic  and  terrestrial  ecosystems,  nor  to  consider  the
variety of situations encountered.

13

•  The  positive  impacts  of  this  option  are  not  quantifiable  at  the  present  stage.  A
stringent  regime  will  undoubtedly  be  of  benefit  in  protecting  groundwater
resources in the long term. However, it is not certain that EU wide standards would
perform  that  function  if  they  were  established  without  considering  the  local
characteristics of bodies of groundwater.

4.3.1.2. High chemical status

•  The definition of a groundwater "high chemical status" will be of direct benefit in
protecting  pristine  groundwater,  and  would  thus  reinforce  the  objectives  for
protected areas in the WFD and related directives.

•  A  new  high  chemical  status  class  would  mean  a  new  and  costly  monitoring  and
control  framework  (stricter  than  the  one  requested  by  the  WFD).  However,  it  is
assumed  that  unpolluted  groundwater  can  be  protected  by  other  means,  in
particular the provisions of the WFD.

4.3.1.3. Significant and sustained upward trends

•  As  with  the  first  option,  the  requirement  to  identify  and  reverse  significant  and
sustained  upward  pollution  trends  will  imply  additional  costs  over  and  above  the
WFD, mainly for focused monitoring and  reporting (higher frequency required in
bodies of groundwater considered to be at risk).

•  With  the  second  option,  the  starting  point  for  trend  reversals  would  be  directly
linked to the quality standards (trends have to be reversed once 75% of the quality
standard  concentration  is  reached).  This  actually  reinforces  the  good  chemical
status requirement by detecting specific threats from pollution. However, it focuses
on  selected  substances  for  which  quality  standards  are  established  and  does  not
specifically  take  into  consideration  the  specific  characteristics  of  the  bodies  of
groundwater, or the sources of pollution, which could have a negative impact the
chemical status.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)

6RFLDO(cid:3)LPSDFW

•  The high potential cost of stringent quality standards would obviously affect water
prices, and this would have a direct social impact. One option was to derive quality
standards  from  drinking  water  standards.  However,  these  standards  were  actually
established for health reasons rather than for environment protection so they would
give the wrong message to the public, since this is protection of groundwater for its
own sake.

•  The definition of "high chemical status" would meet with a positive reaction from
the public, but at the expense of higher management costs (reflected in water prices
and in costs to business and industry ). Hence, it is doubtful that the second option
would adequately respond to society’s growing awareness of the patrimonial value
of groundwater.

•  The second option is likely to encourage more calls to phase out discharges, which
would mean industry has to modify or improve its processes. Notwithstanding the
direct  impact  on  industry  (with  a  probable  negative  impact  on  turnover  and

14

employment), there would also be an increase in water prices, which would have a
direct social impact. For industry, the costs of both additional monitoring and extra
treatment  to  reach  drinking  water  quality  standards  would  be  too  expensive,  in
particular  for  SMEs.  For  households,  the  additional  costs  of  preventing  drinking
water  pollution  have  been  estimated  at  about  …(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:3) (cid:18)P³.  This  would  have  a
negative impact on the poorest households.

This is borne out by the examples of water treatment costs given in Table 1.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:17)

(QYLURQPHQWDO(cid:3)LPSDFW

•  It  is  obvious  that  much  "unpolluted"  groundwater  contains  natural  substances  in
concentrations  that  are  inappropriate  for  human  consumption  (unless  very  costly
treatment  is  applied)  and  that  health-related  standards  would  be  inadequate  to
protect  those  resources  from  an  environmental  viewpoint.  So  applying  drinking
water  standards  to  groundwater  would  not  be  appropriate.  As  discussed  in
paragraph  4.2.1,  fixed  quality  standards  that  did  not  take  account  of  the  natural
variability of groundwater would lead to a situation where protection was either too
stringent  (with  a  direct  economic  impact)  or  too  lax  (with  a  risk  of  quality
deterioration).

•  Environmental  impact  can  be  looked  at  from  different  angles.  In  some  cases,
stringent  standards  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  environment  (e.g.  where
pollutants  are  clearly  identified)  as  they  would  act  as  restoration  targets,  thus
representing  a  clear  improvement  in  groundwater  quality.  But  this  would  entail
high  costs.  In  other  cases,  standards  might  act  as  "top-up  values"  (i.e.  you  can
increase pollution up to the value of the standard) which would be tantamount to a
"license to pollute". This would of course have a negative impact on groundwater
quality, in particular in zones which are not significantly affected by pollution, and
associated aquatic and dependent terrestrial ecosystems.

