Review of Annexes I and II of the

Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC – outcome

of the public consultation and next

steps

Balázs HorváthDG ENV C.1 Water Unit

Legal basis for the review

• Article 10 GWD:The Commission shall review Annexes I and II every six years. Based on the review, it shall, if appropriate, come forward with legislative proposals to amend Annexes I and/or II.

Target of the review

• Annex I: Groundwater quality standards – they are European wide standards currently including Nitrates and Pesticides

• Annex II Part A: Guidelines for the establishment of threshold values by Member States in accordance with Article 3

• Annex II Part B: Minimum list of pollutants and their indicators for which Member States have to consider establishing threshold values in accordance with Article 3

• Annex II Part C: Information to be provided by Member States with regard to the pollutants and their indicators for which threshold values have been established

Steps taken so far

• 2012: Preliminary consultation with MS and stakeholders in WG C – technical report No7 with recommendations endorsed by Water Directors

• April 2013: call for evidence• 30 July 2013 – 22 October 2013: public

consultation• 9 October 2013: stakeholder conference

Results of the public consultation

• Finished on 22 October• Some answers arrived late• 110 responses

• 34 business/industry• 26 individual citizens• 25 public authorities• 16 NGOs / civil society• 6 other organizations• 3 research organizations

Key challenges

• Update of the list of substances regulated at EU and national level to new scientific and technical information (Annex I and Annex II part B of the GWD)

• Knowledge gaps related to the occurrence and risk assessment of substances of concern, including emerging environmental contaminants (general problem which affects future reviews)

• Insufficient comparability of threshold values across Member States and hence of the assessment of groundwater chemical status (Annex II part A)

• Insufficient transparency and reporting as regards the assessment of groundwater chemical status (Annex II part C)

Should any of the naturally occurring or synthetic substances on Part B of Annex II be moved to the list in Annex I?

Pollutants in GWD Annexes

• Long list of proposals in the public consultation: tri- and tetrachloroethylene, anthracene, atrazine, benzene, brominated flame retardants, carbon tetrachloride, chloroalkane, DDT, endosulfane, naphthalene, nickel, non-relevant metabolites of pesticides, simazine, veterinary pharmaceuticals, vinyl chloride, 1,2-dichlorethenes…

• DG ENV does not believe there are enough data supporting the addition of substances to Annex I

• DG ENV is considering the addition of new pollutants and/or indicators to Annex II Part B GWD such as total N and total P (substances in Annex II Part B are to be considered for threshold value derivation in MS)

Key challenges

• Update of the list of substances regulated at EU and national level to new scientific and technical information (Annex I and Annex II part B of the GWD)

• Knowledge gaps related to the occurrence and risk assessment of substances of concern, including emerging environmental contaminants (general problem which affects future reviews)

• Insufficient comparability of threshold values across Member States and hence of the assessment of groundwater chemical status (Annex II part A)

• Insufficient transparency and reporting as regards the assessment of groundwater chemical status (Annex II part C)

Should a mechanism for systematic gathering of monitoring data on groundwater contaminants of concern, including emerging

contaminants, be established at EU level and should these data be reported to an EU-wide chemical monitoring database?

Should Annex II specify the mandatory establishment of TVs for and/or monitoring of all pollutants and

indicators listed in Annex II Part B? Option Public

authorities Org’s:

business Org’s: NGOs,

research, other Individuals

No48% 65% 24% 12%

All Annex II Part B pollutants/indicators should be monitored but no obligation to establish TV should be required for all of them 8% 3% 8% 19%TVs should be established for all Annex II Part B pollutants/indicators but they should not be subject to mandatory monitoring

24% 9% 8% 4%All Annex II Part B pollutants/indicators should be monitored and a TV should be established for them

4% 0% 52% 42%Other

8% 3% 4%Don’t know

8% 21% 23%

Proposal regarding knowledge gaps

• Existing data on other pollutants than in GWD Annexes is very scarce

• DG ENV will consider proposing an EU-wide mechanism to provide data similar to the Watch list under the new Priority Substances Directive.

