EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels,13.6.2018

SWD(2018) 249 final/2

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum requirements for water reuse

{COM(2018) 337 final}

{SEC(2018) 249 final}

{SWD(2018) 250 final}

Table of content

Introduction

1.Problem definition

1.1.Policy context

1.2.Problem definition

1.2.1.Scope of the present impact assessment

1.3.What are the underlying causes of the problem?

1.3.2.Factor 2 – Legal frameworks for water reuse exist only in few Member States resulting in a perceived health risk and environmental risk

1.3.3.Factor 3 – Possible trade barriers, i.e. trade bans for food products irrigated with reclaimed water

1.3.4.Factor 4 – Reuse perceived as more risky than beneficial

1.4.How will the problem evolve, all things being equal?

1.5.Who is affected and how?

2.Why should the EU act?

2.1.Competence

2.2.Subsidiarity

3.Objectives – what should be achieved?

3.1.General objective

3.2.Specific objectives

3.3.Operational objectives

4.Policy Options

4.1.Baseline – “No new EU action”

4.2.Design of policy options

4.2.1.Minimum quality requirements for water reuse to ensure health safety of agricultural products irrigated with treated waste waterm which are placed on the Internal Market

4.2.1.1."One-size-fits-all" approach

4.2.1.2."Fit-for-purpose" approach

4.2.1.3.Implementation of the requirements

4.2.1.4.Minimum requirements: regulated at EU-level or recommended by an EU Guidance document

4.2.2.Minimum quality requirements to ensure protection of local public health and of the environment – Risk Management Framework

4.2.3.Key Risk Management Framework principles included in a legal instrument

4.2.4.Risk Management Framework recommended by an EU Guidance document

5.Analysis of Impacts

5.1.Baseline

5.2.Analysis of the impacts of the policy options for water reuse in agricultural irrigation

5.2.1.Economic impacts

5.2.2.Environmental impacts

5.2.2.1.Adapting to climate change and preserving the quality of natural resources

5.2.2.2.Fostering the efficient use of resources

5.2.2.3.Sustainable consumption and production

5.2.2.4.Minimising environmental risks

5.2.3.Social impacts

6.Comparing the Options

6.1.Effectiveness of the policy options

6.2.Efficiency of the policy options

6.3.Coherence of the policy options

6.4.Nature of the instrument

6.5.Preferred option

7. Monitoring and Evaluation

Introduction

Water is already a limited resource, with one third of Europe experiencing water stress. The growing needs of populations and climate change will make the availability of water in sufficient quantity and quality even more of a challenge in Europe in the future. Water scarcity is no longer confined to a few corners of Europe, and is already a concern across the EU with significant environmental and economic consequences; projections suggest that the situation will become much more pronounced in the coming years.

To respond to this problem, Europe's water resources should be managed more efficiently. In addition to water savings, securing the supply of good quality water can help address water scarcity in the context of an integrated approach to water management. Reusing water after treatment constitutes an effective and sustainable alternative water supply, and so can be a useful tool for managing water resources. For example, this can involve a treatment plant receiving waste water from domestic uses and then treating it separately and providing it by pipe to farmers, instead of returning it directly to a river. It extends its life cycle, thereby helping to preserve water resources as part of an integrated approach to water management and in full compliance with the circular economy objectives. Today, whilst water reuse in the EU could obviously never by itself solve water scarcity problems, it falls far below its full potential.

The Commission has been considering the issue of water reuse for a number of years and has documented its findings to date in several steps. In the 2012 Communication "A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources" (COM(2012) 673) water reuse for irrigation or industrial purposes was found to have a lower environmental impact and potentially lower costs than other alternative water supplies, whereas it is only used to a limited extent in the EU. A Fitness check of EU Freshwater policy (SWD(2012) 393) published in November 2012, as a building block of the Blueprint, assessed the performance of the measures taken, both in environment and in other policy areas, in achieving the objectives already agreed in the context of water policy. It also identified the major gaps to be closed in order to deliver environmental objectives more efficiently. In relation to waste water reuse, the Fitness Check concluded that "alternative water supply options with low environmental impact need to be further relied upon" in order to address water scarcity. A particular issue emphasised by stakeholders in the public consultation of the Fitness Check was the lack of EU common quality requirements for reuse of waste water in irrigation. Several policy options to promote water reuse were considered in the impact assessment of the Blueprint (SWD(2012) 382) 1 A number of actions to promote water reuse were included in the Communication "Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the circular economy" (COM(2015) 614), and in particular a legislative proposal on minimum requirements for reused water for irrigation and groundwater recharge. This proposal has also been included in the European Commission's 2017 Work Programme as it contributes to the political priorities set by the Commission to promote a more circular economy. In addition, it may complement the planned future modernisation of the Common Agricultural Policy. 2  Finally, the initiative could contribute to the EU's implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and in particular SDG 6 on Clean Water and Sanitation, which sets a target of substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally by 2030.

The intention to address water reuse with a new legislative proposal was noted with interest by the Council, in its conclusions on the Commission's Communications on the Blueprint and on Circular Economy and in its conclusions on Sustainable Water Management (11902/16). Furthermore, the European Parliament, in its Resolution on the follow-up to the European Citizens’ Initiative Right2Water in September 2015, encouraged the Commission to draw up a legislative framework on water reuse, as well as the Committee of the Regions, in its opinion on "Effective water management system: an approach to innovative solutions" in December 2016.

The present document addresses the problem of a too limited application of water reuse in order to contribute to alleviating water scarcity and analyses the modalities of creating an enabling framework for increasing the uptake of water reuse, in particular for agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge. Setting appropriate minimum requirements together with a risk assessment approach would ensure a level playing field for those engaged in water reuse and those affected, ensure health and the environment are protected and thereby also increase confidence in the practice of water reuse. Acting now by putting in place an enabling framework would contribute to alleviating water stress where it is already a reality today in the EU and also prepare operators and farmers to be ready to act also in those parts of the EU which will experience increasing water stress in the coming years and decades.

1.Problem definition 

1.1.Policy context

This impact assessment analyses the potential of an EU initiative on water reuse in the context of water scarcity being a serious problem today and a great concern amongst EU Member States. Europe's freshwater resources are under increasing stress, with a mismatch between the continuously increasing demand for, and the limited availability of, water resources across the whole EU (EEA, 2012 3 ). Water over-abstraction, for irrigation purposes but also for industrial use and urban development, is one of the main threats to the EU water environment, while availability of water of appropriate quality is a critical condition to growth in water-dependent economic sectors and society in general. Empirical studies find significant macroeconomic affects which vary with the assumed duration and severity of the drought or water scarcity 4 .

Water stress already affects one third of the EU territory all year round (EC, 2012 5 ). This is no longer only an issue for arid, densely populated regions that are prone to increasing water stress; temperate areas with intense agricultural, tourism and industrial activities also suffer from frequent water shortages and/or expensive supply solutions. While during summer months this is more pronounced in Southern European basins, water scarcity and droughts are no longer issues confined to southern Europe. Regions in northern European countries, including the United Kingdom and Germany, also face seasonal water stress. 

As an effect of climate change, the frequency and intensity of droughts and their environmental and economic damages have drastically increased over the past thirty years: between 1976 and 2006 the number of areas and people affected by droughts went up by almost 20% and the total costs of droughts amounted to EUR 100 billion (EC, 2012). A concrete example related to the droughts of the summer of 2017 may further illustrate the dimensions of economic loss; the Italian farming sector alone was predicting losses of EUR 2 billion 6 . This trend is expected to continue, i.e. the average volume of water annually available as streamflow is expected to decrease significantly in the South of Europe, to slightly increase in the North, with a transition zone in between, where it is expected to remain approximately stable (see Annex 4 for details on the assessment). However, the temporal variability of available water is generally expected to increase, consistent with the general increase in drought and flood hazards projected for Europe (Forzieri et al., 2014; Forzieri et al., 2016) 7 . So, even in the North of Europe there will be a need to better manage water resources and to enable more tools.

As shown in Figure 1, even conservative climate scenarios would subject large parts of the EU territory to significantly reduced quantities of water in rivers.

Figure 1: Water scarcity under a 2 degree climate scenario (Water Exploitation Index, WEI+ is the ratio of consumed water versus availability; in the red areas more than 40% of all annual renewable freshwater is consumed). Source: Bisselink & De Roo, 2017 8    [6]  

Today's situation can be illustrated using an indicator of water stress due to possible over-abstraction; the ratio of water demand to water availability. Using this indicator, Figure 2 shows how Europe’s rivers are already subject to significant pressure from abstractions (see Annex 4 for details on the assessment). The indicator highlights that the challenge is not limited to Southern Europe, but is also an issue in more central parts of Europe.

Figure 2: Water demand divided by water availability. Source: Bisselink & De Roo, 2017.

Farmers needing water for irrigation are obviously affected by this water pressure. Farmers seeking reliable sources of water all year round may have several options for alternative water supplies. These can, for example, include investment in water storage devices, using groundwater reserves, desalination or transferring water from other river basins. In theory alternative water supply options, especially desalination, can deliver unlimited amounts of water. In practice, all the options have a lot of limitations in terms of costs and negative economic, environmental and social impacts. These alternatives have been assessed within the impact assessment of the Blueprint (see Annex 1a for details).

In some countries, farmers may also receive treated waste water from urban waste water treatment plants, which can provide a reliable source of water, less dependent on precipitation and in a quality adapted for this water to be reused for various purposes, e.g. for agricultural irrigation. Water reuse generally has a lower environmental impact than other alternative water supplies and offers a range of environmental, economic and social benefits (Annex 6).

While the evidence demonstrates the seriousness of water stress and its expected evolution, the policy context for water reuse as a contribution to its alleviation has only started to be developed. Another important angle is the impact of water scarcity in one Member State on other Member States via the Internal Market. The differences in concepts, principles and procedures between the water reuse laws of different Member States may impede the free movement of agricultural products irrigated with treated waste water, create unequal conditions of competition, and may thereby directly affect the functioning of the Internal Market.

Water reuse has already been identified and encouraged in provisions of two existing EU instruments, however, these instruments do not specify conditions for the reuse of treated waste water:

·the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC, WFD); its Annex VI, part B mentions water reuse as one of the possible supplementary measures;

·the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC, UWWTD): its Article 12 stipulates, as part of the condition on wastewater discharges that "treated waste water shall be reused whenever appropriate. Disposal routes shall minimize the adverse effects on the environment.".

In the WFD, water scarcity is a key aspect of water management. This legislation sets inter alia a central goal of attaining good status for Europe's waters by 2015. It requires Member States to characterise the situation of their water in terms of pressures from human activities and set 'programmes of measures' to achieve the good status objective. Those are part of River Basins Management Plans, to be reviewed every 6 years. In 2007, the EU policy on water scarcity and droughts (COM(2007) 414) (WS&D) elaborated on the integration of water scarcity planning into River Basins Management Plans, including the use of appropriate water pricing and ecological requirements for river flows. It spelled out the hierarchy of measures Member States should consider in managing water scarcity and droughts, with priority for water saving and efficiency measures, and with additional water supply infrastructures only to be considered as an option when other options have been exhausted, including effective water pricing policy and cost-effective alternatives. Water reuse is to be considered within such an integrated water management approach. The Circular Economy Action Plan included a number of actions on water reuse (one of which is subject of this impact assessment), including also Guidelines on integrating water reuse into water planning and management in the context of the WFD which were completed in 2016 and are expected to positively contribute.

In 2012, the Commission conducted a series of assessments to check the adequacy of the water legislation and its implementation. A 'Fitness Check' of freshwater policy looked into the relevance, coherence, effectiveness and efficiency of water policy. A major evaluation of the implementation of the WFD was carried out, assessing Member States' River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). A gap analysis of the Commission's 2007 policy on Water Scarcity and Drought 9 was also carried out, together with an assessment of how vulnerable water resources are to climate change and other man-made pressures such as urbanisation and land use. This included also an assessment of measures introduced by Member States in different River Basins to address water scarcity and droughts. Such measures were, for example, the development of drought management plans, considering additional water supply infrastructure (including water reuse projects) and fostering water efficient technologies and practices. The results showed that the legislative framework was largely complete and fit for purpose. However, the overall objective of the WFD – good status for Europe's waters by 2015 – has not yet been fully achieved, neither the WS&D overall policy objective – to revert the WS&D trends. Furthermore, better implementation and closer integration with other related policies were clearly required, as well as the development of additional tools related to water demand management and water availability.

The few identified gaps were discussed in the Communication "A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources" (COM/2012/0673). As regards the alleviation of water scarcity and reduction of vulnerability, the Impact Assessment of the Blueprint (SWD(2012) 382) assessed a number of measures improving water efficiency and availability (e.g. desalination, water transfers, rainwater harvesting, etc.). Beyond water efficiency measures, water reuse was identified for its cost-effectiveness and its lower environmental impacts compared to other supply options; the need for an EU action to address the barriers to its further development was supported in public consultations (see Annex 2). As a result, the Commission announced in the Blueprint it would consider developing a regulatory instrument setting EU-wide minimum requirements for water reuse to improve the uptake of this alternative water supply while maintaining health and environment safety.

A Fitness Check of EU environmental monitoring, which was carried out and presented by the Commission in June 2017, includes an action plan to streamline environmental reporting to be implemented in the coming years 10 . Monitoring needs for the present initiative have been elaborated according to the principles highlighted in this Fitness Check (see more details in Section 7).

The Commission has been discussing water reuse with Member States and stakeholders on an ongoing basis for the last number of years, both on the policy aspects and the development of minimum requirements, taking account of existing national requirements and international practice. The need to address the issue at EU level in the context of alleviating water scarcity is broadly recognised and supported, including by the agricultural sector (see Annex 2). 11

1.2.Problem definition

The problem this initiative seeks to address is that although the practice of water reuse, in particular for agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge, could contribute to alleviating water stress in the EU (see projections in Section 1.1), the uptake of water reuse solutions remains limited in comparison with their potential, which remains largely untapped. The problem is relevant for the EU now due to the important consequences of the growing scarcity affecting EU waters for the environment, the economy and society in general. There is an important dimension related to the proper functioning of the Internal Market for agricultural products irrigated with treated waste water.

Several factors contribute to the situation concerning water reuse today and any proposed solution to the problem should be seen against this background. Firstly, existing water resources in Europe are not always managed efficiently. There are many situations where access to conventional water resources is insufficiently controlled by public authorities resulting in both over allocation (abstraction permits going beyond available resources, incl. situations where no maximum amount is set in permits) and illegal abstraction (when permits are not enforced in particular because of no monitoring of actual abstractions). The same conventional resources are generally under-priced, as fees imposed on self-abstractions generally do not reflect the environmental and resource cost; the water price in collective systems hardly covers infrastructure costs (cf. below Figure 3). Both issues can be considered as an implementation failure as they contradict WFD provisions regarding the setting of controls on permits, abstractions and water pricing. They can be addressed with e.g. compliance and enforcement actions as appropriate, ensuring a proper implementation of the WFD in Member States 12 . These failures frequently result in a market failure: subsidised uses of water are being practiced, even more detrimentally in situations of water scarcity, which does not reflect their actual cost, leading to a reduction of the economic attractiveness of water reuse projects (if only the latter are considered at their full cost, or if all available options are not compared on equal terms). As a consequence, improper investment decisions made by water users and decision makers in terms of actual costs incurred and environmental impacts, despite water reuse being more advantageous than other measures (e.g. use of drinking water, desalination, lengthy water transfers, on stream storage facilities) in terms of costs incurred and environmental impacts.

