REPORT on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning the quality of bathing water (COM(94)0036 - C4-0036/94 - 94/0006(SYN))

22 November 1996

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection
Rapporteur: Doeke Eisma

By letter of 6 July 1994 the Council consulted Parliament, pursuant to Articles 189c and 130s(1) of the EC Treaty, on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning the quality of bathing water.
A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL - DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
B EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
OPINION
OPINION

By letter of 6 July 1994 the Council consulted Parliament, pursuant to Articles 189c and 130s(1) of the EC Treaty, on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning the quality of bathing water.

At the sitting of 21 July 1994 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred this proposal to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection as the committee responsible and the Committee on Budgets for its opinion.

At the sitting of 30 November 1994 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred this proposal to the Committee on Transport and Tourism for its opinion.

At its meeting of 27 July 1994 the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection appointed Doeke Eisma rapporteur.

It considered the Commission proposal and the draft report at its meetings of 3 November 1994, 2 December 1994, 24 September 1996 and 21 November 1996.

At the last meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution by 36 votes to 1, with 2 abstentions.

The following took part in the vote: Jackson, acting chairman; Dybkjær and K. Jensen, vicechairmen; Eisma, rapporteur; Apolinário, Blokland, Breyer, Bowe, Cabrol, De Coene (for van Putten), Díez De Rivera Icaza, Estevan Bolea (for Burtone), González Álvarez, Graenitz, Hardstaff (for Whitehead), Hautala (for McKenna), Hulthén, Hyland (for Fitzsimons), Iversen, Kronberger, Kuhn, Lannoye, Lange (for Kokkola), Marinucci, Myller (for Waddington), Oomen-Ruijten, Otila (for Flemming), Pollack, Redondo Jiménez (for Poggiolini), Roth-Behrendt, Sandbæk (for Amadeo), Schleicher, Schnellhardt, Thors (for Olsson), Trakatellis, Valverde López, Vieira (for Baldi), Virgin and White.

The opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Transport and Tourism are attached.

The report was tabled with Sessional Services on 25 November 1996.

The deadline for tabling amendments will appear on the draft agenda for the part-session at which the report is to be considered.

A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL - DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

Proposal for a Council Directive concerning the quality of bathing water (COM(94)0036 - C40036/94 - 94/0006(SYN))

The proposal is approved with the following amendments:

Text proposed by the Commission[1]

Amendments by Parliament

(Amendment 1)

Second recital a (new)

Whereas, not only for bathers but also for people engaging in other forms of aquatic recreation, water quality is crucial in making the recreation possible, the waters used by such people likewise require protection, and 'bathing water' should therefore include other water put to recreational use;

(Amendment 2)

Recital 3

Whereas the quality of bathing water is an important asset of the tourism sector in the Community; whereas its improvement and its surveillance are also necessary in the framework of the establishment and functioning of the internal market;

Whereas the quality of bathing water is an important asset of the tourism sector in the Community which, according to Article 3(t) of the EC Treaty, is one of the spheres in which the Community shall take action; whereas its improvement and its surveillance are also necessary in the framework of the establishment and functioning of the internal market;

(Amendment 3)

Recital 3a (new)

Whereas Community measures should stimulate quality and competitiveness of the European tourism industry, integrating at the same time the satisfaction of tourists' needs and the rational use of natural resources (such as bathing water) and of cultural and infrastructural resources, thus contributing to the balanced and sustainable development of tourism, in accordance with Agenda 21, adopted at the conclusion of the UN Conference on the Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), which converted the principle of sustainable development into practical standards to be applied to every level of human activity in terms of territory and ecosystems, to avoid, in future, the geographical and spatial overconcentration of tourism which now affects the so-called 'mature destinations';

(Amendment 4)

Recital 6

Whereas the list of parameters to be measured should indicate in the most appropriate way the quality of bathing water and take account of advances in science and technology; whereas there is a need to require the verification of only those parameters which are indispensable for ensuring an adequate protection of human health;

Whereas the parameters to be measured should indicate in the most appropriate way the quality of bathing water and take account of advances in science and technology; whereas there is a need to require the verification of only those parameters which are indispensable for ensuring an adequate protection of human health;

(Amendment 5)

Recital 9a (new)

Whereas water quality is crucial for the health of other water sports enthusiasts as well as swimmers and the waters used by them should therefore also be protected;

(Amendment 6)

Recital 10

Whereas to highlight situations where outstanding results are achieved it is desirable to introduce a standard of 'excellent quality' for bathing water;

Whereas to highlight situations where outstanding results are achieved it is desirable to introduce a standard of 'good quality' for bathing water; whereas the Member States should therefore award to those bathing resorts which obtain such results a symbol which can be easily recognized by all European Union citizens, along the lines of the 'Blue Flag' scheme; whereas this symbol could also represent a European tourism label, similar to the 'eco-label' for tourism promotion purposes in those bathing areas;

(Amendment 7)

Recital 10a (new)

Whereas it must be realized that only a limited number of types of pollution are checked for and that therefore even in the case of bathing water of good quality the possibility of disease can never be completely excluded;

(Amendment 8)

Recital 10b (new)

Whereas the first multiannual programme to assist European tourism - 'PHILOXENIA' (1997-2000)(1) - includes among its objectives the improvement of the quality of European tourism; whereas bathing water constitutes a vital but exhaustible resource for tourist development, making it essential to ensure close coordination between the objectives of European tourist policy and Community water resource policy;(1) OJ C 222, 31.7.1996. p. 9

(Amendment 9)

Recital 11

Whereas, in the case of bathing waters first falling within the scope of this Directive after 31 December 1995 as a result of an increased use by bathers, it is appropriate to allow a period of time for Member States to bring them up to the requisite quality;

Whereas, in the case of bathing waters first falling within the scope of this Directive after 31 December 1997 as a result of an increased use by bathers, it is appropriate to allow a period of time for Member States to bring them up to the requisite quality;

(Amendment 10)

Recital 12

Whereas the public should be adequately informed about the quality of bathing waters and about any remedial action taken by the competent authorities;

Whereas the public should be informed in a comprehensible and uniform way about the quality of bathing waters and about any remedial action taken by the competent authorities;

(Amendment 11)

Recital 13

Whereas Member States should monitor the quality of bathing waters with adequate frequency and analyse them by comparable methods; whereas this frequency can be reduced, under certain conditions, for bathing waters which have previously proved to be of excellent quality;

(Amendment 12)

Recital 13a (new)

Whereas if in the future inspections form part of the remit of the European Environment Agency, duties will be conferred on this Agency under this Directive;

(Amendment 13)

Recital 15

Whereas technical progress may necessitate rapid adaptation of the technical requirements laid down in Annex I; whereas, in order to facilitate the introduction of the measures required for this purpose, a procedure should be set up under which the Commission can adopt such adaptations with the assistance of a Committee composed by the representatives of Member States;

(Amendment 14)

Recital 16a (new)

Whereas this Directive will be integrated into the framework Directive on European water policy which has yet to be drawn up and whereas the standards adopted will not become any less stringent as a result of that integration;

(Amendment 15)

Article 1(1)

This directive concerns the quality of bathing water, with the exception of water intended for therapeutic purposes and water used in swimming pools.

