I am accompanied by three colleagues from the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Mr. Pat Duggan, Mr. David Moore and Mr. Gerry Flannery. Dr. Micheál Lehane from the Environmental Protection Agency and Dr. Batt Masterson from University College Dublin are also present. With the permission of the Chair, I wish to give a general outline of the proposed new directive. We will be happy to answer any questions or enter into any discussions members might like to pursue.
There is a proposal from the European Commission for a new directive on bathing waters. It aims to update and replace the management regime for bathing waters which is contained in a directive from 1976. This is more than 25 years old and there are weaknesses perceived in it which need revision. The 1976 directive is regarded as somewhat static in regard to bathing water quality management. It is also considered that the parameters by which the quality of water is measured could be improved, particularly in focusing more clearly on providing a more accurate parameter for protecting public health. Another element in the revision of the directive is to take into account legislation developed in the EU since 1976. There have been several other directives on water quality adopted since then. It aims to fit the bathing water regime into the general scheme of things with other directives. Two other aspects of the new directive are that it aims to provide better information to the public and involve a broader range of stakeholders, including public authorities, in water quality management in bathing areas.
The criteria by which water quality will be measured are being reduced by a total of 19 parameters in the existing directive, which ranged from health related ones to aesthetic ones, such as colour and litter floating on the water. The new directive focuses specifically on two criteria. Micro-organisms relate specifically to public health. In the first instance that focuses much more specifically and definitively on the public health aspect of it and on the other broader elements. It also takes into account that there is now under a separate directive, the water framework directive, a requirement on all member states to monitor all coastal waters, irrespective of whether they are bathing waters.
The water framework directive, which was adopted in the year 2000 and is gradually being implemented on a phased basis with a specific timetable, addresses all water, be it inland water, coastal water, estuaries or ground water. All are covered. They knit together more neatly that way.
On the management of beaches, a feature of the existing directive is that local authorities are required to monitor water on a regular basis every two weeks by sampling and testing it. The test shows whether the water complies with the set standards. If one does not comply, one does not comply and that is more or less it. Obviously, there is an onus to do something about it, but it is black and white in that one either complies or not with particular parameters.
Under the new regime, the focus is on a much more active approach to beach management. In the first instance, one is required to develop what is called a beach profile for the management authority, which in our case would be the county councils. This profile would include a comprehensive description of the beach, of the features of the beach, the type of beach water, the different pressures and impacts on the area and the different types of use, such as the usual recreational use and general frequency of customers of the beach. It is a whole beach profile so that one will know the danger points and the pattern of compliance. It also gives a template for managing the beach.
Under the three criteria in the proposed directive, water would be classified as either poor - which is basically failing - good or excellent. If all the necessary monitoring is carried out and the water is good, one is in conformity with the directive. If all the monitoring is carried out and the results come in as poor, one is not in breach of the directive immediately. One is required to click into place the necessary management measures to bring the waters up to good status within three years. That is a different, much more active approach, and the beach profile, as initially set out, must be regularly updated. The approach in the proposed directive is one of continuing active management of beaches and bathing waters. It also gives flexibility, even in the case of a poor status result, to respond quickly and to maintain conformity with the directive, even though one may hit an occasional poor quality result for whatever exceptional reason.
Those are the main items I wanted to highlight. The directive as we have it is as proposed by the European Commission. It has been under active debate within the European institutions since it was presented by the Commission. A number of issues of concern to different member states have been raised. To be adopted the directive will have to be agreed jointly by the Council of Ministers and by the European Parliament. The Parliament has not considered it yet so we do not know what its view of it may be. The proposed directive is in ongoing discussion in a working party of the Council.
Regarding the impact of the proposed quality standards for water, they are not 100% clear and do not relate directly to the old standards. There is no table where the new standards correspond exactly to the old ones. A certain amount of research is required to be able to see precisely how the new standards will affect our performance levels. Will it mean we will have more or fewer beaches meeting the quality standards? Research is being carried out for the Department by the Environmental Protection Agency and University College Dublin. The first results indicate that the standards proposed in the directive would involve a reduction in our level of compliance. In other words, the number of beaches that would meet the proposed standards is less than the number of beaches that meet the existing standards. That is the first broad brush results of the research. We have to go into those more deeply and examine each site. That work is ongoing.