1.Background and Aim of the Paper

• discuss the proposal below to optimise the coordination between the revision of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQSD) and the review (and possible revision) of the WFD,
• endorsethe proposed way forward.

Contents

1.Background and aim of the paper

2.Proposed way forward

3.Rationale for the proposed approach

4.Questions to Water Directors

Annex I: Tentative timeline for the review and possible revision of the WFD – Links with the review of the EQSD.

Annex II: Potential elements of a new approach to address chemical pollution of the aquatic environment

1.Background and aim of the paper

The Commission has the obligation to review the list of priority substances (PS) set out in the EQSD (and Annex X to the WFD) and come forward with proposals as appropriate, by the beginning of 2018 latest (6 years after the 2012 EQSD proposal), and to review the WFD by 2019.

The results of the technical work for the review of the PS list, undertaken by the JRC with the support of the dedicated subgroup, will be presented at the next WG Chemicals meeting in December. The need to finalise certain aspects of this technical work, the need for an impact assessment and for the completion of the Commission's internal procedures would probably push a Commission proposal for the revision of the EQSD beyond the middle of 2018. The preparation of this proposal and its negotiation would then overlap with the WFD review (starting early 2018 – see Annex I).

The review of the WFD will look at how well the current approach to regulation of chemicals in the aquatic environment is working. The review process offers a unique opportunity to consider whether a new, more holistic approach could improve the effectiveness and efficiency of chemicalsregulation under the WFD. Annex II provides further information about some elements to be considered in this context. It should be stressed that these are initial considerations to inform the scope of the review.They will be subject to comprehensive study, consultation and discussion at all levels. The intention is therefore not to pre-empt at this stage any future discussion but rather to highlight some elements, based on the work done so far at expert level (WG Chemicals, research projects, thought starter paper by Water Directors, etc.), which could feature in the discussions.

The aim of this paper is to propose a way forward that ensures a smooth interplay between the two processes (EQSD proposal and WFD review).

2.Proposed way forward

In order to ensure optimal coordination between the revision of the EQSD and the review and possible revision of the WFD, the Commission is considering the following way forward:

Proposal for the WFD review as regards chemicals: In the WFD review, a more holistic approach, taking into account the presence of mixtures of chemicals acting together (for example through the use of effect-based tools in addition to group EQSs), could be considered, to provide a more accurate assessment of risks and a more appropriate targeting of monitoring and measures (see Annex II for further information).

Proposal for the coordination of the EQSD and WFD review: Instead of making a Commission proposal on PS in 2018, we propose to bundle PS-related proposals with any proposals arising from the WFD review after 2019. The conclusions of the technical work done so far for the identification of new substances of concern would in the meantime be taken into account in the 2018 update of the pressures and impact analysis to prepare the 2021 River Basin Management Plans (RBMP).

3.Rationalefor the proposed approach

There are several reasons why it would make more sense to wait for the conclusions of the WFD review to make a legislative proposal rather than putting forward a Commission proposal in 2018 for a revised PS list.

• Consistency with the WFD review: The WFD review might conclude that it is appropriate to make changes to the approach to assess and manage the risks linked to chemicals in the aquatic environment. It would not be coherent to make a PS legislative proposal in 2018 based on the current approach to chemicals while at the same time considering a new frameworkduring the review of the WFD. The discussions in the context of the review process could also interfere with the inter-institutional negotiation process.

• Changes would be late for the 2021 RBMP: a Commission proposal on PS would be ready at the earliest by mid-2018. This means its adoption and transposition could in any case come too late (i.e. after the end of 2019) to have an impact on the 2021 RBMPs (see annex I).On the other hand, in order to make use of the results of the ongoing PS review, Member States could take into account the results of the technical work in the 2018 update of the pressure and impact analysis and therefore influence the 2021 RBMPs.

• Prioritisation of resources: Preparation and negotiation of an EQSD proposal would be work-intense and could get in the way of work on reviewing the WFD, an exercise which will also need significant involvement, both from the Commission and Member States experts. It would make sense to focus efforts in the coming couple of years on the review of the WFD to identify possible improvements to the existing framework.

