Activites

• 2006/03/04 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 2006/7
  • OJ L 064 04.03.2006, p. 0037-0051
• 2006/02/15 Final act signed
• 2006/02/15 End of procedure in Parliament
• 2006/01/18 Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading
  • T6-0015/2006 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution approving the joint text drafted by the Conciliation Committee. (Please refer to the document dated 12/10/2005.) The joint text was adopted by 584 votes in favour to 11 against with 56 abstentions. The rapporteur was Jules MAATEN (ALDE, NL).

• 2006/01/17 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• #2702
• 2005/12/20 Council Meeting
• 2005/12/20 Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading
  • A6-0415/2005
• 2005/12/01 Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs
  • 03659/2005
• 2005/10/12 Formal meeting of Conciliation Committee
• 2005/09/06 Parliament's amendments rejected by Council
• 2005/05/12 Results of vote in Parliament
  • Results of vote in Parliament
• 2005/05/10 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T6-0165/2005 summary

    The European Parliament adopted the report by Jules MAATEN (ALDE, NL) amending the Council's common position. (Please refer to the summary dated 21/04/2005).

• 2005/05/09 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2005/04/25 Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
  • A6-0102/2005
• 2005/04/21 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
• 2005/01/13 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2632
• 2004/12/20 Council Meeting
  • 12884/1/2004 summary

    The Council believes that the common position represents a balanced package of measures that would permit a much needed updating of Community rules on bathing water quality and enhance the level of public health protection in a staged and reasonable manner without placing an undue burden on the authorities concerned. It looks forward to constructive discussions with the European Parliament with a view to the early adoption of the Directive.More specifically, the common position incorporates the majority of the European Parliament's first-reading amendments, either verbatim, in part or in spirit. However, it does not reflect a number of amendments because of inconsistency with the wording of Article 174 of the Treaty; in the view of the Council and the Commission, they would have unnecessarily duplicated existing requirements of the water framework Directive; or the Council considered them superfluous and potentially confusing.It also includes a number of other changes. The following sections describe the changes of substance. In addition, there are drafting changes to clarify the text or to ensure the overall coherence of the Directive.- Purpose, scope and definitions: the Council cannot agree to extend the scope of the Directive beyond bathing to apply to other recreational activities. Consequently, the common position includes noreference to such activities. The definition of "bathing water" now appears in Article 1(3), since this term determines the scope of the Directive. Further definitions from the water framework Directive are incorporated and are consistent with a European Parliament amendment. It also defines other key terms,namely "competent authority", "permanent", "large number", "pollution", "short term pollution", "cyanobacterial proliferation" and "public concerned".- Monitoring: more flexibility regarding the location of the monitoring point is included. It also contains provisions on short term pollution and provides for the use of equivalent methods and rules under certain conditions, some of which may be clarified through comitology. Annex IV provides for an increased minimum sampling requirement compared to the Commission's original proposal, to increase the reliability of the statistical methodology. However, it also makes allowances for the particularly short bathing seasons prevailing in the north of the EU and special geographical constraints(e.g., remote islands). There is no longer any direct link between the sampling frequency and classification.- Quality assessment: the common position adopts 4 bathing seasons as the normal assessment period, but provides Member States with the option of choosing a period of 3 seasons under certain conditions. It indicates the minimum number of samples required and the circumstances in which the subdivision or grouping together of bathing waters may take place.- Classification and quality status: several key innovations are incorporated compared to the Commission's original proposal. In particular it would defer the mandatory application of the new classification scheme until 2015 (to be consistent with the timetable of the Water Framework Directive); introduce a new classification ("sufficient") that would at least provide the same level of health protection as the minimum requirements of the existing Directive and act as a stepping stone to "good" or "excellent" quality; and clarify the circumstances in which bathing waters could temporarily be classified as being of "poor" quality. Annex I would provide for classifications to take place on the basis of two microbiological parameters. Requirements concerning other types of pollution would remain, but would not affect classification.- Annex I provides for evaluations based on both a 95 and 90-percentile. The limit values for the "excellent and "good" classifications would be based on a 95-percentile evaluation, while that for "sufficient" would be based on a 90-percentile evaluation to reduce the risk of statistical anomalies when using a small data set. There are distinct limit values for inland and coastal waters. The scientific evidence currently available suggests that the presence of the same level of microbiologicalcontamination represents a higher health risk in salt water than in fresh water.- Annex II is consistent with the broad principle underlying a European Parliament amendment, in that it provides that short term pollution would not affect a bathing water's classification if the competent authority takes appropriate measures to protect bathers' health.- Bathing water profile: the common position clarifies that there could be a single profile for contiguous bathing waters. It extends the deadline for the establishment of the first profiles and theinterval between reviews, in recognition of the workload involved.- Public participation: the definition of the "public concerned" in Article 2 clearly includes interested parties at the local level. The remainder of the amendment is superfluous in view of Article 18and Directive 2003/4/EC.- Information to the public: the common position groups all the general requirements to inform the public together in a single Article. It is consistent with two EP amendments which require information to be available promptly on the internet.- Report and review: the Council agrees with the European Parliament that the Commission should review the implementation and operation of the Directive. However, it specifies some key issues that the Commission's report should address, particularly: the results of the epidemiological study that the Commission is to undertake as a matter of urgency to obtain greater scientific certainty regarding health risks associated with bathing, particularly in fresh water; WHO recommendations, which would equate to the "good" classification rather than to the minimum requirements of the Directive.- Comitology: the common position contains a single provision listing the technical decisions thatcould be taken through comitology. However, the Council believes that these decisions should be optional, not mandatory. Moreover, it cannot agree to the addition of new parameters on virus detection through comitology.In addition, the common position contains: simplified rules on response measures in exceptional circumstances, the scope of which is now the same as the remainder of the Directive; and a requirement for Member States to carry out appropriate monitoring and to take necessary management measures to protect public health from cyanobacterial risks.

