EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52012SC0380
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Communication Report on the Review of the water scarcity & droughts policy in the EU
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Communication Report on the Review of the water scarcity & droughts policy in the EU
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Communication Report on the Review of the water scarcity & droughts policy in the EU
/* SWD/2012/0380 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Communication Report on the Review of the water scarcity & droughts policy in the EU /* SWD/2012/0380 final */
Contents 1..... Integration
of water scarcity and droughts issues into the River Basin Management plans. 5 1.1. Introduction. 5 1.2. Relevance of Water Scarcity
and Droughts. 5 1.2.1. Occurrence of Drought 6 1.2.2. Occurrence of Water Scarcity. 6 1.3. Causes of Droughts and Water
scarcity. 7 1.3.1. Causes of Droughts. 7 1.3.2. Causes of Water Scarcity. 7 1.4. Effects of Water Scarcity and
Droughts. 8 1.5. Data on water demand and
water availability trend scenarios. 8 1.5.1. Water demand trend scenarios. 8 1.5.2. Water availability trend
scenarios. 9 1.6. Measures to deal with Water
Scarcity and Droughts. 9 1.7. Inter-linkages between Water
Scarcity and sector policies. 11 1.8. Quality of data and
assumptions. 12 1.9. Transboundary cooperation on
Water Scarcity and Droughts. 12 2..... Ex-post
Assessment of the 2007 Communication.. 14 2.1. Putting the right price tag
on water 14 2.1.1. Review of existing
initiatives. 14 2.1.2. Evaluation of initiatives. 15 2.2. Allocating water and
water-related funding more efficiently. 17 2.2.1. Improving land-use planning. 17 2.2.2. Financing water efficiency. 20 2.3. Improving drought risk
management 23 2.3.1. Review of existing
initiatives. 23 2.3.2. Evaluation of initiatives. 25 2.4. Considering additional water
supply infrastructures. 27 2.4.1. Review of existing
initiatives. 27 2.4.2. Evaluation of initiatives. 28 2.5. Fostering water efficient
technologies and practices. 29 2.5.1. Review of existing
initiatives. 29 2.5.2. Evaluation of initiatives. 29 2.6. Fostering the emergence of a
water-saving culture in Europe. 31 2.6.1. Review of existing
initiatives. 31 2.6.2. Evaluation of initiatives. 32 2.7. Improving knowledge and data
collection. 33 2.7.1. Water scarcity and drought
information system.. 33 2.7.2. Research and technological
development opportunities. 36
1.
Integration of water scarcity and droughts issues
into the River Basin Management plans
1.1.
Introduction
As part of the overall assessment of the
River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) submitted under the Water Framework
Directive, a specific assessment has been completed to see how water scarcity and
droughts have been considered in plans. This report includes information found
in the RBMPs that have been delivered by Member States, covering most of the EU
with the exception of PT, EL, parts of ES and BE. Additional information from
MS and stakeholders has been taken into account as relevant. RBMPs analysed
1.2.
Relevance of Water Scarcity and Droughts
The first aspect that has been assessed is
whether the RBMPs have identified either droughts or water scarcity as relevant
issues for the River Basin Districts, and if they have been adequately
differentiated according to their causes. The assessment shows that for 14 RBDs
Water Scarcity and Droughts (WS&D) are not clearly distinguished or the
information on this matter is not clear. Both drought and water scarcity are said to
take place together in the majority of the RBDs where they are considered as
relevant phenomena (23 RBDs).
1.2.1.
Occurrence of Drought
Droughts are reported in the plans for a
wide range of RBDs across Europe, although the results from the screening
exercise show that approximately 40% (44 RBDs) of the RBMPs assessed, do not
consider drought as a relevant phenomenon. According to 10 RBMPs, drought
spells are recognised as RBD-wide phenomena, and for 27 other RBDs, local or
sub-basins drought spells are reported. In 15 RBDs, droughts and water scarcity
affect part of or the entire basin, but the two conditions are not clearly
distinguished. ||
1.2.2.
Occurrence of Water Scarcity
Water scarcity is reported in a number of
RBDs across Europe, but in 41% of the screened RBDs (46 RBDs), the plans do not
consider water scarcity as a relevant concern. For 9 RBDs river basin-wide
water scarcity was reported and for 32 RBDs, local or sub-basin water scarcity
was reported. In 15 RBDs, droughts and water scarcity affect part of or the
entire basin, but water scarcity and droughts are not clearly distinguished. Therefore, according to the assessment, 41
RBMPs clearly report water scarcity phenomena. The list of RBDs facing water
scarcity includes almost the whole EU Mediterranean area, but also some areas
in Central, Eastern and Northern Europe with significant water scarcity at
local level, mainly due to large water usage in comparison to availability. The
maps above and underneath respectively show the European RBDs and the
occurrence of droughts and water scarcity as reflected by the RBMPs. The
results show that drought is not only common in Southern Europe, but also in
other parts of the EU.
1.3.
Causes of Droughts and Water scarcity
1.3.1.
Causes of Droughts
The most common causes of drought are
irregular rainfall patterns (43 RBDs) and the decrease in natural available
resources (34 RBDs), but only in 50% of the corresponding RBMPs quantitative
data are reflected. Moreover, only 26 of these RBDs consider both as drivers
for droughts, showing the misconception that droughts are only a natural
meteorological phenomenon due to irregular rainfall patterns that decreases
natural available water resources independent from water use. Only 19 RBMPs have reported causes not
related with the meteorological nature of the phenomenon such as past and
current water over-allocation, new water demands from agriculture and tourism
or water use technologies that do not foster efficient water use. Some RBMPs do
not include information on the causes of droughts, although the RBDs are said
to be affected by this phenomenon.
1.3.2.
Causes of Water Scarcity
According to the RBMPs, water scarcity
situations in RBDs are also (mainly) caused by irregular rainfall patterns (for
40 RBDs) and a decrease in natural available water resources (for 36 RBDs),
though only 1/3 of the plans provide data that support this analysis. Only 17 RBMPs recognise past and current
over allocation of resources as a cause of water scarcity problems and a
similar number of RBMPs identify new water demands (for urban uses, agriculture,
industrial and tourism sector) as causes for upcoming water scarcity problems
(e.g. RBDs from AT, CZ, EE, FI, FR, IT and UK).
1.4.
Effects of Water Scarcity and Droughts
From the screening exercise of the RBMPs,
different effects were identified and can be expected to be caused by past,
current and future droughts spells or water scarcity scenarios, depending on
their frequency and magnitude. ·
Degradation of surface water quality was reported as a significant effect for both drought (23 RBDs) and
water scarcity (30 RBDs) situations. Other “environmental effects”, such as the
degradation of groundwater quality and wetlands degradation are
also identified as main effects of WS&D according to the assessment. The disruption
of ecological flow regime, was reported as an effect for 16 RBDs in
the case of drought spells and for 30 RBDs for water scarcity. ·
Urban water supply shortages were reported as an effect (and also expected in future scenarios)
both for drought spells (18 RBDs) and water scarcity situations (32 RBDs). ·
Groundwater over-abstraction was reported as an effect in 13 RBDs for droughts and in 36 RBDs
for water scarcity scenarios. ·
Economic losses
in the agricultural sector, in the tourism sector or in the industrial sector
were surprisingly not reported as significant effects for the majority of the
RBMPs assessed. The main effects are mentioned for agriculture, in only 5 RBDs
(due to drought) and 6 RBDs (due to water scarcity).
1.5.
Data on water demand and water availability
trend scenarios
Regarding the assessment on water demands
and water availability (for both current situations and trend scenarios) the different
RBMPs present a varying level of detail and analysis.
1.5.1.
Water demand trend scenarios
The RBMPs contain data on water demand
trend scenarios for almost 35% of the screened RBDs and for the majority of
them the data are also analysed by water use type. The completeness of the
timeline of these projections (e.g. 2015, 2021 and 2027) and information
regarding the geographical scope, magnitude and trend data for each itemised
water use, have not been assessed. However, it is worrying that almost 50% of
the assessed RBMPs do not include data on future trend scenarios. This is
particularly problematic for those RBDs that have identified WS&D as
RBD-wide issues.
1.5.2.
Water availability trend scenarios
Regarding the analysis of the water
availability trends, the assessment shows that in less than 25% of the RBMPs,
these scenarios are provided; in addition, only around 8% of the RBMPs provide
itemised data (by water type). The completeness of the timeline of these
projections (e.g. 2015, 2021, 2027) and information regarding the geographical
scope, magnitude and trend data for each itemised water type have not been
assessed so far. However, it is clear that in more than 50%
of the assessed RBMPs, no data on future water availability trend scenarios are
provided. This is particularly worrying for those RBDs that have identified WS&D
as RBD-wide issues.
1.6.