•  The establishment of a "high chemical" status class may at first sound an appealing
way of protecting pristine groundwater, and the economic impact would certainly
be  very  positive.  However,  the  costs  of  making  this  requirement  operational
(monitoring, reporting, restoration) would have unacceptable economic impacts.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:17)

6XEVLGLDULW\(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)SURSRUWLRQDOLW\

•  The second option sets out a strict system to be uniformly applied by all Member
States for all bodies of groundwater. The only subsidiarity aspect in this approach
concerns implementation.

•  The  second  option  entails  potentially  high  administrative  and  economic  costs,
which  are  not  considered  to  be  proportionate  to  the  level  of  risk.  All  bodies  of
groundwater  have  to  be  monitored  and  evaluated  on  the  basis  of  common
standards, which might  lead to technical  difficulties and  decisions that would not
take  sufficient  account  of  local  characteristics.  The  “high  chemical  status”  class
would also represent additional costs, without clear benefits in terms of protecting
unpolluted groundwater.

15

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:17)

&RQFOXVLRQV

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:17)

)LUVW(cid:3)RSWLRQ

The first  option  is stringent in so far it  establishes  threshold  values  for  groundwater
pollutants (on the basis of which the chemical status of bodies of groundwater will be
evaluated and a set of actions  defined).  It  also sets  criteria for  the  identification and
reversal  of  significant  and  sustained  upward  trends  in  the  concentrations  of  all
pollutants (i.e. substances that both occur naturally and as a result of human activities
in  groundwater  and  also  synthetic  pollutants).  In  addition,  it  identifies  measures  for
preventing and controlling pollution to ensure adequate continuation of the protection
provided by Directive 80/68/EEC.

It adopts a harmonised approach, using pollutant thresholds for assessing groundwater
chemical status in bodies of groundwater at risk, and specific measures to tackle point
sources  of  pollution.  This  leaves  Member  States  ample  flexibility  to  decide  on  their
own  prevention  and  control  procedures  and  to  take  appropriate  and  proportionate
actions,  which  therefore  fully  justifies  the  stringency  of  the  first  option.  For  this
reason, it is the first option that has been selected (Box 4).

%R[(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:29)(cid:3)Reason for choosing the first option

The  first  option  has  been  preferred,  because  of  the  drawbacks  of  the  other  (strict
standards) option. This option can be used to build a IOH[LEOH(cid:3)DSSURDFK that will ensure a
FRVW(cid:16)HIIHFWLYH(cid:3)OHYHO(cid:3)RI(cid:3)JURXQGZDWHU(cid:3)SURWHFWLRQ against pollution. It improves the current
protection system by setting FOHDU(cid:3)JURXQGZDWHU(cid:3)TXDOLW\(cid:3)REMHFWLYHV, while avoiding any
duplication with the WFD and leaving Member States maximum flexibility for deciding
on control or restoration measures.

The additional economic impact created by the proposal is strictly related to technical
requirements for extra control and monitoring of bodies of groundwater (in addition to
existing  WFD  requirements),  e.g.  for  the  assessment  of  background  chemical
composition, analyses of pollutants in order to establish thresholds, and trend studies.
As  already  explained,  this  impact  is  not  totally  new  in  that  the  WFD  will  already
establish  the  framework  for  programmes  of  monitoring  and  measures.  These
additional  costs  will  be  largely  compensated  for  by  the  proposed  improvements,  in
terms  of  harmonised  evaluation  of  good  chemical  status,  reinforcement  of  the  no-
deterioration clause (trend studies) and control of polluted sites. In the long term, it is
expected that the proposed approach will improve comparability of practices between
river  basin  districts  and  optimise  monitoring,  control  and  restoration  measures.
Furthermore,  improved  control  will  help  identify  potential  problems  earlier  so  that
they can be solved more cheaply.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)

6HFRQG(cid:3)RSWLRQ

The second option is more stringent in that it is based on the establishment of quality
standards  that  are  derived  from  drinking  water  quality  standards.  It  might  be
appropriate for some substances (e.g. nitrates, pesticides) but it is not really applicable
to other substances, because of the variety of characteristics of bodies of groundwater

16

and  the  wide  variety  of  sources  of  pollution.  Arguments  against  this  option  are
summarised in the Box5.

