1. Diffuse Sources of Water Pollution
The Need to Share Experiences
28 – 29 May 2008, Amsterdam

2. Reason workshop
Dutch project investigating diffuse sources resulted in some key findings:
NL will not be able to achieve the required emission reductions for a number of substances (including PS and PHS) as these substances are entering the aquatic environment due to diffuse and historical pollution.
In view of the Dutch results:
It seems plausible that other countries, too, will have problems meeting the WFD targets in time (in 2015 / 2027).
Needed: further emission policy on diffuse sources to reach WFD environmental objectives.
Necessary: discussion at EU-level

3. Purpose Workshop
To share experiences (based on case studies) on how to reach the emission reduction targets set by the WFD and the prevent and limit requirements of the Groundwater Directive (GWD).

4. Workshop on Diffuse Sources of Water Pollution
The workshop:
Discussed the way forward;
Formulated a message and the process in order to reach the common goals of the Member States (MS).
The content of the message considers:
Some general considerations to start with;
General line of reasoning explaining what MS should do and what MS want to do together with the European Commission (COM).

5. General considerations (1)
For many MS point sources have largely been taken care of Most of the remaining problems with water quality are related to diffuse sources.
Characteristic of diffuse sources:
Numerous pathways, difficult to eliminate.
No direct link between measures and effect.
Reliable source apportionment is important (substance and location specific).
Therefore a good inventory of sources is necessary.
Nutrients (N,P) are the most important causes of poor water quality No need for additional specific measures by COM (except from product-regulation on P in detergents): directive on nitrates and UWTD steers the effort of MS in an appropriate manner.

6. General considerations (2)
Concentrate on problems with chemicals other then nutrients. Identification of problems should be based on risks.
Concerning these chemicals: measures have to aim at reaching the objectives (art. 4 WFD), foremost PS and specific pollutants as well as prevent and limit (P&L) objectives (art. 6 GWD).
Requirement of P&L (no deterioration) and the aim of the WFD to make the purification of drinking water easier are important in order to protect the sources of drinking water: surface and groundwater.
For assessing the measured values of pollution at monitoring points, especially relevant for metals and in cases EQS are exceeded, the use of corrections for bioavailability can be useful, especially for prioritisation (based on Risk assessment). Correction formulas and conditions that define their implementation should be harmonised.
Bioavailability has no meaning in the realm of P&L under the GWD.

7. Conclusions (1)
MS should comply fully with existing directives The transposed directive shall be in place Integration of WFD and other EU policies and integration of national policies is important.
To be expected from MS:
to do nationally what reasonably can be done to solve water quality problems, within limits of the internal market/level playing field and by full implementation of basic and supplementary measures, making use of exemptions if necessary.
to be active at international river basis district level when preparing rbmp’s.

8. Conclusions (2)
However for some substances we suspect after taking care of existing arrangements as described under 1-3 this will be insufficient to solve problems with water quality and the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses required under the WFD.
The remaining problems involve measures to be taken at EU-level, starting with the most important (diffuse) sources. Examples: requirements to control emissions of all installations that emit PAH’s, including domestic fires, stationary or mobile engines, possibly aggravated by biomass applications.
6. For some substances, especially PHS like PAH’s and Cadmium, it is extremely unlikely at national and international / EU-level to reach WFD-objectives in time: 2027.

9. Conclusions (3)
Member States have to explain as soon as possible to the public in rbmp’s that for some PHS reduction of emissions, discharges and losses to zero is very unlikely, even not in 2027, and that sometimes EQS (even for PS) will be exceeded, for reasons beyond control of MS, including uncontrollable natural sources (recital 3 PS Decision).
8. What can be done at the level of the EU, should be done. This should be a combined effort of MS and the EC.
9. Phrasing the WFD targets for emission reduction to zero (art and 16.6) is not commensurate with the reality for MS and the EC to reach these targets and possibly poses legal risks for case based decisions on permits etc.

10. Proposal to EU-Waterdirectors
Regarding the outcome of the workshop the EU-WD are asked to
Establish an ad hoc working group (COM, MS, AC, Stakeholders) that identifies logical measures at EU-level, including exchange of information from MS and using existing directives. Discussion on desirability and possibility of solving the legal risk of requirements of zero-emission of PHS should be part of this task.
Outcome of the WG should be ready towards the end of 2009 / beginning of 2010
Outcome should be a basis for new common action like guidance documents and legislation, making use of the results of the first rbmp’s of the MS.
Outcome is relevant for the next generation rbmp’s (2015, 2021)
Agree that WG-E prepares a mandate for the ad hoc working group, which should be put on the agenda of the next meeting of the EU-WD (24-25 November 2008) for endorsement.

11. Workshop on Diffuse Sources of Water Pollution
Thank you for your attention