Crystal clear

Both the council and commission must assess the effectiveness of current EU legislation in improving water quality, argues Anne Laperrouze

A recent Eurobarometer has shown that 47 per cent of citizens list water pollution as one of the five main threats on the environment. There are actually two types of threats on water: one type causes stress on the water supply while the other affects water quality. For the first type, leakage losses in water distribution systems, poor management and maintenance of irrigation systems, inadequate cropping patterns and excessive domestic use are some of the most obvious factors. When it comes to water quality, sources of pollution include agriculture and fisheries, industry and insufficient or ineffective sewers, but mostly the cause is our massive use of cosmetics, soaps and detergents and the inadequate recycling of substances such as paint.

Climate change also has an influence on water quality. Increases in water temperature can reduce the oxygen content and increase biological respiration rates. This may result in lower dissolved oxygen concentrations, especially in summer.

Article 16 of the water framework directive lists various obligations relating to the commission’s drawing-up of proposals, including specific measures to fight water pollution by individual pollutants or groups of pollutants that pose a significant risk to the aquatic environment. The directive establishes a list of priority substances, including priority hazardous substances and also sets quality standards applicable to the concentrations of priority substances.

These environmental quality standards (EQS) are the levels of concentration of a pollutant or group of pollutants in water, sediments or biota that should not be exceeded in order to protect human health and the environment. The proposed directive therefore sets surface water concentration limits for 41 pesticides, heavy metals and other hazardous chemical substances of particular risk to aquatic fauna and flora and human health.

The commission states that in drawing up its proposals it considered at length the possibility of introducing specific control measures for priority substances at EU level. It would appear that the impact assessment conducted for the proposal showed that such measures were not currently justified, given the host of community measures that already exist, or are being adopted, to control emissions (REACH, IPPC, etc.).

One could underline that this daughter directive is part of a global approach intended to combat the release of certain priority substances into surface waters.

Nevertheless, it must be ensured that these above measures do not contradict one another or overlap, and above all that there are no sources of emission, discharge or loss that are not covered, whilst bearing in mind those situations in which certain substances are historically or naturally present. The European parliament has tried in its first reading to provide a response to the above questions, and to the issue of diffuse pollution, as well as calling on the commission to establish common methodologies for guaranteeing an adequate level of protection. This is why the parliament has explicitly requested that the commission carry out a formal assessment of the consistency and effectiveness of all community legislative acts with a direct or indirect impact on good water quality. Such an assessment would enable community measures to be proposed, adapted or implemented as necessary.

Parliament also asked the commission to take into account pollution originating from third countries. When looking at the common position adopted by the council in December 2007, one is given the impression that the council did not take into account the views of parliament.

Regarding the issues of new substances classified as priority and priority hazardous, and the reclassification of current substances and mixing zones, the council did not respond to the fears expressed by parliament. As rapporteur I have therefore recommended to reset most of the principles the parliament had adopted in first reading. In particular the council does not share the views that these transitional areas of exceedance must be a tool to highlight points of discharge and take the necessary actions to, in the end, comply with the EQS.

However, it does not exclude the possibility of reaching a compromise in the second reading. But for this, the council will have to move. The pressure is on the council’s side. The council must understand that water is a key concern to a lot of members of parliament. Some of them have even launched recently the European water forum as a place for study and research as well as a place of action to promote initiatives and proposals that bring solutions to water related issues in practical and sustainable ways.