Figure 3: Cost-recovery levels in reviewed countries where irrigation water tariffs are in place, and in other southern EU Member States (EEA, 2013)

Secondly, despite the existing provisions in both the WFD and UWWTD, water reuse has not been systematically and sufficiently considered in integrated water management planning 13 : a) either as a practical solution in the broader water management or in the elaboration and implementation of River Basin Management Plans or b) in the design and location of waste water treatment plants. Cost of adaptation of existing plants and conveying water to places of reuse is generally higher than if taken into consideration at the initial stage of building waste water treatment plants and conveyance networks. The second public consultation identified the distance between treatment plant and irrigation fields and the insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated management amongst the highest barriers (see Annex 2).

The Regulation on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs (EC) No 852/2004 refers to the concept of clean water but does not include water quality requirements. An accompanying Guidance 14 specifies, amongst others, the use of treated waste water for irrigation; it includes examples of parametric values to ensure the protection of health but their application is voluntary. Potential environmental risks associated with the use of treated waste water for irrigation are not addressed.

Current water reuse practices diverge widely across Member States. In some, water reuse is considered an integral and effective component of long-term water resources management due to severe water scarcity (e.g. Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain), while in other Member States water reuse is not practised or water reuse projects are rather limited. An overview of the current situation of water reuse in the EU Member States is provided in Annex 6.

In 2015, the total volume of reused treated waste water in the EU was estimated at 1,100 million m3/year (BIO, 2015 15 ), accounting for 2.4% of the total volume of treated effluents produced or 0.4% of annual EU freshwater withdrawals (237,660 million m3/year in 2011). The European countries with the highest reuse rates are presented in Figure 4a. However, as presented in Figure 4b, rates even for water scarce Italy, Greece and Spain are much lower than in a number of third countries which have invested a lot in this technology over the last decades. The highest rate is Israel where 87% of treated waste water is presently reused, with a target by 2022 of 90%. This confirms that overall in Europe and even in most European countries with water reuse being an integral and effective component of long-term water resources management, the potential of water reuse is far from being exploited.

Figure 4a: Effluent reclamation in Europe (Mekorot, 2017)

Figure 4b: Effluent reclamation in third countries (Mekorot, 2017)

Compared to the current practice as summarised above, the potential for water reuse in the EU is estimated to be much larger: a volume in the order of 6,000 million m3/year by 2025 might be achieved in the presence of a better enabling framework and suitable financial incentives at the EU level (BIO, 2015). Reusing the total volume of treated wastewater in Europe could cover nearly 44% of the agricultural irrigation demand and avoid 13% of abstraction from natural sources (Defra, 2011) and could significantly contribute to alleviating water scarcity

The problem as set out above is resulting in an opportunity lost for EU citizens on the whole and economic sectors such as agriculture, tourism, industry, energy and transport (see footnote 2). This may in turn affect economic growth (in the case of reduced production due to water scarcity) or competitiveness (in case of disadvantaged farmers due to differences in input costs or due to unsafe products reaching the markets). The effects of water scarcity in one Member State are also felt in others via the Internal Market and the tightly interconnected European economies through impacts on trade in goods and services as well as investments.

This concerns in particular trade in agricultural products irrigated with treated waste water. The important differences in relation to concepts, principles and procedures between the water reuse laws of different Member States, these differences may in particular impede the free movement of agricultural products irrigated with treated waste water, create unequal conditions of competition, and may thereby directly affect the functioning of the Internal Market. As the intra-EU share of trade in agricultural products by far exceeds the extra-EU share, this aspect is significant. For fruits and vegetables, this amounted to EUR 33.4 billion in intra-EU trade as compared to EUR 4.7 billion in extra-EU trade in 2015. 16

Furthermore, technology providers in this sector are EU-scale companies 17 . However, differences in standards among Member States can prevent companies benefitting from economies of scale and standardisation, which would support innovation and the development of systemic solutions at lower costs. This was confirmed by the specific consultation of experts in research and innovation (see Annex 8).

1.2.1.Scope of the present impact assessment

The scope of this impact assessment includes water reuse for agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge; the source of water for such purposes is limited to treated waste water covered by the UWWTD.

This reflects the priority areas as set out in previous Commission documents. In the 2015 Communication ‘Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the Circular Economy’ (COM/2015/614) and subsequently in the Inception Impact Assessment of the EU water reuse initiative at hand, agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge were identified as main potential sources of demand for reclaimed water having the greatest potential in terms of its higher uptake, scarcity alleviation and EU relevance: agricultural irrigation as the biggest user of treated waste water and the links with the Internal Market and aquifer recharge due to the potential cross-border nature of many aquifers.

Beyond the uses analysed in this impact assessment, treated waste water may be used for a wide variety of other purposes. For reference, these are also briefly summarised below and set out in more detail in Annex 6.

Agricultural irrigation is by far the largest application of reclaimed water worldwide and in Europe (Annex 6) and a significant use of water in Europe, overall accounting for around a quarter of total freshwater abstracted. Abstraction for irrigation accounts for about 60% of total freshwater abstraction in Southern and South Eastern Europe, and up to 80% in certain River basin districts (RBDs). Water reuse in agriculture therefore has the highest potential for an increased uptake of water reuse, and thus contributing to the alleviation of water scarcity in Europe.

Artificial aquifer recharge aims at increasing the groundwater potential and it can help prevent saline intrusion in depleted coastal aquifers. The lack of scientific and technical knowledge (including lack of clarity of ownership and liability), coupled with low perception of this kind of technique being an important water management instrument, contribute to the low uptake at present (Escalante, 2014). The risks to health and the environment from pollutants such as bacteria, viruses and emerging pollutants and priority substances such as those already detected occasionally in discharges from water treatment plants (and in high concentrations) are also perceived as an obstacle (Estévez et al., 2016; Estévez et al., 2012). In the first public consultation, aquifer recharge was one of the uses for water reuse most frequently mentioned that stakeholder found appropriate, in particular in order to prevent saline intrusion (see Annex 2). Therefore water reuse for aquifer recharge has been analysed for potential regulation at the EU level but the case for an EU intervention is not deemed proportionate, as set out further in subsequent sections.

Whilst agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge are in scope, a number of other areas are outside the scope and so not considered further because of various reasons (e.g. they are already covered by other legislation; the risks are being managed effectively and/or are not linked to the internal market).

In terms of investment opportunities, water reuse projects currently suffer from a limited economic attractiveness which is exacerbated by the unclear regulatory framework applying to them and today, the level of investment into water reuse in the EU is limited and far below its potential. This issue is being addressed in the Circular Economy Action Plan which commits to maintain and increase the visibility of existing financial support to investments in water reuse, e.g. with European Structural and Investment Funds. Therefore this topic will not be pursued further in this IA.

A number of actions on improving implementation and enforcement of existing water legislation will be taken independently of this initiative as they are not specific to water reuse. Additionally, in the Circular Economy Action Plan, the Commission committed to develop a series of non-regulatory actions to promote safe and cost-effective water reuse in 2016-2017 (see above).

Water reuse for municipal/landscape uses (e.g. irrigation of public parks, recreational and sporting facilities, street cleaning, fire protection systems etc.) is outside the scope of this Impact Assessment. Local conditions determine both the opportunities and risks, and no significant health or environmental risk has been identified with current practices in the Member States. The risks to the environment are generally very local and they are regulated to a large extent by the existing EU legislative framework (e.g. WFD and UWWTD). Given the visibility of this use to the public, often associated with access restrictions in urban areas where water reuse is practised, the public perception of these risks needs to be adequately managed (see the supporting studies of BIO and AMEC), taking into account the local specificities of these uses. Therefore, authorities in the Member States need some flexibility within the existing framework and no need for further legislative action has been identified.

Direct reuse of waste water from industrial sources for agricultural irrigation is outside the scope of this impact assessment. The quality of industrial waste water is in general very different from domestic waste water in terms of nature and magnitude of pollutants, in particular chemicals. Because of the diversity of pollutants and of the potential harmful effects to both health and the environment of some of these pollutants, these effluents pose specific challenges in terms of safety and treatment technology. As regards the discharge of industrial waste water into the environment, the Industrial Emission Directive only imposes detailed quality requirements (emission limits) on large-size firms in a number of selected sectors. Reuse and recycling of waste water from industrial sources are generally limited to those for industrial purposes in the same or another industry; the conditions for such reuse or recycling are very sector-specific. Best Available Techniques Reference Documents (BREFs) developed under the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) address water use and reuse for most sectors where this is relevant (29 out of 31; e.g. Food, drink and milk industries, Industrial cooling systems, Rearing of poultry and pigs). The drafting of the EU Action Plan on Circular Economy already considered that further promotion of water reuse in the manufacturing industry will be more effectively addressed in the context of the development and review of these BREFs for the relevant sectors.

Reuse of treated urban waste water for industrial purposes is not addressed by the present initiative as its potential for a higher uptake is relatively modest (Annex 6) and rather a local issue that requires a sufficient degree of flexibility at Member State level; therefore, at this moment, any EU level action would not be proportionate.

The reuse of rainwater and grey water is also not included in the scope of this impact assessment. The issue has been addressed in the impact assessment for the Blueprint (see Annex 1a), which pointed out that environmental impacts related to the need of construction and maintenance of the necessary infrastructure for rainwater harvesting may lead to negative energy/treatment/GHG impacts. For water harvesting in agriculture the same negative effects should be taken as those identified for water storage (dams and reservoirs). Furthermore, a previous study 18 conducted in preparation of the Blueprint Communication concluded that EU policy on certification to promote rainwater harvesting and reuse in buildings could lead to significant water savings but would be applicable only for major renovations or new buildings. Therefore, it was found more appropriate to include such promotion in an integrated manner in the development of Best Environmental Management Practices (BEMPs) 19 and in the context of the sustainable buildings policy 20 .

As a result the source of water to be reused considered in this impact assessment is only the waste water covered by the UWWTD, that is to say urban waste water defined as "domestic waste water or the mixture of domestic waste water with industrial waste water, subject to the relevant pre-treatment and/or run-off water".

1.3.What are the underlying causes of the problem?

The overall problem of "low uptake of water reuse compared to its potential resulting in a suboptimal contribution to alleviate water scarcity" is the result of four factors discussed below: (1) limited attractiveness, (2) environmental risks and perceived health risks due to varying existing quality requirements or the lack thereof, (3) possible trade barriers and (4) the resulting general view of risks outweighing benefits. However, this initiative is going to address only factors 2 and 3, while factors 1 and 4 are not directly addressed by this initiative.

The problem's underlying drivers and consequences as described in the present section are displayed in a problem tree below. Both this section and the problem tree take as a point of departure the problem definition in the impact assessment of the 2012 Blueprint (see Annex 1a) which already found that: "The main barrier to expansion of water re-use is the lack of common standards at EU level, in particular in agriculture. While guidelines for agricultural water re-use have been defined by the World Health Organisation, and by different countries, such as the USA and Australia, a uniform solution for Europe is lacking. Establishing standards for the functional operation of the single market is an appropriate EU level response, taking into account EU Health, Agriculture and Energy policies. […] The lack of common health/environmental standards threatens farmers using re-used water to irrigate crops for export within the single market and prevents industry from making long-term investment decisions. It also constitutes a barrier for innovation."

The second public consultation identified as the main barriers associated with legislation the insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework, administrative burden for water operators, users and public authorities, stringent national quality requirements, and, to a lesser extent, the absence of national requirements for water reuse. The low price of freshwater compared to the price of reclaimed water and the high cost of treatment were also identified among the highest barriers (see Annex 2).

1.3.1.Factor 1 – Reused water is less attractive than freshwater

The WFD, in its Article 9, provides the legal definition of pricing water services and stipulates the principle of cost recovery (including environmental and resource costs) as well as the polluter-pays principle. The available evidence suggests that, at best, tariffs only take account of the financial costs of water treatment and distribution and that few Member States apply direct charges to polluters for the purification of their waste water as well as other activities that impact on water quality, while charging for the resource costs of water abstraction is rare (EEA, 2013). Furthermore, in agriculture, the rather low levels of cost recovery (up to 80% but sometimes as low as 20%) point to heavy subsidisation of freshwater use, even in water-scarce Mediterranean countries (EEA, 2013). Prices are frequently too low to provide an adequate incentive to the efficient use of both freshwater and reused water. 21 There are measures being undertaken to improve the implementation of Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive so as to achieve better cost recovery 22 . Therefore, the underlying drivers of illegal abstraction and subsidised water prices for freshwater are outside of the scope of the initiative and are not addressed in this impact assessment.

As demonstrated in the Impact assessment of the Blueprint, in areas where water is scarce, reclaimed water can be a cost-effective solution compared to other supply options, especially when all economic and environmental costs are considered. However, even in these cases, reclaimed water is generally found less attractive than conventional water resources.

1.3.2.Factor 2 – Legal frameworks for water reuse exist only in few Member States resulting in a perceived health risk and environmental risk 

A range of potential risks is associated with reused water which is likely to contain pollutants (organic, microbiological, chemical, etc.). These risks differ by type of reuse and entail contamination of the environment (water resources, soil) and people (direct exposure, ingestion of food products irrigated with reclaimed water, etc.). Health risks are partially addressed by existing legislation concerning agricultural product safety, i.e. the Regulation on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs; however, this legislation does not specify the requirements for treated waste water used for irrigation of agricultural products 23 . Environmental risks associated with water reuse must be considered as well, e.g. chemical contaminants from inorganic salts, nutrients, heavy metals and detergents can negatively affect the environment. For heavy metals there are concerns that these substances can build-up in the soil over time. Salinity of the water is also a risk to the environment and crops (in case of irrigation). There are also growing concerns over the fate of the wide variety of compounds of emerging contaminants (CECs), e.g. pharmaceuticals, which are present in sewage, often at trace levels, and often unmonitored. Evidence remains limited as to how well treatment processes deal with these pollutants. In general such risks can be addressed by applying suitable barriers, the most important barrier being treatment of waste water and applying a risk based approach.

As displayed in Figure 5, these risks can be split into 2 categories associated with water reuse in agricultural irrigation:

-the health risks to consumers of agricultural products irrigated with reclaimed water and placed on the Internal Market; this category of risk includes those to health of animals consuming crops irrigated with reclaimed water;

-the health risks to humans exposed to reclaimed water (workers, bystanders and residents in nearby communities) and risks to the local environment (surface waters and groundwaters, soil and depending ecosystems).

Figure 5: Health and environmental risks associated with water reuse in irrigation in the EU

Currently only 5 Member States (Cyprus, Greece, Spain, France and Italy) have developed legislation that sets specific requirements on the reuse of waste water; Portugal has developed non-regulatory standards on water quality. Some other Member States are interested in enabling more reuse of water, but are wary of public perceptions seeing this as a "dirty" technique and so are reluctant to take the initiative on their own to develop a legislative framework. Informally, a number of Member States have indicated an interest in having such a framework, and await to see it developed at European level as announced in the Blueprint as it would be seen as having more standing. Furthermore, whilst 60% of river basins are international, so far, rather countries that do not share river basins as well as those suffering most from water stress have developed their own frameworks.