%R[(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:3)Arguments against the strict standards option

The  experts  consulted  considered  that  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  implement  a  "strict
standards system " because of the ODFN(cid:3)RI(cid:3)GDWD(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)VWXGLHV needed to establish sound
quality  thresholds  representative  of  all  European  bodies  of  groundwater.  There  will  be
VWULFW(cid:3)VWDQGDUGV(cid:3)for QLWUDWHV(cid:15)(cid:3)SHVWLFLGHV(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)ELRFLGHV, but QRW(cid:3)IRU(cid:3)RWKHU(cid:3)VXEVWDQFHV, the
main reason being that the costs of non-compliance would  be  extremely high  if  a  large
number  of  standards  were  established,  without  prior  studies  to  check  that  they  are
representative.

In addition, it was decided not to include a new status class ("high chemical status")
for the protection of unpolluted groundwater in this option because it would generate
an  unnecessary  administrative  burden  and  additional  costs.  The  protection  of
unpolluted groundwater could be achieved by other means (e.g. protected areas under
Article 6 of the WFD, no-deterioration clause etc.).

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:17) &RQFOXVLRQ(cid:3)–(cid:3)6HOHFWHG(cid:3)RSWLRQ

On the basis of the analyses of the two options, it was decided to select the first option
for  the  proposed  Commission  daughter  groundwater  Directive.  However,  some
features  of  the  second  option  have  been  included  in  the  final  proposal.  These  are  a
limited set of common quality standards based on existing Community legislation (for
nitrates, pesticides and biocides) and the possibility for the Commission to develop a
proposal  for  new  Community  standards  on  the  basis  of  the  threshold  values  to  be
established by Member States.

(cid:24)(cid:17)

021,725,1*(cid:3)$1’(cid:3)(9$/8$7,1*(cid:3)7+((cid:3)5(68/76(cid:3)$1’(cid:3),03$&76
2)(cid:3)7+((cid:3)352326$/(cid:3)$)7(5(cid:3),03/(0(17$7,21

The  proposed  Directive  will  be  closely  linked  to  implementation  of  the  Water
Framework  Directive.  In  other  words,  the  groundwater  monitoring  and  protection
system  will  be  incorporated  into  the  river  basin  management  plans,  including
reporting  on  the  groundwater  chemical  and  quantitative  status.  The  policy  can
therefore  be  monitoredthrough  regular  reporting  within  the  framework  of  the  river
basin management plan, i.e. every six years from 2009.

The  provision  for  the  establishment  of  a  Regulatory  Committee  (Article  21  of  the
Water Framework Directive), which will also concern this Directive, leaves scope for
an  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  policy.  In  this  respect,  rules  of  procedure  are  to  be
adopted by the Regulatory Committee when it is set up (end of 2003).

17

(cid:25)(cid:17)

67$.(+2/’(5(cid:3)&2168/7$7,21

(cid:25)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:17)

0HPEHU(cid:3)6WDWHV(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)VWDNHKROGHUV

The target group for consultation on this Extended Impact Assessment was the Expert
Advisory  Forum  on  Groundwater  (EAF).  This  forum  was  constituted  in  November
2001  to  discuss  all  the  issues  relating  to  development  of  the  Groundwater  Daughter
Directive.  It is a  group  with  some 50 members, representing  the  national  authorities
(mostly  environment  ministries  or  agencies)  of  Member  States  and  Candidate
Countries, NGOs (e.g. European Environment Bureau, the Wildlife Trusts), industrial
associations  (e.g.  CEFIC,  Eurométaux),  unions  (e.g.  UNICE),  water  and  consumer
associations (e.g. EUREAU), agricultural associations (e.g. ECPA, EULA), technical
experts  (e.g.  from  the  European  geological  surveys),  representatives  from  European
regions (e.g. EPRO), and officers from various EU Commission Directorates-General
(e.g. DG AGRI, DG ENTR, DG RTD and DG SANCO).

The  EAF  Groundwater  met  five  times  –  November  2001,  March,  June  and  October
2002,  and  March  2003  –  to  discuss  the  features  of  the  present  draft  proposal  for  a
Groundwater Directive. Various options were examined, in particular the two options
that  are  presented  in  this  impact  assessment.  There  was  in-depth  discussion  on  the
various  impact,  the  results  of  which  are  set  out  in  summary  documents  (minutes  of
EAF meetings). These were taken into account when drafting both  the Groundwater
Directive  proposal  and  the  Extended  Impact  Assessment.  The  arguments  for  and
against in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 are taken from these discussions.

