DOCSLIB.ORG

'Better Regulation': European Union Style

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
'Better Regulation': European Union Style ‘Better Regulation’: European Union Style Elizabeth Golberg September 2018 M-RCBG Associate Working Paper Series | No. 98 The views expressed in the M-RCBG Associate Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government or of Harvard University. The papers in this series have not undergone formal review and approval; they are presented to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government Weil Hall | Harvard Kennedy School | www.hks.harvard.edu/mrcbg [Type here] ‘Better Regulation’: European Union Style Elizabeth Golberg Senior Fellow Mossavar -Rahmani Centre for Business and Government Harvard Kennedy School Contents I. The analytical framework ............................................................................................................. 5 II. EU Regulatory Policy – context and drivers ............................................................................ 9 2.1 Setting the scene – ‘Better Regulation’ and EU Governance ................................................ 9 2.2. What prompted the drive for ‘Better Regulation’ at the European Commission? ............. 16 2.3 ‘Better Regulation’ – the Commission’s response ............................................................... 18 III. ‘Better Regulation’: the European Commission’s regulatory policy and tools .................. 22 3.1 The regulatory policy tools .................................................................................................. 23 IV. Is the system complete? Does it cover the most significant proposals? ............................. 30 4.1 The system ............................................................................................................................ 30 4.2 Outputs ................................................................................................................................. 30 4.3 Is the system proportionate, covering the most significant proposals? ................................ 31 V. How does the European Commission system compare to its American counterpart? .............. 34 VI. Does the system work well? Is it effective? ............................................................................. 38 6.1 How to assess effectiveness? ................................................................................................ 38 6.2 The ‘quality’ of the ‘Better Regulation’ products - the views of ‘scrutiny bodies’ ............. 39 6.3 ‘Better Regulation’ – facilitating legislative discussions? Improving implementation? ..... 44 6.4 Has ‘Better Regulation’ reduced costs and unnecessary regulatory burdens? ..................... 47 VII. Are the ‘Better Regulation’ outputs relevant? ..................................................................... 52 7.1 Were ‘Better Regulation’ tools a useful and relevant support in decision-making? ....... 52 7.2 Were the ‘Better Regulation’ efforts relevant to stakeholders? ........................................... 55 VIII. Weighing up the evidence ............................................................................................... 58 8.1 Observations ......................................................................................................................... 58 8.2 So why are there continued calls for a change in approach? ........................................... 61 IX. Would other approaches work better? .................................................................................... 63 9.1 Member State experience in target setting and regulatory budgeting .................................. 63 9.2 Are targets and regulatory budgeting feasible at EU level? ................................................. 68 X. Reflections on future orientations ............................................................................................. 70 Annex I Case studies – the analytical framework .......................................................................... 74 Annex II Case Study – the “Roaming” Regulation ........................................................................ 75 1. The policy and legal context 2006 – 2017 .......................................................................... 75 2. ‘Better Regulation’ actions .................................................................................................. 77 3. The effectiveness of ‘Better Regulation’ instruments ......................................................... 79 1 3.1 Meeting quality standards ................................................................................................ 79 3.2 Facilitating adoption and reducing potential implementation difficulties ................... 82 4. Did ‘Better Regulation’ make a difference? ....................................................................... 82 4.1 To policy outcomes? ........................................................................................................ 82 4.2 To policy-making? ........................................................................................................... 82 5. Observations ........................................................................................................................ 83 Annex III Case Study – Air Quality Legislation ............................................................................ 85 1. The policy and legal context ............................................................................................... 85 2. ‘Better Regulation’ actions .................................................................................................. 86 3. The effectiveness of ‘Better Regulation’ instruments ......................................................... 88 3.1 Meeting quality standards ................................................................................................ 88 3.2 Facilitating adoption and reducing potential implementation difficulties ....................... 88 4. Did ‘Better Regulation’ make a difference? ....................................................................... 89 4.1. In contributing to the achievement of policy goals and outcomes? ................................ 89 4.2 In contributing to better policy-making? .......................................................................... 90 5. Observations ........................................................................................................................ 