Measures to deal with Water Scarcity and
Droughts
A set of 22 specific measures to deal with
water scarcity and droughts were selected as parameter to analyse the
completeness of the battery of measures considered in the plans of the
different European RBDs. In addition to the “standard” set of measures, some
RBMPs include other actions, which were also taken into account in the
screening exercise. The figure below summarizes the results of the assessment. The “top-5” list of measures considered
within the RBMPs assessed includes: 1.
Reduction/management of groundwater abstraction 2.
Training, education and capacity building in
water saving, 3.
Studies, research and pilot projects to solve
water scarcity problems and improve the response to droughts, 4.
Reduction of losses in urban distribution
networks 5.
Modification of the water pricing system to
foster a more efficient use of water Great efforts are said to be planned for
the reduction/ management of groundwater abstraction (considering that it is
included in >90% of RBMPs, and reflected as a priority in more than 60% of
these plans). However, the positive impact of this measure still remains
unclear, especially taking into consideration that other “enabling” measures
that are pre-conditions or should support its implementation (e.g. measures to
enhance water metering) are much less present in the RBMPs priorities. In spite of the investments and efforts
planned (in the mid and long-term) regarding studies, research, pilot projects,
training, education and capacity building (in aprox. 55 % of the RBMPs), the
impact of these measures is unclear, given the general nature. Measures envisaged in about half of the
assessed RBMPs include the modification of the water pricing system to foster a
more efficient use of water (in 49% of the RBMPs), the improvement of the
efficiency of water agricultural uses (also present in 45% of the RBMPs),
measures to enhance water metering (in 40% of the RBMPs) or measures to
increase treated water reuse (in 50% of the RBMPs). Measures included in the “other measures”
category such as ecological reconstruction (restoring longitudinal and lateral
connectivity), use of best available techniques in industry, improving
knowledge on future water demands or reconciling the authorizations for
abstractions with the needs of the aquatic environment, are included in a great
proportion of the RBMPs assessed. Among the measures that are less common
within the RBMPs, the development or upgrade of desalination plants and the
establishment of water rights markets or schemes to facilitate water
reallocation are the least considered. According to the assessment, the
restrictions to new water-demands (urban, irrigation) are planned only for 15%
of the assessed RBMPs; and –even more worrying – only in one basin out of the
41 water-scarce RBDs in Europe. Measures to enhance the resilience of the
ecosystems (e.g. ensuring minimum ecological flow) are very relevant to ensure
the achievement of the WFD objectives in areas that face WS&D, and are
planned in 45% of the RBMPs. The development of Drought Management Plans (DMPs)
was reflected in 41% of the assessed RBMPs. Some of the main categories of measures and
their representation in the RBMPs are presented graphically below. Finally, the majority of the RBMPs include
measures to improve efficiency, knowledge and governance and to increase water
supply. Less than half of the RBMPs include economic/pricing-oriented measures and
less than 20% envisages restrictions to land-use.
1.7.
Inter-linkages between Water Scarcity and sector
policies
Water scarcity problems can be caused by an
inadequate design of related policies in water-using sectors. To address this
issue, the RBMPs should take into consideration the inter-linkages between the
different policy areas, as well as propose measures for the reduction of water
scarcity and the mitigation of drought in the RBD. According to the screening exercise, only
for 6 RBDs, the influence of other sectoral policies on the reduction of water
scarcity and the mitigation of drought effects is described, and measures are
proposed to harmonise those policies with the reduction/mitigation. For only
12% of the assessed RBMPs, the pressures on water resources by sector at
present and in the future are identified. For almost 75% of the RBMPs assessed, the
influence of other sector policies on water scarcity and the mitigation of
drought effects is not described or not relevant/unclear. Of these RBMPs, more
than 2/3 suffer from water scarcity and/or drought.
1.8.
Quality of data and assumptions
For an adequate design and definition of
the general water planning scheme, that should be translated into the
corresponding RBMPs and their associated Programmes of Measures (PoMs), it is
necessary to use transparent data and clear assumptions. The assessment
exercise addresses this issue through one of its questions. The results can be
summarized as in following figure: In almost 45% of the assessed RBMPs, the
sources of data for present water consumption and for water availability are
explicitly mentioned; however, in only 20-25% of the plans, projections of
future water demand and water availability are based on explicit assumptions. For almost 20% of the assessed plans,
uncertainty of data is made explicit in the dataset used and, when relevant,
the time span of the dataset is made explicit. For less than 10% of the
screened RBMPs, the sources of funds to implement the Programme of Measures are
specified for each measure separately, and for even less RBMPs (around 5%) the
uncertainty of data is taken into consideration when stating the expected
results in the Programme of Measures. Moreover, for none of the assessed RBMPs,
the existing social conflicts were considered as a risk for successful
implementation, and for a very small portion of them the interrelation (either
positive or negative) between measures was highlighted. This shows the lack of
transparency and adequacy of the analysis regarding key quantitative aspects of
the water planning scheme, within most of the assessed RBMPs
1.9.
Transboundary cooperation on Water Scarcity and
Droughts
Regarding the 65 International RBMPs, their
approach to deal with WS&D in a transboundary context can be summarised as
follows: ·
In around 60% of the plans, the information on
transboundary coordination in the field of water scarcity and droughts is not
clear, no information is found or it can be considered as “not relevant”; ·
2% of the plans include co-ordinated measures
for the entire international RBD, and for around 5% of the assessed plans
specific co-ordinated measures for the different transboundary water bodies
were identified; ·
10% of the plans identify joint challenges as
the way to address WS&D issues in shared water bodies and in 15% of the
plans, transboundary cooperation was indicated as a general coordination issue.
2.
Ex-post Assessment of the 2007 Communication
The ex-post assessment on the Communication on Water Scarcity and Droughts in the EU[1] is
intended to evaluate whether the Communication "has achieved its
objectives”. However, given that many activities are currently being
implemented, the evaluation is intermediate and intended to give input to
further policy developments. The following evaluation questions were used: 1) Were the
objectives met and coherent with other actions? 2) What were
the main impacts? 3) Have Drivers,
Pressures or Impacts been addressed? 4) Is this
course of action still appropriate? The evaluation is mainly based on: ·
MS follow up reports to the 2007 Communication
(2008, 2009 and 2010) ·
EU annual reports (2008[2],
2009[3] and 2010[4]) ·
Gap Analysis and Database of WS&D Measures
and Support Actions[5] ·
Reports on specific policy instruments Sections 2.1-2.7 below show the assessments
for each of the 7 policy options identified in the 2007 Communication.
2.1.
Putting the right price tag on water
According to 2007 Communication, policy
options aimed at putting the right price tag on water must address the
implementation at the EU level of the “polluter pays principle” in the water
sector, mainly making the user pay for the water supply and wastewater
treatment associated costs.
2.1.1.
Review of existing initiatives
According to WFD[6]
Article 9, MS had to develop a water pricing policy by 2010 to provide
an adequate incentive for users to consume water in a more efficient manner.
One of the key elements on which the water tariffs policies should be based, is
a reliable metering system for water abstraction. Within the period of 2008-2010
water metering was extended generally within all MS, though further action is
required. Data reliability on water consumption is still a concern at EU level. Many MS have undertaken direct action to
address the water pricing issue. First steps were taken in 2008 by defining
national strategies for water abstraction, metering for high-volume consumers
such as the agriculture sector (ES,FR), promotion of general water metering
regarding water abstraction and consumption data (CY,FR, PT) or linking
compliance with water metering with authorization/permits for water abstraction
(FR,UK). In 2009 and 2010 water tariffs were
introduced by a few more MS and in others tariffs were still under development
at the end of 2010. Other widespread water pricing measures are the adoption of
block-tariff systems (i.e. volumetric pricing), penalties for excessive
consumption (closely linked with enforcement of the water metering) and
discounts for water savings. There is still a significant lack of
recovery of both financial and environmental costs from agricultural water use.
For about a third of the EU MS, operational and maintenance costs for the
provision of irrigation water for agriculture are only partly recovered
(generally borne by farmers themselves), whilst associated capital costs
(investments such as reservoirs) are often subsidized by public authorities. As a result, it often remains unclear which
share of investment costs can be allocated to the different water users. Volumetric
pricing systems is considered as one of the most effective tariff structures
with regard to actually providing incentives for water savings in agriculture.
A recent study concluded that both water pricing and allocation systems should
be based on environmental flow regimes, as key factors to control water over-
abstraction and guarantee the adequate provision of the environmental services
associated[7].
2.1.2.
Evaluation of initiatives
2.1.2.1.
Were the objectives met and coherent with other
actions?
Efforts taken at EU level (specially in the
case of enforcement of water metering) are all concurring in moving towards a
water efficient and water-saving society, thus in accordance with the
objectives of the water scarcity and droughts policy. However, despite the 2010 deadline, neither
the objective of full implementation of the WFD in terms of recovery of costs
associated with water services nor the implementation of the “polluter pays”
principle within MS have been reached. Even though increases in the price paid for
water services provision do not necessarily entail water consumption decreases,
cost recovery from water services is crucial for better awareness of the real
value of water (as a resource) and to contribute to a more water efficient
society.
2.1.2.2.
What were the main impacts?
There is currently little information
regarding the impacts of water pricing, in particular as full implementation of
the water pricing provisions is still pending. More experience is needed in
order to gain knowledge on the economic and environmental impacts of these
measures. Most existing studies are modeling and ex-ante
assessments, and have been criticized by Molle and Berkoff (2007[8],
in Garrido and Calatrava, 2010[9]) for overestimating the
income impact of pricing policies and also for underestimating the water demand
elasticity. Recent studies conclude that policy makers should expect less
change from water pricing (particularly in agriculture), considering that most
analyses conclude that demand is somewhat inelastic to water pricing, although it
is responsive to agro-environmental policies and farm prices. According to the information provided by
the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2011[10]), based on
national statistics on household water consumption both from Spain and Estonia, as the water tariffs increase, water consumption decreases. This is also the case
for Denmark (EEA, 2009[11]).This supports the
expected impact, suggested in the 2007 Communication regarding the reduction of
domestic consumption when water tariffs are applied, especially if they are
supported by the introduction of a reliable metering system.
2.1.2.3.
Have Drivers, Pressures or Impacts been
addressed?
Putting the right price tag on water
tackles both drivers and pressures of water scarcity and/or droughts such as
population developments, economic aspects, land use or technological changes.
2.1.2.4.
Is this course of action still appropriate?
Further implementation of the water pricing
policy including recovery of costs associated with water services and valuation
of water resources is crucial to address the WS&D challenge across Europe, provided that other complementary measures –e.g. modernization of the conveyance
infrastructure, large-scale installation of metering devices- are also put in
place. Water pricing policies should be introduced gradually, so as to allow
users to adapt to changes. In this regard the Payment for Ecosystem Services
(PES) could be considered as a complement to current water pricing mechanisms. MS face different challenges in the
implementation of water pricing policies, and price structures should be
adapted to local circumstances. Nevertheless, integration of data, development
of a common framework for water pricing and efforts to ensure that all EU MS
are setting the price right should remain a priority at the European level.
2.2.
Allocating water and water-related funding more
efficiently
Policy options in the 2007 Communication designed
to allocate water and water-related funding more efficiently address two
separate issues: (1) improving land-use planning and (2) financing water
efficiency.
2.2.1.
Improving land-use planning
2.2.1.1.
Review of existing initiatives
In order to support sustainable
agriculture, including sustainable water use, the European Union introduced two
new water-related standards in the cross compliance regime in 2008. Relevant
for water scarcity issues is the Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition
(GAEC) requiring compliance with authorization procedures in case of use of water
for irrigation. This standard is applicable as from 2010. It is also proposed
to be maintained for the next programming period as part of Commission proposals
for the CAP reform adopted on 12 October 2011[12]. All but one
MS notified that standards on the authorisation of the use of water for irrigation
were set by linking payments with permitting, one of the main approaches to
authorization. In general, regulations are in place at
national level regarding authorisation for water abstraction. MT and IE
reported that they are improving their current procedures, focussing on
modernising their system of registration and tackling unauthorised abstraction.
In addition, some MS reported that restrictions of water use are applied in
order to preserve aquatic life and ecological status of water bodies. Several
countries also reported that they are adopting prosecution procedures for illegal
abstractions (AT, PT, RO) but illegal abstractions remain an important
challenge in a number of, particularly southern, MS. Finally, Spain and France have introduced bans on increases in water abstraction in overexploited areas. To address the issues of biofuels, a study[13]
was commissioned in 2008 assessing the impact of bioenergy development on water
availability. The study indicated that currently, bioenergy production has a
limited effect on water consumption. A significant increase in biomass
production in the EU will not need to increase the total irrigation water
consumption. Stricter water use restrictions are only needed in the most water
scarce regions to reach this low additional pressure on water resources for
biomass cropping. In order to reach the bioenergy targets by 2020 it is most
efficient therefore to stimulate the cropping of biomass in the Northern and
central parts of Europe than in the South. The taking into use of additional
land and efficient production techniques are more critical in reaching the
targets than access to irrigation water Sustainability criteria have been
developed within the Renewables Directive[14] but they do
not specifically address water impacts due to the limited effects mentioned
above. At EU level land-use policy options were
included in the White Paper on adaptation to climate change, focusing on
introducing adaptation measures on water management in rural development; the
work is still on-going. Most MS reported that they have fully
implemented the Environmental Impact Assessment[15]
(EIA) and Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment[16]
(SEA) Directives; only Romania reported that implementation is still on-going.
In most MS the SEA is applied at national level and several MS reported that
RMBPs were subject to SEA. Additionally, the EIA procedures were also applied
to water infrastructure (UK), hydroelectric dams (PT) and desalination plants
(CY).
2.2.1.2.
Evaluation of initiatives
Were the objectives met and coherent
with other actions? Efforts at EU level targeted three main
policy areas: agriculture (CAP), biofuels, and climate change adaptation (White
paper). With respect to ensuring sustainable water use in agriculture, progress
has been made at EU level to better incorporate water quantity as well as water
quality issues into the CAP: in general, measures included in the legal
proposal for the next funding period, including the proposed cross-compliance
rules, actually have the potential to prompt sustainable land use practices. With
respect to assessing the inter-linkages between biofuel development and water
availability, the EU tendered a project investigating the impact of biofuel
development on water resources, which found that biomass production for
biofuels would not necessarily increase irrigation. While the Renewables
Directive introduced sustainability criteria, none of them are related to water
resources or irrigation efficiency due to the limited effects biofuel
production has on water use. It can be concluded that it is more appropriate to
address water scarcity in a horizontal way across all types of agricultural
production rather than addressing individual types of production (such as food,
feed, fiber, biomass, or biofuel). At MS level, more effort are still needed
in a few MS to strengthen the process for the implementation process for the
SEA Directive. Even prior to the publication of RBMPs,
most MS had identified basins facing quasi-permanent or permanent water stress
or scarcity. Efforts have been made at MS level to introduce and/or strengthen
regulations regarding water abstraction, as shown by the number of MS that
reported that restrictions on water use are applied to achieve good ecological
status. However, enforcement remains a problem in a number of MS. A key issue that has not been addressed is
the tourism sector. This is clearly highlighted in the 2009 Follow up report with
the need to reduce water demand in the peak tourism season and minimise water stress. What were the main impacts? Improving land-use planning at EU and MS
level involves a number of actions, including promoting sustainable
agriculture, improving the framework for EIAs and SEAs, and setting up
regulations to restore sustainable water balance. The identification of
quasi-stressed or stressed river basins also helps to identify where efforts
are most needed. Evidence suggests that Cross Compliance is
having a positive effect in terms of ensuring compliance with obligations[17].
However, it is too early to assess whether this has been the case for the water
GAEC mentioned above which was introduced in 2008Any restriction in water use is
expected to change the type of crops grown, either towards crops with lower
water requirements or towards higher-value crops; in both cases, a change in
land use can be expected[18]. Administrative costs
borne by farmers could result in a slightly lowered agriculture welfare (-0.6%) across the EU for reaching full
compliance16. Have Drivers, Pressures or Impacts been
addressed? At European level mainly the pressures from
water scarcity and droughts have been tackled by proposing measures such as: Compliance
with authorisation procedures at farm level for irrigation water use (CAP
current and future programming periods), inclusion of the WFD into cross
compliance (CAP future period), widening the scope of the Farm Advisory System
to issues such as protection of water (CAP future period), linking water saving
requirements to financing of irrigation infrastructure (CAP future period),
promoting adaptation and water management measures in regional and rural
development policies[19] (current period). No
action was taken at EU level to address drivers and very little is being done
to address impacts as these are often to be addressed at MS level. At national level drivers are being tackled
in some cases by restricting new urban developments in water scarce areas (ES)
and by farm advice on water efficient irrigation practices (FR). Pressures are
being tackled in terms of research on less water consuming crops (FR),
guidelines and information on irrigation (SE), prohibiting deforestation (BG),
reduction of irrigated crop areas (FR), conservation of water through soil
improvements (DE), Soil Best Management Practices (EL) and implementation of
abstraction authorisation procedures for irrigation (all MS). Impacts have been
responded to by limiting irrigation in case of drought (FR, SE), establishing
collective irrigation management in water scarce basins (FR), planting local,
drought resistant trees (BG, CY, DE ,EE) The national level interventions show a
highly fragmented picture with very few MS implementing support actions or
technical measures related to land-use. Moreover, there are currently no
examples of integrated land-use planning taking place, where economic
activities in a basin are collectively assessed to determine the best course of
action. The emphasis of actions taken is on pressures and impacts and less so
on drivers. This may be due to the fact that pressures and impacts are more urgent
issues to address compared to drivers in the short term. Is this course of action still
appropriate? Improving land-use planning is a key
challenge in addressing water scarcity and droughts. As highlighted by the 2007
Communication, the economic development of some river basins can lead to
adverse effects on water resources availability, especially in water scarce
regions. All key economic sectors need to be addressed in order to ensure
sustainable land-use planning. Water abstraction for agriculture still
represents nearly ¼ of all abstractions across the EU, with percentages much
higher in the southern MS and much of EU water consumption. All economic
activity, including irrigation, should be adapted to the amount of water
available locally. The current actions taken at EU level set a
solid framework to drive MS to implement measures at national level. However,
at national level it is clear that most MS are not adequately addressing
land-use issues.