This directive concerns the quality of water intended for swimming and water sports, with the exception of water intended for therapeutic purposes and water used in swimming pools.

(Amendment 16)

Article 1(2)(a), second indent

- bathing is not prohibited and is traditionally practised by a large number of bathers;

- bathing is not prohibited;

(Amendment 17)

Article(2)(c)

'bathing season' means the period during which a large number of bathers can be expected, in the light of local custom, and any local rules which may exist concerning bathing and weather conditions.

'bathing season' means the period during which people normally bathe, in the light of the geographical situation, local custom, and weather conditions; this period may not be shorter than 2 months.

(Amendment 18)

Article 1(2)(c) a (new)

(c)a 'competent authority' means the authority, indicated by the Member State, empowered to enforce all or some of the obligations arising from the directive.

(Amendment 19)

Article 4(2)

In the case of bathing areas first falling within the scope of the second indent of Article 1, paragraph (2)(a) after 31 December 1995, Member States shall take all necessary steps to ensure that, at the start of the third bathing season following identification of a new bathing area, the bathing water there at least conforms to the values given in column I of Table 1 of Annex I.

Delete

(Amendment 20)

Article 4(3)

By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2 above, in those cases where the measures taken have not brought about compliance with the values given in column I of Table 1 of Annex I, the competent authority must identify the cause or causes of the non-compliance, and take the necessary action to bring about compliance as soon as possible. The competent authority shall in addition inform the Commission forthwith of the reasons for the failure to comply and of the necessary action to be taken, including a timetable for completion.

By way of derogation from paragraph 1 above, in those cases where the measures taken have not brought about compliance with the values given in column I of Table 1 of Annex I, the competent authority must identify the cause or causes of the non-compliance, and take the necessary action to bring about compliance as soon as possible. The competent authority shall in addition inform the Commission forthwith of the reasons for the failure to comply and of the necessary action to be taken, including a timetable for completion.

(Amendment 21)

Article 5(1), first subparagraph

Bathing water shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of this directive if for each parameter for which there is a value in column I of Table 1 of Annex I the number of samples failing to comply with the relevant value does not exceed the number specified in Table 2 of Annex I.

Bathing water shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of this directive when the number of samples failing to comply with the values in column I of Table 1 of Annex I does not exceed the number specified in Table 2 of Annex I.

(Amendment 22)

Article 5(2)

Bathing water shall be deemed to be of 'excellent quality' if:	Bathing water shall be deemed to be of 'good quality' if:
- the bathing water conforms to the requirements of this Directive in the manner specified in paragraph (1), and	- the bathing water conforms to the requirements of this Directive in the manner specified in paragraph (1), and
- for each parameter for which there is a value in column G of Table 1 of Annex I the number of samples failing to comply with the relevant value does not exceed the number specified in Table 3 of Annex I.	- when the number of samples which fail to comply with the values in Column G of Table 1 of Annex I does not exceed the number specified in Table 3 of Annex I.
Assessment of whether bathing water is of excellent quality shall be on the basis of the results obtained in a bathing season.	Without prejudice to Annex I, Table 1, footnote 2, assessment of whether bathing water is of good quality shall be on the basis of the results obtained in two previous bathing seasons and the current bathing season.
	Member States shall award to bathing areas meeting the standard of 'excellent quality' a symbol along the lines of the 'Blue flag' scheme, which can be easily recognized by all European Union citizens; this symbol may also be used as a tourism label for tourism promotion purposes in those areas.

(Amendment 23)

Article 5(3)

In assessing compliance with the values in Columns G and I in Table 1 of Annex I, temporary deviations which are the results of floods, other natural disasters or abnormal weather conditions may be disregarded. The Commission shall be informed of those cases in which this provision has been used.

(Amendment 24)

Article 5(4)

Member States shall ensure that adequate information on bathing water quality is prominently displayed at each bathing area. This shall include, in particular:	Member States shall ensure that uniform and easily understandable information on bathing water quality is prominently displayed at each bathing area. This shall include, in particular:
- a statement of whether the bathing water complied with the requirements of the Directive in the previous bathing season;	- a statement of whether the bathing water complied with the requirements of the Directive in the previous bathing season;
	- information on general safety aspects and on where assistance may be obtained if needed;
- most recent information enabling the public to assess bathing water quality during the current bathing season; and	- most recent information enabling the public to assess bathing water quality during the current bathing season; and
- information, including a timetable, on any remedial works in progress or planned.	- information, including a timetable, on any remedial works in progress or planned.
The provisions of this paragraph are without prejudice to the implementation of Council Directive 90/313/EEC(6).	The provisions of this paragraph are without prejudice to the implementation of Council Directive 90/313/EEC(6).

(Amendment 25)

Article 5(4)a (new)

4a. Member States shall ensure that the information referred to in paragraph 4 is standardized and is publicly accessible through a database.

(Amendment 26)

Article 6(1), first subparagraph

The competent authorities in the Member States shall sample and analyse and make visual and olfactory inspections of bathing waters during the period specified in paragraph (2) and at least as frequently as is specified in Table 1 of Annex I and in accordance with a code of good practice for sampling and the treatment of samples drafted by the committee referred to in Article 10.

(Amendment 27)

Article 6(3), second subparagraph

They shall, in particular, identify all pollution sources, whether discharges, or contributions from diffuse sources, which might lead to salmonella reaching bathing areas, and shall take appropriate action to avoid pollution from such sources.

They shall, in particular, identify all pollution sources, whether discharges, or contributions from diffuse sources, including those produced by pleasure boats and yachts, which might lead to salmonella reaching bathing areas, and shall take appropriate action to avoid pollution from such sources and shall inform the Commission of such actions.

