1 Water policy: environmental
quality standards
| (a)
(27719)
11847/06
COM(06) 398
|
Commission Communication: Integrated prevention and control of chemical pollution of surface waters in the European Union
|
| (b)
(27728)
11816/06
COM(06) 397
+ ADD 1
|
Draft Directive on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC
|
| Legal base | (a) —
(b) Article 175(1)EC; co-decision: QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 27 May 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xl (2005-06), para 2 (1 November 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 28 June 2007
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee
|
Background
1.1 As a result of discharges and aerial emissions, chemical pollution
of surface and groundwaters in widespread, and the Community first
enacted legislation to tackle this in Directive 76/464/EEC.[1]
This was followed by a number of "daughter Directives"
setting down emission limit values and environmental quality objectives
for 18 specific pollutants identified as being of particular concern.
In 2000, the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)[2]
established a new integrated approach to pollution in river basin
districts, and set specific environmental objectives, including
the achievement "good status" by 2015, subject to the
proviso that, where this is not feasible or would be disproportionately
expensive, it would be possible to defer that deadline (or to
set less stringent objectives, where appropriate.)
1.2 The Directive also requires the introduction of specific emissions
control measures and environmental quality standards (EQS),[3]
aimed at progressively reducing pollution from priority substances,
with a further requirement that discharges, emissions and losses
of priority hazardous substances of very high concern —
and broadly analogous to those covered by the earlier "daughter"
Directives —
should cease or be phased out within 20 years of measures having
been adopted.
1.3 The Commission subsequently put forward in July
2006 the two current documents. The first was a Communication
which identified the various pathways through which chemical pollution
of surface water can occur, and the need for preventive measures.
It also drew attention to the role of EQSs, and said that, although
some had been set under Directive 76/464/EEC, national quality
standards for priority substances varied considerably, and that
the establishment of Community level EQSs would ensure the consistent
application of the Framework Directive, without the need for further
measures.
1.4 The second document comprised a draft Directive,
the main effect of which would be to establish for the 33 priority
and priority hazardous substances, as well as for selected other
pollutants (mainly pesticides), two types of EQS, based on annual
average and maximum concentrations: in most (but not all) cases,
these would be more stringent than those currently set under Directive
76/464/EEC. In addition, the proposal would set different EQSs
for inland surface (and other) waters; allow these to be exceeded
for a transitional period in the vicinity of point source discharges;
and require Member States to establish for river basins an inventory
of emissions, discharges and losses, in order to check compliance.
The Commission also provided an impact assessment, which concluded
that the costs and benefits of the proposal would be broadly neutral,
but which added that the costs had to be interpreted with caution
as there was a lack of comprehensive data.
1.5 As we noted in our Report of 1 November 2006,
the Government said that the proposal had to be considered in
the context of the objectives of the Framework Directive, and
that it raised a number of policy issues. These included the very
stringent precautionary EQSs for certain substances (which would
have implications for the classification of water bodies and the
achievement of "good status"); whether EQSs should be
subject to the cost-effectiveness test applicable to other aspects
of the Framework Directive, rather than the simple pass/fail basis
proposed; the impacts of the actions needed to achieve both the
EQSs and cessation obligations; whether the proposal applied to
all surface waters, or just to delineated water bodies; and whether
the compliance costs are commensurate with the environmental benefits.
It also pointed out that some of the standards in the proposal
were significantly more stringent than those currently set by
the UK.
1.6 We also noted that a Regulatory Impact Assessment
provided by the Government had pointed out that not all the substances
for which an EQS had been proposed are made or used in the UK,
and that much would depend upon the degree of use and the relationship
with any EQSs which are currently applicable. However, it suggested
that, if it was possible to meet the EQSs set solely through "end
of pipe" controls, the additional costs in the UK could be
about £1 billion for additional treatment at sewage treatment
works operated by the water industry, with a further £1.9
million in sludge disposal costs, and up to £3.7 million
for additional treatment by major industrial point source dischargers.