90 Annex IV Case Study – Climate Change Policy ............................................................................ 91 1. The policy and legal context 2005 – 2017 .......................................................................... 91 2. ‘Better Regulation’ actions .................................................................................................. 92 3. The effectiveness of ‘Better Regulation’ instruments ......................................................... 94 3.1 Meeting quality standards ................................................................................................ 94 3.2 Facilitating adoption and reducing potential implementation difficulties ....................... 94 4. Did ‘Better Regulation’ make a difference? ....................................................................... 95 4.1. In contributing to better outcomes? ............................................................................. 95 4.2 In contributing to better policy-making? .......................................................................... 96 5. Observations ........................................................................................................................ 96 References ...................................................................................................................................... 98 2 ‘Better Regulation’: European Union Style The European Union is often criticised for producing too many – sometimes badly written - laws which interfere too much with the lives of citizens and business in areas better regulated at national or local level.1 Red tape and bureaucracy are seen as major failings of the EU.2 The European Commission, as the European Union executive, has responded to this criticism by giving priority to regulatory policy, termed ‘Better Regulation’. Using strategic planning, impact assessment, consultation and evaluation as its main tools, ‘Better Regulation’ aims to prepare and adapt EU policy and legislation in knowledge of its expected economic, environmental and social impacts, avoiding unnecessary burdens and red tape for citizens, businesses and public authorities. The assessment of regulation from the design phase to implementation, with public consultation throughout the process, has become systematic. Despite these efforts, EU Member States, business and a broad section of the public continue to express dissatisfaction with the volume and quality of legislation. The Member States and business groups call for reduction targets and regulatory budgeting schemes to contain the volume (and hence the costs) of legislation.3 Most recently, for example, the coalition agreement which forms the policy platform of the German government has called for the European Union to launch a ‘one in/one out’ scheme of regulatory budgeting.4 This raises questions about the European
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Brief Guide to the European Union and Its Legislative Processes
    A BRIEF GUIDE TO THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES June 2011 Contents List of acronyms used in this document....................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 What is the European Union (EU)?...........................................................................................5 1.2 The Development of the EU through the Treaties.....................................................................8 1.3 Objectives of the EU ...............................................................................................................10 2. The EU Institutions ............................................................................................................................ 11 2.1 The European Commission (the Commission)........................................................................11 2.1.1 The Commission's main tasks ...................................................................................12 2.1.2 Plan for improving the regulatory environment ........................................................12 2.2 The European Parliament (EP)................................................................................................12 2.2.1 The EP's principal roles.............................................................................................14 2.3 The Council of the EU (
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Drafting at the European Commission: Documentation
    LEGAL DRAFTING AT THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION: DOCUMENTATION Mr. William Robinson Coordinator in the Legal Revisers Group European Commission's Legal Service Contents Page Outline 1 Rules on drafting 2 Model act with notes: Commission Regulation 3 OUTLINE Introduction: Drafting of EC legislation •Official languages •EC legislation •Drafting in the European Commission Multilingual drafting in the European Commission •Community legislative acts shall be drafted clearly, simply and precisely. •Consistent terminology •Provisions of acts shall be concise. Respect the principle of multilingualism •Use direct forms •Avoid short cuts •Keep the sentence structure simple •Mind your grammar •Choose your words with care •Solutions to drafting problems must work in all the languages. Training of European Commission drafters •Functions of revisers •Qualifications •Basic rulebook Practical training •Teamwork •‘Apprenticeship’ •Supervision •Consolidating best practices Formal training •Introductory courses for drafters •Legal Service courses and other Commission courses •Seminars on quality of legislation •Other sources of expertise Background Documentation Mr Robinson-for repro.doc RULES RELEVANT TO THE DRAFTING OF LEGAL ACTS Declaration No 39 on the quality of the drafting of Community legislation, adopted by the Intergovernmental Conference in Amsterdam on 2 October 1997 (OJ C 340, 10.11.1997, p. 139) Interinstitutional Agreement of 22 December 1998 on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation (OJ C 73, 17.3.1999, p. 1) Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2003 on better law-making (OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p. 1) Joint Practical Guide signed on 16 March 2000 Accessible from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/techleg/index.htm Interinstitutional Style Guide http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-000100.htm CODIFICATION AND RECASTING Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 on an accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p.
