SAS Discussion Document 3. The Revision of the EC Bathing Water Directive

EVERYONE NEEDS PROTECTING
Surfers Against Sewage campaign on behalf of everyone enjoying leisure activities which bring them into direct contact with either marine or fresh water. Sewage contaminated water presents a hazard to human health. It is unacceptable in these times, with all the new technology and the wealth of knowledge and information now readily available, that anyone should still be at risk from infection emanating from this source.
As the water environment becomes increasingly accessible to all sectors of the population (as a consequence of the wide availability of equipment, information, courses, holidays, centres and resorts all catering for the novice through to the professional), it is essential that this growing sector is acknowledged in the relevant legislation.
Revision of the 1976 Bathing Water Directive is now commencing. It is commonly accepted that the Directive is flawed and in need of updating. As an organisation campaigning for a clean, safe water environment where people can enjoy themselves without risk to health, SAS have some very clear hopes for the new legislation. We believe that if these are not taken on board, the Directive will fail to fulfil its purpose.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR CITIZENS
In the UK alone over 20 million people partake in leisure activities in and around the water, each year. Expand this up to cover the whole of the European Union and you are looking at a very significant number of European citizens.

This is important for two main reasons:
1. Firstly it is the responsibility of the EU member states, to protect all citizens through interpretation of the legislation. Therefore acknowledging that this group of people exists and that the group is expanding (which cannot be ignored) begs the questions; 'Are they and their interests being looked after?'
'Is their quality of life degraded or enhanced by their natural environment?'

2. Secondly, tourism and leisure play a major part in the economy of many EU member states, particularly the ones with an extensive coastline. Residents and visitors alike are encouraged to enjoy the aquatic environment, to participate in leisure activities that bring them into direct contact with the water. States actively promoting their aquatic environment for recreation are only acting responsibly if they can be sure that the resource they are promoting is not going to harm the citizens.

Crucial revenue is earned from public spending on leisure pursuits, both at a regional and national level, it is essential however that we consider whether this is sustainable. We must be careful that we do not destroy the resource or manage the resource and the citizens enjoying that resource as two separate entities. There must be a strong link between the two and this must be acknowledged in the legislation.
The UK Governments' document 'The Health of the Nation' outlines a strategy that is designed to benefit the nation as a whole. The Government acknowledges the value and importance of the environment in terms of the populations' quality of life and general well-being. This obvious impact of the environment on the well-being of the population cannot be ignored by the Commission.
The document also highlights the importance of physical activity in reducing obesity and in preventing Coronary Heart Disease. "Physical activity not only contributes to the prevention and management of overweight and obesity but also affords direct protection against CHD".
Citizens are actively encouraged through schemes and Government initiatives to become more active, to get out and participate in leisure activities - there are benefits to the nation as a whole, as a result.
The cost reduction of time lost from work due to illness contracted from poor quality water as well as a reduction in medical costs of treatment are two such benefits.
Another point to note is the fact that there is a constant battle to reduce crime figures, particularly in inner city and wider urban areas. Much 'petty crime' such as burglary and theft is attributed to the fact that the 'youth' are bored and have nothing to occupy their time. Surely this is further reason to look to the natural environment. It would not be fair or responsible however to promote this natural environment if it was known to present a potential health risk.

THE 1976 BATHING WATER DIRECTIVE
The need for revision. As it stands the BWD is designed to protect the health of bathers. This was the original remit of the Directive when it was introduced over 20 years ago. Over the years, developments in science have revealed a number of flaws in the Directive, for example questions have been raised over the relevance of the microbiological standards designed to protect public health. With emerging scientific evidence of health risks, the need for a revision has become more urgent and more actively encouraged.
In addition to this scientific evidence there is also public opinion to consider. The state of our aquatic environment is high on the publics' agenda. In a 1996 Department of the Environment Survey entitled 'Survey of Public Attitudes to the Environment', bathing water quality and sewage contamination of beaches was found to be the second greatest issue of public concern. Awareness of the risks is high and this must be acknowledged by the Directive. To not take public opinion into account would be a serious omission on the Commissions part.

