The increasing demand by
citizens and environmental organisations for cleaner
rivers and lakes, groundwater and coastal beaches has been evident for considerable
time. It has recently been reconfirmed by a representative opinion poll Eurobarometer in all 25 EU
countries:
When asked to list the five
main environmental issues that Europeans are worried about, averaged results
for the EU25 show that nearly half of the respondents are worried about “water
pollution” (47%), with figures for individual countries going up as far as 71%.
This demand by citizens is one
of the main reasons why the Commission has made water protection one of the
priorities of its work. The new European Water Policy will get polluted waters
clean again, and ensure clean waters are kept clean. In achieving these
objectives, the roles of citizens and citizens' groups will be crucial. This is
why a new European Water Policy has to get citizens more involved.
European Water Policy has
undergone a thorough restructuring process, and a new Water Framework Directive
adopted in 2000 will be the operational tool, setting the objectives for water
protection for the future.
The following will provide an
overview on development, present state and future of European Water Policy.
Early European water
legislation began, in a "first wave", with standards for those of our
rivers and lakes used for drinking water abstraction in 1975, and culminated in
1980 in setting binding quality targets for our drinking water. It also
included quality objective legislation on fish waters, shellfish waters,
bathing waters and groundwaters. Its main emission
control element was the Dangerous Substances Directive.
In 1988 the
Other legislative results of
these developments were Commission proposals for action on
Pressure for a fundamental
rethink of Community water policy came to a head in mid-1995: The Commission,
which had already been considering the need for a more global approach to water
policy, accepted requests from the European Parliament's environment committee
and from the Council of environment ministers.
Whilst EU actions of the
past such as the Drinking Water Directive and the Urban Waste Water Directive
can duly be considered milestones, European Water Policy has to address the
increasing awareness of citizens and other involved parties for their water. At
the same time water policy and water management are to address problems in a
coherent way. This is why the new European Water Policy was developed in an
open consultation process involving all interested parties.
A Commission Communication was
formally addressed to the Council and the European Parliament, but at the same
time invited comment from all interested parties, such as local and regional
authorities, water users and non-governmental organisations
(NGOs). A score of organisations and individuals
responded in writing, most of the comments welcoming the broad outline given by
the Commission.
As the culmination of this
open process a two day Water Conference was hosted in May 1996. This Conference
was attended by some 250 delegates including representatives of Member States,
regional and local authorities, enforcement agencies, water providers,
industry, agriculture and, not least, consumers and environmentalists.
The outcome of this
consultation process was a widespread consensus that, while considerable
progress had been made in tackling individual issues, the current water policy
was fragmented, in terms both of objectives and of means. All parties agreed on
the need for a single piece of framework legislation to resolve these problems.
In response to this, the Commission presented a Proposal for a Water Framework
Directive with the following key aims:
The outline below shows how
these elements are made operational within the Directive.
The best model for a single
system of water management is management by river basin - the natural
geographical and hydrological unit - instead of according to administrative or
political boundaries. Initiatives taken forward by the States concerned for the
Maas , Schelde or Rhine
river basins have served as positive examples of this approach, with their
cooperation and joint objective-setting across
There are a number of
objectives in respect of which the quality of water is protected. The key ones
at European level are general protection of the aquatic ecology, specific
protection of unique and valuable habitats, protection of drinking water
resources, and protection of bathing water. All these objectives must be
integrated for each river basin. It is clear that the last three - special
habitats, drinking water areas and bathing water - apply only to specific
bodies of water (those supporting special wetlands; those identified for
drinking water abstraction; those generally used as bathing areas). In
contrast, ecological protection should apply to all waters: the central
requirement of the Treaty is that the environment be protected to a high level
in its entirety.