    [Show full text]
  • POLL RESULTS: Congressional Bipartisanship Nationwide and in Battleground States
    POLL RESULTS: Congressional Bipartisanship Nationwide and in Battleground States 1 Voters think Congress is dysfunctional and reject the suggestion that it is effective. Please indicate whether you think this word or phrase describes the United States Congress, or not. Nationwide Battleground Nationwide Independents Battleground Independents Dysfunctional 60 60 61 64 Broken 56 58 58 60 Ineffective 54 54 55 56 Gridlocked 50 48 52 50 Partisan 42 37 40 33 0 Bipartisan 7 8 7 8 Has America's best 3 2 3 interests at heart 3 Functioning 2 2 2 3 Effective 2 2 2 3 2 Political frustrations center around politicians’ inability to collaborate in a productive way. Which of these problems frustrates you the most? Nationwide Battleground Nationwide Independents Battleground Independents Politicians can’t work together to get things done anymore. 41 37 41 39 Career politicians have been in office too long and don’t 29 30 30 30 understand the needs of regular people. Politicians are politicizing issues that really shouldn’t be 14 13 12 14 politicized. Out political system is broken and doesn’t work for me. 12 15 12 12 3 Candidates who brand themselves as bipartisan will have a better chance of winning in upcoming elections. For which candidate for Congress would you be more likely to vote? A candidate who is willing to compromise to A candidate who will stay true to his/her get things done principles and not make any concessions NationwideNationwide 72 28 Nationwide Nationwide Independents Independents 74 26 BattlegroundBattleground 70 30 Battleground Battleground IndependentsIndependents 73 27 A candidate who will vote for bipartisan A candidate who will resist bipartisan legislation legislation and stick with his/her party NationwideNationwide 83 17 Nationwide IndependentsNationwide Independents 86 14 BattlegroundBattleground 82 18 Battleground BattlegroundIndependents Independents 88 12 4 Across the country, voters agree that they want members of Congress to work together.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9 Quiz
    Name: ___________________________________ Date: ______________ 1. The diffusion of authority and power throughout several entities in the executive branch and the bureaucracy is called A) the split executive B) the bureaucratic institution C) the plural executive D) platform diffusion 2. A government organization that implements laws and provides services to individuals is the A) executive branch B) legislative branch C) judicial branch D) bureaucracy 3. What is the ratio of bureaucrats to Texans? A) 1 bureaucrat for every 1,500 Texas residents B) 1 bureaucrat for every 3,500 Texas residents C) 1 bureaucrat for every 4,000 Texas residents D) 1 bureaucrat for every 10,000 Texas residents 4. The execution by the bureaucracy of laws and decisions made by the legislative, executive, or judicial branch, is referred to as A) implementation B) diffusion C) execution of law D) rules 5. How does the size of the Texas bureaucracy compare to other states? A) smaller than most other states B) larger than most other states C) about the same D) Texas does not have a bureaucracy 6. Standards that are established for the function and management of industry, business, individuals, and other parts of government, are called A) regulations B) licensing C) business laws D) bureaucratic law 7. What is the authorization process that gives a company, an individual, or an organization permission to carry out a specific task? A) regulations B) licensing C) business laws D) bureaucratic law 8. The carrying out of rules by an agency or commission within the bureaucracy, is called A) implementation B) rule-making C) licensing D) enforcement 9.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of European Education: a Political Strategy & Four Action Areas
    Eur J Futures Res (2014) 2:49 DOI 10.1007/s40309-014-0049-2 ORIGINAL ARTICLE The future of European education: A political strategy & four action areas Alfonso Diestro Fernández Received: 15 October 2014 /Accepted: 17 November 2014 /Published online: 16 December 2014 # The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract The European integration project is confronting Introduction one of the greatest challenges in its recent history. The pro- found current financial crisis is jeopardising both trust in the Nobody can now ignore that Europe is currently facing a huge process of integration and the support of European Union predicament; this obliges Europe to reinvent itself once again citizens. This paper aims to show the need to find transversal if the region wishes to realise the original aspirations that solutions to the immediate and future challenges that the motivated the current project of building and integrating Eu- European integration project faces. These solutions could rope, establishing a closer union between its peoples and its emerge from the retrieval of the idea of including a European regions. In the present context, characterised by the econom- Dimension in Education, as a joint political strategy of the ical crisis, the political programmes of only one way and the European Union and the Council of Europe, given that two political disaffection of the citizens with the European project, separate, but convergent, trends have been identified. Special it is a matter of urgency to find new proposals, also for importance will be placed on the four action points that the educational politics, across a new process of deliberation European dimension could adopt (curricular and teaching between institutions and Members States.