With  regard  to  the  current  draft,  a  first  outline  document  has  been  sent  to  the  EAF
members on 21 January 2003. The main elements of the Extended Impact Assessment
were discussed  at the  5th  EAF  Groundwater meeting  on 10 March 2003, and  a  first
draft of the ExIA was sent to the EAF Groundwater, calling for comments before the
15th April 2003.

(cid:25)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)

&RPPLVVLRQ(cid:3)GHSDUWPHQWV

The main elements of the Extended Impact Assessment (as outlined in the Preliminary
Impact  Assessment)  were  also  discussed  with  other  Commission  departments  (the
Directorates-General  for  Agriculture,  Enterprise,  RTD,  and  Health  and  Consumer
Affairs,  and  Unit  C4  –  Biotechnolgoy  and  Pesticides  -  of  DG  Environment)  on  5
February  2003.  A  draft  of  the  ExIA  was  then  sent  to,  and  discussed  with  these
departments  (along  with  the  proposed  Directive)  on  25  March  2003.  An  advanced
draft  of  the  ExIA  (incorporating  all  their  comments)  disseminated  on  on  31  March,
calling for comments before 15 April 2003.

(cid:25)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:17)

$FFHGLQJ(cid:3)6WDWHV(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)&DQGLGDWH(cid:3)FRXQWULHV

Acceding  States  and  Candidate  countries  have  been  involved  at  the  same  level  as
Member  States and  stakeholders  (same consultation  process as in  paragraph  6.1).  In
addition,  two  workshops  were  held  with  officials  and  experts  from  the  Candidate
countriesto discuss specific issues of groundwater management and the way the future
groundwater  directive  will  be  integrated  into  the  current  management  practices  in
these  countries.  A  first  workshop  on  "Groundwater  management  -  Challenges  of
implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive" was held in Vilnius from 10

18

to  13  October  2002  and  involved  some  30  representatives  from  Estonia,  Hungary,
Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Slovakia  and  Slovenia.  A  second  workshop  was  held  in
Budapest on 6 March 2003 on the initiative of the Dutch and Hungarian environment
ministries.  Both  workshops  demonstrated  that  a  sound  groundwater  management
system is already in place in the Candidate countries, and that the level of awareness
of EU groundwater policy issues is very high.

(cid:26)(cid:17)

&200,66,21(cid:3)’5$)7(cid:3)352326$/(cid:3)$1’(cid:3)-867,),&$7,21

•  The final policy choice (first option) responds to the requirement of Article 17 of
the  WFD.  It  ensures  an  appropriate  level  of  protection  of  groundwater  while
leaving  the  Member  States  flexibility  in  implementing  measures  that  are  fully
integrated into the WFD framework.

•  An  ambitious  approach  based  on  a  system  of  strict  standards  was  rejected  as  it
would  have  been  difficult  to  implement  technically  and  would  have  been  very
expensive  for  Member  States.  The  chosen  option  takes  account  of  local
characteristics and is more flexible, and hence more proportionate in terms of the
cost/benefits of groundwater protection.

•  Because  of  a  lack of  data  and knowledge, it was not possible to  obtain  a  general
picture  of  concentrations  of  pollutants  in  European  ground  waters,  as  a  basis  for
establishing  common  quality  standards  for  a  range  of  substances.  Consequently,
the  Commission  proposal  asks  Member  States  to  establish,  within  a  given  time
frame,  threshold  values  for  pollutants  that  characterise  bodies  of  groundwater  as
being at risk. The characterisation work and the establishment of threshold values
will  provide  data  and  knowledge  that  will  later  form  the  basis  for  an  improved
protection  (refinement  of  threshold  values,  development  of  possible  common
quality standards).

•  The  Common  Implementation  Strategy  of  the  WFD,  including  the  groundwater
issues,  may  be  taken  as  an  accompanying  measure  for  preparing  better
implementation of both the WFD and the future Groundwater Directive. There is to
be a new working group on “Groundwater characterisation and monitoring” whose
task  will  be  to  develop  guidance  documents  in  consultation  with  Member  States,
Accession  countries  and  stakeholders.  This  should  help  to  maximise  the  positive
impacts of the proposed approach and to minimise possible negative impacts.

19