(Amendment 28)

Article 6(4)

Competent authorities shall investigate any unexpected sudden deterioration in the quality of bathing water in order to identify the cause and must take immediate and appropriate action to restore the quality of the water.

(Amendment 29)

Article 7(1)

Where pollution constitutes a threat to public health Member States shall prohibit bathing at individual bathing areas. Such a threat shall be deemed to exist in a case of significant deviation from the values specified in Column I in Table 1 of Annex I, taking local conditions into account.

1. Where pollution constitutes a threat to public health Member States shall prohibit bathing at individual bathing areas and shall take measures to inform the public accordingly through the press or radio and television. Such a threat shall be deemed to exist in a case of significant deviation in excess of the values specified in Column I in Table 1 of Annex I, taking local conditions into account.

(Amendment 30)

Article 10

1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee composed of the representatives of the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission.	The Commission shall be assisted by a type I advisory committee as provided for in Article 2 of Council Decision 87/373/EEC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.
	2. The representative of the Commission shall submit to the committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft within a time limit which the chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter. The opinion shall be delivered by the majority laid down in Article 148(2) of the Treaty in the case of decisions which the Council is required to adopt on a proposal from the Commission. The votes of the representatives of the Member States within the committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in that Article. The chairman shall not vote.
	The Commission shall adopt measures which shall apply immediately. However, if these measures are not in accordance with the opinion of the committee, they shall be communicated by the Commission to the Council forthwith. In that event: the Commission may defer application of the measures which it has decided for a period of three months from the date of communication.
	The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may take a different decision within the time limit referred to in the previous paragraph.

(Amendment 31)

Article 11(1)

Every year, and for the first time by 31 December 1996, the Member States shall send to the Commission a report on the implementation of this directive in the current year. The report shall be drawn up on the basis of the questionnaire or outline drafted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 6 of Directive 91/692/EEC. The questionnaire and outline shall be sent to the Member States six months before the start of the period covered by the report. The report shall be made to the Commission before the end of the year in question.

Every year, and for the first time by 31 December 1998, the Member States shall send to the Commission a report on the implementation of this directive in the current year. The report shall be drawn up on the basis of the questionnaire or outline drafted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 6 of Directive 91/692/EEC. The Member States shall be required to enclose the reference data as evidence. The questionnaire and outline shall be sent to the Member States six months before the start of the period covered by the report. The report shall be made to the Commission before the end of the year in question.

(Amendment 32)

Article 11(2)

The Commission shall publish a Community report on the implementation of the directive within four months of receiving the reports from the Member States.

The Commission shall present to the European Parliament's Committee on Budgets, by 15 May of each year, a detailed report on the implementation of the Directive and the financial aspects thereof.

(Amendment 33)

Article 12, first paragraph

Directive 76/160/EEC is hereby repealed with effect from 31 December 1995, without prejudice to the obligation of the Member States as to deadlines for transposition into national law and for application as shown in Annex II.

Directive 76/160/EEC is hereby repealed with effect from 31 December 1997, without prejudice to the obligation of the Member States as to deadlines for transposition into national law and for application as shown in Annex II.

(Amendment 34)

Article 13(1), first subparagraph

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive no later than 31 December 1995. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive no later than 31 December 1997. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

(Amendment 35)

ANNEX I, footnote -1 (new)

Method of analysis or inspection

Method of analysis or inspection^-1(-1) At the proposal of the committee referred to in Article 10, reference will in future, wherever possible, be made to CEN methods.

(Amendment 36)

Annex I, Table I, second heading

G I2 Faecal streptococci 100 400/100 ml

G I2 Faecal streptococci 50100/100 ml

(Amendment 37)

ANNEX I(12)

IAbsence of sewage solids

Tarry residues and floating materials such as wood, plastic articles, bottles, containers of glass, plastic, rubber or any other substance. Waste or splinters.

G-

IAbsence

Tarry residues and floating materials such as wood, plastic articles, bottles, containers of glass, plastic, rubber or any other substance. Waste or splinters.

GAbsence

(Amendment 38)

Annex I, Table 1, point 12(a) (new)

Other substances regarded as indications of pollutionG I Minimum Method ofSampling analysis and Frequency inspection12(a) Pesticides 0.1 μg/L(1) Fortnightly Extraction with appropriate solvents and chromatographic determination0.5 μg/L(1) Fortnightly(1) Footnote:a Pesticides mean: - organic insecticides, organic herbicides, organic fungicides, organic nematocides, organic acaricides, organic algicides and related products (growth regulators and metabolites, which are pesticides)b only those pesticides which might be present in particular bathing waters shall be monitored.

(Amendment 39)

Annex I, Table 1, point 12(b) (new)

Other substances regarded as indications of pollutionG I Minimum Method ofSampling analysis and Frequency inspection12(b) Nitrates mg/L NO3 (2) AbsorptionPhosphates PO4 spectrophotometry using a specific reagent(2) Footnote: Concentration to be checked by the competent authorities when an inspection in the bathing area shows that the substance may be present or that the quality of the water has deteriorated or that there is a tendency towards eutrophication of the water.

(Amendment 40)

ANNEX I, footnotes 1 and 2

(1) In case of abnormal peak value, Member States can within two working days retest this parameter. If following retesting a normal value is recorded, the peak value can be disregarded. However, the Commission shall be informed of the number of peak values disregarded for each bathing zone.

Deleted

(2) This parameter must be measured once in the fortnight before the start of the bathing season. If during the two preceding bathing seasons the bathing water complied with the G value for Escherichia coli and the I value for faecal strepococci, on the basis of Table 3 and 2 respectively, and the bathing water does not receive discharges of chemically treated sewage, then the parameter needs only to be measured once more. This measurement should be made in the middle of the bathing season.

Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning the quality of bathing water (COM(94)0036 - C4-0036/94 - 94/0006(SYN))

(Cooperation procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council COM(94)0036 - 94/0006(SYN)[2],

- having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Articles 189c and 130s(1) of the EC Treaty (C4-0036/94),

- having regard to Rule 58 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A4-0395/96),

1. Approves the Commission proposal, subject to Parliament's amendments;

2. Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 189a(2) of the EC Treaty;

3. Calls on the Council to incorporate Parliament's amendments in the common position that it adopts in accordance with Article 189c(a) of the EC Treaty;

4. Calls for the conciliation procedure to be opened should the Council intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

5. Asks to be consulted again should the Council intend to make substantial modifications to the Commission proposal;

6. Instructs its President to forward this opinion to the Council and Commission.

[1] () OJ C 112, 22.4.1994, p. 3
[2] () OJ C 112, 22.4.1994, p. 3

B EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION

The proposal for a Directive concerning the quality of bathing water (COM(94)0036 - 94/0006(SYN)) replaces Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975[1]. The proposal has three important objectives: to simplify, clarify and qualitatively alter the existing Directive. The latter was, after all, adopted 21 years ago, and numerous problems have arisen with its implementation. Although in theory the Member States should have implemented it within two years, it was not until 1990 that it was transposed into the legislation of all Member States. At present such problems still persist as inefficient transposition (by circular in France and the UK) or inadequate transposition (failure to carry out the required purification measures in Italy), but fundamental problems also exist, as is very apparent from the Commission's reports on the quality of bathing water. In other words, the checks required by the Directive are not carried out in respect of enough bathing waters, too few samples are taken, the number of parameters checked for is inadequate, bathing water is of poor quality, exemptions from analyses are granted without justification, etc.

The proposal thus seeks to remedy these shortcomings and thereby bring about effective application of the Directive.

Moreover, Directive 76/160/EEC is out of date because in the past 20 years progress has been made with physico-chemical and above all microbiological analysis techniques. During this period, much epidemiological research has been carried out with the aim of defining pollution indicators which are as reliable as possible. This has made it necessary to review the parameters for assessment of the quality of bathing water used in this Directive.

Lastly, the proposal introduces important innovations into the Directive in the form of the requirements concerning public information. These provisions on the one hand accord with the policy initiated in 1990 by Directive 90/313/EEC regarding freedom of access to environmental information[2] and on the other hand

take into account the growing awareness of the quality of the environment on the part of bathers and tourists. For the above reasons, the Commission proposal is welcome and the Committee on the Environment can only applaud it. However, a number of points require clarification, there are grounds for certain minor criticisms, and some amendments need to be tabled.

I. THE PURPOSE OF THE DIRECTIVE

In the preamble, the Commission indicates that the Directive has the aim of protecting the environment and public health and developing tourism, while a subsidiary aspect is the completion and operation of the internal market.

The quality of bathing water and information about it are indeed an element in the development of tourism. Every tourist is naturally interested in information about the quality of the environment in which he intends to spend his holiday. On the other hand it cannot be taken for granted that the local authorities will have the courage to publish information which leaves room for doubt as to the quality of bathing water, thereby running the risk that bathers and tourists may stay away.

Your rapporteur considers that the objectives regarding protection of the environment and health are important. An analysis of the proposal, and particularly the omission of physico-chemical parameters for heavy metals in water, indicates that its primary aim is to protect not the environment but the health of bathers. By eliminating from the proposal aspects focusing more on the environment, the Commission has sought to simplify matters and reduce the costs arising from analyses not directly related to health, and it wishes to stress the fact that the physico-chemical analyses it has omitted are hardly ever carried out.

Your rapporteur considered the idea that the proposal could therefore be based on Article 129 of the Maastricht Treaty, but decided against it because in that case Member States would hardly have any scope for adopting stricter standards than required by the Directive.

In due course the ecological quality of water must be guaranteed by the framework directive on European water policy. Nonetheless, the bathing water Directive certainly will affect the ecological quality of water. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive, the competent authorities must periodically identify all discharges. They must then take appropriate measures to prevent such pollution. The measures to be taken pursuant to Article 6 will therefore genuinely affect water quality.

It follows that the bathing water Directive should be incorporated into the framework directive when the latter is adopted. However, it does not seem desirable to await the framework directive before considering the present proposal. Firstly, research has shown that Directive 76/160/EEC is scientifically out of date and has therefore become virtually impossible to implement, so that any delay would be difficult to accept. Secondly, the Commission has the option of reviewing Directive 76/160/EEC under the commitology procedure, in other words without consulting Parliament. In order to prevent this, it would be best to complete as quickly as possible the procedure which began in 1994.

II. A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS

(a) The definition of bathing water (Article 1(2)(a)), which is the same as in the existing Directive, is inadequate because it is imprecise. The term 'a large number of bathers' is extremely vague, and has led to major discrepancies between Member States as regards the number and delimitation of these waters. In 1995 Ireland, for example, listed 189 bathing waters, whereas Denmark listed 1299. In this case the difference cannot be attributed to a significant difference in climate. The judgment given by the Court of Justice in Case C-56/90, Commission of the European Communities v. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, indicates clearly how much discretion the Directive gives the Member States in interpreting the definition - discretion which can be exercised in a manner dictated by interests which do not necessarily correspond to those of bathers.

Your rapporteur has tried to find a less vague definition, which would give the Member States less room for interpretation. He proposes 'many bathers'.

(b) The definition of 'bathing season' adds to this confusion. So far it has been left to local or regional authorities to determine how long the bathing season lasts. It is surprising to find that the bathing season is shorter in France than in Denmark. Of course it would be impossible to insist that the length of the season should be the same in all Member States. Even so, the definition can be tightened up, and a minimum of 2 months laid down.

(c) The assessment of compliance of bathing water with the requirements of the Directive as provided for in the new Article 5(1) seems more appropriate than that in Directive 76/160/EEC. Firstly, the definition is simple. It is based on a single clear criterion: for each parameter, the number of samples which do not comply with the values in force must not exceed a particular number stated in the Annex.

However, the proposal introduces a new category, 'bathing water of excellent quality'. Is this an attempt to link the measures to the 'blue flag' campaign[3] which becomes more popular with bathers with each year that passes, and indeed with local authorities?

This new category could cause confusion among consumers. If water complies with the Directive and is of adequate quality, bathers can swim in it safely. What are consumers then to make of water of 'excellent' quality? It is enough to describe this category of water as being 'of good quality': this will sufficiently enable bathing resorts which meet the necessary conditions to beat their drum and outcompete resorts whose bathing water is less good, and there will be less confusion among consumers.

(d) Public information, as referred to in Article 5(4), is to be welcomed. Of course, implementation must be monitored, but it is to be hoped that local authorities which are keen to cultivate the trade of tourists will wish to disseminate reliable, readable and readily accessible information.