In the Member States currently with requirements, these vary significantly in their level of stringency as illustrated in Figure 6; none of these national requirements are the same. While there are local specificities, Figure 6 shows that different national approaches and methodologies have been used to arrive at defining requirements to protect consumers' health. In addition to these quality standards to address the potential health risks for consumers, some Member States also apply to some extent a risk assessment approach (see Annex 6 – Overview of MS requirements), however, environmental risks are not addressed adequately and consistently in these existing frameworks. It is to be noted that a risk assessment approach has been introduced on a voluntary basis in the amendment of the Annex of the Drinking Water Directive in 2015 and some Member States (Hungary, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) have implemented it. The Commission's proposal for a Recast of the Drinking Water Directive introduces the risk assessment approach on a compulsory basis.

This means that the same type of food product (e.g. a tomato), depending on where in Europe it is grown, faces very diverging requirements as to the kind of reclaimed water allowed for irrigation. Nevertheless, these tomatoes are traded across borders in different Member States and are consumed throughout Europe. There is a lack of clarity on how food products are irrigated, resulting in a health risk perception in large parts of the population / consumers / the general public as confirmed by the public consultation outcome (see Annex 2).

Figure 6: Differences in maximum limit values for selected parameters considered in national quality requirements for water reuse

Source: Reproduced from JRC, 2014. ‘-‘indicates that there is no value set for the parameter in the national legislation

Moreover, there is a risk for the health of workers 25 : those working on farms and workers in the reclaimed water industry. While the workers may be exposed to potential contaminants over longer periods than the public, the risks are not necessarily higher due to better awareness and the implementation of risk control measures (e.g. protective equipment). The literature does not report cases of occupational diseases caused by exposure to treated waste water (BIO, 2015). However, general statistics show that there is an increasing trend occurrence of one or more work-related health problems in the sector of agriculture, hunting and forestry, namely 8% of the workforce in 2007 compared to 5% of the workforce in 1999.

In conclusion, even the few existing national quality requirements only attempt to address the health risks to consumers, the second category of risks depicted in Figure 5 (health risks to humans exposed to reclaimed water and risks to the local environment) are not being addressed in an adequate manner.

Therefore, in the Member States where no quality requirements for water reuse are in place, there is a lack of clarity in the regulatory framework to manage health and environmental risks that need to be taken into account when issuing permits for reuse projects. However, in Member States that have set such requirements, especially in terms of management practice, stakeholders say that in practice the conditions are difficult to implement (e.g. conditions on wind force or access control) or too stringent considering the intended use.

This also means that investors find diverging conditions to invest into water reuse production or technology development across Europe, even as regards its use in growing the same type of product, e.g. a tomato. According to the United Nations World Water Development Report 2017, the absence of suitable legal and regulatory frameworks is a critical barrier, creating market uncertainties and discouraging investment into water reuse. This is particularly true as regards irrigation in the EU for which:

·some national legislation 26 requires water quality similar to drinking water whatever the sensitivity of the crop and associated risks are;

·other sources of water used for irrigation (e.g. rivers, private wells) are not subject to mandatory quality requirements.

1.3.3.Factor 3 – Possible trade barriers, i.e. trade bans for food products irrigated with reclaimed water

As identified in the second public consultation, stakeholders in the agriculture sector and the food industry are concerned about potential trade barriers for agricultural goods irrigated with reclaimed water and put on the Internal Market. The Internal Market issue is already significant. In 2015, the EU internal trade flows for fruits and vegetables was seven times bigger in terms of value than external trade: EUR 33.4 billion vs EUR 4.7 billion 27 . Farmers thus depend crucially on intra-EU trade and will not use reused waste water as a source for irrigation unless they know they will be able to sell their products on the Internal Market. The current regulatory framework does not provide a way of demonstrating credibly that risks are properly managed across the Internal Market.

The most extreme form of such a trade barrier would be in the form of a trade ban, when a Member State bans the imports from another Member State of a certain agricultural product irrigated with reclaimed water. This situation arises from diverging regulatory frameworks in place in the different Member States, and also from a certain distrust about safety of reclaimed water (see also the section below). The one case that such trade barriers have been formally imposed within Europe for European producers, was the case of accusations in 2011 regarding possibly contaminated cucumbers from Spain as the cause of a deadly E. coli outbreak (see Box 1 for details). This risk of a trade barrier is considered as an actual and critical risk by a vast majority of stakeholders as shown in particular by the results of the second public consultation, see Annex 2.

Furthermore, some studies 28 suggest that farmers might face market restrictions due to requirements from certification bodies, e.g. Quality Safety Association (QSGmbH) for fruits, vegetables, and potatoes that are irrigated with treated waste water. In addition, some Member States have on several occasions raised the issue of potential market restrictions of agricultural products irrigated with treated waste water, applied by retailers and/or supermarkets 29 . In other words, perceptions about water reuse are claimed to lead some retailers to disadvantage agricultural goods irrigated with reused water. 

The Internal Market issue is triggered partially by the problem of low public acceptance.

1.3.4.Factor 4 – Reuse perceived as more risky than beneficial 

There are several risks associated with water reuse as shown in chapter 1.3.2. No evidence so far could be found of significant pollution/contamination at large scale due to present practices of wastewater reuse in the EU. However, as identified in the Impact Assessment of the Blueprint and confirmed in further consultations on water reuse, there is low public acceptance of reuse solutions and even strong opposition to allowing reclaimed water as a source for drinking water. This is due to misconceptions on what ‘reclaimed water’ means and a lack of knowledge about actual health and environmental risks.

The absence of a clear regulatory framework is also seen as a cause for a lack of confidence in the health and environmental safety of water reuse practices. There are existing regulatory standards concerning agricultural product safety, however, they do not explicitly regulate requirements for treated waste water for agricultural irrigation, hence there is still a sense of unease amongst consumers about food that has been irrigated with reused water.

Findings from the literature on the acceptability of water reuse amongst producers and consumers are mixed. There are many factors which play a role in its acceptance, the most important of which are the extent of “disgust” over the concept, the use for which recycled water is intended, perceptions of risk from recycled water, the sources of recycled water, choice between recycled and fresh water, trust of authorities and knowledge, attitudes towards the environment, the cost of recycled water and sociodemographic factors (Po et al., 2004). Furthermore, the degree of public acceptance is affected by many factors including the political context of a country (Marks, 2005), local history, the recycling terminology used with the public, the degree of public involvement in strategy development, the threat of alternatives, such as dams, river development or ocean outfall, the degree to which potable recycling is pushed as the primary option, the “not in my backyard” phenomenon, the degree and nature of education provided (Queensland Government, 1999).

The perceptions of risks from the water reuse related to health, foremost among peoples' worries are the safety of their children (Sydney Water, 1999). Water recycling can be more easily accepted in areas with water shortages (Dishman et al., 1989). The acceptability of recycled water decreases as the use moves from public areas (e.g. irrigation of parks) to house (gardening) or to more personal uses, due to risk perception (ACIL Tasman, 2005; Hurlimann, 2005). Socio-demographic factors appear to provide important information as to which demographic groups are most likely to accept recycled water usage. McKay and Hurlimann (2003) predicted that the greatest opposition to water reuse schemes would be from people aged 50 years and over. Such findings on age are also reported by Tsagarakis and Georgantzis (2003) who also found that educated people were more willing to use recycled water.

At the same time both the general public and regulators appear to be insufficiently aware of the benefits of water reuse. In addition to the most obvious benefits (mitigation of economic risks related to water scarcity, conservation of the aquatic environment, cost savings for utilities), there are a host of indirect benefits that stakeholders seem rather unaware of (e.g. energy and carbon savings, reduced costs and environmental impacts associated with synthetic fertilisers, local economic development).

The second public consultation provided evidence for the lack of consumers' trust in water reuse as it identified this phenomenon as one of the most significant barriers (85% of the respondents perceived this barrier as at least medium and 63% as high). At the same time a large majority of respondents considered that treated wastewater is at least as safe as river water as a source of water for agricultural irrigation or for aquifer recharge (30% even considered it safer; see Annex 2). Furthermore, results of the second open public consultation demonstrate a significantly larger share of respondents from Southern EU Member States consider reused water as at least as safe, independently from the source of water it is compared with.

·In comparison to groundwater: 65% of respondents from Southern EU Member States also consider reused water as at least as safe, while 70% of respondents from Northern and Eastern EU Member States consider reused water as less safe than groundwater,

·In comparison to rivers: 80% of respondents from Southern EU Member States perceive reused water as at least as safe (with half of them considering it even safer), compared to 55% of respondents from Northern EU and only a third of respondents from Eastern EU Member States.

There is larger consensus between respondents from Northern and Eastern EU Member States about the opinion that reused water was less safe than groundwater, in comparison to water sourced from rivers, which remains more controversial within each of these EU regions (see Annex 2).

Figure 7: Safety perception – comparison between Southern EU, Northern EU and Eastern EU Member States in the reuse of water for agricultural irrigation

As a result, this information failure leads to reluctance to consider reuse as an alternative water supply option when relevant and cost-efficient. The Impact Assessment of the Blueprint already identified this issue as well as the opportunity to develop awareness raising campaigns and advisory services. A number of actions committed by the Commission in the Circular Economy Action Plan (e.g. promotion of safe and cost-effective water reuse, including support to research in further characterisation of emerging risks and to innovation with demonstration projects) and a communication campaign are expected to improve the provision of reliable information and rectify misperceptions of benefits and actual risks by stakeholders and citizens. Additionally, studies show that public trust in water reuse is strongly affected by personal experiences and trust in water reuse organisations and regulatory authorities 33 ; it is in general specific to the local situation of water resources and management and better addressed at Member State level. Complementary to the above actions, there are ongoing national or local information campaigns that inform about the water reuse practice, e.g. in Spain, when a park is irrigated with treated waste water the relevant information is available to the public at the park entrance.

This information failure will not be addressed in this initiative, apart from providing information to the public on water reuse. However the absence of a clear regulatory framework is addressed, which is an underlying driver and a cause of this lack of confidence in the health and environmental safety of water reuse practices.

1.4.How will the problem evolve, all things being equal?

The current situation and future projections for water availability are set out in section 1.1 above; while water stress is present in many parts of Europe already today, the past trends in water scarcity are expected to increase in frequency and intensity of droughts and their environmental and economic damages are expected to continue. This later trend is mainly due to climate change. At the same time, the current state of a mix of absent and un-coordinated national legislation and approaches would continue, resulting in the continuation of related barriers and little incentive to apply water reuse.

An improved implementation of the existing EU water policy framework, especially as regards water pricing and control of abstractions, could positively influence the uptake of water reuse, however, very likely much below its potential for development and benefits to the economy and the environment (BIO 2015). According to the Blueprint, which was based on the 2009 River Basin Management Plans, only 49% of these Plans 34 intend to change the water pricing system to foster a more efficient use of water. The barriers to water reuse related to inadequate water pricing are therefore unlikely to change significantly.

It is likely that additional Member States would adopt their own water reuse standards in the near future (e.g. Malta already has plans to develop its own standards). In those Member States, such new standards are expected to provide more clarity to the stakeholders on the required measures to manage health and environmental risks associated with water reuse. However, in the absence of further EU action specific to water reuse, uncertainty on how to apply the existing EU water legislation to manage risks of water reuse projects would persist in the other Member States, while in the countries with the highest stringency of water reuse standards (France and Italy), the situation is likely to remain unchanged in future years, i.e. very few new water reuse projects.

Water reuse technologies are evolving relatively quickly, therefore a number of the technical barriers identified are likely to be solved within the next ten years, either as a result of research and development work conducted by the water industry or of publicly funded research programmes. The evaluation and management of risks associated with emerging pollutants is, however, a very complex issue and may require more significant efforts.

Finally, it is unlikely that national regulators can co-ordinate a harmonisation of their regulatory requirements. A risk of potential trade barriers for food products irrigated with reclaimed water would continue to persist hand in hand with the low public acceptance of water reuse solutions. Consequently, the problem of the low uptake of water reuse would intensify, and in particular in areas of Europe where water scarcity increases (see projections of water scarcity in Section 1.1).

1.5.Who is affected and how?

The currently limited uptake of water reuse affects in particular the environment, economic sectors, national/regional/local authorities, and European citizens and consumers.

Concerning the environment, increasing trends in water scarcity exacerbated by climate change together with a low uptake of water reuse affect water resources which are over-exploited by abstractions, in particular for irrigation, and also water-dependant ecosystems which are not left with the necessary amount for them to thrive. In particular, coastal areas of water-scarce regions where treatment plants discharge their effluents to the sea are affected by the wastage of limited freshwater resources. However, it has to be stressed that discharge of treated waste water to rivers can be a major component of river flows in dry seasons, up to 80% in extreme cases (Drewes, 2017 35 ). In these cases reuse can also result in reducing the flow beyond critical limits and have a negative impact on the river and associated ecosystems, despite the fact that unplanned reuse takes already place de facto. The quality of water resources is also affected by unnecessary discharge of nutrients into rivers. In addition, the removal of nutrient in treatment plants, even though it is necessary in sensitive areas to prevent eutrophication of water resources, is energy intensive, hence resulting in higher GHG emissions and the same holds true for the production of chemical fertilizers for agriculture. The lack of a consistent methodology to apply the risk assessment approach results in a potential deterioration of the environment due to potential contamination of soils with metals, CECs, etc. These environmental impacts clearly have a local dimension, however, 60% of the EU's rivers run across borders of Member States (and non-Member States). If waters are low in an upstream Member State, less water will reach any downstream Member State. Action taken by a single or few Member States is therefore not sufficient in relation to quantitative aspects of water management and so these environmental problems can be cross border.

A number of economic sectors are highly dependent on water supply, in terms of availability and quality, such as agriculture (see also Annex 3a SME test), the food industry, the power generation industry (e.g. for cooling processes and hydropower), tourism and the recreational industry (e.g. golf courses), chemical, textile, pulp and paper industries and mining. A lack of water reuse in the regions affected by water scarcity and related restrictions, e.g. bans to use freshwater for certain types of uses like agricultural irrigation, both negatively affect their production and increase costs. The water industry and their technology providers are affected through foregone business opportunities in the area of treated waste water reuse. These opportunities appear large as the global market for water reuse is expected (Global Water Intelligence, 2015) to be fast-growing in the coming years. Between 2011 and 2018 capital expenditure on advanced water re-use was estimated to have grown at a compound annual rate of 20% as the global installed capacity of high quality water re-use plants grows from 7 km³/year to 26 km³/year. The limited uptake of water reuse technology negatively impacts the potential for further innovation, demonstration and market development for innovative technological and non-technological (organisational, managerial, governance) solutions for water reuse whose market uptake can be negatively affected by the present legislative framework.

From the perspective of National/regional/local public authorities, as alternative supply options are generally more costly (considering both capital and operating costs, see Figure 8), the limited development of water reuse tends to render more costly the reduction of water scarcity and implementation of the River Basin Management Plans. It also represents missed cost saving opportunities, e.g. by reducing drinking water supply production needs and associated costs.

Figure 8: Cost comparison of different water scarcity solutions

For European citizens and society at large, the inefficient management of water resources results in reduced water availability which, in areas of water scarcity and drought, has a direct negative impact upon the EU economy and citizens. The free movement of safe and wholesome food is an essential aspect of the Internal Market and contributes significantly to the health and well-being of citizens, and to their social and economic interests. When there are important differences in relation to concepts, principles and procedures between the water reuse laws of the Member States, these differences may impede the free movement of agricultural products irrigated with reused treated wastewater (see above Box 1 on the E. Coli outbreak), create unequal conditions of competition, and may thereby directly affect the functioning of the Internal Market. Furthermore, a 1% increase in the area affected by drought can slow a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth by 2.7% per year (Brown et al., 2013). For consumers, the lack of European minimum requirements for water reuse leads to mistrust and misunderstanding about how agricultural products are irrigated and whether they are safe if irrigated with reclaimed water.