    [Show full text]
  • COM(2011) 424 Final
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 13.7.2011 COM(2011) 424 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 5 2. Contributing to long term sustainability worldwide .................................................... 5 2.1. Transforming our dialogues into working partnerships............................................... 5 2.2. Upholding and strengthening the global architecture for fisheries governance........... 7 2.3. Contributing towards a more effective functioning of RFMOs................................... 8 3. Towards Sustainable Fisheries Agreements............................................................... 10 3.1. Current Fisheries Partnership Agreements and their shortcomings........................... 10 3.2. Better promotion of long-term resource conservation and sustainability .................. 10 3.3. Reinforcing the governance of bilateral fisheries agreements ................................... 11 3.4. More effective support for sustainable fisheries in partner countries........................ 12 4. Coherence with other EU policies.............................................................................. 13 ANNEX I.................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Popular Culture Studies Journal
    THE POPULAR CULTURE STUDIES JOURNAL VOLUME 6 NUMBER 1 2018 Editor NORMA JONES Liquid Flicks Media, Inc./IXMachine Managing Editor JULIA LARGENT McPherson College Assistant Editor GARRET L. CASTLEBERRY Mid-America Christian University Copy Editor Kevin Calcamp Queens University of Charlotte Reviews Editor MALYNNDA JOHNSON Indiana State University Assistant Reviews Editor JESSICA BENHAM University of Pittsburgh Please visit the PCSJ at: http://mpcaaca.org/the-popular-culture- studies-journal/ The Popular Culture Studies Journal is the official journal of the Midwest Popular and American Culture Association. Copyright © 2018 Midwest Popular and American Culture Association. All rights reserved. MPCA/ACA, 421 W. Huron St Unit 1304, Chicago, IL 60654 Cover credit: Cover Artwork: “Wrestling” by Brent Jones © 2018 Courtesy of https://openclipart.org EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD ANTHONY ADAH FALON DEIMLER Minnesota State University, Moorhead University of Wisconsin-Madison JESSICA AUSTIN HANNAH DODD Anglia Ruskin University The Ohio State University AARON BARLOW ASHLEY M. DONNELLY New York City College of Technology (CUNY) Ball State University Faculty Editor, Academe, the magazine of the AAUP JOSEF BENSON LEIGH H. EDWARDS University of Wisconsin Parkside Florida State University PAUL BOOTH VICTOR EVANS DePaul University Seattle University GARY BURNS JUSTIN GARCIA Northern Illinois University Millersville University KELLI S. BURNS ALEXANDRA GARNER University of South Florida Bowling Green State University ANNE M. CANAVAN MATTHEW HALE Salt Lake Community College Indiana University, Bloomington ERIN MAE CLARK NICOLE HAMMOND Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota University of California, Santa Cruz BRIAN COGAN ART HERBIG Molloy College Indiana University - Purdue University, Fort Wayne JARED JOHNSON ANDREW F. HERRMANN Thiel College East Tennessee State University JESSE KAVADLO MATTHEW NICOSIA Maryville University of St.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurobarometer 513 Climate Change
    Special Eurobarometer 513 Climate Change Report Fieldwork: March - April 2021 This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors. Project title Special Eurobarometer 513 Climate, Report Language version EN Catalogue number ML-03-21-256-EN-N ISBN 978-92-76-38399-4 DOI 10.2834/437 © European Union, 2021 https://www.europa.eu/eurobarometer Photo credit: Getty Images Special Eurobarometer 513 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 I. EUROPEAN PERCEPTIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE 8 1. Perceptions of climate change as a global problem 9 2. Perceived seriousness of climate change 22 II. TAKING ACTION TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE 26 1. Responsibility for tackling climate change 27 2. Personal action to tackle climate change 34 3. Types of individual action 39 III. ATTITUDES TO FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE TRANSITION TO CLEAN ENERGIES 49 1. Attitudes towards taking action on climate change 51 2. Attitudes towards reducing fossil fuel imports 54 3. Attitudes towards the economic benefits of promoting EU expertise in clean technologies outside the EU 57 4. Attitudes to public financial support for clean energies as opposed to fossil fuel subsidies 60 5. Attitudes to adapting to the adverse impacts of climate change 64 6. Attitudes to tackling climate change and environmental issues as a priority to improve public health 67 7. Attitudes on the trade-off between costs caused by climate change versus the costs of a green transition 69 IV. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE 72 1. Current national governments action to tackle climate change 73 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Executive Orders: the Bureaucracy, Congress, and the Courts
    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2017 Presidential Executive Orders: The Bureaucracy, Congress, and the Courts Michael Edward Thunberg Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Thunberg, Michael Edward, "Presidential Executive Orders: The Bureaucracy, Congress, and the Courts" (2017). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 6808. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/6808 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Presidential Executive Orders: The Bureaucracy, Congress, and the Courts Michael Edward Thunberg Dissertation submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science Jeff Worsham, Ph.D., Co-Chair John Kilwein, Ph.D., Co-Chair Matthew Jacobsmeier, Ph.D. Dave Hauser, Ph.D. Patrick Hickey, Ph.D. Warren Eller, Ph.D. Department of Political Science Morgantown, West Virginia 2017 Keywords: President, executive order, unilateral power, institutions, bureaucratic controls, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Context of Eu Accession in Hungary