(e) The lack of harmonization of sampling methods is one of the weak points of the proposal. It now becomes clear why it is difficult to compare and verify the accuracy of sampling results, which leads to problems of harmonization of the annual reports which the Member States are required to submit (Art. 11).

Although Article 6(2) of the proposal indicates clearly when the sampling, analyses and inspections should begin and where they should be carried out, nothing is said about the conditions under which they should take place. If we wish to have reliable data, the sampling must be carried out in accordance with current scientific standards (time of sampling, temperature at which samples are kept, maximum cooling temperature, exposure to light, etc.). A code of good practice for the sampling of bathing water must therefore be drawn up and approved in accordance with Article 10 (management committee procedure).

Moreover, wherever possible the description of the sampling technique should refer to CEN methods. This should be laid down in Annex I.

(f) The proposal does not assign any role to the European Environment Agency. Although carrying out inspections is not yet part of the Agency's remit, it may well be in the future, and this would probably be desirable. In that case, the Agency should also carry out its remit in respect of this Directive.

III. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ANNEXES

Annex I contains the real meat of the proposal. It comprises a table of parameters for assessing the quality of bathing water, accompanied by mandatory values (I) and guide values (G). There are many changes in comparison with Directive 76/160/EEC. Some microbiological parameters have been altered, some mandatory or guide values have been changed or supplemented, and some physicochemical parameters have been dropped.

(a) Microbiological parameters

* Inspection for total coliforms: this is dropped completely, as these bacteria are not a reliable indicator of faecal contamination, and it is therefore unnecessary to test for them.

* Inspection for faecal coliforms: there is no satisfactory method of carrying this out in Europe. It has therefore been replaced with a count of Escherichia coli: since there is an almost perfect correlation between the presence of faecal coliforms and E. coli, this method is the most reliable available at present. Counting E. coli is not intrinsically very relevant, as E. coli has little or no pathogenic effect on human beings and therefore presents no direct threat to the health of bathers. However, it is of interest as a first indication of faecal contamination. The presence of more than a certain level of E. coli may indicate the presence of other bacteria or viruses which are pathogenic but are harder to detect directly (because methods of analysis are non-existent, complex, unreliable or too time-consuming).

* Inspection for faecal streptococci: these have been stepped up (adoption of a mandatory value of 400 per 100 ml and fortnightly sampling frequency). Faecal streptococci cause urogenital and endocardial infections. Thus they also constitute an indicator of faecal contamination. In certain cases their presence can be linked to the presence of the E. coli, while in others it cannot. Despite this partial overlapping, counting them is still of use in studying bacterial contamination due to the resuspension of sediment (a frequent phenomenon in bathing water).

Some people consider the mandatory value (I) of 400 per 100 ml scientifically ill-founded.

Your rapporteur proposes deleting footnote 1 to Annex I concerning analysis of faecal streptococci. The reason for this is that this exception has been found to give rise to many cases of fraud. Although the Commission could carry out an investigation if the footnote were applied regularly, in practice the Commission is rarely, if ever, informed of its application, and monitoring is therefore impossible.

* Inspection for enteroviruses: this is retained in the proposal, and a minimum sampling frequency is laid down (once per month). This is because it is important to detect the presence of enteroviruses, as they cause many serious infections such as polio or hepatitis A. However, analysis is expensive and the method of detection is not genuinely reliable. The new proposal therefore provides for this analysis to be replaced by detection of bacteriophages in future. Bacteriophages are pathogenic viruses of bacteria. They cannot survive if the cells which they parasitize are no longer present. Thus the presence of bacteriophages in bathing water implies that the bacteria are also present, including pathogenic bacteria. It is assumed that it will be easier and less expensive to detect these bacteria than enteroviruses. However, much progress still remains to be made here, both as regards standardization of the method and as regards setting the standards. The proposal for the revision of Directive 76/160/EEC does not yet propose much in this respect.

As far as enteroviruses are concerned, the mandatory value of 0 PFU/10 litres, combined with monthly sampling, seems impractical for many. It is statistically unlikely that bathing water sampled monthly will not contain any enteroviruses at all.

Your rapporteur therefore proposes deleting the enteroviruses from Annex I, but incorporating in Article 6(3) a requirement that if identification of pollution sources in the vicinity suggests that contamination with enteroviruses is likely, tests must be carried out for them.

* Inspection for salmonella has been dropped, although salmonella bacteria cause serious diseases such as typhoid fever and paratyphoid fever, as well as toxic infections of the intestines, which can be fatal to children and the elderly. In its Explanatory Memorandum the Commission justifies the omission of this parameter by stressing firstly that salmonella bacteria are virtually impossible to monitor, as they may enter bathing water in a great variety of ways, and secondly that a very high concentration of these bacteria needs to be present in the water before any danger of infection arises, and that there is therefore no serious danger to health. Moreover, in the Commission's view, the risk of salmonella bacteria is covered by the requirement in Article 6(3) for all Member States to identify all discharges which could result in salmonella bacteria entering bathing water and adopt appropriate measures to prevent pollution from such sources. Moreover, in cases in which salmonella infection occurs, Article 7(1) is applied, requiring bathing to be prohibited where a threat to public health exists.

(b) Physico-chemical parameters

* First eight parameters: these are retained and hardly altered. In the proposal for a Directive, all are now assigned a fixed I (mandatory) value, while some are also assigned a G (guide) value. Methods of analysis remain unaltered, as do sampling frequencies, except in the case of mineral oils (reduced from fortnightly to monthly).

* Measurement of pH: the aim is to determine the acidity of the environment. Living organisms can only survive in a buffered environment, i.e. one in which pH fluctuations are very slight. Strong fluctuations kill organisms and render all life impossible.

* Dissolved oxygen: the presence of a certain quantity of dissolved oxygen is essential in order for aquatic fauna and flora to survive.

* Presence of surface active substances: these substances, derived from cleansing agents, are one of the principal sources of pollution which promote eutrophication.

* Presence of phenols: phenols are very strong disinfectants. Their presence may possibly indicate previous destruction - and elimination - of bacteria which has not, however, destroyed pathogenic viruses.

* Presence of mineral oils: the presence of a layer of mineral oils on the surface of the water prevents gas exchange with the atmosphere.

* Presence of floating materials: this parameter makes it possible to gain an impression of water quality by looking for coarse elements on the surface. Under the proposal, water is to be rejected for bathing purposes (I value) only if it contains sewage solids. However, your rapporteur considers that other floating materials may also constitute a hazard to bathers. Some flexibility is naturally called for in applying this criterion, as water is of course hardly ever completely free of floating objects.

