28 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2022/0344(COD)
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Chemical pollution of surface and groundwater poses a threat to the aquatic environment, with effects such as acute and chronic toxicity in aquatic organisms, accumulation of pollutants in the ecosystem and loss of habitats and biodiversity, as well as to human health. Setting environmental quality standards helps to implement the zerominimum-level pollution ambition for, thus helping to protect the environment and human health by limiting exposure and towards a toxic-free environment.
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Chemical pollution of surface and groundwater poses a threat to the aquatic environment, with effects such as acute and chronic toxicity in aquatic organisms, accumulation of pollutants in the ecosystem and loss of habitats and biodiversity, to forestry and agriculture, especially wet agriculture, as well as to human health. Setting environmental quality standards helps to implement the zero pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment.
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) In a situation where, according to statistics from the European Environment Agency (EEA), approximately 40 % of all water consumed is used in agriculture, control measures and any other amendments to these Directives should be based primarily on the assessment of their impact on farmers and their work.
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) Good status of water bodies and efficient management of water resources represents a priority for agriculture, since farmers rely on water to conduct their activity, and as such, have a vested interest in the sustainable use of this resource.
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 b (new)
Recital 1 b (new)
(1b) Digitalisation, precision farming, optimised irrigation and a circular use of resources represent valuable opportunities for an improved climate-resilient water management and a rational application of pesticides and fertilisers for European crops, contributing to achieving a sustainable and resilient EU food system while reducing possible diffuse pollution from agriculture on water bodies as well as the need for agricultural abstraction practices.
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Pursuant to Article 191(2), second sentence, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Union policy on the environment is to be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action is to be taken, that environmental damage is, as a priority, to be rectified at source and that the polluter is to pay. At the same time, in seeking to achieve a high level of environmental protection, the Union must take into account the differing circumstances in the various regions of the EU.
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) Particular attention should be paid to food security and to the fact that the implementation of the Zero Pollution Action Plan should not lead to a reduction in food production nor to reduced availability and affordability of a good nutrition and healthy, sustainable diets for EU citizens.
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Concern has been expressed about the risk of antimicrobial resistance developing from the presence of antimicrobial resistant microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance genes in the aquatic environment, but little advancement of monitoring has taken place due to a lack of agreed upon targets and standardized methods, including a lack of benchmarking and threshold data to inform evolutionary, epidemiological, and other risk modelling efforts1a. Relevant antimicrobial resistance genes should also be included in the surface and ground water watch lists and monitored as soon as suitable monitoring methods have been developed. This is in line with the 'European One Health Action Plan against Antimicrobial Resistance’, adopted by the Commission in June 2017, and with the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe, which also addresses this concern. Member States should strive to identify key hotspots for evolution and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance. __________________ 1a Krista Liguori, Ishi Keenum, Benjamin C. Davis, Jeanette Calarco, Erin Milligan, Valerie J. Harwood, and Amy Pruden, Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring of Water Environments: A Framework for Standardized Methods and Quality Control, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 13, 9149–9160, doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c08918
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) The evaluation pointed out that a better integration of water objectives in agricultural policy was necessary. Thus, the new CAP already increased the ambition and introduced additional measures benefitting sustainable water management and protection in agriculture, especially through cross- compliance measures. For an enhanced coherence between agriculture and water policy, Member States should aim to make use of the full potential of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) and stimulate advisory services to promote best practices concerning water management.
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) In general terms, the conclusions of the Fitness Check show that the Directives are broadly fit for purpose, with certain scope for improvements that could be achieved with an increase in EU funding which, inter alia, would also help speed the proper implementation of their objectives. The evaluation shows that the Directives have thus far led to a higher level of protection for water bodies and better flood risk management.