On the other hand, if additional measures were needed (for example,
where pollution arises from diffuse sources) to enable priority
hazardous substances to be phased out, there could be significant
additional costs to the dredging industry, to other users of tributyltin
(TBT), and to the agricultural sector. There would also be increased
monitoring costs relating to water quality in rivers, with additional
costs from monitoring sediment and biota, and in relation to coastal
waters. We therefore concluded that this was clearly a potentially
significant proposal, not least in terms of its possible costs,
and we said that it was highly likely therefore that we would
wish to recommend it for debate. However, before doing so, we
thought it would be sensible to await the outcome of the Government's
consultation exercise, and in particular to see whether it proved
possible not only to clarify the current cost estimates, but also
to provide some quantitative estimate of the benefits.
Minister's letter of 27 May 2007
1.7 We have now received from the Minister for Climate
Change and Environment at the Department of Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Mr Ian Pearson) a letter of 27 May 2007, saying
that the German Presidency plans to seek political agreement on
an amended text at the Environment Council on 28 June. He says
that an official text is not yet available, but that the position
on a number of issues arising on the original proposal is as follows:
- the text would now apply to
the setting of EQSs the cost-effectiveness provisions in the Water
Framework Directive, in addition to which the UK also "hopes"
to clarify that these provisions will apply as well to the phasing
out of emissions discharges and to losses of priority hazardous
substances;
- the UK has managed to secure
a more balanced approach to the use of mixing zones ("transitional
areas of exceedance"), so that a provision requiring these
to be progressively reduced has been replaced by one which requires
the zones to be proportionate;
- all background concentrations
of metals will be taken into account when determining compliance
with an EQS;
- the text envisages the assessment
of maximum admissible concentrations using a technique which reflects
UK practice; and
- reporting and monitoring requirements
are now cost effective and consistent with the Framework Directive.
1.8 On the other hand, the Minister says that it
has not been possible to "revisit" certain of the proposed
EQSs, with other Member States being unmoved by considerations
of cost-effectiveness, and he adds that the European Parliament
has taken a significantly different approach at its first reading
on 22 May, having proposed the addition of a large number of priority
substances and of new conditions on the use of mixing zones. He
suggests that a first reading agreement will not therefore be
possible, but says that, on the basis of the progress so far,
he intends that the UK should support the anticipated Council
text on 28 June. He also says that, although an updated Regulatory
Impact Assessment will be prepared (taking into account the reduction
in costs arising from the changes agreed), this will not be finalised
until after the Council.
Conclusion
1.9 Whilst we have noted the changes which have
now been made to the original proposal, we find it difficult to
assess these fully in the absence of a revised text: and we also
find it surprising that an updated Regulatory Impact Assessment
will not be available until after the Council at which
decisions are likely to be taken, this simply re-enforcing the
difficulty of weighing up the relative costs and benefits. Moreover,
we note that other Member States do not consider that cost considerations
should be taken into account in the setting of Environmental Quality
Standards, and that, in the absence of a further Regulatory Impact
Assessment, it is not possible to know to what extent the costs
to which we drew attention on our earlier Report may now be reduced.
Also, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, we assume
that it remains the case — as stated in the Regulatory Impact
Assessment provided last October — that the benefits are
not readily quantifiable, and can only be described in relation
to the reduction in unacceptable risks to the aquatic environment
and the wider environmental and health risks which would be achieved.
1.10 For all these reasons, we believe that our
initial view that this is a potentially significant proposal remains
valid, and we are therefore recommending that these two documents
should be debated in European Standing Committee. We also consider
that, as the Minister has said that the UK intends to support
the anticipated text at the Council on 28 June, this debate should
take place before then.
1 OJ No. L 129, 18.5.76, p.23. Back
2
OJ No. L 327, 22.12.00, p.1. Back
3
Concentrations in water calculated to have no adverse effect on
the aquatic environment. Back
|
