Baltic news
The European Union is preparing to legislate on bathing water standards. Or rather it is about to update a 1976 directive which has made a big contribution to improving water quality but has now been overtaken by scientific developments. Before the new directive is passed, however, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, as joint legislators, must reach agreement. And differences remain on certain key points following the EP Environment Committee's vote on the report by Jules MAATEN (ALDE, NL) on 21 April (34 votes for, 7 against and 3 abstentions).
The European Commission's draft directive laid down three categories for bathing water standards: "excellent quality", "good quality" and "poor quality", each category being based on precise microbiological parameters, in particular levels of intestinal enterococci and escherichia coli. The Council has introduced a fourth, intermediate, category in its common position, namely "sufficient quality", saying that all Member States should try to reach this standard by 2015. The parameters for this category would be virtually identical to those for "good quality" water but the assessment methods would be less stringent.
Mr Maaten accuses the Council of a "lack of ambition, particularly regarding the parameters" and says this could lead to conflict. An overwhelming majority of members of the committee support him and voted to reject the extra category. They argue that it would not improve the 1976 directive nor would it meet the minimum standards laid down by the World Health Organisation. And MEPs do not just want to revert to the three initial categories but also wish to stick to the original date of 2011, not 2015, for achieving "good quality" bathing water in the EU.
The scope of the new directive is another bone of contention between MEPs and the Council. The initial proposal covered all areas of bathing water. But the Council, in its common position, has made a distinction between coastal waters and inland waters, suggesting microbiological standards for the latter which would be only half as strict. By a narrow majority, the Environment Committee voted to throw out this distinction and the differential treatment.
Some MEPs wanted the directive to cover not only bathing water but also stretches of water where water sports are practised, such as surfing, windsurfing and canoeing, as people are in just as much danger of swallowing water if they go in for these activities. However, in the vote on this point Mr Maaten's view prevailed. He argued that it was "unjustifiable financially" to impose the same standards for water which was sometimes a good distance from the coast. But information will have to be available on the quality of stretches of water where the public practices these sports.
What should be done in emergencies, such as accidental pollution, floods or infrastructure breakdowns? So far, the Council has only given a vague commitment by suggesting that "Member States shall ensure that timely and adequate measures are taken". But the amendments adopted by MEPs, albeit by a very narrow majority, lay down a series of detailed binding requirements: emergency plans, surveillance and rapid response systems at national and/or local level, temporary signs and information for the public, warning signs and other information on the causes and on the measures taken.
Pollution incidents are not the only ones on which information should be provided. Details of water profiles, classifications, the results of inspections and other information will have to be placed at each site and also on the internet. This aspect of the directive is less contested. However, the Council merely thinks that signs or notices might be envisaged. MEPs wish to go further and are calling on the Commission to devise within two years "a simple standardised system of symbols". And any written notices should, say MEPs, include translations at least in French and English.