* Colour and transparency: both these parameters make it possible to gain a general impression of the degree of eutrophication and the sediment present, i.e. the possible reduction in water quality.

The main new aspect lies in the omission from the proposal of the last 6 parameters (ammonia, nitrogen Kjeldahl, pesticides, heavy metals, cyanides, nitrates and phosphates). Their presence is no longer to be monitored at fixed intervals but only if water quality declines or there is a tendency towards eutrophication. Moreover, these substances are not dangerous to bathers if the bathing water is used only for recreational purposes: they are purely indicators of environmental pollution. As point out above, the environmental aspects have been eliminated from the proposal for a Directive, and your rapporteur therefore considers the omission of these 6 parameters acceptable.

CONCLUSION

This revision of Directive 76/160/EEC is necessary for scientific reasons. The existing Directive is out of date in the light of scientific progress, and there are serious problems with its implementation. However, the revision of the Directive must not result in any reduction in the protection of bathers and the environment. Your rapporteur believes that the amendments tabled will ensure that these requirements are met without the Member States having to incur large implementation costs.

However, this proposal is only one element in Community legislation on water quality. After the Edinburgh European Council in December 1992 and in response to pressure from the European Parliament, Community legislation on water quality is currently undergoing a general revision; care must be taken to ensure that it does not result in reduced protection of the environment. The revision is mainly necessitated by the lessons learnt from the inconsistent application of the Directives by the Member States, but also by the considerable costs involved in implementation.

Community legislation on water quality needs to be revised, but the revision must not be based primarily on economic considerations: it should take as its starting point a thorough analysis of the general water problem and the various human activities on water, and their intensity and nature. It is regrettable that the Commission has not yet adopted a more systematic approach to water policy, which ought to begin by determining the general principles and strategies to be adhered to, followed by proposals appropriate to the various types of water, particularly drinking water, surface waters, bathing water, etc.

[1] () OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1
[2] () OJ L 158, 23.6.1990
[3] () The 'blue flag' campaign is a Community-funded campaign run by a non-governmental organization, the FEEE (Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe). Blue flag status is awarded partly on the basis of the quality of bathing water on the coast, in accordance with Directive 76/160, but also in accordance with other criteria, such as the safety of bathers, beach equipment and environmental information.

OPINION

of the Committee on Budgets

Letter from the chairman of the committee to Mr K.D. COLLINS, chairman of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection

Brussels, 19 October 1994

Subject: Proposal for a Council Directive concerning the quality of bathing water - (COM(94) 36 final - C4-0036/94)

Dear Mr Collins,

At its meeting of 19 October 1994, the Committee on Budgets considered the above-mentioned proposal.

This proposal, in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, defines the objectives which must be achieved to guarantee satisfactory bathing waters, while leaving the Member States free to chose the means of achieving those objectives.

The Committee on Budgets noted that this proposal involves operating expenditure (Line B4-304) and administrative expenditure (Line A-2510).

With regard to the operational aspects of the proposal, the committee decided, in line with its usual practice, not to accept the management committee envisaged in Article 10.

The Committee on Budgets also decided not to accept the estimated administrative expenses, in accordance with its 1995 budget guidelines on Line A-2510 and on the use of internal redeployment.

It was also of the opinion that Parliament should be provided with more information.

Accordingly, the Committee on Budgets makes its favourable opinion subject to acceptance of the two attached amendments.

Yours sincerely,

(sgd) Detlev SAMLAND

The following were present for the vote: Samland, chairman; Porto, 2nd vice-chairman; Bourlanges, Brinkhorst, Fabra Vallés, Kellett-Bowman, Haug, Mulder, Elles, Krehl, Müller and Watson.

(Amendment 1)

Article 10

1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee composed of the representatives of the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission.	2. The representative of the Commission shall submit to the committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft within a time limit which the chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter. The opinion shall be delivered by the majority laid down in Article 148(2) of the Treaty in the case of decisions which the Council is required to adopt on a proposal from the Commission. The votes of the representatives of the Member States within the committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in that Article. The chairman shall not vote.
3. The Commission shall adopt measures which shall apply immediately. However, if these measures are not in accordance with the opinion of the committee, they shall be communicated by the Commission to the Council forthwith. In that event:	the Commission may defer application of the measures which it has decided for a period of three months from the date of communication.
the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may take a different decision within the time limit referred to in the previous paragraph.	The Commission shall be assisted by a type I advisory committee as provided for in Article 2 of Council Decision 87/373/EEC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.

(Amendment 2)

Article 11

	Every year, and for the first time by 31 December 1996, the Member States shall send to the Commission a report on the implementation of this Directive in the current year. The report shall be drawn up on the basis of a questionnaire or outline drafted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 6 of Directive 91/692/EEC.
	The questionnaire and outline shall be sent to the Member States six months before the start of the period covered by the report. The report shall be made to the Commission before the end of the year in question.
The Commission shall publish a Community report on the implementation of the directive within four months of receiving the reports from the Member States.	The Commission shall present to the Committee on Budgets, by 15 May of each year, a detailed report on the implementation of the Directive and the financial aspects thereof.

OPINION

(Rule 147)

of the Committee on Transport and Tourism

for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection

Draftsman: Mr Petrus A. M. Cornelissen

PROCEDURE

At its meeting of 2 December 1994 the Committee on Transport and Tourism appointed Mr Cornelissen draftsman.

At its meetings of 1 February, 22 February and 23 March 1995 and 2 October 1996 it considered the draft opinion.

At the last meeting it adopted the conclusions unanimously.

The following took part in the vote: Parodi, acting chairman (for Cornelissen, chairman and draftsman); Lüttge, vice-chairman; Belleré, Danesin, González Triviño, Grosch, Koch, Mendonça (for Farassino), Pelttari, Piecyk, Puerta (for Moreau), Rehder (for Megahy), Schlechter, Sisó Cruellas, Stenmarck, Stockmann, Tamino (for van Dijk), van der Waal and Wijsenbeek.

I. INTRODUCTION

Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975[1] concerning the quality of bathing water, which has been in force for 15 years, has ensured the constant monitoring of bathing water - with the exception of water intended for therapeutic purposes and water used in swimming pools - as a means of protecting the environment and public health in tourist resorts. Such monitoring is based on specific parameters and values which the 16 000 bathing areas currently covered by the directive must comply with during the tourist season. The application of the directive has resulted in a clear improvement in the quality of the bathing water in the areas in question.