• #2593
• 2004/06/28 Council Meeting
• 2004/04/05 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(2004)0245 summary

    The Commission accepts most of the 35 amendments tabled during the Parliament's first reading of the proposed Directive given that they clarify and improve upon the Commission's proposal. However, there are certain amendments which duplicate the provisions of the Water Framework Directive particularly as regards chemicals and dangerous substances. These the Commission can not accept. Similarly, the Commission can not accept any amendments that would effectively alter the scope of the proposed Directive such as extending the Directive's provision to 100m off the shore line. Specifically speaking the Commission will amend its initial proposal by accepting in full: - Amendments, which clarify definitions and operational modalities, on the grounds that they improve upon the reporting and the management of bathing water. - Amendments, which improve upon public information. - Amendments, which contribute to the sound management of bathing waters. Those amendments accepted in part or in principle by the Commission refer to: - Referring to "technical and scientific progress" when the Directive is reviewed, 15 years after its entry into force. - Having standardised references symbols indicating the quality of the bathing water. In the interests of subsidiarity, however, the Commission prefers to leave the choice of these symbols to the Member States. The Commission proposes to do so according to an implementation strategy, successfully adopted for the Water Framework Directive. - Providing on-line information. The choice of language should be left up to the Member State and not be simply published in English and French as the Parliament originally proposed. - Changes to Annex III of the Directive. The Commission welcomes any changes, which would make the Directive more complete. However, it notes that the Water Framework Directive already focuses on wide-scale (macro) characteristics. The Bathing Water Directive, on the other hand, acts on much smaller topographic sites. In order to avoid unnecessary over regulation the Commission proposes that only those elements, which are relevant to the understanding and management of bathing waters should be included in this profile. Lastly, those amendments not acceptable to the Commission refer, inter alia, to: - Covering water sports to within a limit of 100 meters. The covering of 100 m would be difficult to establish and to enforce. - Amendment 7 since it opens the scope for water with recreational activities subject to pollution whilst excluding waters with little pollution risk. - Amendments referring to transitory contamination - even though the Commission remains open to it as a concept. - Amendments, which duplicate the chemical standards already dealt with by the Water Framework Directive.�

  • DG [{'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/', 'title': 'Environment'}],
• #X019
• 2003/10/27 Council Meeting
• 2003/10/21 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T5-0442/2003 summary

    The European parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Jules MAATEN (ELDR, Netherlands) and made several amendments to the Commission's proposal. (Please see the summary dated 01/10/03.) The resolution with voted with 290 votes in favour, 221 against and 8 abstentions. Parliament stated also that the Commission must review the Directive within 15 years of entry into force, with particular regard for the parameters of bathing water quality. In addition: - on the basis of scientific results, the list of parameters in Annex I must be expanded to include virus detection; - under certain circumstances, more than one sampling point may be required; - there are additional provisions in the event of delay between sampling and analysis.�

• 2003/10/20 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2003/10/01 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A5-0335/2003
• #X018
• 2003/06/13 Council Meeting
• #2491
• 2003/03/04 Council Meeting
  • 2491 summary

