A1 Bathing Water Directive

A1.1      Introduction

The BWD safeguards public health and protects the aquatic environment in coastal and inland areas from pollution. To manage water quality, Member States monitor bathing water during the bathing season. They take samples of bathing water and analyse them to assess the concentrations of two bacteria, E. coli and intestinal enterococci. This has to happen once a month during the bathing season, with a minimum of four samples per season collected at each bathing water site.

Throughout the bathing season, local or national governments publish monitoring results to inform the public about possible health risks when bathing. For all of their bathing water sites, countries also prepare bathing water profiles and ensure they are available to the public. These are descriptions of physical and hydrological conditions, covering a single site or contiguous sites. They also list potential impacts on water quality and potential threats to it. At the end of each bathing season, Member State authorities send their data to the EC and the EEA. Assessment results are then published in national reports, EU reports and interactive viewers, and BWD data viewer.

The number of European bathing water sites varies from year to year, between 21 000 and 22 000. Two-thirds of them are coastal; the remainder are inland, in rivers and lakes. By the end of the 2015 bathing season, all monitored bathing water sites should have reached at least ‘sufficient’ quality. Therefore, those with poor quality will be have to have improvement measures or be closed to bathing.

comments (6)

A1.2      Bathing water quality

Bathing water in Europe continues to be of high quality. The share of bathing water sites meeting the minimum water quality standards (i.e. of at least ‘sufficient’ quality) increased from 92 % in 2010 to 96.1 % in 2015. The proportion assessed as excellent in 2015 reached 84.4 %, an increase of 9.7 percentage points from 2010. Fewer than 2 % of bathing water sites were assessed as being of poor quality (i.e. failing to meet the BWD’s minimum standards) in 2015.

For some sites, quality cannot be assessed because the required number of samples is not available. The number of such sites has significantly decreased over the years. In 2010, 6.5 % could not be assessed; by 2015 this proportion had fallen to 2.3 % of all bathing water sites.

Coastal bathing water sites in the EU

The majority of reported EU coastal bathing water locations are in France, Italy, and Spain. 97.1 % of all coastal waters in the EU achieved the minimum quality standards established by the EU directives.85.8 % of coastal bathing water sites were of excellent quality in 2015.

The proportion of coastal bathing water sites that achieved at least ‘sufficient’ quality (i.e. were compliant with mandatory values) increased from just under 80 % in 1990 to over 96 % in 2003. Since then, it has remained quite stable (Figure A1.1). Minor drop of “at least sufficient” bathing waters happened between 2009 and 2012 as an effect of implementing the revised BWD. The proportion of coastal bathing water sites of excellent quality (compliant with guide values) also increased from 1990 to 2000, before reaching a plateau. For the last five years, the trend has been positive again.

 

Very few coastal bathing water sites (1.6 %) were of poor quality and did not comply with mandatory values. This represents a slight decrease from 2014. It also represents a change in direction from the trend of the previous years, which saw the proportion of poor-quality sites increase between 2010 (1.1 %) and 2013 (1.9 %).

Figure A1.1 Percentage of EU coastal bathing water sites in each compliance category.

Source: EEA (2016).

Inland bathing water sites in the EU

In 2015, Member States monitored more than 6 000 bathing sites on rivers and lakes across Europe. The vast majority (80 %) of inland bathing water locations are on lakes. 93.8 % of inland bathing waters in the EU were of at least sufficient quality in 2015. In 2015, the percentage of inland sites with poor quality dropped to below 2 % for the first time since 1990.

The proportion of inland bathing water sites of excellent quality has been constantly growing (Figure A1.2). In 1995, fewer than 40 % of inland sites were excellent. In 1998, this proportion exceeded 60 %, and it remained more or less stable until 2011. The proportion of inland bathing water sites that achieved excellent quality (i.e. complied with the guide values) has increased significantly from 1995, reaching 81% in 2015.

Figure A1.2 Percentage of EU inland bathing water sites in each compliance category.

