QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE PROPOSED DAUGHTER DIRECTIVE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE FIELD OF WATER POLICY

Transcription

1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE PROPOSED DAUGHTER DIRECTIVE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE FIELD OF WATER POLICY What is the issue? Pollutants are released into the aquatic environment from a variety of sources including agriculture, industry and incineration. Chemical pollution of water can disrupt aquatic ecosystems by damaging or destroying habitats and the plants and animals that inhabit them, reducing biological diversity. Pollutants may accumulate in the food chain and harm predators consuming contaminated prey. Humans can be exposed to chemicals pollutants by eating contaminated fish or seafood, drinking polluted water or through recreational activities. The pollutants can be transported long distances from their source and may still be found in the environment years after they have been banned. Why is a Directive on Environmental Quality Standards in the Field of Water Policy Needed? The proposed Directive 1 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy is the final major piece of legislation needed to support the Water Framework Directive (WFD), 2 the cornerstone of EU water protection policy, which requires that all EU waters should achieve good status by The WFD establishes a new regime for the prevention and control of chemical pollution of surface waters and ground waters. The new proposal will implement this for surface waters; ground waters are already being addressed through the proposal for a ground water Directive 3 currently being considered by the Council of Ministers and European Parliament. Setting environmental quality standards at EU level is essential to establish a high and comparable level of environmental and health protection across the EU and to ensure a 'level playing field' for economic operators. Moreover, chemical pollution of transboundary rivers or other surface waters can only be addressed by joint crossborder action. What is new in the Daughter Directive? The proposal sets environmental quality standards for 41 pesticides, biocides (nonagricultural pesticides) and heavy metals, as well as other groups of substances such as certain flame retardants. This includes 33 substances that the Council and Parliament have designated as 'priority substances' 4 for EU action under the WFD. These have been identified as a significant risk to the aquatic environment due to their toxicity, widespread use and their high concentrations in surface waters. A further eight substances covered by existing legislation on dangerous substances in 1 COM(2006)397. Proposal for a Directive on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC. The proposal is accompanied by a Communication (COM(2006)398) on integrated prevention and control of chemical pollution of surface waters in the European Union. 2 Directive 2000/60/EC 3 COM(2003) Decision No 2455/2001/EC establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC

2 water 5 are also included. The environmental quality standards will apply to surface waters and, in some cases, biota. Thirteen of the substances are also specified as 'priority hazardous substances' to which particularly strict limit values will apply because they are toxic, persist in the environment without breaking down, and become increasingly concentrated as they move up the food chain (a process known as bioaccumulation). Will the proposal contribute to the Better Regulation initiative? The new limits will replace existing environmental quality standards for certain substances set by five Directives adopted in the 1980s. This legislation 6 will consequently be repealed, thereby contributing to streamlining of EU legislation and reducing bureaucratic burden. Who does what and when? To become law the proposal requires approval by the Council and European Parliament under the co-decision procedure. Once the Directive is adopted, Member States will have to achieve the proposed standards for all the priority substances and priority hazardous substances by Member States will be required to include the measures needed to achieve the agreed standards in their River Basin Management Plans, the first of which must be prepared under the Water Framework Directive by Member States will also have to reduce discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and cease discharges, emissions and losses of priority hazardous substances into water by In order to verify this, the proposed Directive requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all 41 dangerous substances in the period. This inventory must be communicated to the Commission together with the Member State River Basin Management Plans. The inventory must be updated as and when the River Basin Management Plans are being updated. The Commission will verify that emissions, discharges and losses as reflected in the inventory comply, by 2025, with the reduction or cessation obligations. Why was the proposal delayed? In order to ensure a sound scientific basis for the proposal, it was delayed until the conclusions of the EU risk assessments for specific chemicals were available, as these were required to help determine appropriate and harmonised water quality standards. It was also important to ensure consistency with other relevant EU polices, in particular the REACH chemical policy, the pesticide policy and the related Thematic Strategies. It should be noted that some risk assessments (i.e., those for lead and nickel) are ongoing and the Commission is committed to amending its 5 Council Directive 86/280/EEC on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous substances included in List 1 of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC 6 Directive 82/176/EEC on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges from the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry; Council Directive 83/513/EEC on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium discharges; Council Directive 84/156/EEC on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry; Council Directive 84/491/EEC on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane; and Council Directive 86/280/EEC (see above).

