Water Quality - EC Bathing Water Directive

ISSUES PAPER

Main Issues for Local Authorities Likely to Arise from the Revision of the Bathing Water Directive

In December 2000 the European Commission published a Communication ¹ on the revision of the Bathing Water Directive. The Commission had intended to base the proposal for the revision on the broad principles set out in the Communication. Since then however some of the Commission's thinking on the detail appears to have changed. For example it appears that the Commission has moved away from the management approach for bathing waters, and the extension of the scope of the Directive to recreational waters, espoused in the Communication. Despite these and other reported changes, this issues paper is based on the Communication, as this is the only formal statement so far from the Commission on the revision.

The issues paper sets out the key issues for local authorities identified from the Communication. We will update the issues paper once the final proposal has been published (expected to be published in late September). In order to inform our approach to the revision of the Bathing Water Directive, we would very much welcome comments from local authorities and other beach operators who would be affected by the revision of the Bathing Water Directive. Although the consultation is on-going we would appreciate comments on this paper by 30 September 2002 (see below for contact).

Page numbers given in the text relate to those in the Communication.

1. Authority responsible for "promoting" bathing activities

The Communication proposes that a "bathing water" should be defined as a site at which bathing is "actively promoted" (page 8). The new definition of a "bathing water" would limit bathing waters to sites where it is public policy to actively promote bathing, where the public would reasonably expect some sort of standard of protection or information. We would expect a public organisation with responsibilities for various aspects of the bathing site such as public health, land use and tourism to be responsible for promoting bathing - in the UK we suggest that the most appropriate organisation would be the local authority.

"Promoting" brings advantages (such as the potential for co-ordination of bathing policies with other local plans, for example on tourism and nature conservation) but also obligations (for example, active management of the bathing water - including public information provision, cleaning of the beach and the water, and provision of beach infrastructure).

• Does the proposed definition of "bathing water" seem sensible and appropriate?
• What do you understand by an activity being "actively promoted"?
• Do you agree that responsibility for "promoting" bathing rests with a public authority? Should this be the local authority? To what extent should central Government be involved? How should private beach operators fit in?
• Does the definition of "promotion" open up possibilities for better harmonisation of regional recreational and tourism policies and reduction of potential conflicts with nature conservation policies?

2. Extended scope to cover other forms of water recreation

The Commission proposes a new definition of "bathing" (page 8) to broaden the scope of the Directive to cover activities involving direct body contact with water involving head submersion and/or risk of head submersion. This would extend the scope of the Directive to new forms of water recreation, such as surfing and kayaking, but with a likely emphasis on activities on inland waters rather than on coastal waters.

The extension of the scope of the Directive could have potential burdens, such as a twelve-month season and more extensive monitoring. Although some Member States are opposed to the proposal on grounds of cost and practicability, a compromise might be to develop options to limit the burdens arising from extending the scope of the Directive. A possible solution might be to introduce a two-tier system with different obligations for traditional bathing waters and recreational waters. Under such a system, all provisions (including the requirement to comply with long-term standards) would apply to traditional bathing waters and more limited obligations (such as a risk assessment and public information) would apply to a limited selection of waters where recreational activities are commonly practised. An alternative compromise might be to only require monitoring of watersport areas which are not adjacent to existing bathing waters, or watersport areas whose bathing water profile indicates contamination risk factors.

• Should the Directive apply to recreational waters, and if so, on what basis? Should monitoring obligations be limited in some way (e.g., two-tier system approach)?
• What control or influence does a local authority have on where water recreation activities are carried out? Is it fair to say that local authorities are responsible for promoting water recreation activities as well as traditional bathing activities?
• What technical and managerial issues might arise in extending the scope of the existing Directive to cover other forms of water recreation?
• Would the proposed change in scope lead to an increase or decrease in the number of identified bathing waters, or to a different set of waters being subject to the revised Directive?