2.Why should the EU act?

The problem this initiative sets out to address is relevant at EU-level, as concluded in the analysis in section 1 above. With this initiative, EU action would aim at enabling a cost-effective waste water reuse for agriculture, while ensuring a high level of protection of health and the environment and contributing to the well-functioning of the Internal Market. Thereby, the main problem drivers (diverging requirements in Member States, resulting in potential trade barriers for agricultural products irrigated with reclaimed water, as set out in the problem definition, section 1.3) would be addressed.

Acting now by putting in place an EU-level enabling framework would allow contributing to alleviating water stress where it is already an important reality today in the EU and preparing operators and farmers to be ready to act also in those parts of the EU which are expected to experience increasing water stress in the coming years and decades, thereby helping prevent the situation from deteriorating.

2.1.Competence

The EU competence to take action on water management derives from Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union related to the protection of the environment:

“Union policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives:

·preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment,

·protecting human health,

·prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources,

·promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.”.

Since in particular environmental risks of water reuse are not addressed by the Member States, and there is a clear EU dimension to these risks, moreover the issues at stake are directly related to the inefficient use of a natural resource and adapting to climate change, the legal basis for a possible new EU legal instrument would therefore be Art. 191.

In addition, the EU competence to take action on safety of agricultural products irrigated with reclaimed water is linked to Article 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union related to consumer protection:

"1. In order to promote the interests of consumers and to ensure a high level of consumer protection, the Union shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers, as well as to promoting their right to information, education and to organise themselves in order to safeguard their interests.

2. The Union shall contribute to the attainment of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 through:

(a) measures adopted pursuant to Article 114 in the context of the completion of the internal market; […]"

This initiative is also expected to contribute to the free movement of goods in the Internal Market.

2.2.Subsidiarity

Any new EU initiative on water reuse needs to comply with the principles of proportionality, taking due account of subsidiarity considerations.

Concerning environmental protection, EU-level action on water management is also justified because 60% of EU river basins are international, shared by between 2 and 19 countries (Danube); action taken by a single or few Member States is therefore not sufficient, for instance in relation to quantitative aspects of water management and cross border water pollution. Moreover, if Member States act alone, the technical barriers to water reuse and associated costs are likely to be unnecessarily high.

EU intervention on water reuse in particular for agricultural irrigation is justified to prevent that different requirements in individual jurisdictions negatively affect the level playing field (e.g. between farmers and growers) and cause obstacles to the Internal Market, especially for primary agricultural products. Additionally, different requirements may also be used as an argument to restrict the import of food products from Member States suspected of having lower requirements, as exemplified in the E. Coli outbreak mentioned above (see Box 1). The current situation does not guarantee a level playing field between food producers of different countries; the current EU regulatory framework does not yet address the specific modalities of agricultural products irrigated with treated waste water. Addressing such barriers is an appropriate EU level response, taking into account EU food safety, health, agriculture and energy policies.

EU action is further justified because different and changing requirements in individual jurisdictions are a barrier to the creation of a level playing field for investments in innovation and for water reuse. It is unlikely that national regulators can coordinate a harmonisation of their regulatory requirements as the number of Member States involved is too large and increasing.

The present document seeks to address the overall problem of a too limited application of water reuse resulting in a suboptimal contribution to alleviating water scarcity and analyses the modalities of creating an enabling framework for increasing the uptake of water reuse for agricultural irrigation. Therefore as already defined by the Blueprint in 2012 in order to ensure the safety of water reuse practises minimum requirements are developed, which would need to be met if water reuse was practised in a Member State. Given the environmental legal basis of a potential future instrument on water reuse, the instrument would allow those Member States with more stringent national standards than the EU minimum level to keep them in place or those wishing to introduce higher national standards to do so. In this context, at the practical level, it should be noted that the proposed EU minimum criteria have been developed together with Member States, stakeholders and the scientific community over the past years and are broadly supported.

It is worth noting that in addition to the targeted discussions between the Commission, Member States and stakeholders over the past years, also the public consultation activities showed strong support for EU measures. In the first public consultation this was considered by almost all of those who expressed an opinion as a legitimate component of EU action. More than 90% of respondents from Member States with quality requirements for water reuse indicated that legally binding EU level minimum requirements would be effective or very effective for ensuring environmental and health safety of water reuse. The second public consultation confirmed a very strong support to defining minimum requirements for water reuse in agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge, going much beyond Member States and stakeholders in regions where this is currently a developed practice (see Annex 2).

A proportionality analysis of potential EU action on aquifer recharge demonstrates that there is a clear local relevance of this practice, with a very limited cross-border dimension across the EU territory. In addition, the Internal Market dimension which has been identified as a crucial aspect for agricultural irrigation is lacking in the case of aquifer recharge. Finally, the conclusions of the JRC technical report suggest that no minimum requirements at EU level could be developed (see Annex 7). On this basis, this analysis leads to the conclusion that an EU intervention would not be proportionate. The development of an EU Guidance is proposed, however, legally binding intervention in this area should remain the competence of the Member States. A more detailed analysis is included in Annex 11.

3.Objectives – what should be achieved?

3.1.General objective

The general objective is to contribute to alleviating water scarcity across the EU, in the context of adaptation to climate change, by increasing the uptake of water reuse for agricultural irrigation wherever this is relevant and cost-effective while ensuring the maintenance of a high level of public health and environmental protection. 36  

This general objective corresponds to the overall problem which motivates this initiative (see section 1.2). Clearly, water reuse will not by itself solve water scarcity, but the purpose of this initiative is to make sure that it can be more widely used and is safe.

This general objective is fully in accordance with the 7th Environmental Action Programme 37 and, at the global level, the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the achievement of the sustainable development goal n°6 "Ensure access to water and sanitation for all", in particular as regards the two following targets:

·By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally;

·By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity.

3.2.Specific objectives

The specific objectives aim at managing water resources more efficiently through creating an enabling framework for and establishing a common approach to water reuse in agricultural irrigation across the EU. They relate to the concrete factors 2 and 3 that together drive the overall problem (see section 1.2). The goal is to promote water reuse as one of a range of measures to alleviate abstraction pressure on vulnerable water resources in the context of adaptation to climate change and integrated water management by setting a common methodology so as:

·To ensure that water reuse practices in the EU are safe both to health and the environment;

·To promote water reuse as a way of providing a secure source of water for irrigation where it is economically advantageous to do so;

·To provide clarity, coherence and predictability to market operators who wish to invest in treated wastewater reuse in the EU under comparable regulatory conditions;

·To stimulate business and innovation in water reuse by EU companies for internal and external markets;

·To provide clarity and confidence to consumers regarding safety of agricultural products irrigated with reclaimed water within the EU;

·To prevent trade barriers for agricultural primary products irrigated with reclaimed water within the EU and thereby facilitating the free flow of agricultural goods.

There are strong inter-linkages between the environmental, trade and public health elements of the objectives. In particular the Internal Market component is a key element of the initiative and a key to its success. Farmers depend crucially on intra-EU trade and will not use reused waste water as a source for irrigation unless they are confident that they will be able to sell their products.

3.3.Operational objectives

The operational objectives are to define common minimum quality requirements for reused water for agricultural irrigation together with a risk assessment framework, complementing existing agricultural product safety standards, which ensure maintenance of a high level of protection and address the risks of water reuse to:

·consumers of agricultural products irrigated with reclaimed water,

·workers and other public exposed to reclaimed water,

·the environment, in particular water resources and dependent ecosystems and soils.

These objectives are strongly supported by the public. Respondents to the second open public consultation considered that specific objectives to be addressed by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agricultural irrigation should be safety of agricultural products placed on the EU market (87% of respondents), protection of water resources and dependent ecosystems (80%), protection of human health of public directly exposed to reclaimed water (75%), protection of wider environment (75%). Other objectives, such as protection of agricultural productivity are by far less supported (see Annex 2).

Such a policy would complement and be coherent (not lowering the applicable levels of environmental protection) with the existing EU legislative framework on:

·water, notably the WFD, the Groundwater Directive, the Nitrates Directive, the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS) and the UWWTD,

·food safety, notably the Regulation on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs.

4.Policy Options

4.1.Baseline – “No new EU action”

Under the baseline, the EU would not develop any new regulatory or non-regulatory action specific to water reuse. Consequently, the current state of a mix of absent and un-coordinated national legislation and approaches would persist. The barriers to and lack of proper incentives for water reuse, as described in the problem definition, would largely remain in place, as well as a potential risk of trade barriers to agricultural products irrigated with treated waste water.

This scenario includes, however, a number of actions to improve the implementation and enforcement of existing legislation on water that will be taken independently of the initiative assessed in this Impact Assessment since they are not specific to water reuse (especially as regards water pricing and control of abstractions) 38 . Furthermore, a series of non-regulatory actions to promote safe and cost-effective water reuse in 2016-2017 are committed by the Commission in the Circular Economy Action Plan 39 . These actions aim at improving implementation and enforcement of existing legislation with a specific focus on water reuse. They include Guidance on the integration of water reuse in water planning and management 40 (adopted in June 2016), improved consideration for water reuse in the industry in relevant Best Available Techniques Reference documents (BREFs 41 ), and increased visibility for support to innovation (through European Framework Programmes and R&I networks) and investments (e.g. European Structural and Investment Funds). The baseline will serve as benchmark for the other policy options defined in this section.

4.2.Design of policy options

This Impact Assessment assesses policy options for agricultural irrigation (Ir), as set out in section 2 above. All policy options directly translate the set of specific objectives of this initiative, as set out in section 2.2 above, into a concrete operational instrument for their attainment. They are all designed to establish comparable regulatory conditions for water reuse projects across the EU and to ensure the maintenance of a high level of public health and environmental protection (see section 3 above), as well as contributing to the proper functioning of the Internal Market by setting minimum requirements. The policy options considered do not set any mandatory waste water reuse targets; the aim is, therefore, to develop an instrument that would enable uptake of treated waste water reuse across the Member States if and when they decide to adopt such a practice.

All options define a common methodology so as to address the two categories of risks described in the problem definition and Figure 5, in the following way:

1)The health risks to consumers of agricultural products irrigated with reclaimed water: These are translated in the options into minimum quality requirements in form of standards and

2)The risks to the local environment (surface waters and groundwater, soil and depending ecosystems) and to humans (workers, bystanders and residents in nearby communities) exposed to reclaimed water: these are translated in the options into minimum quality requirement in the form of a Risk Management Framework.

These two categories of risks are different in nature; however, the policy options propose to address them together in setting minimum quality requirements for water reuse for agricultural irrigation. The variation in the policy options considers the level of stringency of the minimum quality requirements for the safety of agricultural products ('one-size-fits-all' or 'fit-for-purpose') and legislative nature of the proposal (mandatory legal instrument versus voluntary guidance (see for details chapter 4.2.2). All policy options considered include the Risk Management Framework as the only means to address the risks to the local environment and to humans exposed to reclaimed water (see for details chapter 4.2.3).

The options for analysis assume either a new EU legal instrument or an EU-level Guidance. The consideration of the latter non-regulatory approach has been based on thorough consultations with Member-States and stakeholders, and taking into account the recently published Guidance related to the Regulation on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs 42 and international practice. While the mandatory legal instrument (option Ir1 and Ir2) would include only the Key Risk Management Principles as compulsory and an accompanying Guidance would be elaborated with Member States to provide details on the practical application, option Ir3 would include a full Risk Management Framework. These different combinations are summarised below in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Policy options analysed

4.2.1.Minimum quality requirements for water reuse to ensure health safety of agricultural products irrigated with treated waste waterm which are placed on the Internal Market

The current EU regulatory framework does not yet in particular address agricultural products irrigated with treated waste water, apart from the limited voluntary requirements set in the Guidance on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs. Potential trade barriers of agricultural products irrigated with reused water are associated with claims and perceptions of health risks to their consumers. The prevention of undue use of trade bans within the EU calls for common requirements set at EU level on the quality of reclaimed water, designed to ensure the safety of the relevant consumer products throughout Europe. This requires a legal instrument setting:

·Minimum quality parameters for water to be reused;

·Monitoring frequencies for these parameters;

·Limit values for these parameters to be complied with at the outlet of the (advanced) treatment plant.

The definition of quality parameters (and their associated limit values and monitoring frequencies) can follow two approaches resulting in a different stringency level. This can be captured in two alternative approaches which can be included in the policy options, the "one-size-fits-all" and the "fit-for-purpose" approach, further detailed below.

→ Justification of the stringency of the quality criteria

The JRC report included in Annex 7, namely Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5, defines technical parameters on water quality which need to be respected to a certain minimum level in case treated waste water is reused for the purposes of agricultural irrigation. These minimum requirements were developed in a comprehensive and inclusive process involving Member States and stakeholder experts as well as the scientific community. During the development of the proposal, a tiered approach for consultation was applied by the JRC. In the first tier, the JRC invited a group of selected experts from academia, the water sector and WHO to provide input and comments on the drafting work. In a second tier, Member States were formally informed through the CIS Ad-hoc Task Group on Water Reuse and their comments were taken into account. In the third tier, the specifically requested scientific opinions of the independent Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have been taken into consideration. Wherever the approach diverges from their advice, a justification has been provided. Experts have been consulted to provide comments and input through critical discussion on the JRC document along the process.

The internationally widely accepted approach to develop minimum quality requirements for the safe use of reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge is the risk management framework, as recommended by the World Health Organization WHO (2006). These guidelines inter alia establish the level of “tolerable risk” of incurring a disease through water consumption, which has been the basis for standards defined in the Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC amended by Directive 2015/1787). This risk management framework is already applied in the water acquis; it is included in the Drinking Water Directive (Directive 2015/1787 that amends Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption). Although the management of health risks is context-specific, the WHO guidelines consider that the overall levels of health protection should be comparable for different water-related exposures. Consequently, this “tolerable risk level” has also been taken into account for JRC’s definition of the technical parameters reflecting the minimum quality requirements on reclaimed water used in agricultural irrigation (detailed information in Annex 7, in section 4.3.1 and the technical background in section 4.4.2). Annex 7 also provides an account of then monitoring requirements as well as of the exclusion of compounds of emerging concern and the sensitivity analysis. It is important to note that no risk assessment has been performed specifically for the establishment of the minimum quality requirements and that the JRC bases its proposal on the validity of the risk assessment conducted by the reference documents taken into consideration, namely the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling being internationally accepted as a key reference also for the specific EU situation.

4.2.1.1."One-size-fits-all" approach 

This approach requires the same quality for any reclaimed water to be used for irrigation of agricultural products. It responds to the perceived health and environmental risks with the most stringent approach without distinguishing between different needs of food crops and irrigation technique. This approach implies that the required water quality has to be the most stringent in order to prevent any risks of contamination even in the worst-case scenario. This approach is the one adopted in the Italian legislation. This option is based on the quality requirements, as detailed in Annex 7 for the most critical situation (quality class A - food crops consumed raw produced with sprinkling irrigation).

