19 Water policy: priority substances
| (a)
(33665)
6018/12
+ ADD 1
COM(11) 875
(b)
(33666)
6019/12
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(11) 876
|
Commission Report on the outcome of the review of Annex X to Directive 2000/60/EC on priority substances in the field of water policy
Draft Directive amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy
|
| Legal base | (a)—
(b)Article 192(1) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 20 May 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 428-li (2010-12), chapter 5 (22 February 2012) and HC 86-xxv (2012-13), chapter 5 (19 December 2012)
|
| Discussion in Council | Not applicable
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
19.1 Directive 2000/60/EC (the Water Framework Directive)
lists 33 so-called priority substances identified as presenting
a significant risk to the aquatic environment within the EU (including
some listed as priority hazardous substances because they have
"ubiquitous, persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic"
properties), whilst Directive 2008/105/EC enables Environmental
Quality Standards[35]
(EQS) to be set for the priority substances (and for eight other
pollutants) so as to reduce their emissions.
19.2 The Commission is required to review the
list of priority substances from time to time, and it put forward
in January 2012 these two documents, comprising (a) a Report and
(b) a draft Directive proposing a number of detailed changes to
both Directives, notably by:
- introducing nine new priority
substances, and six new priority hazardous substances;
- reclassifying two priority
substances as priority hazardous substances;
- updating the water EQS for seven existing priority
substances, and the existing biota EQS for three such substances;
and
- setting new biota EQS for a further three substances;
and
- establishing a "watch list" of up to
25 substances (or groups of substances) which Member States would
have to monitor.
19.3 Our Report of 22 February 2012 noted that
the Government had welcomed the review of the list of priority
substances, but had identified a number of specific points. In
particular, it said that, because of the limited data currently
available, the case for classifying two pharmaceuticals[36]
as new priority substances was not strong; that, although more
data are available for another product[37]
which would be similarly classified, there are only limited ways
of controlling its emissions, making it likely that advanced waste
water treatment (which has high energy demand) would be required;
and that, although the introduction of a watch list would help
to develop the evidence base, there were some concerns about the
possible resource requirements and the provision of adequate analytical
capability.
19.4 The Government also cautioned that the costs
would be highly dependent on the inclusion of particular substances,
and could change significantly during discussions, but said that
the Environment Agency had estimated that installing the necessary
advanced waste water treatment plant in England and Wales to deal
with some of the pharmaceuticals concerned could cost about £27
billion over 20 years. We therefore expressed the hope that the
Impact Assessment under preparation would shed more light on the
implications of such a step, and that we proposed to hold these
documents under scrutiny pending receipt of that information.
19.5 We subsequently reported on 19 December
2012 that the Government had told us that there had been a significant
shift in views during discussion in the Council, in that, whilst
the UK had initially been isolated in its opposition to the inclusion
of E2, EE2 and diclofenac in the priority substances list, the
majority of other Member states now took this view. However,
the European Parliament's ENVI Committee believed that these should
be retained on the list, whilst leaving the EQS to be set at the
next review of the Directive in 2016. The proposal was expected
to go to negotiation in the New Year, with the aim of completing
a first reading agreement by the summer, so as to enable the revised
Directive to be incorporated into the second cycle of river basin
management planning under the Water Framework Directive, which
commences in 2015.
19.6 The Government also said that a final version
of the Impact Assessment would be forwarded once the outcome of
negotiations became clear, but commented that, if the proposal
were to be agreed with E2, EE2 and diclofenac set as priority
substances but without EQS, the costs associated with these substances
would mainly be those for monitoring.
Minister's letter of 20 May 2013
19.7 We have now received a further letter of
20 May 2013 from the Minister for Natural Environment and Fisheries
(Mr Richard Benyon), saying that a compromise has now been agreed
with the European Parliament, under which the three pharmaceuticals
causing concern have now been removed from the list of priority
substances, and will instead appear on the new "watch list".
The Minister also notes that the compromise requires the Commission
to develop a strategic approach to the pollution of water by pharmaceuticals,
which could result in these being proposed as priority substances
in the next review of Directive 2008/105/EC in 2017, in which
case he would expect such a step to be supported by evidence.
In the meantime, the earlier cost estimates for their inclusion
on the priority list no longer apply.
19.8 Finally, the Minister also refers to one
other aspect of the proposal to which we had drawn previously
attention — the proposed lowering of the EQS for a group
of brominated diphenylethers. He says that significant uncertainty
still remains around the costs involved, noting that these substances
have for the most part already been restricted under source control
legislation, and that technological means of removal are currently
limited and expensive. However, the difficulty involved has been
recognised by categorising them as "behaving like ubiquitous
Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic" substances, which
have reduced monitoring requirements.
Conclusion
19.9 We are grateful to the Minister for this
update, and in particular for confirming that the Council and
European Parliament have agreed that the three chemicals whose
inclusion on the priority list would have given rise to significant
costs within the UK are now to be included instead on the "watch
list". In view of this, we see no need to retain these documents
under scrutiny, and we are therefore now clearing them.
35 These are commonly set for concentrations in water,
but also apply to sediment and biota, notably fish. Back
36
EE2 (used in the birth control pill) and diclofenac (a non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drug). Back
37
E2 (a naturally occurring steroidal oestrogen produced by humans
and animals, and also used for oral contraceptives and hormone
replacement therapy). Back
|