2.2.2.
Financing water efficiency
2.2.2.1.
Review of existing initiatives
The 2007 Communication highlighted the need
to improve the financing of water efficiency within the framework of existing regional
and rural development policies. In the case of the cohesion policy, in the
current funding period, about 30% of the total cohesion policy funding has been
allocated to directly and indirectly environment-related projects, belonging to
different areas of environmental management and protection, with a major focus
on waste water treatment (13 bn€) and infrastructures for the management and
distribution of water (8 bn €) which can include investments in water
efficiency[20]. In addition about € 5.8 bn will be spend on the prevention of
natural disasters which includes many projects on sustainable water management
such as “green” infrastructure approaches and ecosystem-based adaptation to
climate change. In 2009 the Commission prepared a Working
Document Regions 2020 – “The climate change challenge to European Regions”[21],
which highlighted the need for action in the field of water scarcity and
droughts. The 2010 Communication “Regional Policy contributing to sustainable
growth in Europe 2020”[22] calls for increasing
investments in environmental programmes by focussing on investing more and
better in sustainable growth. Three priorities have been identified in this
area: a low-carbon economy, ecosystem services, and biodiversity and
eco-innovation. In this context, the above-mentioned Working Document calls for
managing authorities to use regional policy funding for natural risk prevention
to preserve natural resources, including water, and adaptation to climate
change as well as prioritization of green infrastructure. In addition, the Communication
emphasizes the need to consider the water hierarchy and give priority to projects
on water savings and water efficiency. Under the second pillar on investing
better, the paper calls for managing authorities to give priority to projects
on water savings, increased efficiency in water utilisation, water pricing
policy or cost-effective measures on demand management. In addition, the
Commission's legal proposals for the 2014-2020 cohesion policy[23]
both include addressing needs for investment in water sector and
protecting/restoring biodiversity, including green infrastructure. Common indicators
for water include estimated reduction of leakage in water distribution network,
aiming to reduce wastage of water. The Commission's
proposals for a post-2013 rural development policy explicitly set out
"improving water management" and "increasing efficiency in water
use by agriculture" as elements of the six formal priorities of the policy
around which MS and regions must design their rural development programmes. The
proposals also make the existence of an appropriate water pricing policy an
"ex ante conditionality" of partnership contracts and rural
development programmes, and they link support for investments in irrigation to
water-quantity-related issues. At EU level, the European Investment Bank
adopted a new lending policy for the water sector taking into account both the
2007 Communication and the White paper on Climate change. The Bank now considers
4 efficiency measures to finance in the water sector under the condition that demand
side management options have been implemented: water use by consumers
(households, industry, agriculture and hydropower); efficiency in allocation
across different users; efficiency of the utility in managing the system; and
efficiency of the system itself. . At national level, MS need to ensure
efficient use of the above mentioned EU and national funds to improve water
demand management and to promote fiscal incentives for the promotion of
water-efficient devices. In this respect reporting
from MS suggest that most MS are using rural development funding; only IE, NL
and SE mention that no funds are being used to this end and a few MS (EE, HU)
mention that they are using cohesion policy funds. National funds are also
being used to a large extent to fund projects related to rainwater harvesting
and modernisation of irrigation (ES).
2.2.2.2.
Evaluation of initiatives
Were the objectives of the policy met and
coherent with other actions? Efforts at EU level
targeted three main funding opportunities: cohesion policy funding, the CAP and
investments under the European Investment Bank. All three funds have taken
steps to enhance effective water management. With respect to
Structural and Cohesion funds, one of the main goals was to refine the existing
Community Strategic Guidelines. The legal proposals about cohesion policy post 2013 address water issue
with a much stronger focus on water efficiency and priority given to demand
management options as highlighted in the Common Strategic Framework2. The objectives
have therefore been met in part. The 2008 changes to the
CAP and the legal proposal for the CAP post-2013 have made proposed
improvements in providing funding for water management measures. The same can
be said for the European Investment Bank. The EU funds available
for water management measures complement each other as they cover different
economic sectors and regions. While cohesion policy funding and EIB funds focus
more on water infrastructure, the CAP focuses on measures at farm level. Additionally, while the
CAP only covers rural areas, the cohesion policy funding and EIB funds can be
used in both rural and urban areas. What were the main impacts? The main aims of financing water efficiency
is on the one hand to enhance the opportunities of European and Member State support
to finance water efficient technologies and water management infrastructure,
and on the other hand to ensure that the water hierarchy, where efficiency
comes before new supply, is adhered to at national level. In general, it is not possible to provide
an estimate of economic or environmental impacts from enhanced funding for
water saving and efficiency measures, but specific illustrations at a more
local level give indications of the costs and environmental benefits of
individual projects that have been supported through enhanced funding opportunities. At EU level, estimates show that the 2008
Health Check of the CAP and the European Economic Recovery Package together
injected some € 5 billion of additional funding (including transfers from
Pillar I of the CAP) into rural development policy. Based on the information
communicated to the Commission by MS in 2009, they allocated 26.9% of these additional
resources to water management in their existing rural development programmes. However,
total funding allocated to water management in these programmes (including
spending decided before the Health Check) is not precisely known. Additionally, in the 2007-2013 programming
of the Cohesion Policy, more than 6% of the total allocations are used for
investments in infrastructure related to water management. In addition a large
share of the € 5.8 billion for "risk prevention" under Cohesion
Policy support projects on "water", including water scarcity. MS are not yet fully taking advantage of
opportunities to fund water efficiency programmes at national level. Isolated
cases and best practice examples show the benefits of water efficiency devices,
but there is no widespread application of this policy option. Have Drivers, Pressures or Impacts been
addressed? Support actions and technical measures
(i.e. responses) applied at the EU and national levels appear to only tackle
pressures. At European level pressures from
agriculture, households and economic activities in general are addressed as
follows: increasing modulation from pillar 1 to pillar 2 (CAP current period), proposal
to link 30% of direct payments to greening measures (CAP post 2013), proposal
to link water saving requirements to financing of irrigation infrastructure
(CAP post 2013), promoting adaptation and water management measures in regional
and rural development policies (White paper on Adaptation), emphasis of water
demand management in Regional and Cohesion Funds and emphasis of water demand
management in European Investment Bank funding. At national level the focus is also on the
same pressures, for example: 10% water saving requirements for irrigation
investment (RO); Eco-cheques for rainwater harvesting (BE) and establishing
minimal requirements for granting funds to improve irrigation efficiency (CY). Is this course of action still
appropriate? Improving conditions for EU and national
funds to ensure the financing of water saving measures remains an important
policy option. However, it is unclear whether efforts taken at EU level are
translated into action at MS level; some Member States
decided to make only a limited use of Structural, Cohesion and EIB funds to
address water scarcity and droughts. It is also unclear
whether the Commission proposals to reform the CAP will ultimately contain the
above-mentioned greening elements. A call for evidence regarding support
actions and technical measures implemented at MS level has showed very few
examples of MS improving funding opportunities for water efficiency. Only a few
MS engaged in developing fiscal incentives for the promotion of water-efficient
devices and practices. Given the magnitude of water scarcity problems in Europe, it is important that MS make a greater effort to increase funding programmes for
the installation of water saving devices in various economic sectors.
2.3.
Improving drought risk management
The 2007 Communication set out for a shift
in drought risk management away from a crisis response to a comprehensive risk
management approach. This should be based on a profound understanding of the
drivers and impacts of drought including advanced monitoring and early warning
systems at the European level. In addition to this new approach, the
optimisation of the use of the EU Solidarity Fund and European Mechanism for
drought risk management was also put forward. The Communication complemented the
EU Water Framework Directive, which mentions droughts as potential threats
which may undo the efforts to achieve good ecological status of the EU water
bodies.
2.3.1.