4.2.1.2."Fit-for-purpose" approach 43

This approach consists in setting reclaimed water quality requirements that will provide the appropriate level of safety for the crop to be irrigated. It considers contamination pathways from irrigation water to the agricultural products, i.e. to which extent contaminants potentially present in the treated effluent are likely to be transferred to the crop and eventually to affect the consumer of the product. These contamination pathways differ according to crop types and to irrigation methods. Indeed, several factors linked to the use of water in agriculture may influence the risk of microbial contamination of the crops, such as: source of water; type of irrigation (drip, sprinkler irrigation, etc.); whether the edible portion of the crops has direct contact with irrigation water; application of a water treatment by the grower; the timing of irrigation in relation to harvesting; possible access of animals to the source; etc. Water of inadequate quality has the potential to be a direct source of contamination and a vehicle for spreading localised contamination in the field, facility, or during transport. Wherever water comes in contact with fresh produce, its quality impacts the potential for pathogen contamination.

In particular, food crops more or less consumed raw (e.g. tomatoes, strawberries) require a more stringent water quality to avoid microbial contamination (e.g. strawberries) than food crops which will be cooked (e.g. potatoes) or crops which are not intended for human consumption (e.g. pastures or energy crops). Similarly, irrigation methods interfere in this contamination pathway as e.g. drip irrigation in orchards does not entail a direct contact of irrigation water with fruits in contrast to sprinkling irrigation.

This approach is the one adopted in most of the existing regulations in Member States 44 and international guidelines. This option, like the other options entailing setting some form of minimum quality requirements, is based on the JRC technical report (Annex 7) that was developed to set minimum quality requirements for water reuse. All options would result in a common methodology with minimum quality requirements differentiated against crop categories and irrigation methods; detailed provisions of the options would be developed on this technical basis.

4.2.1.3.Implementation of the requirements

Under both approaches, quality requirements would complement, but not decrease, the ones laid down by the existing legislation, in particular the UWWTD and relevant European Case-Law 45 in particular as regards the quality of discharge effluents. Regardless of the approach chosen, also when complying with the proposal (either legal instrument or Guidance), reclaimed water at the outlet of the treatment plant would need to respect the criteria of "clean water" as defined by the Regulation on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs (852/2004). So consistency with other relevant legislation is ensured in either approach. More information is provided in Annex 3.

The proposal would define a common methodology and set minimum requirements, and any Member State (Member State B in Figure 10) could still adopt or retain more stringent legislation for water reuse in its territory. This proposal would contribute to the proper functioning of the Internal Market through the minimum harmonisation of the requirements and the methodology for undertaking the risk management. Consequently, no trade barriers could be feasible for food products irrigated with reclaimed water complying with the minimum requirements set by the proposal ( Figure 10).

4.2.1.4.Minimum requirements: regulated at EU-level or recommended by an EU Guidance document

The EU can introduce the minimum requirements in a legal instrument rendering them compulsory to water reuse projects in the EU, or, alternatively, the Commission can develop a Guidance document recommending these minimum requirements for water reuse for irrigation based on the JRC technical report (Annex 7) and would suggest a "fit-for- purpose" approach on a voluntary basis. The Guidance document would build on the international guidelines and long experience developed in third countries (e.g. California, Australia, Israel, USA), and adapted to the specific context of the EU in terms of environmental and social conditions and legislation; in particular it would take stock of experience and best practices developed in the Member States. Such a Guidance document would be developed directly by the Commission, in consultation with Member States and stakeholders (CIS).

4.2.2.Minimum quality requirements to ensure protection of local public health and of the environment – Risk Management Framework

Risks to humans exposed to reclaimed water (e.g. farmers, workers on the fields) and to the local environment are very specific to the local conditions and the design of the reuse scheme; they vary greatly both in their nature and extent according to:

-Hazard, e.g. the quality of raw effluents discharged to the collecting system and entering the treatment plant, mixing with other irrigation sources of different quality, additional contamination during conveyance and storage;

-Exposure, e.g. distance from crop to waterways (especially if these are sensitive areas) or to public spaces, irrigation method, crop type;

-Vulnerability, e.g. to what extent ecosystems, soil and plants are sensitive to pollutants

Because of their intrinsic site-specific nature, these risks cannot be addressed only with a generic set of minimum quality parameters valid for any reclaimed water to be used for agricultural irrigation in the EU. An effective management of these risks has to include a site-specific assessment of those risks, and this assessment would form the basis for the selection of the most appropriate mitigation measures, e.g. additional requirements necessary to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment. Despite potentially diverging additional requirements, the methodology to derive these would be harmonised at EU level, thus ensuring a consistent approach across the EU, hence providing ensurance for internal market operators.

The implementation of such a risk management framework is already recommended in some Member States 46 as well as numerous international guidelines and standards (e.g. by the World Health Organisation, the International Standardisation Organisation, the USA Environment Protection Agency). They have been developed in different socio-economic contexts and without taking into account the existing EU legislative acquis which already sets a number of requirements regarding the protection of the environment and health. Therefore, Annex 7 presents the key principles of such a risk management framework both consistent with these international guidelines and adapted to the European context.

With a view to defining comprehensive policy options in this Impact Assessment, two approaches are considered regarding the implementation of such risk management framework:

-The key Risk Management Framework principles included in a legal instrument and thus made compulsory for operators and other relevant parties involved in water reuse for agricultural irrigation (e.g. competent authorities in Member States, treatment plant operator, farmers) and an accompanying Guidance that would be elaborated with Member States to provide details on the practical application of the key RMF principles;

-The Risk Management Framework recommended in the form of an EU guidance document, based on the key RMF principles.

4.2.3.Key Risk Management Framework principles included in a legal instrument

The first approach would consist of including the key principles of a risk management framework in a legal instrument, as part of the authorisation procedures and conditions of granting permits to any water reuse project in the EU (as described in Annex 3). The key principles would cover the different steps and operators of the water reuse system (urban waste water collection and treatment, additional treatment if any, distribution, storage if any and irrigation at farm level). In practice, the legal instrument would foresee that, before such a permit can be authorised, the applicant of the permit has to perform a thorough identification and assessment of risks specific to the project and its environment. Key requirements for this risk assessment would be laid down based on description of the risk management framework in Annex 7 (page 29).

The legal instrument would foresee that water reuse projects in the EU are regulated within a risk management framework and would set the key principles to be complied with in the permitting procedure. However, competent authorities in the Member States will retain the responsibility of

-Ensuring and checking that the risk assessment carried out by the applicant is appropriate considering the nature of the project and its environment, and

-Reflecting the outcome of the risk assessment in the permit conditions.

In order to ensure a common understanding on the detailed implications of the risk management framework and a consistent implementation across the EU, the Commission would develop a Guidance to translate the key principles into practise and to assist Member States in sharing experiences and best practices, in the existing framework of the Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD (CIS).

4.2.4.Risk Management Framework recommended by an EU Guidance document

As an alternative to making the key risk management framework principles compulsory to water reuse projects in the EU, the Commission could develop a Guidance document on implementation of the full-fledged risk management framework in the existing framework of the Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD (CIS). The Guidance document would build on best international practice within and outside the EU and would be part of the Guidance document for the minimum quality requirements.

5.Analysis of Impacts

5.1.Baseline

Water reuse is not expected to increase significantly over the next years, if no further EU regulatory action on water reuse is implemented, alongside the non-regulatory actions on water reuse proposed in the context of the Circular Economy Package or improved implementation of EU water legislation. Recently collected data shows, if no further EU policy actions to promote water reuse are implemented, it is estimated (BIO (2015) that under a Business As Usual scenario, a volume of around 1,700 million m3/year could be reached by 2025 47 . This was based on the assumptions that the nationally set water reuse target for Spain (1,200 million m3/year) is achieved by 2018 and no significant increases in water reuse would take place in other Member States in comparison to the current situation.

Therefore, while water scarcity is expected to affect the EU more strongly and widely in the coming decades, resulting in economic losses particularly for those sectors dependent on the secure supply of water, as well as citizens, no significant increase in water reuse is foreseen under a business-as-usual scenario.

It may be argued that such limited water reuse will be developed under the lowest costs possible. Under the current quality standards for Spain it was estimated that a potential for reuse of more than 6,600 million m3/year could be reached below 50 cents per cubic meter, largely exceeding the baseline reuse volume. Therefore it is realistic to assume that the whole volume reused under the baseline scenario would be available at costs below 50 cents per cubic meter.

Water reuse schemes would remain relatively underdeveloped in the EU due to competing demands for investments in infrastructure and - if left to compete on the basis of real costs against subsidised alternatives - due to perceived low returns on investment. Nevertheless, existing reuse schemes have benefited from subsidies to the water sector, but these subsidies could be at odds with the need for cost recovery (as a means to provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently) and financial sustainability in the water sector if the necessary funding to provide for water related environmental policies is not secured via alternative means. Clearly, as is the case with any investment, for every water investment that requires an outlay of capital, the associated supplementary costs would have to be borne, or shared, by either the state, the service providers, the water end users or the buyers of the products. Given the existing structure and level of pricing for freshwater, as described in the problem definition section (section 1.2), the policy measures to incentivise and support the case for water reuse schemes will support the uptake of water reuse (i.e. boost the demand by increasing the market security and regulatory security for the farmers) and will therefore help with spreading the costs over a larger base.

Moreover, the heterogeneity of national requirements (including the lack of these) concerning the management of health and environmental risks associated with water reuse would continue to constitute a barrier with a potential to affect the EU-internal trade of agricultural products irrigated with reclaimed water (BIO, 2015). Under a scenario of increasing water scarcity exacerbated by climate change, as well as enforcement of water pricing and cost recovery provisions of the WFD (as explained in the problem definition section), the financial costs of securing freshwater supplies are likely to increase over time for agricultural businesses, although few agricultural SMEs bear the cost of wastewater treatment directly (BIO, 2015).

5.2.Analysis of the impacts of the policy options for water reuse in agricultural irrigation 

In line with the Commission's 'Toolbox for Better Regulation', as a first step, all the possible impacts have been screened, and on that basis, several of them have subsequently been subjected to a more detailed analysis 48 . The analysis below discusses the costs of irrigation with reused water and the benefits of it as modelled by the hydro-economic model by the JRC (Annex 4) and some other impacts like administrative burden stemming from the requirement to perform risk assessment under the different options. Environmental and social impacts are also analysed. Wherever relevant, a clear distinction is made between expected impacts for Member States which have national standards in place as compared to those who do not.

5.2.1.Economic impacts 

The cost of waste water reuse is computed as the sum of the cost of: (1) the necessary treatment of waste water for reuse; (2) building infrastructures for water storage and distribution (pipelines and pumps); and (3) energy for reclaimed water pumping from the waste water treatment plant to the neighbouring agricultural areas. The most important cost factor is the transport cost and the underlying model-based assessment has therefore assumed a maximum transport distance of 10 km between UWWTP and the irrigated land, in order to keep costs at reasonable level.

The difference among the options is in the stringency of the water quality requirements, which results in different treatment costs and therefore is a variable cost. The other cost elements are not dependent on which option is chosen. Under Ir1 ("one-size-fits-all") generally higher costs of treatment can be expected than under Ir2 ("fit-for-purpose"), whereby different quality standards apply depending on the use conditions. Ir3 represents an intermediate solution and is expected to end up in a situation where certain countries adopt Ir1 and others Ir2, therefore this option is not examined explicitly in the underlying modelling as costs are falling into the range between the costs of the baseline scenario and the costs of option Ir2. Quantifying the costs of treatment under Ir1 and Ir2 with high certainty is impossible due to the inherent variability of investment and operating costs depending on the initial level of treatment of plants. Moreover, it is impossible to anticipate with high certainty the share of reclaimed water that may need the highest quality standards under Ir1. In order to come to an estimate of the impacts of adopting Ir1 and Ir2 compared to the baseline scenario, it has been assumed for modelling purposes that the treatment would require on an average a depth filtration and disinfection process for Ir2, meaning treatment costs of EUR 0.08/m3 of treated water, while under the Ir1 option, a membrane filtration process would be required to achieve the most stringent standards, meaning treatment costs of EUR 0.23/m3. A more detailed justification of these figures is provided in Annex 4.

The difference in the treatment costs under the two options reflects in a shift of total costs of reclaimed water (including treatment and transport and incorporating investment and operating costs), and consequently in a change in the volumes of reclaimed water that can be distributed at a given cost. In terms of investments, the two policy options Ir1 and Ir2 may be significantly different. Under option Ir2, investment costs of EUR 38/(m3/day) are estimated while under Ir1 these raise to EUR 271/(m3/day). A justification of the underlying assumptions is provided in Annex 4. Under Ir1, an investment of about EUR 600 million in Europe would allow treating about 800 million m3 of waste water yearly with a total cost of reclaimed water below 50 cents per cubic meter, while a slightly higher investment (less than EUR 700 million) would allow treating more than 6,6 billion m3 yearly below the same cost threshold under Ir2. When considering higher cost thresholds, uniformly applying the most stringent water quality criteria (Ir1) in Europe would make investment costs surge in comparison with the fit-for-purpose quality requirements (Ir2).

Figure 11: investments required to treat the available volumes of water at a given threshold total cost, under the Ir1 and Ir2 policy options. Error bars represent the expected range of costs (see Annex 4). Modified from Pistocchi et al., 2018 49 . 

The direct costs of water reuse would be in principle borne by farmers, who would try to pass these costs on to consumers. However, also today farmers are not bearing the full costs of irrigation because of subsidies, and therefore a similar assumption could be made under the different options. In such a case the costs would be borne by the society at large. Case studies described in Annex 4 highlight a significant willingness to pay of households for a more sustainable management of water resources. This may support the idea that a part of the costs of water reuse could be borne by society/taxpayers and not only by the farmers alone, since water reuse generates additional benefits to society. Nevertheless, there is an economic case to bear the full costs of water reuse under certain circumstances as shown below.

Water shortages appear to be the main reason why farmers would be willing to use and pay for the reused water; the higher the price farmers currently pay for fresh water supplies is, the more they are willing to pay for the recycled water. It is also notable that freshwater supplies for irrigation are not available in all river basins as demand exceeds available supply and so some farmers are currently unable to source freshwater for irrigation, at least with any security of supply. Furthermore, the pumping costs for groundwater, which are increasing with the groundwater levels going down due to increasing water scarcity/droughts or impacts of climate change, could be another significant driver for farmers to opt for reused water.

Therefore, the main argument for farmers to use reused water for irrigation purposes is the fact that it would allow for a secure water supply, including during times of droughts when other irrigation sources may not be available, however, fully respecting the principles of sustainable management of water resources and adaptation to climate change. Existing valuations of the impact of droughts 50  on the overall welfare (farmers and consumers) suggest the benefit of a secure water supply, as allowed by reuse, to be in the order of EUR 500-1000 million/year. 51 , 52 While this estimation is very rough, it at least shows that, in areas where droughts are (or are likely to become) common, water reuse is clearly also beneficial from an economic point of view. In other words farmers would be willing to pay the limited extra cost of reused water in order to save their crops from severe water shortages and droughts as the benefits would outweigh these limited extra costs.

Under all options those farmers growing crop which are consumed raw, so mainly fruit and partially vegetable growing businesses, would be affected most. As costs would be in EUR/ m3, so proportionate to the amount of water used for irrigation, none of the options would disproportionately affect SMEs. Therefore, no specific mitigation measures would be needed under the different options. More details on how farmers would be affected are included under the SME test (Annex 3a).

