WATER POLICY
(a)
(20283)
9488/99
COM(99) 271
|
Amended draft Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.
|
(b)
(21356)
9350/00
COM(00) 219
|
Commission Opinion on the European Parliament's second reading amendments to the draft Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.
|
| Legal base: |
Article 175(1) EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated:
| (b) 5 June 2000 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| (b) 8 June 2000 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| (b) 27 June 2000 |
| Department: |
Environment, Transport and the Regions
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 20 July 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| (a) HC 34-xxvii (1998-99), paragraph 6 (21 July 1999)
(b) None
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| To be adopted by a written procedure in August
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| (both) Cleared |
Background
11.1 In February 1997, the Commission put
forward a proposal[21]
for a Council Directive establishing a framework for Community
action on water policy, followed in November of that year by an
amended proposal[22].
The Commission originally intended that a number of detailed technical
specifications should be set out in a subsequent measure. However,
both the Council and the European Parliament took the view that,
before the Directive could be adopted, these technical issues
needed to be spelt out. This was subsequently done in a further
amended proposal[23]
put forward by the Commission in February 1998, which we eventually
cleared on 10 June 1998 (after the debate held in European Standing
Committee A on 29 April 1998, covering the earlier versions of
this proposal and the proposed bathing water Directive). We went
on in our Report of 25 November 1998 to record that we had received
a Second Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum dated 5 November
1998 from the Government, in which it confirmed that the Council
had reached a "considerable degree of common understanding"
at its June meeting. Also, although the text remained subject
to amendment by the European Parliament, it expected the progress
made would enable a Common Position to be reached rapidly once
the Parliament had submitted its Opinion.
11.2 In June 1999, the Commission put forward
a proposal (document (a)), which would have accepted, either wholly
or in part, 88 of the 133 amendments suggested by the European
Parliament at its first reading on 11 February 1999. According
to the Explanatory Memorandum of 12 July 1999, which we received
from the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr Meale), this
proposal followed attempts by the Presidency to bridge the gap
between the Council and the Parliament on twelve key issues. He
went on to say that a text agreed by the Council in March 1999
(with which the UK was content) was likely to be adopted as a
Common Position shortly, and that it was this, rather than the
Commission's latest proposal, which was expected to be the basis
of the next stage of negotiations under the co-decision procedure.
However, he also suggested that, because the remaining points
of difference between the Council and the Parliament were unlikely
to be resolved at second reading, a formal conciliation process
was expected to begin at the start of this year.
11.3 In paragraph 6.3 of our Report of 21
July 1999, we noted the eight issues on which the Council and
Parliament had not been able to reach agreement, and on which
the Government had a number of concerns. These were groundwater,
radioactive substances, hazardous substances, the timetable for
implementation, charging, derogation conditions, objectives, and
water transfers and water use. The Government also told us that
the text to be adopted as a Common Position would not alter significantly
the Regulatory Impact Assessment it had provided in November 1998,
but that some aspects of the amended proposal put forward by the
Commission could impose significant, but unquantified, additional
costs on a wide range of sectors. The Department of the Environment,
Transport and the Regions had therefore commissioned some further
work to assess the associated costs of various potential outcomes
of the forthcoming negotiations. This was expected to be completed
in November 1999, before the formal conciliation process started.
11.4 In our Conclusion, we noted that, although
the Minister had said the next stage of the negotiations was expected
to be based on the Council's Common Position, the latest Commission
proposal would significantly alter in a number of important respects
the proposals which we had considered, and cleared, the previous
year. We also noted the Government's view that some of these changes
could impose significant additional costs on a wide range of sectors.
In view of this, we said that we were withholding clearance of
this latest document, pending further information on the course
of discussions between the Council and the Parliament, and in
particular confirmation that the Common Position text would indeed
form the basis of the eventual Directive. We said that we would
also like to see the revised Regulatory Impact Assessment when
it was available.
Document (b)
11.5 On 8 June 2000, the Commission adopted
an Opinion (document (b)) on the 61 amendments adopted by the
European Parliament at its second reading on 16 February 2000,
and this has since been the subject of an Explanatory Memorandum
of 20 July 2000 from the present Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the
Regions (Mr Mullin). He says that the Parliament's amendments
covered all the issues which had not been agreed during its informal
negotiations last year with the Council, including those set out
in paragraph 6.3 of our Report of 21 July 1999 (and paragraph
11.3 above). The Minister goes on to say that, because the Council
could not approve all the Parliament's changes, the amended proposal
in the Commission's Opinion was not formally discussed. Instead,
the Conciliation Committee was convened, and it approved a joint
text on 28-29 June 2000, which now needs to be adopted by the
Council and the Parliament. The rest of his Explanatory Memorandum
focuses on the obligations in the joint text which are additional
to, or different from, the Common Position. These are as follows:
— Groundwater
The Common Position contained two complementary objectives
for chemical quality of groundwater — one aiming to achieve
good chemical status within 16 years, and the other to reverse
any significant and upward trends in the concentration of any
pollutant. It did not specify an end point or target for such
trend reversal, or how Member States were to determine what constituted
a significant and upward trend: nor did it specify at what point
they had a duty to take remedial action. The Parliament's amendments
would have made the central objective the achievement of "at
least insignificantly anthropogenically polluted groundwater status",
and have required groundwater to comply in situ with the
standards in the Drinking Water Directive. Its amendments would
also have introduced an arbitrary trigger point for Member States
to introduce measures to bring about trend reversal. As a result
of the conciliation negotiations, the general approach in the
Common Position was maintained, though the deadline for the achievement
of good status was shortened by one year (to 15 years). Also,
a new Article was added, which included provisions for the Commission
to come forward with proposals for specific measures to prevent
and control pollution, as well as criteria for identifying upward
trends and beginning trend reversal. The new Article would also
include a default trigger point, but this would come into effect
only if there is no Community-level agreement on what constitutes
a sustained upward trend and Member States do not establish their
own criteria. Other aspects of this part of the Directive, including
definitions, remain as in the Common Position.