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The evaluation also concluded that there is too much variation between Member States as regards the quality standards and threshold values set at national level for river basin specific pollutants and groundwater pollutants respectively. Until now, river basin specific pollutants not identified as priority substances under Directive 2000/60/EC have been subject to national EQS and been counted as physico-chemical quality elements supporting the assessment of ecological status in surface waters. In groundwaters, it has also been possible for Member States to set their own threshold values, even for man-made synthetic substances. This flexibility has led to sub- optimal results across the EU in terms of comparability of the status of water bodies between Member States, and in terms of environmental protection. Therefore, it is necessary to provide for a procedure that allows for an agreement at Union level on EQS and threshold values that are to be applied for those substances if they are identified as being of national concern and to establish repositories of the applicable EQS and threshold values. There is a need for flexibility when it comes to the adaptation of water management at national level and to grant considerable freedom when it comes to identifying specific national and regional measures, so as to enable the objectives to be met in line with the principle of subsidiarity.
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13 a (new)
Recital 13 a (new)
(13a) Any decision in the selection, review of substances and EQS setting must be based on risk assessment and follow a proportionate, transparent and science-based approach, considering also socio-economic consequences including food security and taking into consideration recommendations from European Parliament, Member States and relevant stakeholders.
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13 b (new)
Recital 13 b (new)
(13b) The evaluation showed that the overall slow progress in achieving the objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council can be attributed to a lack of sufficient financial resources. Measures that improve the status of water bodies through restoration of rivers and ecosystem services provide financial benefits that outweigh the costs and could reduce necessary expenditure for Member States.
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The review of the list of priority substances in Part A of Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC has concluded that several priority substances are no longer of Union wide concern and should therefore no longer be included in Part A of Annex I to that Directive. Those substances should therefore be considered as river basin specific pollutants and included in Part C of Annex II to Directive 2008/105/EC together with their corresponding EQS. Considering that those pollutants are no longer considered to be of Union wide concern, the EQS need only be applied where those pollutants could still be of national or regional or local concern in that they present significant risks.
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) To ensure effective and coherent decision-making and develop synergies with the work carried out in the framework of other Union legislation on chemicals, the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’), should be given a permanent and clearly circumscribed role in the prioritisation of substances to be included in the watch lists and in the lists of substances in Annexes I and II to Directive 2008/105/EC and Annexes I and II to Directive 2006/118/EC, and in the derivation of the current appropriate science-based quality standards, and those based on the corresponding evaluations of the differing circumstances in the various regions of the EU. The Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) and the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) of ECHA, should facilitate the carrying out of certain tasks conferred on ECHA by providing opinions. ECHA should also ensure better coordination between various pieces of environmental law through increased transparency as regards pollutants on a watch list or the development of Union -wide or national- level – where the circumstances dictate – EQS or thresholds, by making relevant scientific reports publicly available.
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) Considering the increases in unforeseeable weather events, in particular extreme floods and prolonged droughts, which are main drivers of crop failure, and in significant pollution incidents resulting in or exacerbating transboundary accidental pollution, Member States should be required to ensure that immediate information on such incidents is provided to other potentially affected Member States and effectively cooperate with potentially affected Member States to mitigate the effects of the event or incident. It is also necessary to reinforce cooperation between Member States and streamline procedures for transboundary cooperation in case of more structural, i.e. non accidental and longer term transboundary issues which cannot be solved at Member State level, in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2000/60/EC. In case European assistance is necessary, competent national authorities may send requests for assistance to the Emergency Response Coordination Centre of the Commission, which will coordinate possible offers of assistance and their deployment through the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, in accordance with Article 15 of Decision 1313/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council64 . __________________ 64 Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924).