Source: EEA (2016).

comments (4)

A1.3      Non-compliant and poor bathing water sites

Bathing water sites that do not comply with monitoring provisions

The BWD contains a number of requirements related to bathing water management and monitoring. The basic monitoring requirements consist of taking a pre-season sample, a minimum of four samples per season and a minimum of one sample per month. These conditions must be met for all reported bathing water sites. Bathing water sites that do not meet the criteria are categorised as 'sampling frequency not satisfied. However, most Member States take more samples than required, to ensure that the results are reliable and minimise any potential risks. Sometimes Member States do not fulfil the monitoring requirements because the sampling starts too late, they do not take not enough samples or sampling is not possible as a result of abnormal situations such as floods or droughts.

In 2015, more than 400 bathing water locations in Europe had insufficient sampling frequencies. Nevertheless, their monitoring data that are available show that many of these non-compliant bathing water sites were of sufficient, good or even excellent quality.

Poor-quality bathing water sites

Many human activities result in water pollution. Pollution gets into the water from many sources and takes many forms. During the 20th century, increased population growth led to increased wastewater production from urban areas and industry, resulting in a marked increase in water pollution. Many years of investment in the sewerage system, combined with better wastewater treatment, have led to Europe’s bathing water being much cleaner today 30 years ago, when large quantities of untreated or partially treated urban and industrial wastewater were discharged into bathing water areas. Nevertheless, there are still some major sources that prevent the quality of some bathing water sites from improving. Faecal contamination is a cause of concern for public health — raw sewage and animal waste are full of bacteria and viruses. Swimming at contaminated beaches or bathing lakes can result in illness.

The major sources of pollution responsible for faecal bacteria in bathing water are:

  • Sewage: bacteria from sewage can enter our waters as a result of system failures or overflows from sewerage works. Insufficiently treated wastewater of this sort finding its way into fresh waters and sea continues to be a pollution problem at some beaches.

  • Farms and farmland: poorly stored slurry or manure from livestock can wash into streams, resulting in the pollution of downstream bathing water. Scattered houses with misconnected drains and poorly located or poorly maintained septic tanks can also cause pollution. Pollution from farmlands and from sewage increases during heavy rain, which washes more pollution into the rivers and seas and can cause sewerage systems to overflow.

  • Animals and birds on or near beaches:  bathing water can be affected by dog, bird and other animal faeces as it often contains high levels of bacteria. Crowded beaches with many swimmers may also result in poor quality, although it helps if people use the toilet and shower before swimming (EEA, 2016).

The highest rates of bathing water sites of poor quality in 2015, with over 3 % of sites were in the United Kingdom (31 sites, 4.9 %), Ireland (six sites, 4.4 %), the Netherlands (24 sites, 3.4 %) and Bulgaria (three sites, 3.2 %).

Member States are encouraged to report reasons for poor water quality at each of these bathing water sites. Ideally, along with reasons, they should report management measures to improve water quality.

Water policy integration

Efficient bathing water management often goes well with implementation of other water policies such as the UWWTD (adequate collection, treatment and discharge of urban wastewater and wastewater from certain industrial sectors) or the WFD (achieving good chemical and ecological water body status). Box A1.1 illustrates an example of how adequate implementation of one policy brought a positive result in implementing another policy and vice versa.

Box A1.1 Successful water policy integration: the case of Ardmore Beach (Ireland)

 Ardmore Beach is a sandy beach on the south coast of Ireland near Ardmore village. During the bathing season, approximately 500 people per day visit the bathing water site. Surfing, body-boarding and kayaking are popular activities, as well as swimming. Besides recreational value, biodiversity on and near the beach is relatively high. Between the beach and the boat harbour, low tide gives access to numerous rock pools, which are home to a variety of plants and animals such as shrimps, crabs, small fish and anemones. There are areas of natural heritage conservation interest both east and west of Ardmore Beach. It includes good examples of coastal dry heather and vegetated sea cliffs (both listed in the Habitats Directive) and is of great ornithological importance. The Blackwater estuary, west of Ardmore Beach, is an internationally important wetland site because of the population of black-tailed godwit it supports.

