Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the quality of bathing waters (presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty)
Date: 2004-04-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bathing water, environmental protection, environmental standard, quality of the environment

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 5.4.2004 
COM(2004) 245 final 

2002/0254 (COD) 

Amended proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

concerning the quality of bathing waters 

(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
2002/0254 (COD) 

Amended proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

concerning the quality of bathing waters 

On  21  October  2003,  the  European  Parliament  voted  in  first  reading  on  the  amendments 
tabled  on  the  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 
concerning the quality of bathing waters (COM(2002)581 final of 24 October 2002). 

Article  250(2)  of  the  EC  Treaty  states  that  as  long  as  the  Council  has  not  acted,  the 
Commission may alter its proposal at any time during the procedures leading to the adoption 
of a Community act. 

The  Commission  hereafter  gives  its  opinion  on  the  amendments  adopted  by  the  European 
Parliament. 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

the  European  Parliament 
Transmission  of 
(COM(2002) 581 final  –  2002/0254(COD))  in  accordance  with  Article  175(1)  of  the  EC 
Treaty: 24 October 2002. 

the  Council  and 

the  proposal 

to 

to 

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: 19 June 2003. 

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions: 9 April 2003. 

Opinion of the European Parliament in first reading: 21 October 2003. 

2. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL 

Protection  of  bathing  waters  has  been  one  of  the  first  and  most  successful  elements  of 
European Water Policy. The 1976 Bathing Water Directive set binding standards for bathing 
waters throughout the European Union. The annual Bathing Water Report shows large public 
awareness and substantial progress in the quality of bathing waters. 

However,  the  1976  Bathing  Water  Directive  clearly  reflects  the  state  of  knowledge  and 
experience  of  the  early  1970s,  both  technically  as  socially.  Since  1976  epidemiological 
knowledge has progressed and managerial methods have improved. Also the public wishes to 
be better informed and involved in environmental matters. 

After taking account of the outcome of an intensive public and expert consultation process the 
Commission published a proposal for a new directive concerning the quality of bathing water 
in October 2002, under reference COM (2002)581. 

2 

 
 
  
 
This  proposal  retained  the  existing  definition  of  bathing  water.  Even  though  there  was 
considerable  pressure  to  expand  the  definition  in  order  to  fully  include  other  recreational 
water  uses  such  as  surfing  and  windsurfing,  it  was  considered  that  a  full  inclusion  of  these 
recreational activities would have resulted in disproportionate costs for the Member States.  

In contrast to the 19 parameters monitored in the 1976 Directive, the revised Bathing Water 
Directive imposes, besides visual inspections of the bathing site, monitoring of two indicator 
bacteria,  which  are  scientifically  proved  to  be  reliable  indicators  for  the  presence  of  faecal 
pollution. 

Experience  with  implementing  the  current  Bathing  Water  Directive  indicates  that  long-term 
assessment and management methods allow for a reduction of both frequency and monitoring 
cost  and  still  reach  a  higher  level  of  protection.  Well  developed  management  of  bathing 
waters  and  extensive  information  given  to  the  public  replace  a  pure  monitoring  and 
retrospective compliance approach. 

3. 

COMMISSION  OPINION  ON  THE  AMENDMENTS  ADOPTED  BY  THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

On  21  October  2003,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  37  amendments  out  of  the  75  that 
were tabled. Two adopted amendments – numbers 19 and 65 - were subject to split votes. In 
transitory  contamination  was  supported  by 
amendment  19  only 
Parliamentarians, not the specific conditions nor the modalities proposed by the amendment. 
Amendment 65 was untouched by the split vote. 

the  concept  of 

The Commission finds that a large number of the Parliament’s amendments are acceptable in 
principle or in full, as they clarify and improve upon the Commission proposal, particularly in 
the field of communication with the public and in technical matters like analyses of samples. 

Some of the amendments seek a stronger integration with the Water Framework Directive. In 
this respect, the Commission accepts the elements that lead to better information given to the 
public,  but  wants  to  avoid  duplication  of  efforts  in  the  field  of  chemicals  and  dangerous 
substances.  The  WFD sets  ecological and chemical quality  standards for  all waters, and the 
BW  Directive  complements  this  with  microbiological  standards  for  bathing  waters.  At  the 
same time, the single managerial frame under the WFD integrates the BW Directive as well. 

The Commission is not open either to amendments which would alter and reduce the scope of 
the proposed directive, as amendment 5, limiting the scope for recreational activities to a 100 
m zone. 

The  Commission's  detailed  position  with  regard  to  the  amendments  of  the  European 
Parliament is as follows: 

3 

 
 
  
 
3.1. 

Amendments accepted fully by the Commission 

Amendments  6,  10,  11  clarify  definitions  and  operational  modalities,  which  will  make 
reporting and management easier and more systematic. 

Amendments 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 34 improve the information given to the public and 
lead to better management of risks. In particular, amendment 20 leads to better participation 
of the public in the management of bathing waters and is fully compliant to the second pillar 
of the Århus convention. 

Amendment 52 is acceptable as it contributes to sound management of bathing waters. 

Amendments  29,  30,  31,  35,  57  and  75  make  a  positive  contribution  regarding  analytical 
techniques and contribute to better health protection. 

3.2. 

Amendments accepted in part or in principle by the Commission 

Amendment  28  is  welcomed  by  the  Commission,  but  it  would  prefer  to  add  a  reference  to 
scientific and technical progress. The text should then read: 

The Commission shall review this Directive at the latest 15 years after its entry into force, 
with particular regard to the parameters for bathing water quality. It will present a report to 
the European Parliament and Council with particular attention on scientific and technical 
progress.  The  report  shall,  as  appropriate,  be  accompanied  by  suggestions  for  revision  of 
the relevant provisions of the directive. 

Amendment 21 is in its first part acceptable for the Commission, as it gives more information 
and  makes  available  a  better  description  of  the  bathing  water  to  the  public.  However,  the 
Commission  is  aware  of  the  fact  that  this  information  will  often  be  superfluous  as  in  some 
circumstances, the status according to the WFD is not relevant for bathers (e.g. in the case of 
a harbour dock).  

The  Commission  is  in  favour  of  standardised  symbols  for  indicating  the  quality  of  bathing 
waters,  but  the  Commission  prefers  to  leave  the  choice  of  these  symbols  to  subsidiarity.  In 
order  to  address  this  issue,  the  Commission  will  seek  support  from  Member  States  in  an 
implementation strategy similar to the one successfully developed for the Water Framework 
Directive.  

The amendment (21) should thus be limited to: 

(a) 
a  non-technical  summary  of  the  bathing  water  profile  and  the  bathing  water 
classification  over  the  last  3  years,  including  the  status  of  the  bathing  water  according  to 
Directive 2000/60/EC. 

The  Commission  would  welcome  amendment  8,  but  believes  it  would  not  contribute  to  the 
directive. In the light of article 16 §1a, amendment 8 can be considered redundant. It would 
lead to lengthy discussions on what is “factual”. Also defining “factual” would lead to over-
regulation. 

Amendment 25 leads to better information practises, stating the Internet as one of the media 
and  technologies  used  for  information,  but  the  Commission  wants  to  leave  the  use  of 
languages to subsidiarity and therefore would not accept the reference to French and English. 

4 

 
 
  
 
Amendment  32  on  Annex  III  (a)  aims  at  a  more  complete  profile,  which  the  Commission 
welcomes.  Still,  the  Water  Framework  Directive  focuses  on  wide-scale  (macro)  characteris-
tics,  like  estuaries.  The  Bathing  Water  Directive  acts  on  much  smaller  topographic  entities, 
like bathing sites. Unnecessary burden should be avoided. Only elements which are relevant 
for  the  understanding  and  management  of  bathing  waters  should  be  included  in  the  profile. 
The amendment should read:  

aa)  a  description  of  the  physical,  geographical  and  hydrological  characteristics  of  the 
bathing water in relation to the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC to the extend that 
these elements are relevant for the bathing water; 

3.3. 

Amendments not accepted by the Commission 

Amendments 1, 12 cannot be accepted for formal reasons. For amendment 1, the text in the 
original  proposal  comes  from  the  Treaty  and  should  be  retained.  Amendment  12  makes 
reference to a provision in the 76/160 directive which does not exist. 

Amendment  5,  which  reduces  the  scope  of  the  directive,  is  not  acceptable.  Covering  water 
sports  within  a  limit  of  100  meters  is  an  impractical  provision.  The  limit  of  100  m  will  be 
difficult to establish and the provision will be impossible to control.  

Amendment  7  is  not  acceptable  because  it  opens  the  scope  for  waters  with  recreational 
activities subject to pollution, and excludes waters which show little risk to pollution. 

Amendment  19  cannot  be  accepted  as  it  stands.  After  the  split  vote  it  is  not  operational 
anymore. Nevertheless, the Commission is open to the concept of transitory contamination. 

Concerning  amendments  2,  4,  16,  65,  the  Commission  cannot  accept  the  duplication  of 
chemical  standards,  dealt  with  in  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  into  the  Bathing  Water 
Directive. Only the by amendment 65 proposed insertion ‘in order to protect‘ is welcomed. 

Amendment  27  cannot  be  accepted  because  the  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  to  leave  the 
design of symbols depicting water quality to subsidiarity. 

Amendment  33  can,  in  its  present  form  not  be  accepted,  for  reasons  of  scale.  The  Water 
Framework  Directive  focuses  on  wide-scale  (macro)  characteristics,  whereas  the  Bathing 
Water Directive acts on much smaller topographic entities.  

Amendment 54 is not acceptable because a four days sampling window is far too large and 
would create opportunities to influence the outcome of the statistics. 

Amendment 58, referring to recital 7, cannot be accepted. This idea is in contradiction with 
the spirit of the proposed directive, which goes for a high level of protection. 

3.4. 

Amended proposal 

Having regard to Article 250(2) of the EC  Treaty,  the  Commission  modifies  its  proposal  as 
indicated above. 

5