If we are to move to a sustainable future, we are going to need to reduce significantly the pollution caused by the chemicals society uses. The good news is that across the EU anyhow, changes are afoot to do just that.
Many of the chemicals which essentially enable a modern society to function find their way into our environment. Many public health and environmental bodies are concerned about these chemicals and their impacts on the health on both us humans but also ecosystems generally. Our concerns are driving change, and the EU Commission are looking again at these in the knowledge that existing processes are not adequately protecting the environment and or public health, practically anywhere in Europe according to the reports made by member states with respect to the Water Framework Directive. So something clearly is not working somewhere, and regulatory change is urgently needed.
The EU Commission, just as our UK governments do, understand all too well that European waters are affected by a wide range of significant pressures, including water pollution (by chemicals), historic morphological alterations, and climate change (increased temperatures, water scarcity and floods). The data shows that discharges of pollutants by a wide range of anthropogenic sources including agriculture, road runoff, sewage effluents, households, and manufacturing industries have had detrimental effects on aquatic ecosystems and constitute a cause for concern. To tackle these pressures, a number of the EU water directives and regulations have been implemented and are currently being reviewed or refreshed.
The cornerstone of these is the Water Framework Directive(WFD)which provides the main policy framework for preserving and restoring the quality of European water bodies, laying down a common framework within an integrated planning approach. Our waters are at risk from the chemicals we use as a society as they can affect ecosystems and, in some cases, threaten human health. Therefore under the WFD, complementary Directives have been implemented all of which have the same goal, that of restoring the quality of our rivers, transitional waters and seas to what is called ‘good status’. These include the Environmental Quality Standards Directive(EQSD)(2008/105/EC, as amendedby2013/39/EU)– which establishes the standards which constitute the chemical status criteria for surface waters under the WFD, and the Directive on the protection of Groundwater against pollution and deterioration(GWD)(2006/118/EC, as amended by Commission Directive2014/80/EU). In the UK there are a host of UK Regulations which reflect these controls and standards.
There has also been a significant progress since the1990sthrough the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD)(91/271/EEC),Nitrates Directive(91/676/EEC)and Industrial Emissions Directive(IED) (2010/75/EU) amongst others – for the improvement of bathing, shellfish and freshwater fishery waters. The implementation of these directives has translated into much improved waste water collection and treatment, reduced volumes of industrial effluents and reduced in some areas nitrate pollution from agricultural sources. However, significant surface and ground water quality challenges remain – particularly around man-made chemicals. I think it would be fair to say that we have more than enough legislation in this space, and yet they are clearly not working effectively to protect our environment and public health.
“We need to be more ambitious in setting out controls at source to mitigate pollution, and our politicians need to have the courage to enact the polluter pays and producer responsibility principles to drive market based change – without such action we will fail to meet the needs of future generations.”
There has also been a significant progress since the 1990s in the UK through the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD)(91/271/EEC), Nitrates Directive(91/676/EEC) and Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)(2010/75/EU) amongst others – for the improvement of bathing, shellfish and freshwater fishery waters. The implementation of these directives has translated into much improved waste water collection and treatment, reduced volumes of industrial effluents and reduced in some areas nitrate pollution from agricultural sources. However, significant surface and ground water quality challenges remain – particularly around man-made chemicals. I think it would be fair to say that we have more than enough legislation in this space, and yet they are clearly not working effectively to protect the aquatic environment and the legitimate used we make of it.
To better understand why this is (from an EU perspective anyhow) the Commission’s EU Water Legislation Fitness Check concluded that water legislation comprising the WFD, the EQSD, GWD and the Floods Directive (FD), are broadly fit for purpose. This was hard for many to understand I am sure, particularly in the eNGO community given the very widescale non-compliance reported by the WFD. However, the Commission also identified several needs that are relevant for both surface and groundwater that should be addressed to improve the level of protection of the European aquatic environment. Looking at Surface water first. The addition of further new substances of concern to those we monitor, and control is warranted to ensure a coherent approach to such EU - wide risks is maintained. Similarly some existing Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) thresholds for specific substances need review in the light of better evidence, indeed some substances should now be banned and or controlled at source by bans and product substitutions as they represent too significant a risk in pollution terms.
For groundwater -– several substances identified by the Groundwater Watchlist process need to be better controlled, including the PFAS group, pharmaceuticals and non-relevant metabolites of pesticides as groups of (emerging) pollutants of concern. Some of these also may need monitoring via the Drinking Water Directive (DWD). Again some of these chemicals are now ubiquitous in our environment and have been in use for more than a decade, before we have realised their harmful impacts on the environment or public health.
The fact that after many years of use we register such chemicals indeed ban some after decades of use, simply recognises that man’s ingenuity to produce and introduce for use ever more complex and societally useful chemicals consistently outstrips society’s ability to regulate and control the entry of such substances in to the environment. This is where the key improvements are clearly needed – to stop the introduction of such chemicals, or at the very least short circuit the time taken to discover the harm they are causing.
The good news then is the Commission is well on with its review, recognises many of the failings of the existing system, has good evidence collected, understand the costs and benefits of tightening regulatory standards and the need for real pace in our review processes – all to drive positive change.
Critical will be whether the EU parliament has the political will to control the most polluting substances at source due to the economic impact on the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. This could be done with either mandatory product substitutions and or bans on production / sales, or suitably tight environmental quality controls which drive abatement solutions.
Similarly politicians could choose to use the application of the producer responsibility principle enacted in EU (and now UK legislation through the Environment Act 2021) where the producers of pollution pay for the clear up, such as that urgently needed for single use plastics.
On the subject of plastics, here in the UK we have our private members Bill going through the Westminster Parliament to ban the sale and production of wet wipes, which we know block our sewers and pollute our environment. This Bill as I see it will represent a water shed moment for Government, hopefully the first of a number of new controls at source measures adopted to protect the environment and public health. We should know later this year whether such efficient and effective controls are enabled.
Governments also have economic instruments at their disposal such as the shortly to be introduced plastic packaging tax in the UK which is set at £200 per tonne charge for plastic packaging that doesn’t contain at least 30 percent % recycled content.
With all these tools and regulatory controls at Governments disposal many are now looking forward to the results of the EU review and the new controls and tighter standards expected for the better control of those chemicals most harmful to ecosystems and society. How we transpose these into UK legislation sadly remains opaque, but I am sure will become clearer as we are challenged on this matter by the eNGO community and our trading partners in the EU.
One thing is for sure, we cannot continue to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. We need ever better evidence, and slicker regulatory processes to establish the harm (or not) caused by new and existing chemicals. We need to be more fleet of foot in setting out controls at source to mitigate pollution and we need to have the courage to enact the polluter pays and producer responsibility principles to fund such activity. If we lack the courage for such changes now, the next generation will wonder why we did not act and will not thank us.