Review of existing initiatives
The European Commission has promoted and
monitored development of drought risk management plans across the MS. In 2007
the Expert Network on Water Scarcity and Droughts produced a report on drought
management plans as part of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) of the
Water Framework Directive6. The
2010-2012 mandate of the Network included, among others, defining commonly
accepted indicators for water scarcity and drought and a review of methods for developing
drought risk maps. Another CIS guidance document endorsed in 2009 addressed
adaptation to climate change in water management[24], highlighting the role of drought risk management plans in climate
adaptation efforts. The following WS&D indicators are now
available on a pre-operational basis: ·
Precipitation indicators (updated monthly) ·
Soil moisture: actual values and anomalies with
respect to long-term averages (updated daily, historical data available as
ten-day average values, a 7 day forecast is available) ·
Vegetation response: actual values and anomalies
with respect to long-term averages (updated every 10 days) ·
A combined drought indicator that is targeted to
agricultural drought (updated every 10 days). This indicator has been developed
and tested on historical drought events. Work is ongoing to improve the soil
moisture indicator and for testing possibilities for meteorological
forecasting. The web-based European Drought Observatory
(EDO) for drought forecasting, assessment and monitoring has been developed at
the Join Research Center (JRC). EDO provides up-to-date drought-related
information at different scales. Respecting the subsidiarity principle, the JRC
processes information at the EU level, whereas national/regional datasets are
managed at MS/River Basin level or by regional environmental authorities. During 2011 and early 2012 the prototype of
the European Drought Observatory (EDO) has been further developed. Key
improvements have been made revising the selection of meteorological stations
and re-calculating the baseline statistics from the historical time series. In addition to the interoperability
arrangements with the Drought Management Centre for
South East Europe (DMCSEE), the Spanish Observatory for Sustainability (OSE),
and the Ebro River Basin Authority, new groundwater indicators (actual levels
and trends) for France (BRGM) and higher resolution meteorological indicators
for Slovenia have been added. The European Solidarity Fund (EUSF) has
been activated for a case of drought only once in response to the 2008 drought
in Cyprus. The persisting and severe drought conditions compromised public
water supply and forced Cyprus to deploy exceptional emergency drought measures
including temporary water shipping from Greece. In the context of the Civil Protection
Financial Instrument[25] projects addressing prevention, preparedness and response to
disaster risk, including drought, are eligible for funding. From among the
funded projects, the PREEMPT (Policy-relevant assessment of socio-economic
effects of droughts and floods[26]) project sets to assist the authorities to better appreciate the
risks posed by droughts and floods and focused on four participating countries:
Italy, Spain, Belgium and Germany Drought Risk Management Plans (DRMPs) are
in place or under development in several MS, either as a part of the River
Basin Management Plans or as a separate, but interlinked planning instrument.
Most MS have systems for drought monitoring and forecast in place.
2.3.2.
Evaluation of initiatives
2.3.2.1.
Were the objectives met and coherent with other actions?
The objectives of the initial supporting
action have been partially met. Good progress was achieved at MS level, with
respect to the number of countries in which the Drought Risk Management Plans
(DRMP) have been implemented or are under development. Ideally and following
CIS guidance documents, DRMPs should contain quantitative and measurable
targets for water conservation and set measures to achieve these targets,
prioritized according to their performance and implementation costs. A
prerequisite of a drought risk management plan is i) an in-depth knowledge
about the pattern of water uses and their welfare values, ii) medium- to
long-term projections of climate variability and change, and iii) understanding
of the drivers influencing water demand in the water-intensive economic sectors
and public water consumption. While the EIS work, especially on
indicators has progressed well, the quality of MS DRMP needs further
improvement. The development of EDO has progressed as
planned. The European Solidarity Fund is still insufficiently deployed for coping
with drought emergencies which fulfill the eligibility criteria. These rules
are being revised in order to streamline screening of the applications. Promoting drought risk management in Europe is fully in line with the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and solidarity
as well as in accordance with the relevant EU legislation. The DRMPs should be
closely coordinated with both the Flood Risk management Plans[27] and WFD RBMPs.
2.3.2.2.
What were the main impacts?
All three actions (EDO, DRMPs and Solidarity
Fund) contribute to reducing the economic losses and environmental hardship
caused by droughts, but each of them in a different way. Drought risk
management plans contain drought risk mitigation measures, reducing the
vulnerability of communities and water sensitive sectors to drought. The
avoided damage depends on the pattern of water abstraction and use, and on the efficiency
of water application. The only Europe-wide assessment of drought economic costs
– 100 billion Euro over the last 30 years, or 6.2 billion Euro/year for the
recent years – is based on a survey and self-reported damages with little
quality check and assurance.
2.3.2.3.
Were Drivers, Pressures or Impacts addressed?
The disaster risk management is typically
organized along five stages including prevention, protection, preparedness,
response, recovery and review. The supporting actions advanced by the 2007 Communication
refer mainly to preparedness and recovery. In doing so, they contribute to
reducing impacts of deficient precipitation. Both at EU and MS level the measures on
drought management are mainly focused on impacts as for example: a report
produced by the Expert Network on Water Scarcity and Droughts on drought
management plans as part of CIS; a CIS guidance document addressing adaptation
to climate change in water management; EDO for drought monitoring and forecasting;
activation of the EUSF for the 2008 drought in Cyprus; funding within the Civil
Protection Financial Instrument of projects addressing prevention, preparedness
and response to disaster risk, including drought; Drought Risk Management Plans
and systems of drought monitoring and forecast at MS level.
2.3.2.4.
Is this course of action still appropriate?
DRMPs are a fundamental instrument in a risk
preparedness strategy, and indispensable for a good water and risk governance.
The DRMP should draw on knowledge about the past drought episodes and their
impacts, be operationally connected to drought monitoring and early warning
systems, and contain specific mitigation measures to be put in place in order
to reduce the expected impacts and guarantee sufficient water provision for
critically important water uses. The Plans should specify the actors and their
responsibilities in coping with droughts. DRMPs should be developed in a
coordinated way across the MS and become more widespread under the WFD. The
developments so far have been valuable but not sufficient. EDO is expected to
become fully operational by the end of 2012. The experimental design and
operation phase has been successful. However, the EDO should be further
developed to become a one-stop portal for information about the ongoing and
past droughts, and interconnected with the European Water Information System
(WISE). The EDO should be extended to contain a database of past drought events
in Europe, in a similar way as the Flood Impact Database currently designed by
the European Environment Agency. Furthermore, the EDO should be interlinked
with the main national and regional drought monitoring systems, providing more detailed and spatially focused information about the
ongoing drought situation. Finally, the EUSF has supported drought
relief and recovery operations only once, to help to tackle the impacts of 2008
drought in Cyprus. To this end, Cyprus received 7.6 million Euro. The 2009 annual
report3 highlights the difficulty of
activating the EUSF for slow-onset disasters such as droughts. In fact, the
EUSF regulation requires that applications are submitted within 10 weeks of the
first damage caused by the disaster which is inappropriate for droughts whose
onset is difficult to determine. Furthermore, in order to become a fully-fledged
instrument of disaster risk reduction or pooling in Europe, it has been
suggested that the EUSF could capitalize national public-private insurance
programs and provide support for government risk transfer[28]. In doing so, the
EUSF could make insurance more affordable to vulnerable communities and sectors
currently on their own in dealing with drought risk.
2.4.
Considering additional water supply
infrastructures
The 2007 Communication indicates additional
water supply infrastructures as a possible alternative option to mitigate the
impacts of severe drought, in regions where demand still exceeds water
availability even after all prevention measures (water saving, water pricing
policy etc.) have been implemented. The specific policy objectives identified
were: ·
At the EU level, a Commission assessment of all
alternative options must be prepared. ·
At MS level, it must be ensured that all adverse
effects linked to any additional water supply infrastructure are fully taken
into account in the environmental assessment. Moreover, the expected
consequences of climate change and the objective to be achieved within the
Energy Policy for Europe must be fully considered in order to avoid any
incompatibility.
2.4.1.
Review of existing initiatives
In relation to alternative water supply
options, a study (Campling et al., 2008)[29] for the
Commission assessed the risks and impacts of four options (desalination,
wastewater re-use, ground-water recharge, and rainwater harvesting) and
revealed that it is not possible to provide an EU-wide set of best available
mitigation options. The potential problems and mitigation options differ
between locations and technologies. Therefore mitigation measures have to be
designed to deal with local conditions. Alternative water supply options may be
more expensive than conventional options but subsidies to compensate for price
differences should only help users in the transition towards more sustainable
use of water where the price of water reflects its true cost. The role of alternative water supply
options is likely to grow in the future due to climate change and the reduction
of water availability. Therefore particular attention should be paid to their
implementation and the continuous improvement of knowledge in the field. On ensuring that all adverse effects linked
to any additional water supply infrastructure are fully taken into account in
the environmental assessment the MS replies reflected in the 2008 and 2009 follow-up
reports indicate that Environmental Impact Assessment studies are required. MS refer to some new water infrastructure
(desalination plants, dams, tunnels, etc.) and indicate that adverse effects
linked to the infrastructure are fully taken into account in the Environmental
Impact Assessment and occasionally in the Strategic Environmental Assessment
studies.
