Preparation of the Commission’s 2011 proposal on Priority Substances

1. Preparation of the Commission’s 2011 proposal on Priority Substances Water Directors meeting 26-27 May 2011 Jorge Rodriguez Romero Helen Clayton WFD Team DG Environment

2. Recall of the process Legal basis: WFD article 16 requiring regular review Work in progress since 2007! Extensive support from Member States and stakeholder experts along the technical process (thanks!) Technical Guidance Document significantly expanded – adoption by all MS representatives at the SCG in March (one reservation) SCHER opinions being finalised for proposed EQS Extensive consultation on impact assessment with WGE plus other targeted stakeholders – still many data gaps Commission proposal expected September 2011 covering Changes to existing EQS and proposal of new substances Specific problems related to ubiquitous PBTs Monitoring watch list for EU prioritisation

3. 1. Overview of the options related to substances

4. 2. Ubiquitous PBTs – what is the problem? Most dangerous chemicals accumulating in sediment and/or biota Causing risk to aquatic environment and human health Widespread pollution Some long-range transboundary pollutants Many measures have been taken – more planned REACH should prevent placing on the market new PBTs in the future Despite heavy regulation it will take decades for these substances to disappear from the aquatic environment Remediation of hot-spots may be feasible in some cases

5. 2. Ubiquitous PBTs – which substances Identification of substances that may fall under this heading Existing PS BDE Mercury PAH TBT New PS Heptachlor + epoxide HBCDD PFOS Dioxin

6. 2. Ubiquitous PBTs – what is the WFD role? Chemical status will deteriorate for the second RBMP! More stringent EQS for some existing substances New ubiquitous PBTs Exemptions will need to be used widely What can the WFD do to solve these serious environmental problem Provision of robust information about the extent of the problems – no other mechanism at EU level Provide a environmental target (the EQS) Trigger action at local level when feasible There is limited scope for “WFD measures” – further EU measures need to be taken under other sectoral legislation (REACH, air, waste...)

7. 2. Ubiquitous PBTs – three issues Presentation of chemical status: Ubiquitous PBTs may bring a negative picture and hide improvements in other substances Option a: allow separate presentation Option b: take out from chemical status Choice of monitoring matrix influences dramatically the results (same environmental situation, different results) Option a: link choice of matrix to QA/QC Directive Option b: fix monitoring matrix for each substance Monitoring effort: default WFD monitoring not tailored for ubiquitous PBTs (in time and scale) Option a: reduced monitoring obligations if certain conditions met Option b: reduced monitoring obligations (unconditional)

8. Improving the knowledge base for future prioritisation exercises: watch list Tool to develop limited, targeted, high quality monitoring data for the purpose of EU level prioritisation Address emerging pollutants catch-22 Substances are not regulated... ...so they are not monitored... ...so there is not data available... ...so there is no basis to propose regulation ?? High support from WGE (MS and stakeholders) Limited number of substances 20-25 monitored in 250-300 stations across the EU Cost estimates are 3-6%% of the current cost of monitoring for priority substances - high benefit/cost ratio Options: voluntary or legally binding

9. Other issues: need to improve comparability of national EQSs • Follow-up to be considered in the CIS context