Surface water
Ecological protection
For this reason, a general
requirement for ecological protection, and a general minimum chemical standard,
was introduced to cover all surface waters. These are the two elements
"good ecological status" and "good chemical status". Good
ecological status is defined in Annex V of the Water Framework Proposal, in
terms of the quality of the biological community, the hydrological
characteristics and the chemical characteristics. As no absolute standards for
biological quality can be set which apply across the Community, because of
ecological variability, the controls are specified as allowing only a slight
departure from the biological community which would be expected in conditions
of minimal anthropogenic impact. A set of procedures for identifying that point
for a given body of water, and establishing particular chemical or hydromorphological standards to achieve it, is provided,
together with a system for ensuring that each Member State interprets the
procedure in a consistent way (to ensure comparability). The system is somewhat
complicated, but this is inevitable given the extent of ecological variability,
and the large number of parameters, which must be dealt with.
Chemical protection
Good chemical status is
defined in terms of compliance with all the quality standards established for
chemical substances at European level. The Directive also provides a mechanism
for renewing these standards and establishing new ones by means of a prioritisation mechanism for hazardous chemicals. This will
ensure at least a minimum chemical quality, particularly in relation to very
toxic substances, everywhere in the Community.
Other uses
As mentioned above, the other
uses or objectives for which water is protected apply in specific areas, not
everywhere. Therefore, the obvious way to incorporate them is to designate
specific protection zones within the river basin which must meet these
different objectives. The overall plan of objectives for the river basin will
then require ecological and chemical protection everywhere as a minimum, but
where more stringent requirements are needed for particular uses, zones will be
established and higher objectives set within them.
There is one other category of
uses which does not fit into this picture. It is the set of uses which
adversely affect the status of water but which are considered essential on
their own terms - they are overriding policy objectives. The key examples are
flood protection and essential drinking water supply, and the problem is dealt
with by providing derogations from the requirement to achieve good status for
these cases, so long as all appropriate mitigation measures are taken. Less
clear-cut cases are navigation and power generation, where the activity is open
to alternative approaches (transport can be switched to land,
other means of power generation can be used). Derogations are provided for
those cases also, but subject to three tests: that the alternatives are technically
impossible, that they are prohibitively expensive, or that they produce a worse
overall environmental result.
Groundwater
Chemical status
The case of groundwater is
somewhat different. The presumption in relation to groundwater should broadly
be that it should not be polluted at all. For this reason, setting chemical
quality standards may not be the best approach, as it gives the impression of
an allowed level of pollution to which Member States can fill up. A very few
such standards have been established at European level for particular issues
(nitrates, pesticides and biocides), and these must always be adhered to. But
for general protection, we have taken another approach. It is essentially a
precautionary one. It comprises a prohibition on direct discharges to
groundwater, and (to cover indirect discharges) a requirement to monitor
groundwater bodies so as to detect changes in chemical composition,
and to reverse any antropogenically induced upward
pollution trend. Taken together, these should ensure the protection of
groundwater from all contamination, according to the principle of minimum
anthropogenic impact.
Quantitative status
Quantity is also a major issue
for groundwater. Briefly, the issue can be put as follows. There is only a
certain amount of recharge into a groundwater each year, and of this recharge,
some is needed to support connected ecosystems (whether they be surface water bodies, or terrestrial systems such as wetlands). For good
management, only that portion of the overall recharge not needed by the ecology
can be abstracted - this is the sustainable resource, and the Directive limits
abstraction to that quantity.
One of the innovations of the
Directive is that it provides a framework for integrated management of groundwater
and surface water for the first time at European level.
There are a number of measures
taken at Community level to tackle particular pollution problems. Key examples
are the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the Nitrates Directive, which
together tackle the problem of eutrophication (as
well as health effects such as microbial pollution in bathing water areas and
nitrates in drinking water); and the Integrated Pollution Prevention and
Control Directive, which deals with chemical pollution. The aim is to
co-ordinate the application of these so as to meet the objectives established
above. This is done as follows.
First of all, the objectives
are established for the river basin as outlined in the previous section. Then
an analysis of human impact is conducted so as to determine how far from the
objective each body of water is. At this point, the effect on the problems of
each body of water of full implementation of all existing legislation is
considered. If the existing legislation solves the problem, well and good, and
the objective of the framework Directive is attained. However, if it does not,
the
The combined approach
But there is a further aspect.