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d
Directive 2000/60/EC
Article 2 – point 35
Article 2 – point 35
‘Environmental quality standard’ means the concentration of a particular pollutant or group of pollutants in water, sediment or biota not to be exceeded in order to protect human health and the environment or a trigger value for the adverse effect on human health or the environment of such a pollutant or group of pollutants measured using an appropriate effect-based method.’; in combination with state-of-the-art chemical analysis1a’; __________________ 1a Elke Dopp, Helena Pannekens, Fabian Itzel, Jochen Tuerk, Effect-based methods in combination with state-of-the-art chemical analysis for assessment of water quality as integrated approach, Int J Hyg Environ Health, 222(4): 607-614, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.03.00 1
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b a (new)
Directive 2000/60/EC
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point c
(ba) In Article 4(4), point c is replaced by the following: " (c) Extensions shall be limited to a maximum of three further updates of the river basin management plan except in cases where the natural conditions are such that the objectives cannot be achieved within this period."
Amendment 87 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Directive 2000/60/EC
Articles 16 and 17
Articles 16 and 17
Amendment 89 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point b
Directive 2000/60/EC
Article 18 – paragraph 4
Article 18 – paragraph 4
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point d
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point d
Directive 2006/118/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
‘Member States shall amend the list of threshold values applied in their territories whenever scientific data in new information on pollutants, groups of pollutants, or indicators of pollution indicates that, as reported by on-the- ground monitoring at national level, a threshold value needs to be set for an additional substance, that an existing threshold value needs to be modified, or that a threshold value previously removed from the list needs to be re-inserted. If relevant threshold values are established or amended at Union level, Member States shall adapt the list of threshold values applied in their territories to those values. ’; . Or. ro (Article 2, paragraph 1, point 4, Directive 2006/118/EC)
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 2006/118/EC
Article 6 a (new)– paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 a (new)– paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The watch list shall contain a maximum of five substances or groups of substances and shall indicate the monitoring matrices and the possible methods of analysis for each substance. Those monitoring matrices and methods shall not entail excessive costs nor excessive administrative burden for the competent authorities. The substances to be included in the watch list shall be selected from amongst those substances for which the information available indicates that they may pose a significant risk at Union level to, or via, the aquatic environment and for which monitoring data are insufficient. This watch list shall include substances of emerging concern.
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2008/105/EC
Article 8 b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Article 8 b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
As soon as suitable monitoring methods, following public discussion and involvement of relevant stakeholders, for micro-plastics and selected antimicrobial resistance genes have been identified, those substances shall be included in the watch list.
Amendment 131 #
Proposal for a directive
Annex III
Annex III
Directive 2006/118/EC
Annex I – table – row 7 – footnote 9
Annex I – table – row 7 – footnote 9
(9) Applicable to ‘data-poor’ nrMsnrMs for which insufficient data is available, i.e. nrMs for which little or no reliable experimental data on chronic or acute effects of the nrM are available on the taxonomic group confidently predicted to be the most sensitive., and does not allow for the substances to qualify as ‘nrMs for which sufficient data is available’
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a directive
Annex III
Annex III
Directive 2006/118/EC
Annex I – table – row 7 – footnote 10
Annex I – table – row 7 – footnote 10
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a directive
Annex III
Annex III
(11) Applicable to ‘data-rich’ nrMsnrMs for which sufficient data is available, i.e. nrMs for which reliable experimental data, or equally reliable data obtained by alternative scientifically validated methods, are available on chronic or acute effects of the nrM on at least one species each of algae, of invertebrates, and of fish, allowing the most-sensitive taxonomic group to be confidently confirmed, and for which a QS can be calculated using a deterministic approach based on reliable chronic experimental toxicity data on that taxonomic group; Member States may apply for this purpose the latest guidance established in the framework of the Common Implementation Strategy for Directive 2000/60/EC (Guidance document No. 27, as updated). The QS of 2,5 for individual nrMs shall apply unless the QS calculated by the deterministic approach is higher, in which case a QS of 5 shall apply.
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a directive
Annex III
Annex III
Directive 2006/118/EC
Annex I – table – row 7 – footnote 12
Annex I – table – row 7 – footnote 12
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a directive
Annex V – paragraph 1 – point 2
Annex V – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2008/105/EC
Annex I – part A – table – row 70 – footnote 30
Annex I – part A – table – row 70 – footnote 30