The bathing water is sampled at least every 30 days. During the 2014 bathing season, southerly tidal and wind conditions interfered with the normal dispersion and dilution of screened sewage from the nearest wastewater treatment plant. As a consequence, bacterial levels in the bathing water rose. To mitigate these, measures were taken at the treatment plant, which included chlorinating the discharged waters during the bathing season. During operational testing, increased chlorine dosage levels were used to reduce the amount of faecal organisms in the bathing water. Samples taken after the application confirmed that bacterial levels were lower, allowing the bathing water advisory notice to be removed.

Screening and chlorination of sewage discharge during bathing season mitigated bacterial levels. The national authorities also plan to build a new treatment plant.

 

comments (2)

A1.4      Country comparison

There is a huge diversity of beaches within Europe, be it on the warm Mediterranean Sea or the colder Baltic Sea and North Atlantic Ocean. Lakes and rivers also have a great variety of bathing locations. The geographical coverage for the whole bathing water dataset is wide and relatively dense, with sampling points on marine, transitional and fresh waters throughout the continent.

Every country has its own specifics when implementing the BWD and managing bathing water. These depend on physical characteristics as well as economic, political and social constraints. Nevertheless, all Member States are putting an effort into improving the quality of bathing water and providing up-to-date information to the public about monitoring results, potential risks and other issues. Many of them face problems that affect bathing water quality. Such problems can result from natural phenomena such as floods and droughts, as well as human activities (e.g. pollution from sewage and water draining from farms and farmland).

All Member States had started implementing the revised BWD by 2012, some of them already in 2007. Albania and Switzerland, non-Member States, also report their data on bathing water quality to the EC and EEA.

The EEA bathing water viewer (http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/interactive/bathing/state-of-bathing-waters) shows results in more detail. In 2015 Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Malta reported that at least 90 % of bathing water sites were of excellent quality. In spite of these good results, even these countries also had some poor quality sites. For example, there were 5 in Germany (0.2 %) and 95 in Italy (1.7%).

 

comments (0)

A1.5      Short-term pollution and abnormal situations

When the cause of pollution is clearly identifiable, it is normally expected to affect the bathing water quality for not more than approximately three days (EC, 2006). This can be reported as ‘short-term pollution’. The competent authorities should have established procedures to predict and deal with consequences of such events.

In 2015, 722 short-term pollution events were reported at 587 bathing water sites. This is a decrease compared to 739 (at 608 sites) in 2014. The countries that reported the largest numbers of short-term pollution events were Italy (156 sites, 2.9 % of e total in Italy), France (115, 3.4 % of all in France), and Spain (114, 5.2 %).

Short-term pollution is clearly distinguished from the general poor quality of some bathing water sites. If bathing water is classified as ‘poor’ for five consecutive years, bathing is banned permanently or permanent advice against bathing is introduced.

Abnormal situation is an event or combination of events impacting on bathing water quality at the location concerned and not expected to occur on average more than once every four year (EC, 2006).  An example of such situation is central European flood which affected several bathing waters during 2016 bathing season. Extreme floods took place in central Europe in late May and early June 2013. The floods primarily affected regions along the Elbe and Danube rivers. The flooding affected bathing water sites in the region, as well as the monitoring and management of water quality. During the 2013 season, 313 abnormal situations caused by flooding were reported to affect European bathing water sites. At least 223 of them can be attributed to the central European floods. Monitoring could take place after the floods and adequate quality assessment samples were available for some affected bathing water sites.

 

comments (4)

A1.6      Measures to improve bathing water quality

The BWD requires large-scale measures to manage bathing water sites of persistently poor quality. It strongly encourages Member States to introduce management measures to improve quality to at least sufficient, or even good and excellent, status.