2.4.2.
Evaluation of initiatives
2.4.2.1.
Were the objectives met and coherent with other actions?
The assessment suggests that the objectives
of this policy option have been met in the MS that replied to the questionnaires
of 2008 to 2010 as they all indicate enactment of legislation/regulations,
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) [30] studies and, for
some, application of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA)[31]
to new water supply infrastructure plans. The measure is as such coherent with these
key EU legal instruments. Moreover, an assessment of the main
alternative water supply options has been carried out.
2.4.2.2.
What were the main impacts?
Conserving water resources and increasing
water use efficiency is one of the most effective methods of providing
additional water quantities but the volume of water they make available may be
insufficient to meet a large portion of the increasing water demand. Innovative
water management practices offer potential but take time to become effective to
address short-term problems. Thus, often, conventional or non-conventional
water supply infrastructures need to be considered. Non- conventional water supply options such
as water transfers or desalination may have very important economic and
environmental impacts, which need to be assessed on a case by case basis.
2.4.2.3.
Were Drivers, Pressures or Impacts addressed?
Policy aimed at creating additional water
supply can tackle either pressures or impact, depending on the measures chosen but
does not respond to drivers. With wastewater reuse it is possible to
obtain additional supply without relying on available water resources, but
rather using water which has already been used. In other words, resources are
used which were already affected by pressures (water use). In contrast, desalination
responds to impacts rather than pressures, as demand for water remains
unchanged (pressures stay thus constant) and, in order to reduce impact on
available resources, additional water supply is created through desalination.
2.4.2.4.
Is this course of action still appropriate?
The policy option on “considering
additional water supply infrastructures” is one of the options of the 2007 Communication
to be considered after all other policies exhaust their water saving potential.
The priorities set in the Communication remain valid and need continued
attention and adherence by MS.
2.5.
Fostering water efficient technologies and
practices
2.5.1.
Review of existing initiatives
Water efficient technologies and practices are
becoming wide-spread across Europe and are expected to deliver significant
results in terms of water savings. There is scope for further implementing or
improving existing legislative measures including the Eco-Design Directive[32]
which covers some water-using equipment (white goods) and water-using
appliances (taps, shower heads, toilets) and the Construction Products
Directive[33], which could enable introducing
appropriate standards related to water efficiency for construction products Additional measures directly related to
technologies and practices at both European and national levels can also prove
useful in mitigating the impacts of water scarcity and drought. These include
exchange of best practices, enhanced research, widespread monitoring and
decision-making tools, effective advisory services and the drawing-up of
voluntary agreements with economic sectors.
2.5.2.
Evaluation of initiatives
2.5.2.1.
Were the objectives met and coherent with other
actions?
Efforts at EU level with respect to
fostering water efficient technologies and practices have been varied and many,
including inter-alia water saving and water recycling technologies, new
governance structures and targets for water efficiency in different sectors. At the EU level the initiatives are
coherent and compatible with other policies. Water efficient technologies and
practices are able to run alongside many other measures and interventions at
both an EU and MS level. The extent to which MS adopts such water efficient
practices depends on their needs. Different approaches have been followed
with respect to irrigated agriculture such as substantial
efficiency gains by reviewing application schedules, or modernizing irrigation
technologies e.g. from flood irrigation to sprinkler, or from sprinkler to drip
irrigation – depending on crops. Uncertainty remains however on how water
saving at the field level is effectively translated into overall water saving
at the farm and regional (river basin) levels: in some cases, modernization has
led to more area being cultivated rather than to reduced water use[34]. With respect to water for domestic use,
recent studies stressed that there is a large diversity of conveyance efficiency
in potable water supply systems (from 52% to 92.7%[35]).
While additional improvements are necessary for many systems, differences in
conveyance efficiencies can be justified and represent efficient conditions
adapted to different physical, financial, legal, institutional, regulatory,
environmental and socio-economic context under which water utilities operate.
In some cases, water distribution systems with low conveyance efficiency can be
at their most optimal conveyance efficiency level, meaning that there is no
further benefit to either society or the environment to reduce leakages further
i.e. additional investments in leakage reduction would
result in increased costs to the public but would not result in additional
benefits to either the public or the environment. Efficiency in practice can also be viewed
from a policy perspective, with the establishment of coherent and inter-related
processes for different plans in general, and between the RBMPs and other plans
in particular. Experience to date stresses that the RBMPs have not been
adequately coordinated with other internal strategic physical &
socio-economic planning documents prior to adaption. The lack of coordination
between socio-economic plans, rural development plans, spatial development plans
and basin plans, together with the absence of supporting financing plans,
severely hinders the implementation of the RBMPs in general and of measures and
actions relevant to WS&D (when specified in these RBMPs) in particular. The Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS) is
currently developing performance standards which can be used globally to
certify water users who voluntarily practice sustainable water management (AWS,
2011). The scheme, developed with stakeholder involvement, will have stringent
standards on water stewardship and will be able to promote efficient practices
by water utilities and by socio-economic operators that use significant
quantities of water in their operations (including agricultural producers,
beverage manufacturers, food processors and other food producers). To qualify
for certification, the AWS anticipates that applicants will be required to
measure their direct and indirect water consumption along with other physical
and chemical characteristics in the local water sheds in which they operate,
ensuring that links between water system efficiency and water stress is
adequately accounted for.
2.5.2.2.
What were the main impacts?
At EU level it is very difficult to assess
the extent to which water efficient technologies have resulted in economic and
environmental impacts, these being best assessed at a national level as the
true environmental cost will depend on the true cost of water, the specific
environmental conditions at a local level and the full range of costs and
benefits. Generally, the cost of a water efficiency
scheme may be less significant than that of a new resource measure, but the
long term yield of such measures has a degree of uncertainty due to a possible
rebound effect (i.e. increase in efficiency leading to an increase in consumption).
A key issue that has not been addressed is
the longevity of the measures. The short term effectiveness has been
demonstrated by many MS but the sustainability of this is as yet unclear.
2.5.2.3.
Were Drivers, Pressures or Impacts addressed?
Support actions and technical measures
(i.e. responses) applied at the EU and national level tackle pressures and
impacts and to some extent drivers. The specific way the initiatives have
tackled the issue depends on the measures chosen.
2.5.2.4.
Can this course of action be still considered
appropriate?
Given current and expected future magnitude
of the challenge of water scarcity and droughts at European level this course
of action is a vital recommendation of the 2007 Communication. A wide range of
applications of water efficient technologies and practices show that important water
savings are feasible. More importantly, a consistent water efficiency message
can foster behavioural change in the population with lasting positive effects.
There is a risk, however, that water
savings with a positive long term effect on the water balances of the aquatic
ecosystems are not fully considered in comparison to increasing supply from,
inter alia, desalination or new reservoirs. At national level MS should rely
more on water efficient technologies and practices as part of a twin track
approach to water resource planning and as a tool against water scarcity and
drought.
2.6.
Fostering the emergence of a water-saving
culture in Europe
As a cumulative effect of climate and other
environmental changes, a fast growing population and the efforts to decarbonize
energy supplies, the demand for water may increasingly exceed the renewable
yield of water and its interannual distribution. This is why a culture of water
saving becomes imperative throughout Europe. To this end, a number of awareness
raising, education, training and capacity building activities can be deployed. The 2007 Communication on water scarcity
and drought COM(2007) 414 final envisaged the following goals: ·
attempts to translate a water-saving culture
into corporate social responsibility; ·
inclusion of rules on water management in
certification schemes; and ·
an attempt to expand existing EU schemes
whenever appropriate in order to promote water efficient devices and water-friendly
products.
2.6.1.
Review of existing initiatives
In 2009, the Directive 2009/125/EC,
established a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for
energy-related products, including energy-using products and other energy
related products which do not use energy but have an impact on energy and can
therefore contribute to saving energy. Among the latter products are
water-using products such as shower heads or taps. In addition, because water
is used for energy generation, any saving of energy translates into reduced
water abstraction or consumption. In other words, energy saving has
side-benefits for conservation of water resources. The term ‘water-energy nexus’
refers to the inextricably linked nature of water and energy resources:
supplying energy requires water and impacts water quality, while supplying
water requires energy. Energy and water are essential resources of
the buildings sector. Building codes are the regulatory instrument determining
the resource use and other performance characteristics of buildings. Building
codes, if implemented properly, are cost-effective in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions from buildings. At the European level the recently recast Energy
Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD)[36] regulates the
energy use of buildings, adopting an integrated approach to different aspects
of energy use. A number of different awareness campaigns
were lunched at EU level. The Aquawareness, the European Water Awareness and
Water Stewardship Programme, was launched in 2008 by the European Water
Partnership (EWP). The initiative involves many stakeholders from various
sectors across Europe. MS have developed and implemented a number
of awareness raising and training campaigns, aiming at enhancing a water–saving
culture. These initiatives take different forms and are implemented by various
public and/or private bodies including governments, river basin authorities,
irrigation associations, educational institutions, NGOs, local stewards and
campaigners etc. Part of the information and awareness-raising campaigns is
information provision about for example the state of the water resources in the
MS and public access to the River Basin District Management Plans. The
portfolio of regulatory instruments relevant for the development of a water-saving
culture includes among others building codes and water requirements (e.g.
harvesting of rainwater, dual pipeline system for white and grey water, etc.);
and the ‘river contracts ‘,a form of agreement between authorities and
stakeholders.
