Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Integrated prevention and control of chemical pollution of surface waters in the European Union {SEC(2006) 947} {COM(2006) 397 final}
Date: 2006-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical pollution, environmental protection, environmental standard, pollution control measures, prevention of pollution, surface water

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 17.7.2006 
COM(2006) 398 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Integrated prevention and control of chemical pollution of surface waters in the 
European Union 

{SEC(2006) 947} 
{COM(2006) 397 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Integrated prevention and control of chemical pollution of surface waters in the 
European Union 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNICATION 

1.1. 

Introduction 

The Water Framework Directive (WFD),1 adopted in 2000, establishes a new regime 
for  prevention  and  control  of  the  chemical  pollution  of  surface  waters  and  ground 
waters. The WFD also requires the Commission to bring forward specific proposals 
on priority substances in surface waters. 

There are many potential pollutants that can impair the quality of our rivers, lakes, 
and  coastal  and  marine  waters.  Aquatic  pollution  can  be  caused  by  organic  matter, 
nutrients  and  large  numbers  of  chemical  substances  which  are  either  produced  for 
deliberate use (such as pesticides) or which are formed unintentionally in production 
processes  (such  as  the  polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbons  arising  from  combustion 
processes). There are thousands of individual traceable substances in our freshwaters 
and many of these will eventually reach our marine waters. 

A limited number of chemical pollutants have been identified as being of particular 
concern  in  surface  waters  throughout  the  EU  due  to  their  widespread  use  and  their 
high concentrations in rivers, lakes and coastal waters. These are defined as “priority 
substances”.2  There  is  also  a  sub-set  of  “priority  hazardous  substances”  for  which 
more  stringent  environmental  objectives  apply  because  of  their  high  persistence, 
bioaccumulation and toxicity. In addition to the priority substances, Member States 
must identify other chemical pollutants which impede the aims of the WFD.  

The  approach  to  tackling  chemical  pollution  of  surface  water  is  embedded  in  the 
wider strategic approach established in the 1970s. The WFD fully incorporates and 
updates this long-term policy into an integrated, flexible and modern response to the 
persistent  threats  posed  by  excessive  concentrations  of  chemical  substances  in  EU 
waters.  

1 

2 

Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field 
of water policy (OJ L327, 22.12.2000, p. 1) as amended by Decision 2455/2001/EC of 20 November 
2001 establishing a list of priority substances in the field of water policy (OJ L 331, 15.12.2001, p. 1) 
Article 16 of the WFD: 33 individual or groups of priority substances were selected in the first list of 
priority substances as adopted in Decision 2455/2001/EC (see footnote 1). For more information on the 
methodology and the results of the priority setting, refer to 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-dangersub/pri_substances.htm 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Accompanied by a proposal for a Directive on environmental quality standards in the 
field of water policy,3 this Communication presents the wider conceptual framework 
and the reasoning behind the policy approach chosen by the Commission. 

1.2.  What is the overall conceptual framework?  

When  chemicals  are  mined,  manufactured  or  processed,  there  can  be  emissions, 
discharges or losses to the air, to water and to soil. The disposal of the waste material 
resulting from these activities can also result in inputs into the environment. Direct 
discharges to water from mines or factories are an obvious cause of pollution. Less 
obvious  are  substances  deposited  from  the  atmosphere.  Once  a  substance  is  on  the 
market  it  can  be  used  in  manufacturing  processes  to  produce  consumer  goods,  and 
there  may  be  discharges,  emissions  and  losses  to  the  environment.  Again  when 
products are used (e.g. detergents, pesticides, building materials) there will be more 
losses. Finally, when materials are disposed of as solid or liquid waste there may be 
further losses.  

Measures for the prevention and control of the chemical pollution of water must take 
account of these various pathways. Emission and process controls can reduce losses 
during  the  production  of  chemicals  and  during  their  subsequent  incorporation  into 
other  products.  Restrictions  on  the  marketing  and  use  of  chemicals,  including 
authorization  and  approval  procedures,  can 
the  potential 
contamination  of  the  environment.  Finally,  waste  treatment  and  disposal  measures 
are also effective in reducing pollution.  