When unexpected or uncontrollable conditions occur (heavy rain, sewage spills, hazardous waste spills, floods, etc.), Member States must impose temporary management measures. Such measures can include informing the public, effective modelling and warning system, prohibiting bathing, and various measures to prevent, reduce or eliminate causes of pollution. They might temporarily close bathing water that requires such measures, for part or all of the bathing season.

To improve water quality and safeguard public health, Member States are also implementing long-term management measures. These include building adequate wastewater treatment plants, limiting pollution from agriculture, surveillance, early warning systems and other measures taken as part of river basin management planning under the WFD (see also Chapter 3).

Management measures are primarily implemented at those bathing water sites that have only sufficient or poor water quality. Such measures can include reducing sewer overflows, construction of wastewater treatment plant, reducing the pollution from farms and farmland and measures to restrict the number of animals (in case when bathing water is affected by large number of resting birds or dogs) (EEA, 2016).

Between 2014 and 2015, 125 bathing water sites changed status from poor to sufficient or better (Figure A1.3). However, in the same period, 76 sites changed their status from ‘sufficient quality’ or better to ‘poor quality’.

Figure A1.3 Improvements and deteriorations in bathing water quality.

Source: EEA (2016).

 

Box A1.2 Measures to reduce diffuse water pollution from agricultural and urban sources in the United Kingdom

Authorities in the United Kingdom are working with farmers and others to develop measures to reduce diffuse water pollution from agricultural and urban sources, and to provide information and advice to achieve the goals of the BWD and WFD. Different mechanisms are used in different parts of the United Kingdom:

In England, the Environment Agency collects evidence of diffuse pollution from agriculture. The Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) uses this to implement measures in the water bodies where they will deliver the greatest benefit. A key project in this programme is Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF), which provides advice and capital grants to reduce diffuse pollution from agriculture.

In Wales, the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 provides a framework for implementing sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) for new developments. The works planned by Schedule 3 of this act are under way in 2016. Besides, following consultation early in the year, voluntary standards and guidance for the construction of SuDS for new developments were published in December 2015. The Natural Resources Wales continues to undertake investigations to identify sources of contamination where they effect bathing water quality.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is working with land managers, organising events and workshops to raise awareness and discuss actions. The Scotland Rural Development Programme 2014–2020 also offers funding to land managers towards the cost of certain measures to reduce diffuse pollution.

In Northern Ireland, 12 000 farmers are participating in agri-environment schemes involving over 450 000 hectares of land. The Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme manages the projects. Countryside Management Scheme (NICMS) participants must prepare and implement a plan for managing farm nutrients and waste.


comments (4)

A1.7      Information dissemination

For all of their bathing water sites, countries prepare descriptions of physical and hydrological conditions and ensure they are available to the public. Member States are obliged to encourage participation by the public concerned. They must provide information on how to participate and guidance on formulating suggestions, remarks or complaints. This particularly relates to setting up, reviewing and updating lists of bathing water sites. Competent authorities should take due account of any information obtained. Bathing water authorities must provide information that becomes available during the bathing season actively and promptly to the public concerned, in an easily accessible place near each bathing area. Short-term pollution should also be noted, along with its reasons and expected duration, as well as notes on similar events in previous bathing seasons. If permanent advice against bathing is introduced, the area must be removed from the list of bathing water sites. All this information is also reported to the EC and the EEA, so the reports can give a comprehensive European overview each year. The reports give adequate up-to-date information on how effectively the BWD is implemented.

Besides national reports, Member States also use the media, including the internet, to disseminate information about bathing waters. To provide comprehensive information to the public, all Member States have established national or local websites. Most of them have linked web pages for individual bathing sites. These web pages generally include a map search function and allow public access to the monitoring results, both in real time and for previous seasons, as well as additional descriptions of water quality, management measures and legislative backgrounds. Other ways of disseminating information about bathing water quality include press conferences before the bathing season, public information broadcasts on television and especially local radio, and printed leaflets for people who do not use digital media.

comments (0)