3 proposal if there proves to be substantial differences between the final risk assessments and the current proposal. Does the proposal include additional measures for control of priority substances? The Commission carefully considered the option of introducing additional control measures for priority substances in this proposal. However, the Impact Assessment 7 demonstrated that it was not cost-effective to propose additional measures on Community level at this stage. There is already a wide range of existing or forthcoming EU measures to control emissions, such as the Directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC), the existing directive and forthcoming Thematic Strategy on pesticides, and the REACH proposal for reforming chemicals policy. Additionally, the Commission has made several proposals for emission controls over the past years, particularly relating to restricting the marketing and use of chemicals and pesticides. Therefore, as explained in the accompanying Communication, the proposal leaves broad scope for Member States to identify the most appropriate and cost-effective combination of measures to reduce pollution from the targeted substances. 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. How will citizens feel the impact of the new Directive? EU citizens will feel the impact of the new Directive in their daily lives. In the absence of this Directive, standards for protection of the aquatic environment and human health from dangerous substances would vary considerably throughout the EU. Many Member States have established standards for dangerous substances at a national, regional or river basin level, however, there is very large variation in the level of protection (factors of up to ). This Directive is required to ensure a high and comparable level of protection for the environment and human health throughout the EU. This will support industries that rely on a clean environment e.g., fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture, tourism. It will help protect human drinking water, reduce exposure for bathers and surfers to pollution, and ensure less accumulation of these substances in the food chain, e.g., through livestock and game watering on rivers and lakes or consumption of fishery products. It will also help protect and enhance biological diversity. Which sectors will be most affected and how will they benefit from the proposal? The Commission has conducted an impact assessment on the implications of adoption of the draft proposal as well as undertaking an extensive consultation process. This impact assessment addresses environmental and socio-economic concerns and it is the opinion of the Commission that the proposal as it now stands represents the most appropriate balance between protection of the environment and sustainable socio-economic development. Whilst there may be some costs associated with the proposal for certain industrial sectors (e.g., refineries, iron, steel) the impact assessment does not indicate any 7 SEC(2006)947

4 significant impact on employment. Indeed, supporting studies indicate that compliance levels with the proposed Directive may already be relatively high (greater than 75% for many substances). However, there is a need for more extensive monitoring to confirm these initial findings as there are considerable data gaps. Establishing standards at a Community level is essential to ensure a 'level playing field' for economic operators. There is likely to be economic benefits associated with a cleaner environment. These include reduced costs of drinking water treatment, gains for the fishing and shellfish sector and increased opportunities for industries providing cleaner technologies. There should also be considerable socio-environmental benefits including protection of biodiversity, and reduced human and animal exposure to dangerous substances through food, drinking water and water-based recreation. Has the Commission consulted widely on the proposed Directive? The Commission established in March 2001 the Expert Advisory Forum on Priority Substances and Pollution Control. The Expert Advisory Forum is composed of representatives (Focal Points) from all the Member States, from the Candidate Countries and Norway. In addition, experts from all interest groups, e.g. from industry, water suppliers and environmental NGOs, are also included. The Expert Advisory Forum was intensively consulted in relation to the proposed Directive on priority substances and associated issues. In addition, the Commission consulted with the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment. Additional Technical Questions and Answers on the Proposal Why have both annual average and maximum allowable concentration environmental quality standards been set? The annual average environmental quality standards (AA-EQS) have been set to protect against long-term and chronic effects of pollution. The maximum allowable concentration environmental quality standards (MAC-EQS) have been set to protect against short-term, direct and acute eco-toxic effects. How were the standards set? The Commission used the outcomes of the EU risk assessments and the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) developed under Regulation 793/93 as a basis for setting environmental quality standards. The TGD is the only methodology agreed by all Member States and the Commission for selecting assessment factors which are safety factors applied to proposed standards to account for any uncertainty in the risk assessments, thus ensuring adequate protection for the environment and human health. Why have different standards been set for inland and other surface waters? For a limited number of substances, more stringent environmental quality standards apply for transitional, coastal and territorial waters than for inland waters. This accounts for additional uncertainty due to peculiarities of the marine ecosystem such as, e.g., greater species diversity or limited data availability for marine species and use of freshwater toxicity data as a surrogate. The greater species diversity in the marine environment, including the presence of a number of taxa that occur only in

5 that environment (e.g., marine rotifers, echinoderms, molluscs) may mean the distribution of sensitivities of species is broader. Why has a different approach been adopted for metals than for the other dangerous substances? For most of the dangerous substances the environmental quality standards are expressed as total concentrations in the whole water sample. However, for metals the standards refer to the dissolved concentration in the water sample, as this is a better approximation to the concentration of metal that is bioavailable. Furthermore, in the proposal, the Commission recognises that metals constitute a special case as they are naturally present in the environment and a range of factors can affect their bioavailability. Therefore, if natural background concentrations of metals are higher than the environmental quality standard or if water hardness, ph or other water quality parameters affect the bioavailability of metals, Member States may take this into account when assessing the monitoring results against the relevant standard. Should Member States adopt Environmental Quality Standards by December 2006? Without Community-wide environmental quality standards, Member States are required under the Water Framework Directive to set national standards by the end of The Commission favours Community action on this point and therefore will await the outcome of the co-decision process for this proposal before pursuing the implementation of this obligation by Member States. Establishing standards at a Community level is essential to establish a high and comparable level of environmental and health protection across the EU and to ensure a 'level playing field' for economic operators. Moreover, chemical pollution of transboundary surface waters can only be addressed by joint cross-border action. Will other aspects of implementation of the Water Framework Directive be compromised as a result of the late adoption of the Commission proposal? The Commission does not believe that the delay will cause a major problem for Member States, particularly if they have properly implemented the provisions of the previous Directive 76/464/EEC on discharges of dangerous substances which will repealed by the Water Framework Directive. The Commission is willing to discuss any implementation issues arising in more detail in the technical work ongoing under the Expert Advisory Forum on Priority Substances where all Member States participate. For further information on the Water Framework Directive and the new proposal: