1. water.europa.eu Preparation of the Commission’s 2011 proposal on Priority Substances Strategic Co-ordination Group meeting 11-12 May 2011 Jorge Rodriguez Romero Helen Clayton WFD Team DG Environment

2. water.europa.eu 2 Contents 1.Overview of the proposal and impact assessment 2.Ubiquitous PBTs

3. water.europa.eu 1. Recall of the process Work in progress since 2007! Extensive support from Member States and stakeholder experts along the technical process (thanks!) Technical Guidance Document significantly expanded SCHER opinions pending for a number of proposed EQS –Working group today, plenary 25 May –Overall very supportive Lessons learnt (preliminary) –Resource intensive process –For future reviews need to explore improved synergies with other risk assessment processes (in particular REACH) Extensive consultation on impact assessment with WGE plus other targeted stakeholders – still many data gaps Commission proposal expected September 2011

4. water.europa.eu 1. Overview of the proposal and impact assessment Large number of potential options: –List of new substances –Review of existing substances –EQS in water, sediment and/or biota –Identification as PHS –Selection of measures Some issues fixed by the technical process Bottom-up approach looking at impacts of the regulation of individual substances Two additional issues to consider: –Knowledge base (watch list) –Ubiquitous PBTs

5. water.europa.eu 1. Overview of the options related to substances

6. water.europa.eu 1. Improving the knowledge base for future prioritisation exercises: watch list Significant progress made in the knowledge base for prioritisation Impressive monitoring database compiled But limitations for the prioritisation exercise –Very uneven across the EU –Quality not fit for the purpose of prioritisation –Strong bias towards already regulated substances 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

7. water.europa.eu 1. Improving the knowledge base for future prioritisation exercises: watch list Limited number of substances 20-25 monitored in 250-300 stations across the EU Technical guidance to ensure at least minimum quality of monitoring (“fit for purpose”) Cost estimates are 3-6% of the current cost of monitoring for priority substances, much lower if all water monitoring is considered High benefit/cost ratio Options: voluntary or legally binding

8. water.europa.eu 1. Other issues: need to improve comparability of national EQSs

9. water.europa.eu 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 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

10. water.europa.eu 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

11. water.europa.eu 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 are no “WFD measures” – EU measures need to be taken under other sectoral legislation (REACH, air, waste...)

12. water.europa.eu 12

13. water.europa.eu 2. Ubiquitous PBTs – three issues 1.Presentation of chemical status –Ubiquitous PBTs may hide improvements in other substances –Negative picture hiding the progress 2.Choice of monitoring matrix –The choice influences dramatically the results –Same environmental situation is assessed and reported in a very different way 3.Monitoring effort –WFD monitoring not tailored for ubiquitous PBTs (time and scale)

14. water.europa.eu 2. Ubiquitous PBTs – options