1. Technical Support for the Impact Assessment of the Review of Priority Substances under Directive 2000/60/EC Updated Project Method for WG/E Brussels 22/10/10

2. Presentation Project –Reminder: Aim and scope –Reminder: Tasks Method –Evolution and development of methodology –Summary of key issues (WGE comments on August methodology paper) –Summary of COM comments on 5 th Interim –Updated methodology Questions/discussion

3. Reminder of project aim and scope Assess the impact, in terms of costs and benefits, of the options for the review of priority substances. The review considers: –addition (or removal) of substances from priority list –revision of EQS for existing priority substances –establishment of water, sediment and/or biota EQS for proposed new substances –addition of sediment or biota EQS for existing priority substances –possible additional EU-level control measures for existing and newly identified substances The study covers: –All current EU Member States and Candidate Countries; –All existing and proposed priority substances (Annex II of the EQSD and new substances identified through the prioritisation process); At this stage we are now focussing on 16 proposed substances, 3 'grey list' proposed substances, and up to 12 existing substances –The impacts of potential new control measures.

4. Reminder of Project Tasks Develop a methodology to assess the impacts – Task 1 Identify, review and collect all relevant data – Task 2 Assessment of impacts – Task 3 Provide support to the Impact Assessment Board process– Task 4

5. Aim of Methodology Develop a methodology to assess impacts –How to assess the costs and benefits of each aspect ('option') of the review –Substance-by-substance approach –However requires recognition of overlaps/common impacts between substances

6. Evolution and Development of Methodology Initial methodology discussions with WGE in June 2010 Methods paper circulated to WGE Aug 2010 Comments requested by 10/09/10 Responses in 5 th Interim report Further comments from COM 15/10/10 Responses in 6 th Interim report

7. Summary of key issues identified (WGE) For PHS, clarify difference between reaching EQS and phase out of emissions- make sure both are adequately considered Selecting case studies where PECs>EQS may skew results Concerns with extrapolation process (e.g. volumes, GDP and lack of data in some MS) Ensure that all benefits captured Is one case study enough (e.g. differences in use and production across MS)? Measures to phase-out should be covered at EU level Costs of developing analytical monitoring techniques

8. Summary of Comments on 5 th Interim report (COM) More that one case study per substance is needed, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that one case study will provide robust information about how impacts vary across MS. Case study selection and MS representation Criteria for deciding on whether extrapolation can be undertaken Assessment of benefits Accuracy of extrapolation of costs and benefits Need to develop a methodology for the assessment of possible EU level measures Calculation of non-financial costs (e.g. environmental costs) Robustness of benefits assessment Assessment of non-use benefits

9. Updated Methodology

10. Case-study based approach Initial EU information available, e.g. Ineris database –Used to identify initial case study (based on failures in Ineris database) More data collation, including during case study and questionnaire responses –Informs development of further case study (or studies) –Case studies to cover range of impacts between MS Consider potential for applying at EU level

11. Step 1: Identification of options Method distinguishes between: Review outcomes resulting in a change in concentration of a substance Outcomes that establish EQS for sediment and/or biota for existing substances, where there is no change in the water EQS

12. Step 2: Identify the EU Baseline To determine a basic level of understanding of the variability in use, environmental concentrations and control between MS to: –1. Identify appropriate case studies –2.Determine the appropriate number of case studies –3. provide the basis for extrapolation of impacts in case studies to other MS Further clarification of baseline through initial case study

13. Step 3: Initial Case Study (or Studies) Step 3a. Selection of case study (or studies) –initial case study (or in some cases two) on MS basis –primary selection criteria for initial case study is monitoring data (EQS failure) –where multiple options, also consider production and use patterns, WGE contacts and questionnaire returns –careful not to be over-representative of certain MS, as far as data availability allows Step 3b. Refinement of baseline –Case study baseline further developed using additional MS-specific information for the specific substance –More recent and localised monitoring data, distributed information on production, use and emissions, consideration of policy measures at MS and EU level

14. Step 3: Initial Case Study (or Studies) Step 3c: Identification of Possible Measures –where environmental concentrations need to be reduced, practical measures will be required on the ground (which in some cases may be a result of EU policy measures) –Database of potentially feasible measures used. MS and industry body representatives on WGE contacted to discuss range of potential applicable measures. Step 3d: Implementation Rate of Measures –to determine how widely the measure needs to be applied based on: effectiveness of the measure the level of failure of EQS under current (or projected) baseline

15. Step 3: Initial Case Study (or Studies) Step 3e: Assessment of costs –Costs to Industry Based on the measures identified in Step 3d –Costs to public bodies Monitoring costs incurred by regulatory authorities estimated using information from questionnaires –Environmental and social costs Vary between substance. e.g. calculation of carbon costs and electricity use, based on standard methods

16. Step 3: Initial Case Study (or Studies) Step 3f: Assessment of benefits –Focus on aquatic ecosystems and human health (via environmental exposure) –Initial qualitative description of all possible benefits –Environmental benefits non-use likely to be significant unlikely to be quantifiable benefit transfer will be explored –Human health benefits qualitative assessment if available academic studies not readily transferable –Financial benefits e.g. avoided treatment costs, commercial fisheries, sewage sludge disposal –Recreational benefits to tourism and water related recreation

17. Step 4: Additional case studies Need for additional case studies identified as a response to WG E comments and COM comments on Methodology paper Not completely sequential- timing of case studies will overlap Additional studies undertaken to ensure: –Range of measures covered –Range of environmental concentrations covered –Validation phase between case studies and EU-level Requires second stage of consultation

18. Step 5: EU-level impacts Step 5a: Completion of EU level baseline –calculator to extrapolate to EU MS –hierarchical approach depending on data availability –consideration of uncertainty Step 5b: Scaling up the case study results to EU level –Assumes measure considered appropriate in one MS can be applied to others. Use more than one case study to validate this assumption –qualitative assessment of EU impacts where not appropriate

19. Step 6: Combined assessment between substances Approach thus far has been substance-specific Recognise there may be overlaps, e.g. due to limited number of measures, with one measure addressing more than one substance –Develop matrix of substances and measures to identify areas of overlap –Use to scale back total costs appropriately In theory could also have compounding impacts, e.g. if one substance would have been a substitute for another. Recognise as appropriate

20. Thank you. Questions? Note: please contact Heather Musgrave (musgh@entecuk.co.uk in future rather than Oliver Warwickmusgh@entecuk.co.uk