2.6.2.
Evaluation of initiatives
2.6.2.1.
Were the objectives met and coherent with other actions?
Despite a number of activities launched at
EU level, and while fully acknowledging the indirect impacts on water use
achieved by Ecodesign of energy related products, there is no labelling which
is directly related to water. No consistent indicator of the development of a
water saving culture can be identified at this level. In addition, the attempts
to initiate a water scarcity related scheme in the framework of the European
Alliance on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has not been further pursued
as the members of CSR felt that such an initiative might be at risk of
duplication with other initiatives. There is a great variety of actions
undertaken at the MS level to promote water saving and this shows high level of
creativity and commitment but the picture is one of many piecemeal activities
without an overall strategic approach with large impact. There is a scope to integrate an EU
water-related labelling and/or certification scheme within existing schemes
which make the consumer aware of environmental impacts of certain products or
business practices.
2.6.2.2.
What were the main impacts?
The great diversity of activities promoting
a water saving culture makes it difficult to assess their impacts. The actions on
a water saving culture identified in the 2007 Communication are not able to
promote a shift from low to higher value water uses (allocation efficiency).
Instead, they contribute to promote water use efficiency and reduce wasteful
use of water. Hence the development of a water saving culture in Europe should be seen as an addition to the efforts aimed at maximising overall society’s
benefits from water uses. Generally, the performance of water
labelling, certification and environmental footprinting is limited to the
cost-efficiency of further reduction in water consumption. In other words, the
companies will engage in activities aimed at reducing consumption of water up
to the level this pursuit is cost efficient and/or contributes to achieving
business objectives. The possible outcomes (water savings) thus depend on the
initial efficiency of water use which varies depending on a host of
environmental, institutional, cultural and socioeconomic conditions.
2.6.2.3.
Were Drivers, Pressures or Impacts addressed?
The policy aimed at fostering a water
saving culture is mainly meant to tackle pressures. At EU level, pressures have been tackled
inter alia through the: Eco design requirements for energy-related products
(ERP); Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD) (2010/31/EU). However,
eco-design for taps and showerheads is still not included in the work plan of
the eco-design directive. At MS level examples of pressures addressed
include: Austria: Food Ministry’s initiative "Generation blue" offers
information of a wise and sustainable use of resources; Belgium (Flanders): ‘water
audit’ scheme is promoted as a tool to study the water management of a farm;
Cyprus: educational programme on water-saving culture at elementary schools and
kindergardens; Italy (Emilia Romagna): participation in the LIFE project
WaterClick called “WATer Against Climate Change).
2.6.2.4.
Is this course of action still appropriate?
The action is appropriate and should be
continued but aiming at developing a structured effort towards the development
of a water saving culture.
2.7.
Improving knowledge and data collection
According to the 2007 Communication, policy
options aimed at filling knowledge gaps and enhancing data collection must
address two different issues: 1) a Water Scarcity and Drought Information System
throughout Europa and 2) Research and technological development opportunities.
2.7.1.
Water scarcity and drought information system
2.7.1.1.
Review of existing initiatives
At the EU level, some significant
initiatives have been undertaken to create a coherent information system on
water scarcity and drought throughout Europe, among which the following
programmes can be recalled: · Development and enhancement of GMES services: the Global Monitoring
for Environment and Security is an Earth observation programme which delivers
information on the Earth’s environment and is based on a space infrastructure
and ‘in situ’ observation infrastructure. · Water quantity data collection has been included by the EEA in the
regular data collection framework organised with the EIONET network of Member
States. Data on water availability, abstraction and use are annually collected,
at RDB scale and with monthly resolution · EUROSTAT/OECD Joint Questionnaire on Inland Waters (JQIWA): The
reporting aims at the collection of data on water quantity (availability,
abstraction, use) at country level and on annual scale via the statistical
services. · Water Information System for Europe Maps: The creation of relevant
maps on water quantity and water scarcity at EU scale is currently on going by
the EEA, and the first maps in WISE are expected to be launched in 2012. · System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water (SEEAW):
Incorporating the SEEAW standard methodology, EEA is currently working on the
development of asset accounts for Europe with the purpose of producing water
balances for Europe. To enhance this initiative a vast collection of daily
streamflow data started in June 2011. The Commission has also awarded a
contract to support this activity. · Commission (JRC) European Drought Observatory (EDO): The JRC has
advanced the implementation of the EDO prototype and drought related maps are
currently available. · Indicators and scenarios bringing together hydrological, climate,
land-use and socio-economic databases for an assessment of the implications for
water resources availability, use and demand under different policy scenarios.
The database and maps developed by the Commission (JRC) contributed to the
Impact Assessment of the Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources. · WSD Indicators System: the CIS expert group on WS&D has defined
a first set of indicators on drought and water scarcity for awareness raising
purposes. The Water Exploitation Index plus (WEI+) has been agreed. Integration
of the indicators into the WISE and the EDO are to be further defined. · Commission specific studies: DG Environment has launched a series of
studies on specific issues capturing aspects of WS&D and enhancing data gap
filling. A study on “Climate Water Adaptation” based on the SCENES WaterGap
model has produced different scenario runs to draw the future picture of water
stress in Europe based on modeling, as well as a database of relevant measures. · The Drought Management Centre for Southeastern Europe has focused
its work on monitoring and assessing drought, as well as risks and
vulnerability connected to drought. Drought monitoring maps of south east are
online and monthly drought bulletins are available. Many MS have undertaken independent
monitoring and data collection programmes, covering a variety of issues and
variables in the fields of water management, state of water resources, water
scarcity and droughts. Some highlights are: · Czech Republic: Study on temporal
and spatial availability of hydrological drought in climate change conditions
on the national territory, sponsored by the Ministry of the Environment; · Italy: Pilot Project against drought and
desertification in the Piedmont region, including the acquisition and collation
of the necessary data to apply the ESAs methodology (Environmentally Sensitive
Areas) and allowing the calculation of several quality indexes. · Poland: Establishment of a Drought Monitoring System (ADMS) by the
Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation – State Research Institute
(IUNGPIB) on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. It is
aimed at indentifying those areas affected by crop losses due to drought
conditions. · Spain: Development of the Spanish National Water
Plan and the Global Drought Monitoring System. Development of Indicators System
on Hydrological State (SIEH) and Catalogue of Droughts in Spain (CatSE) for the whole country. · UK: Development by the Environment Agency of a website
dedicated to drought, where various information is displayed, including weekly
and monthly Water Situation Reports (bulletins) In addition to the above mentioned examples,
other countries developed various forms of monitoring systems, data collection
campaigns, information services at national level etc.
2.7.1.2.
Evaluation of initiatives
Were the objectives met and coherent
with other actions? Efforts taken at EU level are all
concurring in creating a wide and reliable information base on many
environmental and water-related variables across Europe, covering also water
scarcity and droughts. Nevertheless, it seems that the first objective for this
sub-theme (obtain reliable information on water scarcity and droughts)
has not been fully reached yet. When examining the collected information, data
gaps that prevent comprehensive assessments are still identifiable despite the
considerable effort made. The information needed in relation to water scarcity
is generally described as drivers, pressures, state, impact, response. Current
information addresses mainly pressures and state. Therefore, information on
impacts of WS&D is not widely available, nor has a common typology been
developed and definitions still need harmonization across the EU. Moreover, available information is largely
qualitative and lacks quantitative data. Even the data on state and pressures
have significant gaps: data on water availability are often lacking, as well as
data on environmental requirements associated with water stress conditions. Similarly,
the integration of all information sources in WISE is not achieved. Overall, it appears that more coordination of
the MS is needed with respect to data acquisition and monitoring of water
scarcity and droughts and, more generally, of water-related parameters, in
order to obtain reliable and comparable data which can then be used at EU level. Looking at the initiatives undertaken at
the EU level, links and synergies among the different programmes should be
identified and information from the different EU research and regional projects
need to be better coordinated in order to be taken up and exploited. There is generally a lack of coordination
and coherence between national level initiatives and information systems which
could be improved by a stronger intervention at the EU level. What were the main impacts? The creation of information systems and
databases are the necessary and fundamental basis for the development of
prediction and early warning services on the one hand, and the design of water
scarcity and drought management policies on the other. As these all concur in
improving and enhancing preparedness to drought events and prevention of water
scarcity at the EU level, investments in the creation of information systems
will avoid extra social and environmental costs due to water scarcity and
droughts in the medium and long term. Due to the above short comings this has
only partially been achieved. Were Drivers, Pressures or Impacts
addressed? The collected information can be used for the
identification of the problem, and impact assessment, and therefore trigger
additional responses at EU level and/or MS level. Information systems at MS level focus on
the description of the state of the environment, monitoring of impacts and
identification of appropriate responses (e.g. early warning systems), although
detailed information on the quantification of impacts and the responses’
effectiveness is not available. The least attention is given to the monitoring
and measuring of the Drivers: this may be due to the fact that data such as,
for example, climate variables, are often registered on a routine basis, so MS
did not include these monitoring activities while reporting on the specific
issues of water scarcity and droughts. The same may apply for the
socio-economic drivers. Is this course of action still
appropriate? The great efforts undertaken at the
European level to create a wide and reliable information system seem
appropriate to the magnitude of the challenges they are meant to face. Considering the national level, MS devised
monitoring and information gathering programmes which may not fully address the
trans-boundary component of WS&D. From a pan-European perspective, more
coordination is needed in order to overcome this.
