1. International workshop diffuse sources of water pollution, Amsterdam 28/29 mei 2008, conclusions and way forward 1 The way forward The content of our message 1. Some general considerations to start with 2.General line of reasoning explaining what MS should do and what MS want to do together with the Commission The process in order to reach our common goal

2. 2 General considerations a. For many Member States point sources have largely been taken care of, allthough there may still be some work to be done. In general most of the remaining problems with water quality are related to diffuse sources bCharacteristic of diffuse sources:numerous pathways, difficult to eliminate. No direct link between measures and effect. Reliable source apportionment is important (substance ans location specific), because the sources leading to problems can be different for the different pollutants considered Therefor a good inventory of sources is necesarry. c.Nutrients like nitrate and phosphorus are the most important causes of defective waterquality. No need for additional specific measures by COM: directive on nitrates and the directive on urban wastewater treatment steers the effort of MS in an appropriate manner. This leaves an important task to MS (EC: P in detergents).. Integration of EU policies and legislation necesarry; reference to GAP.) d.Conclusions workshop: concentrate on problems with chemicals other then nutrient. (Identification based on risks) e.Measures have to aim at reaching the goals under article 4 WFD, foremost PS and specific pollutants as well as prevent and limit objectives under article 6 of the GWD

3. General considerations Requirement of prevent and limit (no deterioration) and the aim of the WFD to make the purification of drinking water easier are important in order to protect the sources of drinking water: surface and groundwater. For assessing the registered values of pollution at monitoring points, especially relevant for metals and in cases EQS are exceeded, the use of corrections for bioavailability can be useful, especially for prioritisation (based on Risk assessment). Correction formulas and conditions that define their implementation should be harmonised. Bioavailability has no meaning in the realm of prevent and limit under the gwd. International workshop diffuse sources of water pollution, Amsterdam 28/29 mei 2008, conclusions and way forward 3

4. 4 Line of reasoning regarding role MS and that of EU 1. It is beyond discussion that Member States should comply fully with existing directives and that enforcement of national implementation laws is in place. (integration of wfd and other EU and national policies) 2.To be expected from MS: to do nationally what can reasonably be done to solve waterquality problems, within limits of the internal market/level playing field; including exemptions, full implementation of basic and supplementary measures. 3.To be expected from MS: to be internationally active within geographic area river basin management plan.

5. International workshop diffuse sources of water pollution, Amsterdam 28/29 mei 2008, conclusions and way forwar 5 Line of reasoning 2 4.For some substances we suspect after existing arrangements (described under 1-3) will not solve problems with water quality and the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses required under the WFD 5.The remaining problems involve measures to be taken at EU-level, starting with the most important (diffuse) sources. Examples: requirements to control emissions of all installations that emit PAH’s, including domestic fires, stationary or mobile engines, possibly aggravated by biomass applications 6. For some substances, especially PHS like PAH’s and Cadmium, it is extremely unlikely at national and international/EU-level to reach WFD-targets in time: 2027.

6. International workshop diffuse sources of water pollution, Amsterdam 28/29 mei 2008, conclusions and way forward 6 Line of reasoning, 3 7. Member States have to explain asap to the public in river basin management plans: for some PHS reduction of emissions, discharges and losses to zero is very unlikely, even not in 2027, and that sometimes EQS (even for PS) will be exceeded, for reasons beyond control of MS, including uncontrollable natural sources (recital 3 PS Decision) 8.What can be done at the level of the EU, should be done. This should be a combined effort of MS and the EC 9.Phrasing the WFD targets for emission reduction to zero (art. 4. 1 and 16.6) is not commensurate with the reality for MS and the EC to reach these targets and possibly poses legal risks for case based decisions on permits etc.

7. International workshop diffuse sources of water pollution, Amsterdam 28/29 mei 2008, conclusions and way forward 7 Process Present results workshop at next meeting of the EU- Water Directors and working group E in October. Beforehand: discussion with COM and Presidency ( UK, GE, NL) to find out their view on the results and way to proceed with diffuse source policy at EU-level Propose at the meeting of Water Directors the establishment of a working group (EC, MS + AC and Stakeholders) that identifies logical measures at EU- level, including exchange of information from MS and using existing directives. Discussion on desirability and possibility of solving the legal risk of requirements of zero-emisson of PHS should be part of this task.