Water quality proposals under attack

Date: 05/06/1997

By Michael Mann

MEPs are threatening to throw out the European Commission's framework water legislation unless it promises to bolster guarantees of the cleanliness of the Union's dwindling water resources.

German Christian Democrat Karl-Heinz Florenz claims the proposals, which were finally adopted by the Commission in February, lack detailed definitions of what constitutes 'good ecological quality' of water.

He also maintains that the plans fly in the face of solemn undertakings made last year by Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard.

“The Commission has completely failed to respect the precautionary principle which is supposed to be the basis of water policy, instead opting for a repair policy,” said Florenz, adding: “It is four years since Maastricht. The Parliament must finally start to use its influence.”

The heart of the problem is the lack of detail in Annex 10 of the proposal, dealing with the quality objectives which the measures hope to achieve.

“The annex which defines what 'quality' is is simply missing. We do not want to hold our first reading until the annexes are completed and define clearly what quality means. If not, we are prepared to do anything to block the proposals,” said a parliamentary official.

MEPs are particularly angry because they feel that Bjerregaard - with whom they have had a stormy relationship - has reneged on promises made in a letter to Florenz last October.

They believe the framework goes against a clear commitment to find a balance between emission controls and quality standards, with the emission control approach “being the more important”.

Senior Commission officials have rejected Florenz's attack, claiming it stems from a basic misapprehension. “There is an old argument between German-style limit-value policies and the type of approach favoured by the UK, based on quality objectives,” said one.

“Parliament lost a lot of the arguments when the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPCC) was being discussed, and Florenz wants to remedy the supposed weaknesses in the IPPC by tightening our proposals on the water framework, which is a quite different matter,” added another.

Florenz stresses that his aim is to ensure that future European consumers are guaranteed water which is “close to its original quality, rather than merely adhering to some technical quality standard”.

Commission officials admit considerable work has still to be done to complete the quality definitions in the framework, but stress that groups of member state experts are being established to do this.

“We were given a very tight time limit to prepare this directive, which we very nearly adhered to. At the moment, we simply lack the data to fill in all the annexes, so these will have to be worked out as we go along,” said an official.

In parallel with consideration of the framework, water experts from the 15 EU governments will meet to fill in the gaps before the legislation is finally adopted.

Naturally, this has attracted the wrath of MEPs, who feel it is totally wrong to exclude them from such crucial calculations.

The Commission is adamant that its tactics are justifiable. “Quality standards must be decided by those who really know best,” said an official.

But aware of the sensitivity of excluding the Parliament, it is trying to find some way of involving MEPs in the process.

Despite Florenz's tough stance, the fate of the Commission's proposals will rest largely in the hands of the dominant British Socialist Group. UK Labour MEP Ian White has been selected as rapporteur for the water framework and will be keen to press the 'green' credentials of his party.

Inter-party politics look certain to become a major factor in the coming debate.

“We will be watching carefully how the Socialists react. Before the British election, they shared our views. We will see if they change their minds,” commented Florenz.

Commission officials said that they expected White to voice similar concerns, but anticipated that his response would be “more moderate and measured”.