POSITION PAPERS

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of groundwater against pollution:

(11383/06 CODEC 732 ENV 401) which reject certain amendments to the Common Position proposed by the European Parliament.

The Common Position adopted by the Council (12062/05 CODEC 717 ENV 395) with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Groundwater Against Pollution addresses appropriately the main issues raised by the enforcement of the Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive) for the implementation of the existing Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater. EFMA particularly appreciates the clarification given by this Common Position on the complementarity between the Directive 91/676/EEC (Nitrate Directive) and the Ground Water Directive. This clarification gives a clear definition of the domains of application for each Directive.
Additionally it brings adequate responses to several concerns expressed by the Rapporteur and Members of the European Parliament during the first reading in 2005, and as such is considered by EFMA as a well-adjusted proposal to revise the Directive 80/68/EEC for a better protection of European groundwater.
The revision of this Directive will efficiently complete the framework of complementary legislations which ensures, without overlap, an adequate protection of European water bodies.

Therefore, EFMA has expressed serious concerns when considering certain amendments adopted on 13 June 2006 by the European Parliament to modify this Common Position:

Two out of the 41 amendments adopted by the European Parliament are obviously incompatible with existing Directives, namely the Nitrate Directive and the Water Framework Directive.

- Amendment 36:
The application of this amendment would suppress the reference to the action plans (programmes and measures) stipulated by the Nitrate Directive. This is in contradiction with Annex VI, Part A of the Water Framework Directive, which precisely refers to the action plans of the “Daughter Directives”. Contrary to what is stated in the justification note, this amendment would introduce confusion and uncertainty and thereby impede a correct implementation of the Nitrate Directive.

- Amendment 43:
The application of this amendment is not compatible with the Nitrate Directive as it introduces a fixed concentration level below 50 mg in order to initiate first correcting actions (threshold value). The principle of trend reversal, and therefore of threshold value, is already included in the Nitrate Directive (Article 3, Paragraph 1 and Annex I, A. 2.), but without imposing a fixed concentration level: the definition of this level is set by the Member States and used for the delimitation of their Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. This is particularly appropriate for Surface Waters (as they are defined in Annex II, Paragraph 1 of the Water Framework Directive), where the water quality status is very much influenced by local natural conditions. This also responds adequately to the requirement set by the Water Framework Directive in Article 17, Paragraph 2 concerning the criteria to identify upward trends.

The justification note, as it is the case for the previous amendment, is in contradiction with Article 11 and Annex VI, Part A, of the Water Framework Directive.

Additionally, the justification notes of the two above amendments clearly oppose the principle set in Article 4, Paragraph 8 of the Water Framework Directive, which states that any new measure implemented by Member States should be consistent with the implementation of all other existing Community environmental legislation.

The explanatory statement accompanying these proposed amendments further justified them by stating that both the Water Framework Directive and the Nitrate Directive “failed to lead to any substantial decrease in Ground Water pollution in catchment areas used for agricultural purposes”: if certain difficulties still remain in few areas with intensive animal husbandry, this statement does not reflect the actual and significant progress made by EU Member States since 2000, as already highlighted in the last report (2002) from the EU Commission.

EFMA is of the opinion that unsatisfactory results in implementation do not imply that the legislation is incorrect and must be changed, since a new legislation on the same topic will most likely meet the same obstacles on its introduction. Rather, it indicates that efforts should be maintained in the conditions and control of the implementation of the existing legal text.
The worst situation would be to adapt a new legislative text in order to compensate the difficulties encountered by the implementation of the existing one, as this introduces overlaps and therefore uncertainties which are always detrimental to a good understanding of the law and to public perception. A good understanding of the law and a positive public perception are crucial for a successful implementation.