2.7.2.
Research and technological development
opportunities
2.7.2.1.
Review of existing initiatives
Major research efforts which have been
promoted and financed at the European level in relation to water scarcity and
drought are listed below: · XEROCHORE Support Action: it is the most important research
programme tackling drought and, in particular, it aims at identifying the
current state of the art of drought-related national and regional policies ;
the ultimate objective is to develop a road map identifying research gaps and
steps to be taken in order to fill them, and to provide support to the European
drought policy. · Several projects within the 6th Framework Research
Programme, such as AQUASTRESS, RECLAIM WATER, GABARDINE, MEDINA, MEDESOL,
PLEIADeS and FLOWAID and DROUGHT-R&SPI from FP7, provided scientific and
technological inputs in the field of water scarcity and droughts. · In addition there are a number of agricultural irrigation/water
quality projects of interest from FP6 such as IRRIQUAL and SAFIR, and SIRRIMED
FIGARO and TREAT&USE from FP7. · Under the IWRM-Net programme projects related to WS&D has been funded
under the 2nd call: Water2Adapt, ICARUS, Water Cap and Trade, CLIMAWARE MS have also been actively promoting
research and development. Many projects dealt with issues such as climate
change, its impacts, proposed adaptation measures, its effects on expected
water availability or on biological flows and resource availability as well as
new opportunities for the food processing-industry. Some ME focused on the role
that groundwater resources play during drought events, by developing further
research on aquifer modeling (BE), artificial recharge (FR) and groundwater
monitoring networks. Another research area which was addressed
by several MS concerned water consumption and efficient resource use,
investigating for example consumer behaviour with water using devices (UK), the
correlation between water and energy efficiency of dish washers and washing
machines (UK), improvements of efficiency of water using devices (UK),
improvement of agricultural practices including irrigation (CY, ES, FR),
assessment of alternative water supply options (CY, FR).
2.7.2.2.
Evaluation of initiatives
Were the objectives met and coherent
with other actions? EU projects have ensured a broad,
pan-European approach to the issue of droughts, and to the most suitable policy
measures to address it, producing also relevant science policy briefs. However,
water scarcity was not the subject of a single, comprehensive research project,
but it was rather tackled, together with other issues, by different projects
within the 6th and 7th Framework Programme. There is weak common coordination in
research orientations across MS. On the one hand, some MS concentrated research
efforts on the same issues, on the other hand other issues related to water
savings and efficiency have been poorly explored. This suggests a better coordination
of MS research projects to expand coverage and reduce duplications. Given the objectives set by the 2007 Communication
for research and technological development opportunities (the support,
coordination and dissemination of research effort between EU and MS levels), it
appears that further efforts are necessary in particular in relation to
coordination. Which were the main impacts? Assessing the social, economic and
environmental impact of research efforts is generally difficult as research
policies do not have direct impacts but are rather aimed at generating
background information and innovations which will in turn feed other policy
measures and interventions with a direct impact, for example, on water
allocation. More specifically, in the case of water scarcity and
drought-related research programmes, outcomes are expected to enhance
preparedness and to bring about the development of adaptation strategies leading
to social, economic and environmental benefits. The time lag between research
programmes and the translation of findings into policy or societal impacts makes
it hard to verify the achievement of these expected positive impacts. Were Drivers, Pressures or Impacts
addressed? EU research projects investigated mainly pressures
and impacts of water scarcity and droughts, while drivers were investigated
within the XEROCHORE Support Action project. At national level, although some attention
was given to drivers and state, the greatest effort was, also, directed at
tackling pressures and impacts. Is this course of action still
appropriate? At the EU level great efforts have been
made in research activities, particularly on droughts, while water scarcity has
not been addressed by an overarching research initiative. This is required to
effectively cover all relevant issues and themes related to water scarcity in
the future. Better coordination of research activities
e.g. under the Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) on Water and better linking of
research to policy making and markets under the Innovation Partnership on
Water, is crucial for the future. [1] COM (2007) 414 final [2] First Follow-up Report (COM(2008) 875
final) to the Communication on water scarcity and
droughts in the EU COM (2007) 414 final [3] Second Follow-up
Report (COM(2010)228 final) to the Communication on water scarcity and droughts
in the EU COM (2007) 414 final [4] Third Follow-up Report (COM(2011) 133 final) to the Communication on
water scarcity and droughts in the EU COM (2007) 414 final [5] Water Scarcity & Droughts Policy in the EU - Gap Analysis.
Final Report from ACTeon to the European Commission, 2012 [6] Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p.1 [7] The role of water pricing and water
allocation in agriculture in delivering sustainable water use in Europe, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/agriculture_report.pdf [8] Molle, F., Berkoff, J., 2007. “Water pricing in irrigation: mapping
the debate in the light of experience”. In Molle, F., and Berkoff, J., (eds.),
2007 - “Irrigation Water Pricing”, Chapter 2 - CAB International. [9] Garrido, A and Calatrava, J. 2010 “Agricultural Water Pricing: EU
and Mexico”. Background reports supporting the OECD study (2010) Sustainable
Management of Water Resources in Agriculture, www.oecd.org/water. [10] European Environment Agency (EEA) 201: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/water-pricing-and-household-water/ [11] EEA, 2009. “Water resources across Europe: confronting water
scarcity and drought”. EEA Report No. 2/2009. [12] Legal proposals for the CAP post 2013 further aim to strengthen
funding for water management measures and water efficiency. (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index_en.htm) [13]
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/2009Bioenergy.pdf [14]
Directive 2009/28/EC [15] Directive 2011/92/EU [16] Directive 2001/42/EC [17] Alliance Environment (2007): Evaluation of the application of cross
compliance as foreseen under Regulation 1782/2003 Executive Summary -
26/07/2007 [18] Dworak, T., Strosser, P., Joyce, J. (2009): Scenarios of water
demand management – Impacts at regional level (summary) Final Report. Study for
the European Commission, DG Environment.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Summary_Scenarios.pdf [19] White paper on Adaptation to Climate Change, COM (2009) 147 final. [20] European Commission, September 2010 -
Cohesion policy and the environment, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/cohesion.pdf [21] Regions 2020 - The Climate Change Challenge For European Regions [22] COM(2010) 553 final [23] http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_en.cfm [24] Guidance document No. 24, River Basin Management In A Changing
Climate (2009) [25] Civil Protection Financial Instrument (2007/162/EC) [26] http://www.feem-project.net/preempt [27] As required by Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and
management of flood risks [28] Hochrainer, S., Linnerooth-Bayer, J. and Mechler, R. 2010. The
European Union Solidarity Fund: Its Legitimacy, Viability and Efficiency.
Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change, 15(7): 797-810. [29] Campling, P., L. De
Nocker, W. Schiettecatte, A. I. Iacovides, T. Dworak, E. Kampa M. Álvarez
Arenas, O. Le Mat 2008 “Assessment of the risks and impacts of four
alternative water supply options” [30] Directives 85/337/EC, 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [31] Directive
2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the
assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment [32] Directive 2009/125/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council
Establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for
energy-related products [33] Council
Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction
products, now repealed by the EC and Regulation No 305/2011 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions
for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive
89/106/EEC, which will take effect from 2013 onwards [34] Water saving potential in agriculture in Europe: findings from
existing studies and application to case studies. Final report, European Commission
DG ENV, January 2012. [35] Resource and Economic efficiency of Water
Distribution Networks, ERM Final Report to the Commission 2012 [36] Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast)