Belgium plans to move forward a proposal to increase the number of water pollutants subject to strict concentration limits, to include PFAS 'forever chemicals' and dozens of others, the EU Council presidency holder has said amid calls from civil society and industry.
ADVERTISEMENTEnvironmental campaigners have called on Belgian environment minister Zakia Khattabi to push for a deal on rules for Europe-wide monitoring of ‘forever chemicals’ PFAS and two dozen other harmful substances, after the incoming EU Council presidency omitted the issue from its programme.
In October 2022 the European Commission proposed the first update in nearly a decade to a watch list of pollutants that affect surface and groundwater across Europe, which are subject to mandatory monitoring and legal limits, adding the plastic additive BPA, certain agricultural chemicals including the herbicide glyphosate, as well as a range of pharmaceuticals including antibiotics, among 25 new priority substances.
But although the European Parliament adopted a position on the proposal last September – calling for even tighter maximum concentration limits, or ‘environmental quality standard’, for chemicals such as the herbicide glyphosate – governments have yet to find common ground ahead of negotiations with MEPs.
The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), a Brussels-based NGO umbrella group, warned on Monday (8 January) that “several critical pollutants go un-surveyed” at present, including the group of chemicals that have been the centre of concern in Belgium, with revelations of PFAS pollution in both the northern Flanders region, and, more recently, Wallonia.
“Recent revelations of PFAS-polluted water, in Belgium, but also elsewhere in the EU, show the urgent need to improve monitoring and regulations of water pollutants to protect human and environmental health,” EEB Secretary-General Patrick ten Brink wrote to Khattabi and other Belgian government officials.
The EU’s own watchdog, the European Environment Agency, reports that less than a third of rivers and lakes across the bloc meet current criteria for ‘good chemical status’, despite a 2027 final deadline under the Water Framework Directive, which dates back to the turn of the millennium.
“This risks delaying the action on tackling water pollution even more, which is something we cannot afford,” ten Brink said of the delay in the EU Council. The presidency declined to comment on the letter, but an official told Euronews that Belgium would “definitely work on the proposal” during its six-months chairing inter-governmental negotiations.
Conservationists are not alone in criticising the parlous state of Europe’s rivers, lakes and groundwater. The consistent failure of governments to meet pollution limits is also a bugbear for water utilities, who must remove them when purifying drinking water. The trade association Eureau supports the proposal to extend the priority list, and welcomed the European Parliament’s call to make polluters cover the additional costs.
EurEau policy advisor Sébastien Mouret also shared the EEB’s concern that any further delay could put in doubt the adoption the new pollution limits before EU countries start working in 2025 on new river basin management plans, which must be updated every six years.
“We agree with the EEB that control at source should come first when seeking to reduce pollution, and that the Council should align its position with that of the [parliament],” Mouret told Euronews, referring to the proposal for extended producer responsibility provisions. It is also essential that persistent, mobile, toxic and bio-accumulative substances are all classified as priority hazardous substances, he added. “Doing this will protect the environment, human and animal health, and help keep our water services affordable for everyone.”
The European Commission is expected to publish in March a ‘water resilience’ initiative in response to increasing periods of drought linked to climate change. Environment commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius told MEPs in October that widespread pollution meant an “enormous reduction in the quantity of water that is fit for use” and that support for the extended list of water pollutants, as well as a proposed reform of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, were “fundamental” to tackling the problem.