Over the years the directive has undergone several modifications but its substance has remained unchanged. The revisions were made following, firstly, the Act of Accession of Greece of 28 May 1979, Annex I, Chapter XIII, paragraph 1(a)[2], and then the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal of 12 June 1985, Annex I, Chapter X, paragraph 1(b)[3], Directive 90/656/EEC[4] on the transitional measures applicable in Germany with regard to certain Community provisions relating to the protection of the environment, Directive 91/692/EEC[5] on standardizing and rationalizing reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment and, lastly, the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden of 16 May 1994, Annex VIII, point A, paragraph 1[6].

In accordance with the provisions of the Fifth environmental action programme entitled 'Towards sustainability'[7] - which stresses that the safety and quality of bathing waters are important assets for tourism - the Commission has submitted the proposal in question[8] with the aim of updating and clarifying Directive 76/160/EEC.

The proposal introduces several changes. Firstly, it sets out to adapt both the 'pollution indicators' and the methods of analysis or inspection to scientific and technical progress. These indicators and thus represented by 12 parameters - as opposed to the 19 parameters at present - with values above which the presence of pathogenic substances is indicated; they are the same as those adopted by the ISO (International Standards Organization). The Member States are, however, free to set more stringent values and to set values for parameters not included in Table 1 of Annex I.

As an incentive for Member States to improve their bathing areas, the directive introduces a distinction between bathing waters which comply with the directive and those with a standard of 'excellent quality', in other words, waters which, during a bathing season, comply with values which are superior to the normal values (Annex I, Table 1, column G) and whose maximum number of samples which need not conform to such normal values corresponds to Table 3 of Annex I. The samples must be taken 30 cm below the surface of the water.

The Member States must therefore ensure that information on bathing water quality is prominently displayed at each bathing area. They must also identify all discharges and sources of pollution which are likely to affect the quality of bathing water, particularly those which might lead to salmonella reaching bathing areas. Unlike the current rules, deviations from the values set by the directive will be permitted only for the amount of time necessary to restore the quality of the water. In the event of any threat to public health, the Member States may prohibit bathing and shall inform the Commission thereof.

With effect from the 1996 bathing season, Member States shall send a report on the implementation of the directive. New bathing areas, i.e. those which fall within the scope of the directive for the first time, will have to conform to the values set by the directive with effect from the 1998 bathing season.

Over the course of 1995, Parliament and the Council called on the Commission to submit a document setting out a global Community policy for the water industry. Consideration of the proposals already submitted, including the present proposal on bathing water, was accordingly suspended.

The communication in question represents action on that request, setting out the objectives and principles of a sustainable long-term policy for the water industry and indicating that there will be a proposal for a framework directive on water resources, which will not, however, affect the directive on the quality of bathing water (Directive 76/106/EEC).

2. ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSAL

The Committee on Transport and Tourism naturally welcomes the proposal in question, which constitutes a step forward in the process of monitoring bathing water in the Community's tourist resorts. The tourism industry can only benefit from this, as the provisions will help to ensure that tourists continue to visit resorts which are already popular, thereby cutting down on the unnecessary 'consumption' of coastal areas that are still unspoilt.

The committee still has doubts about the over-narrow definition of bathing water, given the new forms of water-based tourism, despite the fact that the Court of Justice, in its judgment of 14 July 1993 (Commission v United Kingdom in Case 56/90) gave guidelines for interpreting this notion.

However, our main criticism concerns the low legislative profile of the directive. The problems of the pollution of bathing water and increasing mass water-based tourism are not tackled adequately or in any depth.

The directive confines itself to introducing the concept of 'excellent quality' bathing water as an incentive for tourist areas (the only 'prize' being that such areas will be given a special mention in the annual reports published by the Commission) and fails to link this to the principle of aid for the environment pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No. 1836/93 on a Community ecomanagement and audit scheme[9] , as requested by the European Parliament in its resolution of 15 December 1994[10] on Community measures affecting tourism.

In this connection the directive does not attempt, for example, to bring the 'Blue Flag' campaign within the ambit of the Community and award the Blue Flag to bathing areas which meet the directive's requirements. This initiative is currently being promoted by the Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe (FEEE), which receives Community support. The Commission is involved in drawing up the criteria on the basis of which the 'Blue Flag' is awarded and is represented on the board.

Another crucial factor, which is not taken into consideration at all, is the requirement that Member States should promote a European tourism label (similar to the 'eco-label') for bathing areas which meet the required quality standards laid down by the proposal for a directive and that the directive should form the basis on which to regulate the growing mass market for water-based tourism.

All the above requests have been incorporated in the report[11] of the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the first multiannual programme to assist European tourism - 'PHILOXENIA'[12], which could serve as a reference point for the experimental development of monitoring policies for bathing water in tourist locations.

III. CONCLUSIONS

The Committee on Transport and Tourism calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection to include the following amendments in its report:

Commission text

Amendments

(Amendment 1)

In the whole proposal, replace references to 'bathing' with recreation and equivalents.

(Amendment 2)

Second recital

Whereas, in order to protect the environment and public health, it is necessary to reduce the pollution of bathing water and to protect such water against further deterioration;

Whereas, in order to protect public health, it is necessary to reduce the pollution of bathing water and to protect such water against further deterioration;

(Amendment 3)

Second recital a (new)

(Amendment 4)

Third recital

(Amendment 5)

Third recital a (new)

(Amendment 6)

Tenth recital

Whereas to highlight situations where outstanding results are achieved it is desirable to introduce a standard of 'excellent quality' for bathing water;

Whereas to highlight situations where outstanding results are achieved it is desirable to introduce a standard of 'excellent quality' for bathing water; whereas the Member States should therefore award to those bathing resorts which obtain such results a symbol which can be easily recognized by all European Union citizens, along the lines of the 'Blue Flag' scheme; whereas this symbol could also represent a European tourism label, similar to the 'eco-label' for tourism promotion purposes in those bathing areas;

(Amendment 7)

Tenth recital a (new)

Whereas the European Parliament's resolution on Community measures affecting tourism[13] recommends that the principle of aid for the environment should be established pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 on eco-management and environmental auditing in relation to the pollution of bathing water;

(Amendment 8)

Tenth recital b (new)

Whereas the first multiannual programme to assist European tourism - 'PHILOXENIA' (1997-2000) [14] - includes among its objectives the improvement of the quality of European tourism; whereas bathing water constitutes a vital but exhaustible resource for tourist development, making it essential to ensure close coordination between the objectives of European tourist policy and Community water resource policy;

(Amendment 9)

Article 1(2)

2.For the purposes of this Directive:

(a) 'bathing water' means without prejudice to Article 7 all running or still fresh waters or parts thereof and sea water, in which:

- bathing is explicitly authorized by the competent authorities of each Member State, or

- bathing is not prohibited and is traditionally practised by a large number of bathers;

(b) 'bathing area' means any place where bathing water is found;

(c) 'bathing season' means the period during which a large number of bathers can be expected, in the light of local custom, and any local rules which may exist concerning bathing and weather conditions.