    European Programme November 2002 THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF EU ACCESSION IN HUNGARY Agnes Batory Introduction For the second time since the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty – seen by many as a watershed in the history of European integration – the European Union (EU) is set to expand. Unlike in 1995, when the group joining the Union consisted of wealthy, established liberal democracies, ten of the current applicants are post-communist countries which recently completed, or are still in various stages of completing, democratic transitions and large-scale economic reconstruction. It is envisaged that the candidates furthest ahead will become members in time for their citizens to participate in the next elections to the European Parliament due in June 2004. The challenge the absorption of the central and east European countries represents for the Union has triggered a need for internal institutional reform and new thinking among the policy-makers of the existing member states. However, despite the imminence of the ‘changeover’ to a considerably larger and more heterogeneous Union, the domestic profiles of the accession countries have remained relatively little known from the west European perspective. In particular, the implications of enlargement in terms of the attitudes and preferences of the new (or soon to be) players are still, to a great extent, unclear. How will they view their rights and obligations as EU members? How committed will they be to the implementation of the acquis communautaire? In what way will they fill formal rules with practical content? BRIEFING PAPER 2 THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF EU ACCESSION IN HUNGARY Naturally, the answers to these questions can only government under the premiership of Miklós Németh be tentative at this stage.
    [Show full text]
  • EFAMRO / ESOMAR Position Statement on the Proposal for an Eprivacy Regulation —
    EFAMRO / ESOMAR Position Statement on the Proposal for an ePrivacy Regulation — April 2017 EFAMRO/ESOMAR Position Statement on the Proposal for an ePrivacy Regulation April 2017 00. Table of contents P3 1. About EFAMRO and ESOMAR 2. Key recommendations P3 P4 3. Overview P5 4. Audience measurement research P7 5. Telephone and online research P10 6. GDPR framework for research purposes 7. List of proposed amendments P11 a. Recitals P11 b. Articles P13 2 EFAMRO/ESOMAR Position Statement on the Proposal for an ePrivacy Regulation April 2017 01. About EFAMRO and ESOMAR This position statement is submitted In particular our sector produces research on behalf of EFAMRO, the European outcomes that guide decisions of public authorities (e.g. the Eurobarometer), the non- Research Federation, and ESOMAR, profit sector including charities (e.g. political the World Association for Data, opinion polling), and business (e.g. satisfaction Research and Insights. In Europe, we surveys, product improvement research). represent the market, opinion and In a society increasingly driven by data, our profession ensures the application of appropriate social research and data analytics methodologies, rigour and provenance controls sectors, accounting for an annual thus safeguarding access to quality, relevant, turnover of €15.51 billion1. reliable, and aggregated data sets. These data sets lead to better decision making, inform targeted and cost-effective public policy, and 1 support economic development - leading to ESOMAR Global Market Research 2016 growth and jobs. 02. Key Recommendations We support the proposal for an ePrivacy Amendment of Article 8 and Recital 21 to enable Regulation to replace the ePrivacy Directive as research organisations that comply with Article this will help to create a level playing field in a true 89 of the General Data Protection Regulation European Digital Single Market whilst increasing (GDPR) to continue conducting independent the legal certainty for organisations operating in audience measurement research activities for different EU member states.
    [Show full text]
  • Drinking Water Directive: Water Quality and Access to It Improved in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, but Investment Needs Remain Substantial’
    23.12.2020 EN Offi cial Jour nal of the European Union L 435/1 I (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE (EU) 2020/2184 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 December 2020 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast) (Text with EEA relevance) THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1), Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2), Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3), Whereas: (1) Council Directive 98/83/EC (4) has been substantially amended several times (5). Since further amendments are to be made, that Directive should be recast in the interests of clarity. (2) Directive 98/83/EC set the legal framework to protect human health from the adverse effects of any contamination of water intended for human consumption by ensuring that it is wholesome and clean. This Directive should pursue the same objective and should improve access to such water for all in the Union. To that end, it is necessary to lay down at Union level the minimum requirements with which water intended for that purpose should comply. Member States should take the necessary measures to ensure that water intended for human consumption is free from any micro-organisms and parasites and from any substances which, in numbers or concentrations, in certain cases, constitute a potential danger to human health, and that it meets those minimum requirements.
    [Show full text]