4.Questions to Water Directors

1. Do you agree with the proposed way forward in terms of process and timing?
2. Do you think the way chemicals are regulated under the WFD and EQSD could benefit from the review?In which main areas do you think improvements are possible?
3. Do you generally support the principles of the proposed approach to chemicals regulation in the aquatic environment as outlined in Annex II?

1

AnnexI: Tentative timeline for the review and possible revision of the WFD – Links with the review of the EQSD.

1

Annex II: Potential elements of a new approach to address chemical pollution of the aquatic environment

This annex presentsthe main elements of a possible new approach to the regulation of chemicals in the aquatic environment under the EU Water Framework Directive. These elements are based on early reflection by DG Environment's Water Unit and the JRC on the basis of the work carried out in the past years on the review of the Priority Substances list, the work of the WG Chemicals on effect-based tools and other emerging techniques, the results of a number of research projects, and current regulatory trends in the broader field of chemicals in the environment, in particular developments in the area of mixture toxicity. The principles of the possible new approach are consistent with those of the 7th Environmental Action Programme and its priority objectives to "protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital" and to "safeguard the Union’s citizens from environment-related pressures and risks to health and well-being", including by ensuring"that (…) the combination effects of chemicals (…) are effectively addressed in all relevant Union legislation".

In summary, the approach would be based as far as possible on a list of groups of substances identified by their mode of action or similarity of effect, for which group EQS (or equivalent trigger value, in some cases based on a marker substance) would be set at EU level based on the latest scientific and technical knowledge. EQS for some individual substances wouldlikely still be necessary, including for substances identified as pressures at national level but not (or not immediately) covered by existing group EQS, but the individual EQS for these would also be set at EU level using a harmonised methodology. The assessment of the most difficult substances (ubiquitous PBTs)could place emphasis on trends. Monitoring and measures could be better targeted to needs.

By capturing the effects of the mixture of chemicals present in the environment, a more holistic approach to chemicals would enable us to stay "ahead of the game" rather than constantly "playing catch-up" as regards newly-introduced substances, because the hope is that in most cases they would be captured by the proposed "group" standards if potentially of concern. This could avoid generating an increasingly long list of PS, which usually results in maps becoming more "red" because of newly introduced pollutants, even though measures may have already been implemented for previously identified pollutants. This would also ensure better coverage of all categories of use (in contrast with the current situation where some classes of chemicals might be under-regulated in the aquatic environment because of a lack of knowledge regarding their presence in the environment, or regarding their toxicological or ecotoxicological properties).Finally this more accurate assessment of the risks linked to chemicals would enable more effective targeting of monitoring efforts and of measures, making sure that measures are implemented where they are most needed. In summary, the new approach could potentially be more cost-effective and more flexible to adapt to the very diverse range of situations in the EU.

Basic principles

1. Instead of continuing with the list of individual PS, establish EQS at EU level for several critical groups of substances, each group characterised by a specific mode of action (or effect type). The EQS would represent the maximum acceptable total presence of substances with that particular mode of action (or effect type). If the EQS were exceeded MS would have to investigate the reason and tackle the source(s) of the offending substance(s).

1. Continue to require MS to identify pressures from other substances, i.e. from those not covered by the group EQS or certain individual EQS. Support this process with the EU Watch List, focusing on substances not already captured under the groups. Ensure that MS use harmonised EQS for these other substances, developed at EU level. Monitoring would be risk based and proportionate, potentially more cost-effective than the current model.

1. As regards uPBTs (all of which are currently priority hazardous substances, PHS, the emphasis would be on achieving at least a stable level or preferably a downward trend in environmental concentrations (including in biota and sediment), and in parallel progressivelyceasingor phasing out emissions, discharges and losses.

1. Ensure that MS maintain/revise their inventories of emissions, covering diffuse as well as point sources, so that they can properly carry out the pressures and impacts analysis and identify appropriate measures. The Commission should be able to use these inventories to assess the trends in emissions to water. A downward trend in emissions could be taken account of in the assessment.

Applying some aspects of the above principles would require the development of new analytical and risk assessment tools that will need to be mature and reliable enough to be taken up in routine practice.

1