1 Protection of groundwater
against pollution
| (24908)
12985/03
COM(03) 550
| Draft Directive on the protection of groundwater against pollution
|
| Legal base | Article 95EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 6 January 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxxvi (2002-03), para 1 (5 November 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee A (decision reported on 5 November 2003)
|
Background
1.1 Groundwater has two important functions —
to maintain surface waters and wetland areas, and as an essential
source of water through abstraction from aquifers. The Water
Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)[1]
includes a requirement on Member States to prevent or limit the
input of pollutants such as nitrates and pesticides, and provides
for the Council and European Parliament to adopt specific measures
in a "daughter" Directive. The Commission therefore
put forward in September 2003 the current proposal which is intended
to meet that last requirement by:
- including criteria (based on
nitrate and pesticide levels) for assessing good chemical status,
identifying significant and sustained upward trends, and defining
a starting point for trend reversal;
- requiring Member States, where sustained and
upwards trends have been identified, to reverse these through
the programme of measures set out in the Water Framework Directive;
- requiring Member States to set by 22 December
2005 threshold levels for certain pollutants[2]
in groundwater bodies considered to be at risk, in the light of
which the Commission would have to decide whether to propose Community-wide
environmental quality standards.
1.2 In our Report of 5 November 2003, we noted the
Government's view that the proposal broadly fulfils the requirement
of the Water Framework Directive, but that there were issues relating
to common standards, timescales, compliance regimes and inconsistencies,
both within the proposal and the Framework Directive, which would
need to be resolved in order for the measures to deliver those
objectives fully. We also noted that an initial Regulatory Impact
Assessment had suggested that a number of benefits would arise
(notably the avoidance of the need to replace polluted public
water abstraction sources), but that, if during negotiations,
Community-wide standards were introduced — as many Member
States would apparently like — the costs to business could
increase dramatically, as a result of the need for the remediation
of groundwater polluted by point sources.
1.3 We concluded that, although the proposals leading
to the adoption of the Water Framework Directive[3]
had been debated, this proposal (though an implementing measure
dealing with one particular aspect of that Directive) was no less
important. In view of this, the concerns to which the Government
had drawn attention, and the uncertainties over the likely costs
and benefits, including those which would arise if the Council
were to amend the proposal to incorporate more inflexible Community-wide
standards, we recommended that the proposal be debated in European
Standing Committee A.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 6 January
2004
1.4 The Minister of State (Environment and Agri-Environment)
at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr
Elliot Morley) enclosed a further Regulatory Impact Assessment
with his supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 6 January 2004,
but we have since received from him an updated version, which
we have used as the basis for this Report.
1.5 The key point arising from the Assessment is
that, even if the latest proposal were not adopted, significant
costs and benefits would in any case arise as a consequence of
those more general provisions in the Water Framework Directive
(WFD) which would affect groundwater quality. The Assessment
therefore takes these as its baseline, and then seeks to identify
the impact on those figures (i) of the current proposal as drafted,
and (ii) of those amendments which the UK would like to see made
(though, in the latter case, it points out that it may not be
possible to achieve these, and indeed that pressure from other
Member States could lead to the introduction of unwelcome changes
of the sort referred to above). Having said that, and having
also drawn attention to the considerable uncertainties which arise
on both the baseline and the impact of the present proposal, the
Assessment summarises the position in the following present value
and annualised terms:
Option | Cost
PV[4] (£bn) Annualised (£m)
| Benefit A[5]
PV (£bn) Annualised (£m)
| Benefit B
PV (£bn) Annualised (£m)
|
| Water Framework Directive | 5.32
| 192 | 1.54-2.01 | 56-73
| 2.56-4.63 | 93-168 |
| Commission proposal | 4.67-4.69
| 169-170 | 1.28-1.75 | 46-63
| 2.30-4.38 | 83-159 |
| Amended proposal | 6.11-7.85
| 221-284 | 1.54-2.01 | 56-73
| 2.56-4.63 | 93-168 |
1.6 It says that the main benefits would arise from the reduction
in the costs of treating groundwater abstracted for drinking or
seeking alternative sources, and from the enhanced ecological
or amenity value of associated or dependent surface waters, whilst
the main costs would be incurred by agriculture (through measures
to reduce nitrate and pesticide pollution), the water industry
(through measures to reduce leakage from sewers), transport (through
measures to reduce pollution from runoff), and industry and waste
disposal (through measures to control point sources of pollution).
1.7 It also points out that, on the basis that reliance
on the provisions already in the WFD is not a realistic option
(which should therefore be considered essentially as a baseline
for comparing the other two options), adoption of the Commission
proposal as it stands could lead to a reduction in both the benefits
and the costs, largely as a result of the way in which it is proposed
to deal with nitrate pollution, whilst any attempt to amend the
proposal could prove to be extremely expensive, if this led to
the introduction of Community-wide standards. It would also seem
that, under many of the assumptions made, the costs of the proposal
would exceed the benefits.
Conclusion
1.8 We are grateful to the Minister for this further
information, which we are drawing to the attention of the House
in advance of the debate which is to be held in European Standing
Committee A on 21 January.
1 OJ No.L.327, 22.12.00. p.1. Back
2
The Commission says that these should as a minimum include a range
of heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury), ammonium,
chloride and sulphate ions, and trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene. Back
3
(18036) 7531/97; see HC 155-ii (1997-98), para 11 (22 July 1997)
and (18036) 7531/97 (18691) 12929/97; see HC 155-xiv (1997-98),
para 1 (28 January 1998). (18915) 6260/98; see HC 155-xxv (1997-98),
para 6 (22 April 1998), HC 155-xxx (1997-98), para 10 (10 June
1998) and HC 34-i (1998-99), para 4 (25 November 1998).Official
Report, European Standing Committee A, 29 April 1998. Back
4
Present values based on a time horizon of 100 years and a discount
factor of 3.5%. Back
5
The difference between these two sets of figures reflects assumed
differences in the willingness to pay for improvements to water/ecosystem
quality. Back
|