further 

reduce 

The measures referred to in the previous paragraph are concerned with reducing or 
controlling  discharges,  emissions  and  losses,  but  they  represent  only  half  the  story. 
Article  10  of  the  WFD  sets  out  a  “combined  approach”  involving  the  use  of 
environmental quality standards (EQS). On the basis of information concerning the 
toxicity,  persistence  and  bioaccumulation  potential  of  a  substance,  together  with 
information  on  what  happens  to  the  chemical  in  the  environment,  it  is  possible  to 
determine threshold concentrations to protect people, flora and fauna. When EQS are 
established for water, or sediments or plant/animal tissues, they provide a benchmark 
for  ensuring  the  ecological  integrity  of  aquatic  ecosystems  or  the  protection  of 
human  health  when  using  the  water  (e.g.  for  bathing  or  the  abstraction  of  drinking 
water). 

Finally, if control measures or EQS are to be effective they must be combined with 
an  effective  system  of  monitoring  to  ensure  that  measures  are  carried  out  and  that 
EQS values are respected.  

This  conceptual  framework  applies  to  all  types  of  water  pollution.  However,  the 
subsequent considerations refer exclusively to the regulatory framework for priority 
substances  which  governs  pollution  from  all  chemical  substances  that  adversely 
affect the quality of surface waters.4 Other pollutants (such as nutrients and organic 

3 
4 

COM(2006)397 final 
Defined as the individual substances which form part of the groups and families identified in the points 
1 to 9 of Annex VIII WFD  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
matter)  are  regulated  in  specific  pieces  of  Community  legislation  (e.g.  the  Urban 
Wastewater Treatment Directive5and the Nitrates Directive6). 

1.3. 

How was chemical pollution of surface waters regulated in the past? 

In  the  early  1970s,  there  were  alarming  reports  on  the  Rhine  and  other  European 
rivers  documenting  high  levels  of  chemical  pollution  that  resulted  in  regular 
incidents of fish kills. In response, the Council adopted a Directive on discharges of 
dangerous substances into the aquatic environment (Directive 76/464/EEC )7 that sets 
out  an  ambitious  programme  to  prevent  and  limit  pollution  from  dangerous 
substances.  Chemical  pollutants  were  grouped  into  List  I  substances,  which  were 
considered  to  be  particularly  toxic,  persistent  and  bio-accumulative  and  were  to  be 
regulated  by  the  Community,  and  the  less-problematic  List  II  substances  for  which 
regulation  was  left  to  the  Member  States.  In  1982,  the  Commission  came  forward 
with  a  list  of  132  candidate  List  I  substances.  By  1990,  emission  limit  values  and 
quality  standards  had  been  fixed  for  18  of  these  132  substances  in  five  “Daughter 
Directives”.8  Thereafter,  the  Council  halted  regulation  of  the  other  substances 
proposed by the Commission9 arguing that the legislative process had been slow and 
ineffective. The Council asked the Commission to reconsider the policy in the light 
of  ongoing  discussions  on  a  new  policy  on  integrated  pollution  prevention  and 
control (IPPC).  

In  1996,  the  IPPC  Directive10  was  adopted.  It  partially  incorporated  the  regulatory 
framework  of  Directive  76/464/EEC,  maintaining  the  emission  limit  values  as 
minimum  requirements.  But  since  the  IPPC  Directive  covered  only  certain 
installations,  the  Commission  integrated  the  remaining  relevant  provisions  of 
Directive  76/464/EEC  into  its  amended  proposal  for  the  Water  Framework 
Directive.11  

In  the  25  years  since  adoption  of  Directive  76/464/EEC,  the  Environment 
Directorate-General  of  the  Commission  has  published  several  reports  on  its 
implementation.12  The  overall  assessment  of  the  success  of  the  policy  is  mixed. 
Despite clear and demonstrable successes in reducing pollution from industrial point 
sources, there have been a number of significant implementation problems.13 