WHAT DO SAS WANT TO SEE IN THE REVISED DIRECTIVE?
1. A Broadening of the concept of 'bathing waters'
2. Standards that protect public health
3. A more informative approach
4. Acknowledgement of the fact that waters are used all year round

1. Broadening the concept of 'bathing waters'
At the present time the standards set in the Bathing Water Directive apply to bodies of water that have been identified because bathing is traditionally practised by a significant number of bathers. It is recognised that the health of these bathers must be protected.
However SAS are concerned that there are many members of the public, citizens of member states, who come into direct contact with the water but who do not participate in 'bathing' (as the word is traditionally interpreted).
Many of these citizens will go in the water all year round and for prolonged periods of time. The wetsuit has meant that the 'chill factor' is no longer an issue, one can stay comfortably in the water for a number of hours. Wetsuits are no longer just owned by dedicated water sports enthusiasts, their wide availability and affordability has meant that most people can have access to them. In conjunction with this, watersports equipment is readily available, both for hire and for purchase. Most people will therefore get the chance to try out a watersport whilst on holiday, through a tuition course or as part of a school activity week, if not on their own.
The question has to be asked, are these citizens only going in the water at designated 'bathing waters'?
Certainly a significant percentage of water users of all types will use designated waters, but there are other bodies of water recognised for conditions that are conducive to specific recreational activities. For example surfers obviously need a wave to surf. There are 'surf breaks' that are heavily utilised such as the wave at Porthleven in Cornwall, which would never be used by bathers. Under the current Directive this water would never be designated, despite its' popularity with surfers. The wave breaks straight onto a rock platform, there is no sand at all, but the wave is one of the best in the UK and surfers travel from all over the UK just to surf it.
SAS feel that this is the case for many other water sports and ask whether the Commission can afford not to take these citizens into account.
SAS are not suggesting that a new category of water body be created specifically for recreational water activities. What we would like to see is the term 'bathers' expanded to cover anyone coming into direct contact with the water.
Under this scheme it would still be up to a member state to collate information on patterns and intensity of water usage and to identify waters for designation. But by incorporating the concept into the Directive, at least the legislation will be acknowledging a significant body of European citizens.
SAS hope that member states will realise the potential advantages that this could have in terms of further protecting the health of their citizens and also in terms of generating income. As the Directive has a European remit, competition would occur between member states, which would drive the designations in.
If for example, citizens who participate in windsurfing can visit a resort that not only has the ideal conditions for their sport but also has clean, safe water, the tendency will be for them to sway towards that resort and avoid those which may have the conditions but may not have proven clean water.

It would still be up to the individual to decide where they wish to practise their sport, but at least it would open up the options. This is of particular importance for parents who want to take every measure to ensure that their children are safe.
There is an obvious need for data and information collation in order to identify relevant bodies of water. SAS are working to identify a set number of heavily utilised areas in each sport, those spots where it is widely recognised that activities other than bathing are taking place. For each water contact sport a list of the most popular spots must be made.
SAS believe that this essential exercise will also serve to allay some of the Water Industry's fears about the cost implications of SAS's proposal to broaden the concept of 'bathing waters'. The UK Water Industry recently embarked on a 5 year Environmental Programme which is designed to improve water quality all around the UK. This programme will not simply affect designated 'bathing waters' in isolation, it will have much wider implications.
To illustrate this point an example is needed. The Carrick Roads in Cornwall is an intensively used body of water. Windsurfing, sailing, kayaking,diving, surfing and water-skiing are frequently practised here, year round. People are able to hire equipment and take lessons through facilities designed to cater specifically for the water sport enthusiast. The area is renowed and promoted as a haven for water contact recreation. This is the type of water SAS would like to see recognised under the revised Directive. The good news is that under the aforementioned Environmental Programme, all the Water Industry point source sewage discharges that go into the Carrick Roads, will be fully treated. The work has already been agreed, the cost implication of designating this body of water would be zero, as far as sewage treatment is concerned.
SAS believe that this is the case in many other areas. Take the example of the popular surfing beaches of Cornborough and Abbotsham. Neither are designated bathing waters, yet both are heavily utilised by surfers, year round. In close proximity to both of these beaches is Westward Ho! a designated bathing water, recognised under the Directive because of it's popularity with bathers. A sewage treatment scheme for the area has been agreed and once planning problems are overcome, a full treatment works will be built. This will not only have a beneficial effect on water quality at Westward Ho! it will also improve the water quality at both Abbotsham and Cornborough. Surely further candidates for designation if the concept of bathing waters was broadened.
SAS feel that initially it is important to look at waters such as these, waters which are being actively promoted for the specific purpose of water contact sports but for which no European legislation exists to protect the health of the citizens using that resource.
By identifying water bodies for designation, under the provision that they are used by a significant number of people in direct contact with the water, those waters that are heavily used but which are not designated will become increasingly apparent. This will inevitably have a negative effect in financial terms for regions where waters are not designated and should (if looked at objectively) serve to initiate a one off investment in adequate sewage treatment (if the work has not already been done) to bring about long term gain!