A distinction needs to be made between the economic impacts for countries which currently have no national standards for water reuse in place and those who already have some. For the latter, the analysis below takes account of the impacts both for Member States with currently lower standards (ES, EL, CY) and those whose standards are currently more stringent than the proposed EU level (IT, FR). A detailed comparison of the respective impacts is included in Annex 12. The most important economic impacts for Member States aligning with the proposed EU minimum quality requirements could be summarised as follows:

·Unless minimum quality requirements are too stringently set, the legally binding policy options and the Guidance, if followed, will have positive impact on growth & investments, as the new regulatory framework, with clearly established minimum quality requirements for water reuse for agricultural irrigation, will boost research and innovation, technological development in the sector, it will incentivise investments and consequently it will be leading to new employment. According to the Territorial Impact Assessment (Annex 9) the development of minimum quality requirements for reused water in agricultural irrigation would have a positive effect of the overall economic growth of all EU regions. Especially the Eastern European regions in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea and some regions in Greece could potentially benefit with a high positive impact, most other regions would have a moderate impact.

·Water suppliers. Operators could face additional investments in waste water treatment, storage and distribution and increased sampling costs in order to comply with the minimum quality requirements while dealing with uncertain demand for the treated waste water from the farmers. It was not possible to estimate to what extent monitoring costs would increase due to the introduction of a risk assessment requirement. It is estimated that the costs for water suppliers would be higher in case of policy options Ir1 due to the necessity to achieve the most stringent (sometimes unnecessary) quality requirements, e.g. removal of nutrients that could otherwise be beneficial for the agricultural sector (fertigation). Furthermore, the operators might face higher costs in relation to the compulsory risk assessment approach that is part of Ir1 and Ir2, and for Ir3 if the Guidance is followed by Member States. The alignment with the EU quality standards, including the risk assessment framework would require existing waste water treatment plants to submit an application to amend their permits. If the Member States with relatively less stringent standards were to adopt the proposed EU minimum quality requirements, then this would place a burden on businesses to update their permits accordingly. Similarly, for Member States with no national legislation, the adoption of the EU minimum quality requirements would lead to some burden on businesses to be permitted / registered as required.

·Functioning of Internal Market, international trade and competition. Positive impacts on the Internal Market, international trade with third countries and competition would be expected through reduced differences in the requirements used in different Member States. The European producers would rely on a safe and sustainable water supply option leading to a more sustainable agricultural production. In addition, European products could benefit from a comparatively good reputation as minimum quality requirements would ensure adequate safety of the relevant EU products. A similar approach for all EU Member States would contribute towards a more informed and safer consumer choice, with positive impacts for the Internal Market. The impacts on competition with imports from third countries are expected to be neutral. In addition, developing standards at EU level will reinforce the EU stance in international standard setting discussions on water reuse. Common EU standards could serve as a model for third countries, and in particular our bilateral trade partners. Especially those countries facing water scarcity and considering applying water reuse schemes could benefit from the EU approach in addressing potential risks associated with water reuse. This would reinforce bilateral co-operation and standard approximation with key exporting partners of primary agricultural products. The likelihood that negative impacts could be expected as a result of irrigation with treated waste water that is not subsidised, which would then lead to an increase in the cost of agricultural production and as a consequence an increase in the price of agricultural products (thereby rendering these products uncompetitive on the market) is considered a very remote one, because farmers would simply avoid using the costlier irrigation water option. They would instead continue using the already existing irrigation source.

·Employment. As a means of better securing water availability, water reuse provides further economic security to agricultural producers, and will build a water reuse expert community to support water reuse business which translates into social benefits. This enables jobs to be secured, created and providing benefits to local communities (EC, 2012) (BIO, 2015); According to the Territorial Impact Assessment (Annex 9), the development of minimum quality requirements for reused water in agricultural irrigation would definitely cause positive effects in all regions with agriculture depending on irrigated land. In more detail, Spanish regions on the Mediterranean coast, Greek regions on the Northern coast of the Aegean Sea and Italian regions around Torino could benefit from a moderate positive effect. All other regions could gain a minor positive impact. Also according to the Territorial Impact Assessment (Annex 9) the development of minimum quality requirements for reused water in agricultural irrigation could improve the public acceptance of reused water, which could open chances for employment, especially in rural areas. Regions with a greater share of employment in agriculture and forestry are likely to be more affected. This would lead to minor positive impacts on most regions. Regions in the North and the South of Romania and several other regions could gain a moderate positive impact if they took up the new options for reusing waste water.

·Economic impacts for public authorities. For those Member States with existing national standards that might align with the EU minimum quality requirements, their current systems (quality categories, quality parameters) would not need to be adapted in terms of conceptual design, and it is estimated that upgrading the limits on some parameters would not require significant administrative adjustments. However, for those Member States with no national legislation, the burden on public authorities could be important, in terms of setting up the administrative system to allow water reuse for agricultural irrigation. For the risk assessment approach, Member States could benefit from the experience with the risk assessment approach introduced by the Drinking Water Directive on a voluntary basis (and is being considered as compulsory in the revision of this Directive). Therefore, only limited additional costs might be expected (around EUR 2,244,176, see Annex 4 for a detailed calculation). However, it is to be noted that the EU will not impose the water reuse practice on those Members States that do not wish to promote it. Reporting under the proposed policy options would most likely entail the use of existing reporting streams such as the reporting under the UWWTD or WFD. If included, separate guidance could be provided in order to define the content and format of information to be reported. There would be modest burden in adding further reporting fields at the European level. At national level, reporting would be parallel to compliance monitoring performed by the competent authorities and would also lead to modest additional burden. 

·Consumers: The trade of agricultural goods irrigated with reclaimed water would be positively influenced (in terms of levelling the playing field) which could benefit consumers. However, additional costs for water reclamation plants might imply increased costs to water users including farmers, and hence to consumers should the farmers pass on the increased costs. On the other hand a more stable and potentially increased food supply due to reclaimed water and less variation in crop prices might positively affect consumers.

·Innovation and research. The introduction of minimum quality requirement and a risk assessment framework under all policy options would promote research on innovative treatment technologies. For example, in the UK Water Industry Research recently concluded a project entitled ‘Establishing a Robust Case for Water Reuse’ 53 which showed that reuse is a technically viable water source in a range of applications, geographies, and scales. Considering that water reuse is an emerging worldwide market, a greater uptake of reuse at the EU level would provide a showcase for the relevance of these technologies and skills of EU companies towards potential customers in third countries. Impacts on competitiveness and innovation are expected to be positive as removal of current barriers to investment is anticipated. It should be noted, however, that innovation and economically viable changes would also take place without adoption of a new legal instrument. A clear and consistent EU framework would allow economies of scale and standardisation. This in turn would support innovation and development of solutions at lower costs. The potential market for innovations in water reuse and recycling, through implementing technological solutions and adoption of policy and legislative measures, is expected to grow and develop significantly within and outside Europe, particularly in highly water stressed regions. The Territorial Impact Assessment (see Annex 9) points in the same direction.

·Benefits for the industry, EU competitiveness and innovation potential. There is a rapidly growing world water technology market, which is estimated to be as large as EUR 1 trillion by 2020. By seizing new and significant market opportunities, Europe can increasingly become a global market leader in water-related innovation and technology (EC, 2012). According to Global Water Intelligence the global market for water reuse is one of the top growing markets, and it is on the verge of major expansion and going forward is expected to outpace desalination. The EU water reuse sector is maturing both technologically and commercially, albeit at a slow rate. Given the importance of the water industry sector in the EU, the past and current spread of water reuse technologies in the EU and worldwide has been a driver for the competitiveness of this industry sector, and this situation is expected to continue over the next 10 years. Water supply and management sectors already represent 32% of EU eco-industries’ value added and EU companies hold more than 25% of the world market share in water management (EU, 2011) (BIO, 2015). Without any policy measures to incentivise / support the uptake of water reuse schemes, it is unlikely that the EU water reuse sector would be maturing at a faster rate. The absence of incentives for further water reuse would lead to no positive impact on competitiveness and innovation related to water reuse technologies and their application to agriculture. Considering the potential worth of this industry, this could lead to a loss of opportunities for the European market to be a leader on this issue.

·ICT. Implementing the policy options would be facilitated by advances in the ICT water sector, relevant to remote monitoring, sensors, automation control and decision support systems.

Summary of economic impacts

The above indicated benefits would only be achieved if the minimum quality criteria set are not too stringent and would not result in too high costs. Therefore while Ir1 has in general positive economic impacts, these do not materialise at the assumed cost level of 50 cents per cubic meter, but only at higher cost levels (see next section where it is shown that uptake of this option is calculated to be lower than under the baseline at the assumed cost of 50 cents per cubic meter). This is the reason why in the summary table Ir1 is assessed to have slightly negative impacts.

Figure 12: Summary of economic impacts

It is worth noting that an economic safeguard exists in terms of use of water reuse being voluntary. A wastewater treatment plant will only develop the practice (separate treatment and piping infrastructure), if it can sell the water to farmers for irrigation. On their side, farmers will only be willing to pay for the water for irrigation if it is competitive in pricing terms (taking into account also that the security of supply may be higher). As such, option Ir2 will have positive financial impacts for farmers by definition and indeed it is this economic attractiveness that will decide the ultimate level of water reuse. This safeguard is weakened in Option Ir1, where the one size fits all may mean some existing supplies need to be treated to a higher level with resulting higher costs, even if future expansion was always financially advantageous.

5.2.2.Environmental impacts

The main environmental impacts of the proposed policy options include: supporting adaptation to climate change and preserving the quality of natural resources (in particular through the reduction of water stress and nutrient pollution), fostering the efficient use of resources, sustainable consumption and production; and minimising environmental risks.

5.2.2.1.Adapting to climate change and preserving the quality of natural resources

All proposed policy options analysed are expected to contribute to the ability to adapt to climate change and reducing pressure on the environment by shifting the demand from main water supplies towards reused water of appropriate quality for irrigation. Annex 4 provides information on the quantitative model-based assessments available. A short summary is provided below.

Reclaimed water can take up a potentially significant share of the water demand for irrigation in the EU. Figure 13 shows that water reuse has the potential to meet for Spain and Portugal about 20% of irrigation demand, for Italy and France to about 45%, for Greece, Malta and Romania to around 10%. In all other countries, due to the lower irrigation requirements, water reuse is able to meet the whole demand unless irrigated agriculture is relatively too far from wastewater treatment plants (Nordic countries, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Poland).

Figure 13: wastewater availability and potential contribution of reclaimed water to irrigation demand, by EU Member State. Potential contribution to irrigation demand is computed as water that can be allocated, regardless of costs, in the neighborhood of wastewater treatment plants within each country, divided by the total irrigation demand estimated for the country. Source: Pistocchi et al., 2018.

However, not all water available at wastewater treatment plants can be deployed at acceptable costs. Figure 14 shows the amounts of water that can be reclaimed and distributed at different costs (total costs including investment and operation of both water treatment and its transport to farmlands), based on the modelling work described in Pistocchi et al., 2018. Among the largest irrigation demand countries, Greece shows the most favourable conditions for total costs, with the majority of potential water reuse volumes available at reuse costs below 50 cents per cubic meter, followed by Portugal. France is the least favoured, while Italy and Spain are facing an intermediate condition.

Figure 14: Amounts of reclaimed water that can be potentially deployed at different total costs for 27 EU Member States (Cyprus not included due to missing irrigation estimates). “Unmet” represents irrigation demand estimated for the Country, in excess of potentially reclaimed water. Costs shown include treatment costs representative of the Ir2 option. Source: Pistocchi et al., 2018.

Figure 15 shows the estimated volumes of reclaimed water that can be deployed at costs below 50, 75 and 100 cents per cubic meter with the treatment costs assumed under Ir1 and Ir2. From these figures, it is apparent that under Ir1 less water is available to be reused for irrigation below the cost of 50 cents per cubic meter than under the baseline option. Under Ir1 the minimum quality requirements are too stringent and are too costly to support water stress reduction at the assumed cost of 50 cents per cubic meter. On the contrary, Ir2 allows maintaining costs below 50 cents per cubic meter for a large part of the water available for reuse.  

Figure 15: cumulative volumes (m3/year) that can be allocated below or at a given cost in Europe, under « variable quality » and « higher quality » requirements. We refer to total (investment, operation and maintenance) costs. Source: Pistocchi et al., 2018.

The share of agricultural water abstractions is variable across Europe, averaging about 60% in Southern countries, 11% in Eastern countries and 7% in Western countries 54 . A first approximation indicator of water stress reduction potentially allowed by reuse is the % reduction of total abstractions (Figure 16). This ranges from 3.5% in the East, to more than 15% in the North, averaging around 10% 55 . This indicative percentage summarizes a much nuanced picture with significant variability not just among continental zones, but also within countries and regions.

Figure 16: reduction of water abstraction potentially allowed by reuse in different European zones. Based on EEA data, 2017.

From a water quality point of view, water reuse allows diverting flows of nutrients, from direct discharge to rivers to application to agricultural soils with irrigation. Fertigation (simultaneous application of fertilizers and water to plants) may contribute to reduce nutrient pollution if the application is efficient (i.e., nutrient leaching to groundwater is not increased) and the mineral fertilizers used in agriculture are reduced proportionally to the nutrient flows coming with reclaimed water. Figure 17 shows the nitrogen (N) that can be potentially recovered from wastewater in the different EU Member States. This is a significant amount, and water reuse in itself would enable recovering up to the amounts corresponding to N in treated wastewater. However, the potentials shown in Figure 17 do not take account of the costs involved and thus constitute a maximum estimate. The amount of N recovered under the different options would depend on the volumes of m3 of water reuse estimated under the different options. Therefore benefits in fertigation would be highest under option Ir2, but would be practically negligible under Ir1 if we assume a maximum acceptable cost for reclaimed water of 50 cents per cubic meter. Under this assumption, while Ir2 would enable reclaiming about 6.6 billion m3/year of water, Ir1 would enable only 0.8 billion m3/year (Figure 15).

Figure 17: comparison of N from wastewater and mineral N fertilizer. N from water reuse is the load of N in treated wastewater, while the additional N recovery. “Unmet” refers to the amount of mineral N fertilizers in excess of potential N recovery. Source: modified from Pistocchi et al., 2018.

The benefits of reusing water, while clear in principle, depend very much on the local conditions where reuse is to be made. As reuse is meant to reduce irrigation water abstractions from surface and groundwater bodies, in principle it should be implemented only where the benefits from reducing abstractions exceeds the benefits of discharging treated wastewater in the environment. In some cases, especially when treatment standards are high, discharges of treated wastewater may represent a positive input to the receiving water bodies, as they could sustain the flow regime while compensating other possibly existing hydrological alterations. In many cases, however, it is preferable to use treated wastewater in irrigation while reducing irrigation abstractions, because in this way the flow regime of water bodies is least disturbed, and nutrients conveyed by treated wastewater may be taken up by crops 57 instead of ending up in water bodies.