• The mechanism should focus on a limited number of substances and a limited number of monitoring sites, but should provide representative data.

• DG ENV considers proposing at this stage a voluntary mechanism. Once the experience for surface water is more mature, an obligatory mechanism may be considered.

Key challenges

• Update of the list of substances regulated at EU and national level to new scientific and technical information (Annex I and Annex II part B of the GWD)

• Knowledge gaps related to the occurrence and risk assessment of substances of concern, including emerging environmental contaminants (general problem which affects future reviews)

• Insufficient comparability of threshold values across Member States and hence of the assessment of groundwater chemical status (Annex II part A)

• Insufficient transparency and reporting as regards the assessment of groundwater chemical status (Annex II part C)

Should Annex II provide further specifications regarding natural background levels (NBLs) and the relationship

between threshold values (TVs) and NBLs in order to make TVs more comparable across Member States?

Option Public authorities

Org’s: business

Org’s: NGOs, research,

other

Individuals

No 36% 44% 4% 15%Annex II should specify a uniform procedure for the determination of NBLs 16% 29% 56% 46%

Annex II should specify how TVs should be set in relation to NBLs 28% 32% 56% 15%

Annex II should be amended to state that NBLs are not taken into account in the setting of TVs but should instead be considered later, if necessary, in the status assessment 28% 3% 24% 8%

Yes, other 8% 3% 44% 12%Don’t know 4% 15% 8% 27%

category

Comparability of threshold values

• Blueprint: groundwater threshold values established in Europe are hardly comparable

• DG ENV considers proposing the following:- To include common principles for the

determination of natural background levels (NBLs) of pollutants;

- To exclude NBLs from the threshold value calculation, but to enable their consideration later in the compliance assessment.

Key challenges

• Update of the list of substances regulated at EU and national level to new scientific and technical information (Annex I and Annex II part B of the GWD)

• Knowledge gaps related to the occurrence and risk assessment of substances of concern, including emerging environmental contaminants (general problem which affects future reviews)

• Insufficient comparability of threshold values across Member States and hence of the assessment of groundwater chemical status (Annex II part A)

• Insufficient transparency and reporting as regards the assessment of groundwater chemical status (Annex II part C)

Conference conclusions on reporting

• The reporting on the status of groundwater in the first RBMP cycle was mentioned to show a too optimistic picture.

• It was mentioned that Annex II Part C is not completely clear on the reporting requirements.

• There was broad consensus that unnecessary flexibility in reporting should be removed and some reporting elements might need unambiguous definition.

• Reporting should be simplified and more focused on the key elements which are relevant for the status assessment.

• Many representatives also supported extension of reporting obligations to the methodologies applied (TVs and NBLs) and to elements of the compliance regime (e.g. acceptable extent of exceedance) in order to improve comparability and the assessment of it.

DG ENV proposal on reporting

• Reporting on GWD proved insufficient when assessing the first River Basin Management Plans in the Blueprint

• DG ENV considers proposing clarifications in Annex II Part C GWD:• To ensure that all information available is reported. If it is not available, it should

be explained, why. • To clarify what should be reported about groundwater bodies identified as at risk;

pollutants that contribute to this classification; to which environmental objectives (the relevant criteria for assessing good status – usage criteria / environmental criteria) the risk is related, the ranges of NBLs and the extent of exceedance.

• To report on the methodology for deriving the NBLs,• To report the reasons for not having established TVs for the pollutants in Part B of

Annex II. • To report key elements of the compliance regime, e.g. the level, method and period

of aggregation of monitoring results and the definition and identification of the acceptable extent of exceedance (according to GWD Article 4.2.c.i and Annex III 3).

• During the consultations the reporting elements above were mentioned as already available information in MS.

Planned timelines

• November 2013 – early 2014: consultation on likely approach with MS and stakeholders in the framework of the CIS

• Commission proposal in 2014

• Regulatory procedure with scrutiny / delegated act