Historically, there has been a dichotomy in approach to pollution control at
European level, with some controls concentrating on what is achievable at
source, through the application of technology; and some dealing with the needs
of the receiving environment in the form of quality objectives. Each approach
has potential flaws. Source controls alone can allow a cumulative pollution
load which is severely detrimental to the environment, where there is a
concentration of pollution sources. And quality standards can underestimate the
effect of a particular substance on the ecosystem, due to the limitations in
scientific knowledge regarding dose-response relationships and the mechanics of
transport within the environment.
For this reason, a consensus
has developed that both are needed in practice - a combined approach. The Water
Framework Directive formalises this. It does so as
follows. On the source side, it requires that as part of the basic measures to
be taken in the river basin, all existing technology-driven source-based
controls must be implemented as a first step. But over and above this, it also
sets out a framework for developing further such controls. The framework
comprises the development of a list of priority substances for action at EU
level, prioritised on the basis of risk; and then the
design of the most cost-effective set of measures to achieve load reduction of
those substances, taking into account both product and process sources.
On the effects side, it
co-ordinates all the environmental objectives in existing legislation, and
provides a new overall objective of good status for all waters, and requires
that where the measures taken on the source side are not sufficient to achieve
these objectives, additional ones are required.
All the elements of this
analysis must be set out in a plan for the river basin. The plan is a detailed
account of how the objectives set for the river basin (ecological status,
quantitative status, chemical status and protected area objectives) are to be
reached within the timescale required. The plan will include all the results of
the above analysis: the river basin's characteristics, a review of the impact
of human activity on the status of waters in the basin, estimation of the effect
of existing legislation and the remaining "gap" to meeting these
objectives; and a set of measures designed to fill the gap. One additional
component is that an economic analysis of water use within the river basin must
be carried out. This is to enable there to be a rational discussion on the
cost-effectiveness of the various possible measures. It is essential that all
interested parties are fully involved in this discussion, and indeed in the
preparation of the river basin management plan as a whole. Which
brings me to the final major element of the proposal, the public participation
requirements.
In getting our waters
clean, the role of citizens and citizens' groups will be crucial.
There are two main reasons for
an extension of public participation. The first is that the decisions on the
most appropriate measures to achieve the objectives in the river basin
management plan will involve balancing the interests of various groups. The
economic analysis requirement is intended to provide a rational basis for this,
but it is essential that the process is open to the scrutiny of those who will
be affected.
The second reason concerns
enforceability. The greater the transparency in the establishment of
objectives, the imposition of measures, and the reporting of standards, the
greater the care Member States will take to implement the legislation in good
faith, and the greater the power of the citizens to influence the direction of
environmental protection, whether through consultation or, if disagreement
persists, through the complaints procedures and the courts. Caring for
One advantage of the framework
directive approach, in its own way a significant one, is that it will rationalise the Community's water legislation by replacing
seven of the "first wave" directives: those on surface water and is
two related directives on measurement methods and sampling frequencies and
exchanges of information on fresh water quality; the fish water, shellfish
water, and groundwater directives; and the directive on dangerous substances
discharges. The operative provisions of these directives will be taken over in
the framework directive, allowing them to be repealed.
The need to conserve adequate
supplies of a resource for which demand is continuously increasing is also one
of the drivers behind what is arguably one of the Directives's
most important innovations - the introduction of pricing. Adequate water
pricing acts as an incentive for the sustainable use of water resources and
thus helps to achieve the environmental objectives under the Directive.
Member States will be required
to ensure that the price charged to water consumers - such as for the
abstraction and distribution of fresh water and the collection and treatment of
waste water - reflects the true costs. Whereas this principle has a long
tradition in some countries, this is currently not the case in others. However,
derogations will be possible, e.g. in less-favoured
areas or to provide basic services at an affordable price.
Much progress has been made in
water protection in