Valuing the benefits that may stem from water reuse is overwhelmingly complex in general terms. One proxy of benefits is the willingness to pay of farmers for reclaimed water, which is extremely variable (for instance, Birol et al., 2007 58 estimate a willingness to pay higher than EUR 0.6 /m3 in Cyprus, while Tziakis et al., 2009 59 , indicate less than EUR 0.1/m3 for Crete), see Annex 4 for further details on the range of different studies and estimations for the value of 1 m3 of water. These examples in the Annex highlight the large variability in valuation of water used to reduce water stress, and the uncertainty due to their high case-specificity. In this assessment, based on the above estimations on willingness to pay, the benefit of water reuse can be estimated in the magnitude of EUR 0.5 /m3, which is in the mid-lower end of the cases examined above, and may be argued to represent a first approximation of the combined market and non-market value of water reuse in Europe, provided it contributes to reducing water stress. Therefore it can be argued that there is an economic case for water reuse as in general there would be willingness to pay where water reuse costs do not exceed EUR 0.5 /m3.

According to the above modelling overall a water stress reduction of more than 5% could be achieved in Europe under option Ir2, corresponding to a benefit of about EUR 3 billion/year for the whole EU assuming a willingness to pay about EUR 0.5/m3 for preserving natural flows in rivers and aquifers. This is based on the calculation that Ir2 would enable reusing more than 50% of the total volume theoretically allocated for agricultural irrigation; the total available volume would enable a water stress reduction of approximately 10%. Consequently Ir2 would enable a water stress reduction of more than 5%. Furthermore, most of the alternative water supply options (e.g. desalination, water transfers) are related to the intensive use of energy. Among them the most energy consuming is desalination. If the energy is generated using fossil fuels, this will increase GHG emissions. This is linked to the higher amounts of energy needed to desalinate water (between 3.5 and 24 kWh/m3 according to the technology), especially with thermal processes. On the basis of an average European fuel mix for power generation, it has been estimated that a reverse osmosis plant produces 1.78 kg of CO2/m3 of water, while thermal multi stage flash leads to 23.41 kg CO2/m3 and multiple effect distillation to 18.05 kg CO2/m3 (Ecologic 2008). Consequently, all proposed policy options would contribute to cutting CO2 emissions in case the water reuse is used instead of desalination plants, with the "fit-for purpose" options Ir2 having the highest benefits due to the lower energy consumption for the treatment of wastewater for the identified purpose compared to Options Ir1 due to possibly too stringent and unnecessary treatment for some purposes, e.g. more stringent water quality that could otherwise be required for food crops which will be cooked.

5.2.2.2.Fostering the efficient use of resources

Policy options Ir2 and Ir3 (if followed) are expected to contribute to the implementation of SDG 6 which sets a target of substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally by 2030 insofar as they would increase water efficiency through the uptake of water reuse. Policy options Ir2 and Ir3 (if followed) are expected to foster a more efficient use of water resources, as a clear framework for the water reuse would promote public and user confidence in reclaimed water and provide the possibility to water managers to prioritise various supply options taking into account the local needs of the society and environment. It is estimated that these two options would result in an increased demand for treated wastewater for irrigation, as the water managers would have a solid basis to encourage/promote the application of water reuse in the planning of the use of water resources in given river basins, as well as farmers would have a confidence in the quality of treated wastewater for the identified purpose. It is anticipated that a regulatory framework on water reuse would result in a decrease of illegal abstractions of groundwater, thus positively impacting the status of groundwater and associated ecosystems. However, for Ir1 the uptake is estimated to be negative at the assumed cost of EUR 0,5/m3 resulting in a supply of water reuse which is lower than the baseline, therefore this would mean less efficient use of water resources.

The assessment undertaken on territorial impacts (see Annex 9) has confirmed that most benefits from setting minimum quality requirements for the reuse of wastewater would mostly concentrate on regions suffering from water scarcity, which are mainly regions also endangered by droughts. In relation to reducing water scarcity the assessment concludes that about 24% of the regions could gain a moderate positive impact situated in the South of Europe (Portugal, Spain, the Mediterranean coast of France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus), in the East of Europe (Eastern Poland, Southern Hungary, parts of Romania and Bulgaria) and in central France and 1% of the regions located in the South of Portugal, in the very South of Italy and Haute-Corse could gain a high impact. The majority of 75% of the regions would face a minor impact. This assessment, however, was conducted only on this option and on the basis of the current situation on water scarcity and did not take account of the likely aggravation of water scarcity due to climate change and is therefore a conservative approach of the potential from water reuse.

Under policy options Ir1, Ir2 and Ir3, if followed, water reuse may result in a more efficient energy use in the water supply and wastewater treatment sector in those Member States adopting the minimum quality requirements. Several reports and studies have looked into comparing use of energy from water reuse and other alternative sources such as desalination, in particular in Californian literature, where both options are often considered. On average, a water treatment plant uses 2,500 kWh per million gallons of water treated 61 . The energy use varies based on the characteristics of the water being treated, the distance and elevation of the treatment plant and the distribution system. In comparison, desalination of sea water (in particular processes based on thermal distillation or membrane filtration technologies which are energy intensive) requires from 9,780-16,500 kWh/ million gallons). Further comparisons are presented in Figure 18 below.

Figure 18: Overview of energy use per water source in California

Source: California’s Water-Energy Relationship

In addition, the use of treated waste water for irrigation would require an equivalent or increased level of waste water treatment depending on the policy option. This would result in equivalent or increased energy consumption and costs associated with water treatment. In particular, different treatment technologies allow different levels of water quality to be achieved, with technologies such as dual membrane tertiary treatment processes that combine micro-filtration and reverse osmosis allowing the highest quality of treated water to be achieved. Such treatment processes are energy intensive. However, whilst there would be additional energy use, this would to some degree be offset by avoided energy consumption associated with freshwater abstraction, treatment and distribution. In particular, reusing treated wastewater (as opposed to discharging it and abstracting and treating freshwater anew) can result in net energy savings. However, it should be noted that the net energy savings or increases will depend on the current levels of treatment and particularities of water supply, and the extent of increases in wastewater treatment where applicable.

For the sake of modelling, the same energy cost has been assumed for all 3 options and these potential costs savings due to more energy efficient water management could not be quantified. In general it can be concluded that these cost savings would depend on the ability of each option to reduce water stress and proportionate to the reduction the water stress levels. This means that it would be most beneficial under option Ir2, less beneficial but still positive under Ir3, depending on to what extent guidance is followed. Furthermore higher overall energy costs for water management can be estimated for option Ir1 as water stress would even increase under this options in case of the assumed water costs of 0,5 EUR / m3.

5.2.2.3.Sustainable consumption and production

Policy options Ir1, Ir2 and Ir3 (if followed) are expected to significantly contribute to sustainable consumption and production 62 through the recycling of treated wastewater of high quality, which would be otherwise discharged into receiving streams. Considering the effort spent in producing this high quality product, reusing part of this investment for beneficial purposes directly contributes to the sustainable development. While options Ir2 is expected to have positive impacts on the sustainable consumption and production, option Ir1 could represent potential negative impacts due to the removal of nutrients that could otherwise be beneficial for the agricultural sector (fertigation) and it would increase water stress.  

5.2.2.4.Minimising environmental risks

Options Ir1 and Ir2 would ensure that environmental risks are sufficiently tackled since a risk assessment would be needed to be performed on a binding basis in all cases water reuse is considered for agricultural irrigation. Option Ir3 due to its voluntary character would only ensure to some extent that environmental risks of water reuse are tackled, depending on to what extent Member States would follow the guidance.

Waste water reuse not only reduces the demands of freshwater, but can also reduce the discharge of nutrients to rivers, other surface water bodies and groundwater. On the other hand, increased uptake of treated waste water reuse in agricultural irrigation would need to ensure adequate controls of potential environmental risks including managing chemical contaminants, nutrients, heavy metals and micro pollutants that can negatively affect the environment and or may lead to human health problems (water-borne diseases and skin irritations). For heavy metals there are concerns that these substances can accumulate in the soil over time. Salinity of the water is also a risk to the environment and to crops. While using treated water containing nutrients for irrigation can constitute an environmental benefit whereby the nutrients are used by the crop rather than being discharged into water bodies, careful management is needed to ensure minimised risks of nutrient run-off and increased eutrophication, by ensuring an adequate type of treatment of the reclaimed wastewater according the areas of application (e.g. sensitive areas or their catchments). Finally, there are also growing concerns over the fate of the wide variety of contaminants of emerging concern (e.g. pharmaceuticals), which are present in sewage, often at trace levels, and which are often unmonitored. Evidence remains limited as to how well treatment processes deal with these pollutants.

Figure 19: Summary of environmental impacts (assuming the costs of EUR 0.50/m3)

5.2.3.Social impacts

The same social impacts are anticipated as under the baseline for the Member States without national standards, if they retain the current status (no water reuse requirements in place). In any instance where Member States with more stringent national requirements choose to align with the minimum EU standards, i.e. lower their national standards, some adverse impacts in terms of compromised public acceptance could be anticipated.

By contrast, adoption of the new EU wide standards (by the Member States without national standards) or alignment of less stringent national standards with more stringent EU wide recommendations would positively impact on promotion of public acceptance.

Social impacts associated with the Member States without national standards adopting the EU wide recommendations and Member States with less stringent standards aligning these with the proposed standards for water reuse in agricultural irrigation would include:

·Public and occupational health. In those Member States with national legislation, the proposed policy options are expected to bring little additional benefits with regard to public and occupational health with the exception of Member States with less stringent national standards aligning these with the proposed EU wide requirements. For Member States with no legislation but which adopt the minimum water quality standards, this would provide a framework for protection of human health and safety of individuals/populations. The legally binding policy options and the Guidance if followed would also decrease the likelihood of health risks due to exposure to dangerous substances; Results of the second open public consultation show a large consensus (75% of respondents) about the need for the minimum quality requirements to address the protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water (e.g. workers; see Annex 2).

·Employment. The establishment of an EU framework together with improved communication on actual risks and benefits of water reuse is expected to have a positive impact on confidence of the general public in the quality of the reused water and, therefore, on acceptance of water reuse as a water management tool. More jobs would be created in the water and agri-food industry as well as in innovation and research sectors. Other sectors are expected to be influenced indirectly. For instance, in Greece, data available suggests that investments in wastewater reuse have a growth and employment multiplier of 3.5 63 providing a positive contribution for employment;

·Governance and good administration. In Member States where no legal framework currently exists governing wastewater reuse for agricultural irrigation, the opportunity to fill the existing gap in the national legal system by adopting these EU wide standards is present. The Territorial Impact Assessment (Annex 9 64 ) shows that setting minimum quality requirements could improve government effectiveness. Eastern European regions in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria as well as Italian and Greek regions and some Spanish regions could gain a moderate to high positive impact on government effectiveness. Most of the other regions would gain a highly positive impact. Many developers are aware that stakeholder participation is a key success factor for the development and efficient operation of water reuse schemes. In order to build trust and get support, developers and local authorities therefore need to initiate stakeholder awareness raising actions, consultation and collaboration activities during the development of new water reuse schemes. In most cases, the development of water reuse projects is thus an opportunity to enhance good governance practices and public participation (BIO, 2015). Compared to the baseline, this would be considered as a lost opportunity.

·Public acceptance. Adoption of the EU wide minimum quality requirements as well as aligning less stringent national requirements with the proposed EU wide standards would contribute to consumer protection by ensuring an appropriate quality of treated wastewater used for irrigation and hence of agricultural products on the market. An EU action would also bring more confidence to the public on the safety of the practice having a positive impact on the public perception of using recycled water for irrigation. The type of application for which water is reused is an important factor for public acceptance. Public acceptance decreases when public health is at stake or when there is a risk of contact or ingestion of reclaimed water. For instance, public acceptance of reusing water to irrigate crops that are intended to be eaten or to wash clothes can be low while reusing water for bioenergy cropping will not cause serious public concerns (IEEP et al., 2012). Public acceptance is difficult to achieve as long as citizens are not fully aware of the need to reuse treated wastewater to alleviate water scarcity and droughts, associated potential risks and adopted risk management strategies and consider it an efficient solution to address water scarcity and to reserve high quality water supplies for drinking water purposes. The first stage of acceptance of the use of reclaimed water is the acceptance by the community of the need. In this case, the use of reclaimed water becomes a solution to a problem and this, in turn, is an important driver of public perception (UK Water Research Industry, 2003). According to WSSTP (2013), growing confidence in technologies such as ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, membrane bioreactors, and ultra-violet disinfection, has also reduced public health concerns about reuse (BIO, 2015); therefore currently public acceptance is greater in countries where water reuse is already taking place, for instance in Spain.

The results of the second public consultation show a relative consensus among respondents about reused water in irrigation as being at least as safe as compared to water abstracted from rivers. This perception is more controversial regarding groundwater. There is a large consensus among respondents representing different economic sectors about the safety of reused water compared to water from rivers, as nearly 70% of them (in each sector but agriculture, where this figure is closer to 60%) consider reused water as at least as safe. There is also a consensus between different types of stakeholders, as more than 60% of respondents from each group indicate that they perceive reused water as at least as safe as using water from rivers, with private companies having a particularly favourable opinion. The large majority of respondents from Southern EU Member States and others in high water stress also report a positive perception of the safety of reused water in agriculture compared to freshwater. On the other hand, the results of the consultation show a more negative perception from respondents of the safety of reused water compared to groundwater, as nearly 50% of respondents perceive it as not as safe. This is particularly true for respondents from Northern EU Member States and for respondents from the health sector, for which this figure raises to nearly 70%.

Figure 20: Summary of social impacts

6.Comparing the Options

This section compares the policy options to the baseline in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency and coherence, as well as their environmental, economic and social impacts (see overview in Figure 21 below). The comparison of the policy options is done in the context of their respective abilities to meet the general and specific objectives of the initiative, as set out in section 2.2 above.

Figure 21: Summary of environmental, economic and social impacts

6.1.Effectiveness of the policy options

In sum, based on modelling results, the different policy options contribute to the objectives of reducing water stress and nutrient pollution in proportion to the additional amount of reused water available at the assumed acceptable costs of of 50 cents per cubic meter. Figure 22 below (also in above section 5.2.2.2 Adapting to climate change) provides a comparison with the baseline, where it is assumed that approximately 600,000 m3/year of additional water will be reused, i.e. from the current 1,100 million m3 to 1,700 million m3 (see Section 1.4.2). Therefore the baseline would not significantly reduce the water stress level, and alleviate water scarcity, so it would not significantly contribute to effectively achieving the objectives set. In comparison with the baseline scenario, option Ir1 would achieve even less water stress reduction than the baseline at a total cost below 50 cents per cubic meter, so would not be effective. Option Ir2 would be very effective as it would lead to a significantly higher uptake of water reuse at acceptable costs. Ir3 would be effective to the degree to which Member States would implement the Guidance.

Figure 22: cumulative volumes (m3/year) that can be allocated below or at a given cost in Europe, under « variable quality » and « higher quality » requirements. We refer to total (investment, operation and maintenance) costs. Source: Pistocchi et al., 2018.

Policy option Ir2 would be effective in relation to the specific objective as it sets a common methodology for defining requirement for reuse of treated wastewater used for agricultural irrigation. It would be effective as it addresses the underlying driver 2 (see chapter 1.3.2) on the uneven regulatory framework at Member States and the two sets of risks defined in Figure 5. Moreover, it would reduce the risk of potential trade barriers as there would be certainty on how the food products were irrigated and that this practise is safe both for consumers, the workers on the field and the environment. Therefore this policy option does address those drivers of the problem that the initiative intended to address, namely driver 2 and 3 (see chapters 1.3.2 and 1.3.3.).

Given the fact that under Ir1 the quality requirements are too stringent and therefore Ir1 would rather inhibit the uptake of water reuse than supporting it, it is not effective in achieving the overall objective, even if Ir1 would meet the specific objective of setting a common methodology as regards defining minimum quality requirements for reused water.