2.For the purposes of this Directive:

(a) 'bathing water' means without prejudice to Article 7 all running or still fresh waters or parts thereof and sea water, in which:

- recreation is explicitly authorized by the competent authorities of each Member State, or

- recreation is not prohibited and is traditionally practised by a large number of bathers;

(b) 'recreation area' means any place where bathing water is found;

(c) 'recreation season' means the period during which a large number of people engaging in recreation can be expected, in the light of local custom, and any local rules which may exist concerning recreation and weather conditions.

(Amendment 10)

Article 5

1. Bathing water shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Directive if for each parameter for which there is a value in column I of Table 1 of Annex I the number of samples failing to comply with the relevant value does not exceed the number specified in table 2 of Annex I.

Compliance shall be assessed on the basis of the results obtained in a bathing season.

without prejudice to Annex I, Table 1, footnote 2, compliance shall be assessed on the basis of the results obtained in the previous bathing season and the current bathing season.

2. Bathing water shall be deemed to be of 'excellent quality' if:

- the bathing water conforms to the requirements of this Directive in the manner specified in paragraph (1); and

- for each parameter for which there is a value in column G of Table 1 of Annex I the number of samples failing to comply with the relevant value does not exceed the number specified in Table 3 of Annex I.

Assessment of whether bathing water is of excellent quality shall be on the basis of the results obtained in a bathing season.

2. Bathing water shall be deemed to be of 'excellent quality' if:

- the bathing water conforms to the requirements of this Directive in the manner specified in paragraph (1); and

Without prejudice to Annex I, Table 1, footnote 2, assessment of whether bathing water is of excellent quality shall be on the basis of the results obtained in two previous bathing seasons and the current bathing season.

Member States shall award to bathing areas meeting the standard of 'excellent quality' a symbol along the lines of the 'Blue Flag' scheme, which can be easily recognized by all European Union citizens; this symbol may also be used as a tourism label for tourism promotion purposes in those areas.

3. In assessing compliance with the values in columns G and I in Table 1 of Annex I, temporary deviations which are the results of floods, other natural disasters or abnormal weather conditions may be disregarded. The Commission shall be informed of those cases in which this provision has been used.

3. In assessing compliance with the values in columns G and I in Table 1 of Annex I, temporary deviations which are the results of floods and other natural disasters may be disregarded. The Commission shall be informed of those cases in which this provision has been used.

4. Member States shall ensure that adequate information on bathing water quality is prominently displayed at each bathing area. This shall include, in particular:

- a statement of whether the bathing water complied with the requirements of the Directive in the previous bathing season;

- most recent information enabling the public to assess bathing water quality during the current bathing season; and

- information, including a timetable, on any remedial works in progress or planned.

4. Member States shall ensure that adequate information on bathing water quality is prominently displayed at each bathing area. This shall include, in particular:

- a statement of whether the bathing water complied with the requirements of the Directive in the previous bathing season;

- information on general safety aspects and on where assistance may be obtained if needed;

- most recent information enabling the public to assess bathing water quality during the current bathing season; and

- information, including a timetable, on any remedial works in progress or planned.

The provisions of this paragraph are without prejudice to the implementation of Council Directive 90/313/EEC[15].

The provisions of this paragraph are without prejudice to the implementation of Council Directive 90/313/EEC[16].

4a (new) Member States may grant environmental aid for bathing areas which do not conform to the parameters set out in column G of Table 1 of Annex I.

4b (new) Member States shall ensure that the information referred to in paragraph 4 is standardized and is publicly accessible through a database. Member States may charge cost price for making the information available through a database.

(Amendment 11)

Article 7(1)

1. Where pollution constitutes a threat to public health Member States shall prohibit bathing at individual bathing areas.

Such a threat shall be deemed to exist in a case of significant deviation from the values specified in column I in table 1 of Annex I, taking local conditions into account.

At the minimum such a threat shall be deemed to exist in a case of significant deviation from the values specified in column I in table 1 of Annex I, taking local conditions into account.

(Amendment 12)

Article 11

Every year, and for the first time by 31 December 1996, the Member States shall send to the Commission a report on the implementation of this Directive in the current year. The report shall be drawn up on the basis of a questionnaire or outline drafted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 6 of Directive 91/692/EEC.

The questionnaire and outline shall be sent to the Member States six months before the start of the period covered by the report. The report shall be made to the Commission before the end of the year in question.

The Commission shall publish a Community report on the implementation of the Directive within four months of receiving the reports from the Member States.

The Commission shall publish the list of bathing areas deemed to be of 'excellent' or 'good' quality, and all other bathing areas (Article 4(3)) which do not comply with the values given in column I of Table 1 in Annex I, within two months of receipt of a report from a Member State and not later than 31 January of the year following the reporting year.

The Commission shall forward to the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee a report on the implementation of the Directive.

[1] () OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, pp. 1-7
[2] () OJ L 291, 19.11.1979, p. 17
[3] () OJ L 302, 15.11.1985, p. 23
[4] () OJ L 353, 17.12.1990, p. 59
[5] () OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48
[6] () OJ L 1, 1.1.1995, p. 120
[7] () OJ C 138, 17.5.1993, p. 1
[8] () COM(94)0036
[9] () OJ L 168, 10.7.1993, p. 1
[10] () OJ C 18, 23.1.1995, p. 159
[11] () A4-0298/96 (rapporteur: Mrs Bennasar Tous)
[12] () COM(96)0168
[13] OJ C 18, 23.1.1995, p. 159
[14] OJ C 222, 31.7.1996. p. 9
[15] OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56
[16] OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56

Legal notice - Privacy policy