3. Requirement for active beach management

The Communication proposes new obligations in the revised Directive to take action "within a suitable timetable" (page 9) when standards are not achieved. This contrasts with the situation under the existing Directive, where there is no direct obligation to act or react within a certain timescale if standards are not met.

According to the Commission, such action could be longer-term infrastructure measures where there is a persistent breach or immediate actions to minimise health risks. The Communication also suggests that "management teams" (page 11) could be established to take "complementary measures beyond the basic obligations of the Directive" to improve bathing areas.

Short-term management actions could include the posting of advisory notes on beaches to discourage bathing during periods of poor water quality. Frameworks will need to be in place in order for an advisory note system to work. It is our understanding that Environmental Health Officers often act (on the basis of information provided by Consultants in Communicable Disease Control) to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, such as illness contracted as a result of bathing. It is therefore possible that local authorities could be responsible for posting public health warnings under any advisory note system established under the revised Directive in the UK.

Any advisory notice system developed under the revised Directive will have to be carefully designed to provide adequate information to the public, without exposing local authorities to the possibility of litigation. There is also the possibility that warning signs could deter tourists from the bathing area, with potential impacts on the local economy. Nevertheless successful advisory notice systems are in operation in a number of countries worldwide.

Suggested standards for the revised bathing water Directive

The following new standards were recently tabled by the European Commission for consideration:

• "Mandatory" standard: 200 intestinal enterococci per 100ml at 95 percentile compliance
• "Guideline" standard: 100 intestinal enterococci per 100ml at 95 percentile compliance

The suggested "Mandatory" standard is significantly more stringent than the existing standard, and is roughly equivalent to the current "Guideline" standard used as the bathing water criterion in the Blue Flag Award scheme.

The suggested new "Guideline" standard is moderately tighter than at present.

It has also been suggested ² that water quality data could be "discounted" when derived from periods during which effective management actions (such as the posting of an advisory notice) were taken to discourage recreational water use because of poor water quality. Thus bathing waters with a history of water quality sample failures might comply even with the stricter standards likely under the new Directive if management actions were taken during periods of poor quality.

Active beach management (including "discounting") has been suggested by the World Health Organisation (WHO). We favour proportionate measures which give bathing water quality improvements and protect public health.

• Who should be involved in deciding on appropriate management action?
• How do you envisage that an advisory note system would operate? Who would be responsible for posting notices?
• What extra burdens are management obligations likely to place on local authorities? Would a requirement in the revised Directive for active beach management raise liability concerns? (See separate Defra paper on this issue).
• Is it feasible to close bathing areas as a short-term management action?
• What role do you envisage for "management teams"? Should the teams have powers to carry out improvements, or should they only be advisory in nature?
• Should "discounting" of data be allowed?

4. Enhanced public information

The Commission proposes that under the new Directive there should be an increased emphasis on the provision of better and more up-to-date information, which should be available at all times at the bathing zone. Thus the public should have all the elements necessary to make their own informed choice about where and if to bathe. Although the main principles of public information (see page 9) will be laid down in the Directive, the Commission has indicated that Member States will be given a degree of flexibility as to how public information provisions can be carried out. The Communication also says that the public could assist as unofficial inspectors to find unidentified sources of pollution and should be allowed to participate in the establishment of remedial programmes (page 13).

• How can information on the quality of bathing waters be best reported to interested members of the public?
• How much of this information should be displayed at bathing areas?
• How can consistency with the Blue Flag scheme be ensured?
• What extra burdens might public information obligations place on local authorities?
• How could the public best help to identify sources of pollution or be involved in establishing remedial programmes?

Water Quality Division
Defra
Updated 14 August 2002

Contact

John Fletcher
Zone 3/E14
Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DE
Tel: 020 7944 5327

e-mail: john.fletcher@defra.gsi.gov.uk

1. See http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2000/com2000_0860en01.pdf

2. For example in a recent WHO/DETR expert consultation, Farnham, UK, April 2001