Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC COM(2006) 397 final — 2006/0129 (COD)
Date: 2007-02-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: environmental cooperation, environmental protection, environmental standard, groundwater, pollution control measures, quality of the environment, surface water, water pollution, water protection

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/3

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water
policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC

COM(2006) 397 final — 2006/0129 (COD)

(2007/C 97/02)

On 15 September 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 25 January 2007. The rapporteur was
Mr Buffetaut.

At its 433rd plenary session, held on 15 and 16 February 2007 (meeting of 15 February), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 188 votes to 1 with 9 abstentions.

1. The grounds for a directive on environmental quality

2. The method chosen to define the environmental quality

standards

standards

This proposal is actually for a ‘daughter directive’ stem-
1.1
ming from the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/
EC). The framework directive set out a strategy for dealing with
the chemical pollution of water, which can disturb aquatic
ecosystems, causing loss of habitats and biodiversity. Pollutants
may accumulate in the food chain and humans can be exposed
to pollutants through the aquatic environment not only by
eating fish or seafood or drinking water but also during sporting
and recreational activities.

1.2
It should also be pointed out that pollutants may be
found in the environment many years after being banned; and
some may be transported long distances and reach remote areas
that might appear to be unaffected by pollution.

Lastly, these pollutants may be released into the environ-
1.3
ment from various sources (e.g. domestic activities, agriculture,
incineration or industry).

1.4
The Commission's first step in this strategy was to
produce a list of 33 substances of priority concern at Com-
munity level
(Decision 2455/2001/EC). The present proposal
aims to ensure ‘a high level of protection’ against risks to or via
the aquatic environment stemming from these 33 priority
substances and certain other pollutants.

To achieve this objective, the draft directive establishes
1.5
environmental quality standards (EQS).
that a
number of emission control procedures necessary to achieve
these standards have already been adopted in various Com-
munity acts over recent years.

It points out

1.6
The proposal also entails the repeal of certain existing
‘daughter’ directives, in order in particular to take account of
scientific and technical progress and pollutants not yet covered.

The Commission proposes

2.1
measurement criteria:

a

combination of

two

— annual average concentrations;

— and maximum allowable concentrations.

2.2
In this way, the environmental quality standard is defined
not only on the basis of maximum allowable concentration, so
as to avoid serious irreversible consequences in the short term
for ecosystems owing to acute pollution, but also on the basis
of annual average in order to avoid the long-term irreversible
consequences of continued pollution that
is not necessarily
acute.

2.3
The Commission proposes that for most substances the
standards should apply to the level of pollutants present in
surface water. But for some substances which may accumulate
up the food chain the Commission notes that limits applying
only to surface water may be insufficient
to avoid indirect
effects and secondary poisoning. It therefore proposes that for
three of these substances (hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorabuta-
diene and mercury) environmental quality standards for biota
should be established by Member States.

3. The division of responsibilities between the European

Union and the Member States

the

that

The Commission proposes

environmental
3.1
quality standards for water should be determined at Community
level in order to ensure the same level of environmental protec-
tion in all Member States and to ensure a level playing field for
economic operators. In general the Commission considers that
existing pollution control regimes should be adequate to enable
Member States to achieve the quality standards. If any additional
measures are needed, it should be left to the Member States to
include appropriate control measures in the programme of
measures to be developed for each river basin in accordance
with Article 11 of the Framework Directive.

C 97/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

4. The measures proposed

4.1

The directive's main components are:

— the establishment of environmental quality standards with

the introduction of transitional areas of exceedance;

— the establishment of an inventory of emissions, discharges
and losses so as to determine whether the reduction objec-
tives have been reached;

— the repeal of certain existing ‘daughter directives’;

— the identification of

the priority hazardous dangerous
substances among the 14 substances proposed for review in
Decision 2455/2001/EC.

5. General comments

5.1
The EESC naturally supports the objective of preventing
hazardous substances that pose potentially serious risks with
irreversible consequences from polluting water.

5.2
The EESC considers it important that the Commission
should maintain a robust and scientifically based capacity for
identifying promptly any substances that may cause harmful
pollution in surface water and for establishing prudent quality
standards for the maximum levels of such substances to be
allowed either individually or in combination. The EESC notes
and supports the initial list of priority substances and standards
included in the present proposal. It suggests that arrangements
should be made for an annual assessment to be made on a
comprehensive,
to identify
whether any new substances should be added to the list or new
maximum permitted levels be applied for any of the substances.
It should examine in particular other substances identified as
priorities by OSPAR or other relevant international agreements.

scientific and transparent basis

5.3
The EESC is concerned that definitive standards have not
yet been established for lead, nickel and their compounds. Work
on this should be prioritised and appropriate limits established,
if possible in time to be included in the present directive before
it is finalised.

5.4
The ultimate purpose of improving water quality is to
protect biota and the food chain up to and including humans. If
it were possible to measure levels of all pollutants in biota reli-
ably, consistently and efficiently it would in principle be better
to set standards and monitor in this way. But in general this is
still difficult, and for most of the priority substances it is more
practicable at present and usually sufficiently reliable to set a
standard for the maximum concentration allowable in surface
water. (The proposal to base the monitoring of compliance on
an annual average and maximum admissible concentration is
realistic, well established and fully justified).

However there are some toxic substances which have a
5.5
tendency to accumulate up the food chain. For these substances

a surface water standard alone does not guarantee sufficient
protection against toxic effects. For these substances it is desir-
able to set a standard based on the maximum concentration of
the substance to be permitted in the prey tissue of
fish,
molluscs, crustaceans and other biota as
the Commission
proposes. These substances include hexachlorobenzene, hexa-
chlorobutadiene and methyl-mercury. Others may be identified
in the future. There is not yet a fully-agreed methodology for
setting standards
in this way so the Commission merely
proposes to allow Member States to introduce such standards
for the three substances so far explicitly identified.

In the present state of knowledge this may have to be
5.6
accepted. Nevertheless the EESC urges the Commission to
continue to support further scientific analysis of the phenom-
enon of bio-accumulation of some toxic substances, and to be
ready to move towards a more widespread use of standards for
maximum levels of toxic substances present in biota as soon as
the science and the methodology for monitoring become more
securely established. Meanwhile monitoring should also be
designed to ensure that contamination levels in sediments and
biota do not actually increase.

Establishing an inventory of emissions, discharges and
5.7
losses resulting from human activity so as to determine whether
the objectives of reducing or stopping pollution have been
reached is sensible. Drawing up a complete list of natural
sources of pollution is difficult. However, in certain cases it may
be useful to determine the link between natural pollution and
pollution of human origin.

5.8
As regards the inventory, care should be taken to avoid
any inconsistencies or duplication vis-à-vis other existing instru-
ments covering the protection of surface water.

5.9
The issue of transitional areas of exceedance has been
looked at in a realistic manner, but cannot be said to be entirely
satisfactory. It seems that it would be difficult to be able to guar-
antee that the environmental quality of the rest of the body of
water will not be compromised. If the concept of transitional
areas is applied, it will be necessary to develop a precise metho-
dology for defining such areas and the location of the pollution
measurement points.

Attention should be drawn to those non-EU neigh-
5.10
bouring countries on whose territories are located the sources
of a number of rivers whose courses continue within EU
Member States and to countries bordering lakes whose other
If countries situated
banks are on Member State territory.
outside the frontiers of the EU fail to protect their bodies of
water, the efforts made by the Member States could be in vain
and the goals set for 2015 might not be attained. This state of
affairs should be considered when it comes to the implementa-
tion of the directive. The issue is mentioned in Article 12 of the
Water Framework Directive.

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/5

6. Specific comments

6.4 Monitoring

6.1
Timetable: Article 4(5) of the proposed directive sets
2025 as the date when emissions must cease or the withdrawal
from market of the dangerous priority substances must take
in accordance with the water framework
effect. Conversely,
directive, the environmental quality objectives must be achieved
by 2015. This target date might prove difficult to meet in some
cases, all the more so because the adoption of this daughter
directive has been delayed. Nevertheless,
the Member States
must do all within their power to reach this objective, in the
knowledge that under certain limited circumstances recourse
will be possible to provisional exemption measures. The EESC
recommends that
the Commission should monitor progress
with implementation and stand ready to propose further
measures to assist as widespread compliance by the due date as
possible, with the minimum of derogations

6.2 The role of Member States

It is right that appropriate additional measures are left to the
Member States because, in many cases, the situations that need
to be addressed vary according to the local or regional context.
Nevertheless, this flexibility must be counterbalanced by reliable
reporting mechanisms as recommended by the Commission in
Action 4 of its communication (1).

However, the Commission communication (point 3)
6.2.1
seems rather optimistic in its assessment of the legal
instru-
ments that Member States can use to achieve the WFD objec-
tives relating to priority substances, particularly because some
significant sources of pollution are not covered by appropriate
regulations, such as diffuse pollution emanating from household
products or service industries, which would require new direc-
tives on products.

6.2.2
In these circumstances, it is unrealistic to suppose that
each Member State could impose new measures that might not
necessarily be consistent, particularly if they are likely to be
overtaken by fresh European legislation.

6.3 Protection of drinking water supplies

6.4.1 Maintaining progress on the objectives of this directive
and ensuring a level playing field across Europe will require
more consistent and reliable standards of monitoring. The EESC
looks forward to the new proposals for a ‘Reporting Water
Information System for Europe’ that are shortly to be brought
forward, and hopes that it will be possible to make use of these
to keep close track of
the priority
substances directive.

the implementation of

7. Coherence between the directive on environmental
quality standards for water and the REACH regulation

7.1
Coherence between the provisions of the present direc-
tive and the REACH regulation must be guaranteed, even if in
principle the Commission had anticipated the success of the
negotiations on REACH and thus its implementation. At any
event, the introduction of new chemicals onto the market must
be taken into account when considering environmental quality
standards for water.

8. Conclusion

8.1
The EESC agrees with the initial list of priority substances
proposed and the standards proposed for them. But it urges
action to complete the missing standards for lead and nickel
and a robust process for keeping the list and the standards
under regular review so as to be able to keep it up to date
promptly and effectively when needed.

The EESC agrees with the broad thrust of the proposed

8.2
directive.

8.3
Achieving the environmental quality objectives by 2015
will be challenging. Nevertheless, the EESC urges the Member
States to step up their efforts in order to reach these objectives.

8.4
The EESC emphasises the need to finalise a system for
reporting information and monitoring the implementation by
Member States of the directive and the achievement of its objec-
tives. It welcomes the Commission's Water Information System
for Europe (WISE) initiative.

6.3.1
Adopting the proposed directive will involve repealing
Directive 75/440/EC on the quality required of surface water
intended for
the abstraction of drinking water. Coherence
between the new directive and the drinking water directive (2)
must be maintained as legislative changes are made.

8.5
It recommends ensuring the new proposal is consistent
with legislation that is currently in force, and that appropriate
European legislation be adopted in relation to certain sources of
pollution that are not covered by existing legislation (such as
diffuse pollution from household products).

Brussels, 15 February 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(1) COM(2006) 398 final.
(2) Directive 98/83/EC.