5 
6 
7 
8 

9 
10 
11 

12 
13 

Council Directive 91/271/EEC (OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40) 
Council Directive 91/676/EEC (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1) 
OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23 
Directives  82/176/EEC,  83/513/EEC,  84/156/EEC,  84/491/EEC  and  86/280/EEC  (as  amended  by 
Directive 88/347/EEC and 90/415/EEC) 
COM (90) 9 final of 8.2.1990 (ISBN 92-77-57387-2) 
Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26). 
See COM(98) 76 final (OJ C 108, 7.4.1998, p. 94) amending COM(97) 614 final (OJ C 16, 20.1.1998, 
p. 14) and COM(97)49 final (OJ C 184, 17.6.1997, p. 20) 
europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/library.htm 
The main obstacle was the conceptual approach which was based on two options, either emission limit 
values  or  environmental  objective.  The  WFD  introduced  the  “combined  approach”  which  uses  the 
strength  of  both  these  approaches.  Moreover,  there  was  a  lack  of  clear  implementation  deadlines  and 
absence  of  a  minimum  threshold  for  negligible  pollution.  Furthermore,  the  share  of  responsibility 
between the European Commission and the Member States was unclear. Some of these questions could 
have been overcome with implementation guidance, which was not provided at the time. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  WFD,  which  is  based  on  the  concept  of  integrated  pollution  control,  has 
overcome  these  obstacles  and  now  addresses chemical  pollution  in  a  more  holistic, 
effective  and  differentiated  way.  In  the  current  proposal  for  a  Directive,  the 
Commission  is  suggesting  that  the  five  Daughter  Directives  should  also  now  be 
repealed.  So  this  package  will  help  to  streamline  and  simplify  environmental 
legislation. 

2. 

APPROACH PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION 

The  overall  approach  set  out  in  the  WFD  has  to  be  translated  into  specific  actions 
that provide answers to the following questions (stemming from Article 16). 

(1)  Which substances should be regulated at Community level? 

(2)  What are the criteria or indicators (EQS) for checking that the objectives of 

the WFD have been fulfilled? 

(3)  What  additional  measures  have  to  be  taken  at  Community  level  to  achieve 

these objectives?  

To answer the first question, a list of 33 (groups of) priority substances for regulation 
at EU level was agreed in 2001.14 Some of these substances are of very high concern 
and have been identified as “priority hazardous substances” and for these the WFD 
objective is to cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses within 20 years.  

The main objective of the current proposal for a Directive is to provide an answer to 
the other two questions, i.e. to set harmonised environmental quality standards and to 
propose additional control measures. 

The  Commission  started  preparing  this  proposal  in  2001  using  intensive  and 
extensive  consultation.  The  main  form  of  consultation  was  regular  exchanges  with 
the  Expert  Advisory  Forum  of  representatives  from  the  Member  States  and  other 
countries  (Norway,  Bulgaria  and  Romania),  industry  stakeholders  and  non-
governmental  organisations.  Furthermore,  the  proposal  for  EQS  was  peer-reviewed 
by  the  Scientific  Committee  for  Toxicity,  Ecotoxicity  and  the  Environment 
(SCTEE).  Finally,  written  consultation  on  a  draft  of  the  Directive  took  place  from 
June to September 2004. 

As part of the preparation process, two studies were carried out and these form the 
basis for the Impact Assessment.15 In the Impact Assessment three main options and 
many sub-options were considered: 

Option 1:  Not to present a proposal at all and thus leave regulation entirely to the 
Member States. 

Option 2: 
specification of additional control measures to the Member States. 

To  present  a  proposal  on  harmonised  EQS  only  and  leave  the 

14 
15 

See footnotes 1 and 2 
SEC(2006)947 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Option 3: 
Community level.  

To  propose  both  EQS  and  additional  emission  control  measures  at 

These are subsequently discussed in more detail.  

2.1. 

Environmental quality standards  

Environmental quality standards (EQS) are concentrations of pollutants which should 
not be exceeded in order to protect human health and the environment. In the context 
of the Water Framework Directive, EQS define the environmental objective of “good 
surface  water  chemical  status”  and  thereby  represent  criteria  for  assessing  whether 
Member States are in compliance (see Article 2, paragraph 24).  

Some EQS for water have been set at Community level in the past (see Section 1.3). 
Furthermore,  most  Member  States  have  established  a  comprehensive  set  of  EQS  at 
national,  regional  or  river  basin  level.  Currently,  national  quality  standards  for 
priority substances vary considerably across the EU. This results in a different level 
of  protection  and  different  conditions  for  water  users  (e.g.  industry)  in  different 
Member States.  

The  concern  of  the  Commission  is  that  for  the  priority  substances,  which  are  by 
definition  of  EU-wide  concern,  the  establishment  of  EQS  should  ensure  that 
implementation  of  the  Directive  is  consistent  with  the  obligations  of  the  legal  text 
and comparable between the Member States. Furthermore, there is a need to have a 
harmonised  basis  for  assessment,  in  particular  for  international  river  basins. 
Moreover,  the  setting  of  EQS  needs  to  take  account  of  other  relevant  policy  areas, 
such as chemicals or pesticides, and ensure that risk assessments are consistent.  

The best way to achieve these objectives is to harmonise EQS for priority substances 
at Community level, so Option 1 - No proposal - was discarded.  

2.2. 

Pollution control measures 

In  addition  to  EQS,  the  WFD  requires  the  Commission  to  come  forward  with 
Community-wide control measures to reduce pollution from priority substances, or to 
phase out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances. A wide 
range of instruments are available and in place, from product controls (e.g. restriction 
on marketing and use), to process controls (e.g. best available techniques, emission 
limit values) and economic instruments (e.g. pesticide taxes).  

Already, before the WFD, there was Community legislation in place which helps to 
achieve  the  WFD  objectives.  In  particular,  the  policies  on  chemicals  (including 
pesticides  and  biocides)  and  industrial  pollution  make  a  significant  contribution.  In 
addition,  the  Commission  has  made  numerous  proposals  and  decisions  since  2000, 
which  constitute  pollution  control  measures  for  individual  priority  substances  in 
accordance  with  Article  16  (6)  WFD.16  Moreover,  the  current  overhaul  of  the 

16 

For example, the decisions on non-inclusion of certain pesticides in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC 
(see  Decision  2004/247/EC  for  simazine,  2004/248/EC  for  atrazine)  or  Proposal  for  a  mining  waste 
directive  (COM  (2003)  319  final)  or  proposals  for  marketing  and  use  restrictions  under  Directive 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
chemicals  legislation17  will  make  a  significant  contribution  to  achievement  of  the 
WFD  objectives.  All  these  pieces  of  EU  legislation  and  policies  are  presented  in 
more detail in the Impact Assessment. 

Most  of  these  pieces  of  legislation  are  not  fully  implemented  yet.  It  is  therefore 
impossible to assess whether the WFD objectives will be met by implementing these 
policies or whether there is still a gap which merits Community action.  

This  challenge  was  also  recognised  during  the  analysis  of  the  socio-economic 
impacts  of  various  options.  Option  3  made  a  number  of  assumptions  in  order  to 
define specific EU-wide measures (including emission limit values) for the industries 
most  affected,  namely  chemicals  (mainly  chlorine  and  pesticides),  iron  and  steel, 
non-ferrous  metals,  PVC  conversion,  and  refineries.  For  this  option,  the  study 
estimated  high  costs  (see  impact  assessment  for  details).  It  also  identified  potential 
impacts  on  employment.  Based  on  the  available  data,  it  would  be  more  cost-
effective, flexible and proportionate to leave the introduction of additional measures 
(including  emission  limit  values)  to  Member  States.  Consequently,  Option  3  was 
ruled out because of the disproportionate costs. 

In  conclusion,  the  Commission  believes  that  the  current  body  of  Community 
legislation should, in most cases, enable achievement of the WFD objectives. At the 
same  time,  the  impact  assessment  demonstrates  that  the  most  cost-effective  and 
proportionate  approach  for  priority  substances  is  to  set  clear  and  harmonised 
standards  and  allow  Member  States  a  maximum  of  flexibility  on  how  to  achieve 
them.  If  Member  States  provide  sufficient  evidence  that  additional  measures  are 
needed at Community level, there are various mechanisms under existing instruments 
that allow them to put this to the Commission as a basis for discussion.  

2.3. 

Impacts of the proposal 

The  impact  study  looked  at  the  socio-economic  costs  of  the  selected  policy  option, 
Option  2.  The  estimated  costs  were  approximately  700  million  euros  a  year, 
considerably  lower  than  for  Option  3.  The  assessment  of  impacts  clearly 
demonstrated that Option 2, the setting of harmonised EQS at EU level, is the best 
policy option. 

Following this study, further assessments were made. First, estimates of the current 
rate  of  compliance  with  the  proposed  EQS  suggested  that  it  is  already  higher  than 
expected in the cost study. For organic substances, compliance would be mostly over 
75% and for metals between 50-80 %. However, there is a considerable data gap due 
to a lack of monitoring results for the EU-10 and for certain priority substances. For 
nickel, lead and some organic substances, the compliance rates were lower than those 
given above.  

A  number  of  sub-options  were  considered  in  order  to  refine  the  choices  and 
approaches when setting harmonised EQS. Most importantly, it was decided that the 
overarching  principle  would  be  to  link  in  to  the  risk  assessments  carried  out  under 

76/769/EEC  (e.g.  for  pentachlorodiphenyl  ether  or  trichlorobenzenes)  or  the  mercury  strategy  (COM 
(2005) 20 final) or the POP Regulation No. (EEC) 850/2004.  
REACH Proposal (COM (2003) 644 final) 

17 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
other  EU  legislation  in  order  to  ensure  consistency  between  the  different  policy 
areas.  Some  of  these  risk  assessments  are  still  ongoing  and,  for  nickel  and  lead  in 
particular, it is difficult to anticipate when they will be finalised. The Commission is 
therefore committed to amending its EQS proposal if there proves to be substantial 
differences between the final risk assessments and the current proposal. 

Other  sub-options  include  reflections  on  the  approaches  to  setting  EQS  for 
sediments, biota, metals and for protected areas for the abstraction of drinking water. 
There was also discussion of analysis and monitoring aspects linked to compliance. 
In general, the sub-option choices were made with a view to minimising the impact 
of the proposal by maintaining a high level of environmental protection.  

Finally, the peer review of the EQS by the SCTEE and the wider written consultation 
of the draft proposals helped to streamline the proposal, e.g. by taking out some of 
the  binding  targets  for  emission  controls.  In  addition,  the  proposed  EQS  of  several 
priority substances were updated on the basis of new data and the comments from the 
SCTEE. In most cases (e.g. nickel, lead, mercury, nonylphenol and PAHs), scientific 
review led to less stringent EQS.  

These adaptations should increase current compliance rates and reduce the economic 
impacts of the proposal. 

2.4. 

Benefits of the proposal  

The impact assessment also looks at the proposed actions in terms of their benefits, 
both  direct  economic  benefits  and  non-use  benefits.  As  with  other  impact 
assessments, it is not really possible at this stage to quantify the benefits and express 
them as a global figure. The direct economic benefits include for example reduction 
of  the  costs  of  drinking  water  treatment  and  less  deposition  of  contaminated 
sediment, where cost savings could potentially reach 100-400 million euros per year. 
However,  it  is  not  expected  that  the  proposal  will  exploit  this  potential  fully  since 
some  treatment  of  drinking  water  for  removal  of  priority  substances  may  still  be 
necessary after full implementation of the proposal.  

In addition, there are expected gains for the fishing and shellfish sector and increased 
opportunities  for  industries  providing  cleaner  technologies.  There  should  also  be  a 
number  of  other  environmental  and  social  benefits  like  the  protection  and 
enhancement  of  biodiversity,  reduced  exposure  for  bathers  and  surfers,  cleaner 
sediments, and less accumulation in the food chain, e.g. through livestock and game 
watering on rivers and lakes. 

Finally,  the  proposal  should  significantly  reduce  administrative  burden.  The 
harmonised  EQS  save  all  Member  States  from  having  to  carry  out  similar 
preparatory  work  to  arrive  at  sound  scientific  standards.  The  proposal  also 
streamlines  and  simplifies  monitoring  and  reporting  obligations,  in  particular  by 
repealing the five existing Directives. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
3. 

TARGETED ACTIONS ON PRIORITY SUBSTANCES UNDER EXISTING POLICY AREAS  

As  mentioned  above,  the  proposed  Directive  does  not  include  additional  emission 
control  measures.  The  Commission  considers  that  there  is  already  a  full  toolbox  of 
legal instruments that Member States can use to meet the WFD objectives for priority 
substances. However, in order to further improve the focus and effectiveness of the 
relevant  EU  legislation  for  the  purposes  of  the  WFD,  the  Commission  proposes  a 
number of concrete actions.  

Action 1: Amending Directives 

A number of Directives are to be reviewed and amended in the 2006-2007 period, in 
particular  Directives  96/61/EC  and  91/414/EEC.  The  Commission  intends  to  use 
these reviews to assess whether these instruments can be made even more effective 
in  preventing  or  controlling  pollution  caused  by  priority  substances.  For  the  IPPC 
Directive, this would include, inter alia, an explicit reference to priority substances 
in  the  permitting  procedures.  For  the  Pesticides  Directive,  the  elements  to  be 
strengthened include, inter alia, the consideration of risks to the marine environment. 
In addition, efforts are ongoing to develop models for exposures at river basin level 
to  take  account  of  other  risks,  like  those  affecting  drinking  water  abstraction.  Such 
models would then be used in the future during the risk evaluation process.  

Action 2: Enhancing implementation and enforcement 

Already under existing Community law,  Member  States  either may or must control 
emission, discharges  and  losses of  priority substances, although unfortunately there 
is  no  consistent  and  comparable  application  of  these  provisions.  For  example 
environmental quality standards could and should have been set for pollutants under 
Directive  76/464/EEC.  If  these  quality  standards  are  regularly  exceeded,  Member 
States can take a wide range of measures under various policies including Directive 
91/414/EEC  (e.g.  review  the  authorisation)  or  Directive  96/61/EC  (e.g.  review  the 
permits)  depending  on  the  reasons  for  this  exceedance.  While  restrictions  on  the 
manufacture,  placing  on  the  market  and  use  of  certain  dangerous  substances  have 
been  regulated  at  European  level,  and  this  should  largely  continue  in  the  future, 
Member  States  may  also,  under  certain  strict  conditions  laid  down  in  the  Treaty, 
introduce  national  provisions  to  restrict  marketing  and  use  because  of  risk  to  the 
aquatic environment.18 

In order to improve the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation, 
the  Commission  will  establish  an  information  exchange  between  the  Commission 
and the Member States in the context of the WFD Common Implementation Strategy 
to share information and opinions on existing possibilities and share “success stories” 
and “best practices”.  

18 

See for example Commission Decision 2002/884/EC of 31 October 2002 (OJ L 308, 9.11.2002, p. 30)  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Action  3:  Establishing  procedures  for  Member  States  to  present  evidence  for 
Community action 

The  Commission  will  establish  clear  and  transparent  procedures  to  provide  a 
streamlined  and  targeted  framework  for  Member  States  to  provide  relevant 
information on priority substances for Community decision-making. Such procedures 
could be based on Article 12 of the WFD and would specify the timetable, process 
and  format  for  presenting  evidence  to  the  relevant  committees  or  decision-making 
bodies under the instrument in question. 

Action 4: Improving the availability of information  

The knowledge gap already mentioned will need to be closed over the coming years. 
Implementation  of  the  European  Pollutants  Release  and  Transfer  Register19  will 
certainly  help.  In  addition  to  information  on  discharges,  emissions  and  losses,  the 
Commission will seek to enhance information on priority substances, in particular on 
environmental quality, trends, and releases and pathways in the aquatic environment. 
To this end, the Commission, together with the EEA, the JRC and ESTAT, is already 
developing a shared “Water Information System for Europe” (WISE).20 

4. 

CONCLUSION 

The Water Framework Directive together with the current Commission proposal for 
a  Directive  on  environmental  quality  standards  in  the  field  of  water  policy  sets  out 
clear, ambitious and sustainable objectives for priority substances in surface waters. 
These  objectives  aim  at  a  high  level  of  protection  of  the  aquatic  environment  and 
human health in terms of exposure to concentrations of these chemicals in water. In 
addition, they improve the comparability of conditions for industries in the internal 
market.  

In order to ensure the most cost-effective and proportionate level and combination of 
measures  to  achieve  these  objectives,  the  Commission  believes  that  the  Member 
States  should  be  allowed  maximum  flexibility  according  to  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity.  Hence,  it  does  not  propose  specific  and  additional  measures  in  its 
Directive but instead aims to use the wide range of existing Community instruments 
and enhance their effectiveness as explained in this Communication. 

If  applied  in  its  entirety,  existing  EU  legislation  provides  a  solid  network  of 
interacting  policies  to  address  this  multi-dimensional  and  complex  problem. 
However,  as  we  increase  our  knowledge  of  environmental  pressures,  status  and 
impacts,  we  shall  inevitably  identify  within  this  comprehensive  network  areas  that 
can be improved and omissions that can be remedied.  

19 
20 

EN 

Regulation (EC) No. 166/2006 (OJ L 33, 04.02.2006, p.1) 
See 
framework/transposition.html  

on  WISE 

concept 

under 

paper 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-

10 

   EN