    The Council held a policy debate, on the basis of a paper drawn by the Presidency, concerning a proposal for a Directive on the quality of bathing water. Ministers were asked to address the following questions during the debate : - whether or not, and taking into account the experience gained with the implementation of Directive 160/76/EEC, the proposed approach and level of protection would lead to improved health protection among bathers; - coverage of specific difficulties experienced in the past with regard to bathing water quality (whether or not compliance will be facilitated) ; - "other recreational activities" (e.g. windsurfing, kayaking, jet-skiing) in the context of classification of bathing water and of bathing water profiles (whether or not these should be maintained in the scope of the proposal). Delegations welcomed the Commission's proposal and stressed the importance of protecting bathers' health and providing national authorities with improved and flexible management facilities and quality assessment guidelines. Many delegations considered the proposed microbiological parameters and monitoring frequencies to be appropriate. A number of delegations underscored the importance of having to be taken into account. A few delegations asked for the further examination to be made of the implementation costs raised by some aspects of the proposal. A majority of delegations considered that "other recreational activities" should be outside the scope of the proposal. Lastly, the President welcomed Member States' contributions to the debate and concluded by stating the need for further examination at working group level on issues, such as: clear information to the public, provisions for emergency plans, handling of long-term pollution and the question of other recreational activities.�

• #2473
• 2002/12/09 Council Meeting
  • 2473
• 2002/11/07 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2002/10/24 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(2002)0581 summary

    PURPOSE : to present a proposal for a Directive which aims to revise the Bathing Water Directive. CONTENT : protection of the bathing waters has been one of the most successful elements of European Water Policy. The 1976 Bathing Water Directive has also resulted in unprecedented public awareness. The directive requires changes, due to changes in science and technology as well as managerial experience. Furthermore, the provisions of the Bathing Water directive must be entirely compatible with the recent Water Framework directive. These are some of the main provisions of the proposal: As regards the scope of the proposed Directive, the main aim of the 1976 directive was improving water quality and thereby protecting the Health of citizens who use natural water for bathing. Recreational use of water has changed significantly since then to include activities such as surfing, kayaking and windsurfing. Member States must ensure that relevant information is provided to the public, identifying clearly whether water quality monitoring and other management practices ensure an equal level of protection for practitioners of these sports. This will have an impact on the classification (quality label) which the bathing waters will receive. Concerning the parameters, the 1976 directive established 19 parameters, against the then prevailing background of knowledge. The Commission now proposes a drastic reduction in the number of parameters, from 19 to 2 key microbiological parameters in the new directive, complemented by visual inspection (algae bloom, oil) and pH measurement in fresh waters. There are two reasons for this. The first is that microbiological pollution is, in the vast majority of cases, the limiting factor for achieving good water bathing quality. Secondly, the Water Framework directive has established a comprehensive chemical and biological monitoring system for all waters to be operational by the end of 2006. The two faecal indicator parameters retained are Intestinal Enterococci (IE) and Escherichia coli (EC). With regard to the parametric values, the proposal highlights that based on studies, the Commission proposes a legally binding 'Good quality' value and an 'Excellent quality' guide value for IE and EC concentration as set out in the directive. As regards monitoring, there will be flexibility on monitoring frequencies, allowing for a reduction of sampling of bathing waters without major problems and continued monitoring at routine frequencies in the case of problem waters. In terms of the standards for handling samples, it is considered appropriate to establish guidelines for this. The directive foresees adaptation to new (ISO-CEN) standards which are currently in preparation. Lastly, as regards the management issue, the Authorities are given an important role in developing bathing water profiles, identifying sources of contamination and analysing information, and providing information to the public. Bathing waters are classified as 'poor', 'good' or 'excellent'. The latter can only be obtained if the quality complies with the standard in the directive and if management measures have taken into account the range of recreational water uses practised at the bathing area. Even if 'good' is not achieved, a bathing water will still be regarded as conforming with the directive if waters will comply will comply with the directive within three years.�

  • DG [{'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/', 'title': 'Environment'}],

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2002)0581
• Debate in Council: 2473
• Debate in Council: 2491
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A5-0335/2003
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T5-0442/2003
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(2004)0245
• Council position published: 12884/1/2004
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A6-0102/2005
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T6-0165/2005
• Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
• Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs: 03659/2005
• Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading: A6-0415/2005
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading: T6-0015/2006
• : Directive 2006/7
• : OJ L 064 04.03.2006, p. 0037-0051

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)