— Radioactive substances
Unlike the Common Position, the Parliament's amendments
would have included specific references to man-made radioactive
substances as a pollutant for the purposes of this Directive,
whereas the UK considered a number of fundamental issues needed
to be addressed before this could be considered. In the event,
the Parliament withdrew its amendments on this issue, so by default
the text reverted to the Common Position.
— Hazardous substances
The Common Position included language making it clear
that implementing the Directive would contribute to meeting the
objectives of international agreements, such as OSPAR, and to
the progressive reduction of emissions of hazardous substances.
The Parliament's amendments sought to strengthen this link by
including specific obligations making the cessation of discharges,
emissions and losses of all hazardous substances a legally binding
objective in the context of this Directive. They would also have
introduced the aim of reducing those inputs to levels close to
zero by 2020, and have incorporated an extremely wide definition
of hazardous substances, which did not provide for any assessment
of relative risk. The compromise agreed by the Conciliation Committee
introduces an obligation on Member States to take measures with
the aim of ceasing or phasing out emissions, discharges and losses
of specific priority substances only, for which the Commission
will come forward with specific proposals. According to the Minister,
this fundamentally changes Community policy towards priority hazardous
substances, and the implications will ultimately depend on how
these are selected, the nature of the controls imposed, and the
level at which standards are set. He says that Regulatory Impact
Assessments will be provided as the Commission brings forward
proposals for the individual substances.
— Timetable
Under the Common Position, the initial deadline for
achieving the environmental objectives was 16 years after the
Directive comes into force, in addition to which extensions of
up to three periods of 6 years would have been allowed for certain
more difficult waters. Initially, the Parliament wanted this deadline
shortened to 10 years, but the compromise agreed by the Conciliation
Committee shortens the initial deadline to 15 years, and removes
the possibility of a third six-year extension.
— Charging
The Common Position would have required Member States
to "take account" of the principle of recovery of costs
of "water services" in accordance with the polluter
pays principle, the latter term being defined widely, and extending
beyond such things as abstraction, distribution and consumption
to include use in any other economic activity. The Parliament's
amendments would have required Member States to ensure by 2010
that water pricing policies provided adequate incentives for water
resources to be used efficiently. It would also have required
different economic sectors, such as industry, agriculture, and
households, to make an adequate contribution to the recovery of
all the costs of water services. The conciliation text strengthens
the Common Position by requiring Member States both to take account
of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services and
to ensure by 2010 that their pricing policies provide adequate
incentives for users to use water efficiently. The various sectors
would be required to make an adequate contribution to cost recovery.
However, the text agreed also allows Member States to derogate
from these provisions to continue established practice where this
would not compromise the attainment of the Directive's objectives.
— Objectives
The Common Position required Member States to "aim
to achieve" the environmental objectives, thus reflecting
the uncertain response of the aquatic ecology to measures to reduce
pollution (and preventing Member States from being in breach of
the Directive when, despite their best endeavours, the objectives
were not achieved). During conciliation, the Parliament pressed
for and secured mandatory language, and the deletion of references
to practicality in the objectives themselves (though the practicality
of achieving those objectives will still be a relevant consideration,
albeit in the context of specific derogations and hence transparency
criteria). The Common Position also contained a "no deterioration"
objective conditioned by the key objective of achieving good status.
Because this could have been interpreted as allowing the deterioration
of "high status" waters, the text approved by the Conciliation
Committee removes this ambiguity.
— Derogations
The derogations in the Common Position have been
retained, but with the introduction of more stringent and clearer
criteria, meaning that they will now be applicable in a narrower
range of circumstances. Member States will also have to demonstrate
first that other options have been investigated.
11.6 The Minister also refers to the final
implications of the amended text. He says that the text approved
by the Conciliation Committee would not in itself significantly
alter the assessment which the Government provided in November
1998 on a text very similar to the Common Position, though the
precise implications of the potentially most significant change
in relation to hazardous substances will not become fully apparent
until a list of such substances has been agreed (and the Commission
has come forward with specific proposals, at which point the Government
will want to ensure that the costs — which the Minister
says could be quite significant for industry — and the benefits
have been fully considered). Likewise, for groundwater, any extra
costs and benefits will depend on the additional measures, including
the criteria for determining significant and sustained upward
trends in pollutant concentrations, adopted on the basis of proposals
to be brought forward by the Commission. Again, these will be
subject to the normal scrutiny process.
Conclusion
11.7 We are grateful to the Minister
for his very full explanation of the many detailed changes that
have been made to this complex and lengthy text. In particular,
we have noted both the current position on the proposal following
the meeting of the Conciliation Committee and the position on
the likely costs of the measure, including the extent to which
these may be affected by any further proposals by the Commission
to give effect to some of the changes which the Council and European
Parliament have agreed. In all the circumstances, we are now content
to clear these two documents.
21 (18036) 7531/97; see HC 155-ii (1997-98), paragraph
11 (22 July 1997) and HC 155-xiv, paragraph 1 (28 January 1998). Back
22 (18691)
12929/97; see HC 155-xiv, paragraph 1 (28 January 1998). Back
23 (18915)
6260/98; see HC 155-xxv (1997-98), paragraph 6 (22 April 1998),
HC 155-xxx (1997-98), paragraph 10 (10 June 1998), and HC 34-i
(1998-99), paragraph 4 (25 November 1998). Back
|