2. The standards
In our opinion the current standards set in the Directive need to be streamlined and made more relevant. In particular the microbiological standards that are set in the Directive need to be reviewed and updated.
There is general agreement amongst epidemiological scientists, that the indicator organisms currently used to determine the presence or absence of pathogens found in sewage, are not as representative as was first thought. The search for a more relevant suite of indicator bacteria continues. In order to protect public health it is obviously vital that the standards used are both relevant and also set at an appropriate level.
SAS believe that there should be one standard only. That standard should be adequate to protect public health. The Commission have talked about standards having the greatest possible alignment with WHO guidelines, SAS would agree that this is certainly worth considering.
By moving to one standard only, much of the confusion that currently exists over the state of our bathing waters will be removed, it will become much clearer for the general public, who are ultimately the people this Directive is trying to protect. This would also make the UK's Seaside Award redundant, which would further clarify the situation for the public in Great Britain.
With regards to the flag schemes, SAS would like to see the Commission take control of the award system that is currently in place for bathing waters. It is commonly assumed that Blue Flags are distributed by the Commission and that the Blue Flag Award represents the same water quality standards Europe wide. This in fact is not the case. SAS feel that the revised Directive should incorporate an Award scheme with an holistic approach.
In the light of the current situation, with research overtaking the legislation and highlighting the inadequacies of the standards within the Directive, it would seem appropriate that the revision should also provide for continuous update and adaptation of the Directive as the need arises. This would mean that if further developments in science revealed for example that standards needed to be made even tighter, this could be done without revising the whole Directive.

3. The more accessible the information the better The Bathing Water Directive as it currently stands is not particularly interactive, i.e. it is a Directive that specifies standards to be met but little effort is made to use the information gathered to benefit citizens directly, in real time. Figures are collated and then the public are informed as to the standards of the various designated bathing beaches.
SAS feel that much more use could be made of all the information that is gathered over the bathing season, a view apparently shared by the Commission. At a Forum held in Brussels in May, Commissioner for the Environment Margot Wallstrom indicated that real time information would be made available to the general public, possibly via the internet.
In addition to this information which could be accessed without actually having to go to a bathing beach, SAS also feel that it is necessary to provide information on location at each of the bathing waters, to highlight all the potential inputs of faecal contamination into the water. Outfalls, CSO's, riverine inputs, small private discharges should all be mapped. This would also appear to be in line with the Commission's way of thinking.
In order for the Bathing Water Directive to fulfil its potential and be of maximum benefit to EU citizens, it makes sense to try and gain as much knowledge of the local environment as possible. This information should be presented in a user-friendly format to gain a clear overall picture of each individual bathing water. Only this way will the general public be able to make an informed choice about where they go in the water.
By monitoring and recording the levels of faecal contamination under all environmental conditions, mapping the various inputs that may affect bathing water quality and establishing the relative significance of each of these inputs, a clear picture will emerge. This will allow for a much more predictive approach than is currently in place.

4. It must be acknowledged that citizens use the water environment all year round.

At the present time, monitoring of bathing waters only takes place during the official bathing season. With less emphasis being placed on monitoring and more on bathing water management and the predictive approach, it becomes entirely feasible for protection to extend year round. Information and warning signs could still be posted during the 'off peak' season, so as to warn of potential hazards.
This would serve to open up the season, with significant implications for the tourist industry.
As more people holiday abroad, the UK tourist industry is losing out. On the positive side, something can be done about it as at present we are failing to make the best of a very valuable resource - our water environment.
Watersports holidays are extremely popular, but taking this type of holiday abroad, is expensive (Martitime Leisure Research Group). Watersports holiday's in the UK are cheaper, so potentially, UK residents could be encouraged to take activity holidays here, year round.

Conclusion
In summary SAS hope to see a revised Directive that will not only enable the general public to make informed choices about the bathing waters they visit, but also ensure that the health of all European citizens participating in water contact sports, is adequately protected. We now have the opportunity to re-write the 1976 Directive, taking into account not only the developments in science and technology but also changes in the habits and lifestyles of the population as a whole.
This revision should not be viewed negatively or in the short term. Europe must look to the future and towards long term benefit and gain. We cannot afford to ignore public opinion. To do that would not only be neglecting the rights of citizens to protection but would also have a negative impact in the future.
As public awareness increases worldwide the general public will choose holiday destinations in those countries where they can be assured of a clean, safe water environment and this could have a serious impact on the economy of the whole of Europe.

If the revision is progressed in a manner that takes all the current issues into account, the benefits for Europe as a whole will be tremendous.
Vicky Garner SAS Campaign Manager
19/09/00 (last updated).

For more information about the demo please call Vicky Garner on (0845) 458 3001 or email them at info@sas.org.uk