Option Ir3 would only be partially effective as those Member States who decided to apply the guidance would follow a common methodology for defining minimum quality requirement for water reuse, however overall the approach would continue to be fragmented.

As the overall objective on increasing the uptake of water reuse also depends on other factors, for instance the underlying driver 1 (on reused water being less attractive than conventional water resources) and 4 (on lack of consumer trust) shown in the problem definition, these factors can pose a limitation to achieving the overall objective and to reaching the uptake volumes shown in Figure 23. These factors are not addressed by this initiative and are outside of its scope, as already stated in the problem definition (see chapter 1.3.1 and.1.3.4). However, there are actions being undertaken (i.e. improving the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, organising information campaign to inform the public about water reuse) also on these external factors, but not in the remit of this impact assessment and initiative. Nonetheless, options Ir1, Ir2 and to some extent Ir3 would result in improved consumers' trust in relation to water reuse because there would be more certainty on the safety of water reuse practises due to common minimum quality requirements within Europe.

Moreover, effectiveness of the options also depends on the extent to which farmers would have an incentive to apply water reuse for irrigation purposes. Even if the above factors 1 and 4 pose a limitation to achieving the overall objective, they are not likely to significantly undermine the effectiveness of this initiative, because the analysis of impacts (see chapter 5.2.2.1) has shown that it is reasonable to assume willingness to pay for the availability of reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation at the assessed cost of 50 cents per cubic meter in water stressed areas. In other words farmers would be willing to pay the limited extra cost of reused water in order to save their crops from severe water shortages and droughts as in these cases the benefits would outweigh these limited extra costs.

Furthermore, the degree of effectiveness in reaching the general policy objective will vary depending on the policy option and water reuse practices currently adopted in different Member States in terms of the use of treated wastewater:

No new action – Baseline for treated waste water reuse for agricultural irrigation would not be effective in reaching the overall objective. As highlighted in Section 1.4.2, estimated treated wastewater reuse potential under the baseline (in the absence of further policy developments) is estimated at 1,700 million m3/year by 2025 (compared against 1,100 million m3/ year in 2015).

The effectiveness of policy option Ir3 (if followed) would vary across the Member States due to its non-binding nature:

·Member States with existing national standards for the reuse of treated wastewater (six Member States in total) are likely to retain their own national systems or to introduce marginal changes. At the same time, introduction of EU wide Guidance on the reuse of treated wastewater might support the progress of existing national standards aiming to increase reuse of treated wastewater, through positively affecting public acceptance and providing further reassurance about the safety of such a use of treated wastewater. On the other hand, if a Member State with currently more stringent national reuse standards were to decide to align (lower) the national system with the proposed EU requirements, this might result in a lower level of treatment required, subsequently, lower costs of treatment, but at the same potential compromised public acceptance;

·A large number of Member States (22) do not currently have national standards on the reuse of treated waste water. Taking into consideration these two factors, this policy option is not expected to significantly increase uptake in treated waste water reuse or to contribute significantly to addressing the key barriers to waste water reuse discussed in Section 1.

The implementation of policy options Ir2 and Ir3 (if followed) is expected to result in higher uptake of treated wastewater reuse across the Member States where water scarcity is identified as a significant pressure and water reuse is deemed an effective measure. As indicated by BIO (2015), a volume in the order of 6,000 million m3/year by 2025 might be achievable in the case of both stronger regulatory and financial incentives at the EU level. The effectiveness of these policy options would vary across the Member States depending on the existence of any national standards and their relative stringency in comparison to the proposed minimum quality requirements and risk assessment approach. In general terms, the effectiveness is anticipated to be higher in those Member States for which the absence of a clear legislative framework is seen as a major obstacle to water reuse and Member States whose national standards are lower in stringency than the proposed minimum requirements (see also Annex 6).

In particular, depending on the relative stringency of the existing national standards for the reuse of treated wastewater in the six Member States with standards in place, in comparison to the proposed EU minimum requirements and a risk assessment approach, and their choice regarding retaining or aligning the national standards, these Member States would see an increased or decreased stringency of requirements (notwithstanding that member states with more stringent existing regimes could retain these, rather than reduce the level of protection). For instance, in Cyprus and Greece, the legally binding option could perform better in terms of improvement of public perception and raising confidence, removing a fragmented framework for agricultural irrigation using treated wastewater across Europe and resulting in lower treatment costs.

Crucially, the Member States that do not currently have national standards on the reuse of treated wastewater and which are not interested in implementing use of treated wastewater would not be affected. The proposed EU minimum requirements and a risk assessment approach considered in this assessment for water reuse in agricultural irrigation does not interfere with the Member States’ decision on whether or not to develop water reuse and the extent to which water reuse should be encouraged.

6.2.Efficiency of the policy options

The degree of efficiency in reaching the general policy objective is assessed in terms of the respective costs involved. It will vary depending on the policy option and water reuse practices currently adopted in different Member States regarding the use of treated wastewater:

No new action – the Baseline for agricultural irrigation is not cost-effective as it involves many lost opportunities in terms of cost savings, and in terms of business development for the EU water industry (BIO, 2015).

Figure 22 above clearly shows that option Ir2 provides more volume of treated waste water, hence more benefits, than option Ir1 at any given cost, and is therefore more efficient. The efficiency of option Ir3 depends on the extent to which Member States would follow the Guidance and is therefore considered less efficient than option Ir2.

Policy options Ir3 (if followed) – development and promotion of a non-binding Guidance would involve limited additional treatment, monitoring and administrative costs. In particular, Member States that have national requirements in place already are most likely to retain these, while Member States that do not have such national requirements at present will retain the freedom to decide whether to engage in treated wastewater reuse practices and under what conditions. The policy options, however, would not contribute towards development of consistent quality requirements across the EU Member States.

The implementation of all policy options Ir1, Ir2 and Ir3 (if followed) would involve some administrative costs associated with development and adoption of the EU intervention, as well as its implementation and enforcement in the Member States that would choose to adopt treated wastewater reuse practices:

·Member States which do not currently have national standards would benefit from having a clear regulatory framework for managing health and environmental risks of reuse if they choose to adopt the practice. At the same time, Member States that do not anticipate engaging in treated waste water reuse practices would not incur administrative costs of transposition, in case the proposed instrument is a Regulation. In case a Directive is proposed, additional administrative burden is expected due to the required transposition, in particular in those Member States who do not make use of water reuse and do not intend to engage in such a practice.

·Member States with existing national standards that are relatively more stringent than the minimum quality requirements proposed are either anticipated to incur no additional costs or benefits if they choose to retain their national standards or would incur lower costs of treatment if they choose to align their national standards with relatively less stringent minimum requirements under the EU proposal (while not the intended objective of the proposed EU wide standards, this constitutes an available choice to this group of the Member States). In selected cases where Member States national standards were found to be less stringent, the countries would incur marginal increases in monitoring costs due to the higher number of parameters to be monitored.

6.3.Coherence of the policy options

All policy options have to ensure they are fully coherent with other EU policies, supporting, in particular, the achievement of the objectives set by the WFD and its associated Directives, and by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

As options Ir2 and Ir3 (if followed) would reduce water stress levels, these policy options would contribute to the implementation of several other EU policies, in particular the EU climate change adaptation and disaster prevention policies, the EU biodiversity strategy, the resource-efficient Europe initiative, and the EU policy framework on phosphorus (BIO, 2015). Option Ir1 would not be coherent under the assumed cost of 50 cents per cubic meter, because it would lead to higher water stress levels than the baseline, so it would undermine other policies like the EU climate change adaptation strategy.

In addition, options Ir1, Ir2 and Ir3 (if followed) would support the achievement of EU food safety legislation, by addressing upstream safety issues and, in the case of agricultural irrigation, promote addressing the Internal Market and possible trade barriers, and would be fully coherent with the existing Regulation on the Hygiene of Food Stuff.

Further information on the coherence of the preferred option with the existing legislation is included in Annex 3.

6.4.Nature of the instrument

As set out in the above analysis, the purpose of the new instrument on water reuse for agricultural irrigation would be to facilitate the uptake of water reuse wherever it is appropriate and cost-efficient, thereby creating an enabling framework for those Member States who wish to practice water reuse. This impact assessment considers the full array of legal instruments, namely amending one of the existing Directives, a new Directive or Regulation, as well as the non-binding form of a Guidance

Most of the existing EU legislative framework on water is composed of Directives (e.g. WFD and its associated Directives, Drinking Water Directive, UWWTD, Bathing Water Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive). This choice of instrument not only reflects the need for EU legislation to accommodate pre-existing national institutional arrangements and legislation in Member States but, among other things, also the intrinsic nature of water management which has to adapt to highly varying situations in terms of natural characteristics of water resources and of the human activities impacting their status.

Also for water reuse practices there is a wide variation across the EU (see Annex 6) but there are much less pre-existing institutional arrangements at national level. When considering new legislation on water reuse, it should be noted that the legal instrument of a Directive would easily be able to accommodate the fact that Member States may wish to either keep existing national standards (in case they are more stringent than the EU minimum requirements) or introduce more stringent national standards if a Member State finds this more appropriate.

One possibility is to amend an existing legal framework where water reuse is already mentioned, in particular the UWWTD. However, an amended or new Directive would require transposition into national legislation by all Member States. While water reuse is certainly a promising option for many Member States, it needs to be considered that at present only 6 Member States (CY, EL, ES, FR, IT, PT) can build on specific coverage in their legislation or in national non-regulatory standards. The transposition obligation applies for all Member States, whether they intend to reuse water or not. This would result in the burden of introducing fully new legislation which may not be proportionate.

The possibility of allowing for an opt-out from a possible new Directive has been considered. Such opt-outs can only occur by way of negotiation after a Directive has been adopted by the co-legislators. The opt-out possibility is generally envisaged for more permanent situations 65 . In the case of water reuse, however, a more flexible possibility for phase-in is appropriate in case certain Member States decide to introduce the practice at a later stage; this possibility would be better provided by the legal form of a Regulation.

Moreover, an amended or new Directive would necessarily leave flexibility in transposition of the requirements. While this would accommodate for differences across the EU, this would pose a limitation in meeting the objectives set, in particular as regards the Internal Market and in setting a common level playing field. This limitation was already identified in the impact assessment of the Blueprint in which a Regulation was eventually the only regulatory policy option assessed in detail.

While the two open public consultations demonstrated a broad support by all categories of stakeholders for a binding approach (i.e. a Directive or Regulation), several comments from respondents in the second consultation expressed a preference for a Directive, either explicitly or implicitly in view of its binding character together with its flexibility allowing adaptation to local contexts and needs, but this could be achieved with other tools, notably the suggested introduction of the risk assessment approach (see Annex 2). It is true that flexibility is necessary in order to address adequately the risks to local public health and to the local environment. However, it is equally true that a rather uniform approach is needed for the relevant health risks for food products placed on the Internal Market. This should be the main consideration in choosing between amending an existing Directive or introducing a new Directive/Regulation or Guidance.

Requirements linked to the Internal Market are frequently introduced by way of a Regulation to ensure direct applicability to operators. While the main objective of the new initiative is environmental (contributing to alleviating water scarcity), as discussed above, the Internal Market dimension is a crucial link in the intervention logic of the initiative and must be addressed at the same time in order for the initiative to reach its main objective.

On the basis of the above analysis on the most appropriate legal form, both a Directive or a Regulation may be chosen, each with certain advantages and disadvantages.

6.5.Preferred option

On the basis of the above analysis in terms of the efficiency, effectiveness and coherence of the policy options for agricultural irrigation, both the "fit-for-purpose" approach and the baseline are expected to better address the objectives of the initiative than the "one-size-fits-all" approach; the "fit-for-purpose" approach can deliver significantly more benefits than the baseline. Considering all environmental, economic and social implications, a legal instrument applying the "fit-for-purpose" approach (Ir 2) is the preferred option rather than a Guidance document because it is able to provide the highest volume of treated waste water at an affordable cost level combined with additional economic and social benefits.

It would enable reusing more than 50% of the total water volume theoretically available for irrigation from wastewater treatment plants in the EU and avoid more than 5% of direct abstraction from water bodies and groundwater, resulting in a more than 5% reduction of water stress overall. This would be a considerable contribution to alleviating water stress in the EU and thereby correspond to the overall objective of the initiative.

The proposed EU legal instrument would have an enabling function and provide for a timely reaction to a growing EU-wide problem. Its implementation is expected to (1) raise awareness, (2) provide reassurance that experts have transparently analysed what is actually safe for all EU citizens and (3) ensure a level playing field and thereby provide an incentive for farmers, industry, citizens and others to explore the opportunities stemming from water reuse. This could include purchasing agricultural products that were currently not chosen by certain consumers; it could also mean further research, technology development and investments, as well as job creation.

For the choice of legal instrument, the possibilities of a Directive or a Regulation are both considered suitable, each with certain advantages and disadvantages. While a Regulation would cater better to the enabling nature of the initiative, a Directive may allow for easier flexibility in terms of setting more stringent national requirements (while at the same time imposing a transposition burden on all Member States, including those who do not wish to practice water reuse at the present moment).

7.    Monitoring and Evaluation

Consistent with the objectives of this initiative, its monitoring will aim at evaluating policy effectiveness in the EU in terms of:

-the evolution of water scarcity,

-the development of water reuse for agricultural irrigation,

-compliance of water reuse practices with the minimum requirements, including the risk management approach.

A Fitness Check of EU environmental monitoring was carried out and presented by the Commission in June 2017; it includes an action plan to streamline environmental reporting to be implemented in the coming years 66 . Monitoring needs for the present initiative have been elaborated according to the principles highlighted in this Fitness Check, in particular:

-efficiency of reporting with a moderate, justified and proportionate administrative burden, by avoiding overlaps and streamlining with existing reporting obligations, both in terms of content, timing and frequency;

-relevance in content, by focusing on information that is strategic, quantitative and regulation-driven, and limiting the amount of textual information

-EU added value, by making available comparable and consistent data available at national level complemented with active dissemination of relevant information at national level.

Existing reporting obligations for Member States under the WFD (Article 15) and the UWWTD (Articles 15, 16 and 17) already include the necessary information on indicators relevant to measure the success of this initiative, In particular, under the WFD, Member States are to report every six years for each of their river basins 67 :

-quantitative status of groundwater bodies;

-surface water and groundwater bodies subject to a significant pressure from abstractions, and the main responsible sector(s);

and, in case water abstraction has been identified as a significant pressure in the basin:

oWater Exploitation Index (WEI+)

oannual volume of water used by sector (consumptive uses)

oannual volume of reused water;

-whether water reuse has been included in the river basin management plan as a measure in terms of managing water resources.

Under the UWWTD, Member States are to report every two years, inter alia, for each of their agglomerations (and associated urban waste water treatment plant) whether at least part of the effluent is reused and for which purpose.

Information reported by Member States to the Commission is the basis for the elaboration of periodic Implementation reports by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Recent steps have been taken to improve the quality of reporting on existing provisions to water reuse and more accurate information is expected to be available as of the next implementation reports under the two Directives in 2018. Taking into account these on-going improvements, existing reporting streams under the WFD and UWWTD will mostly be sufficient to inform progress as regards the evolution of water scarcity and development of water reuse for agricultural irrigation in the EU and only limited additional monitoring and reporting requirement will be developed to this regards.

The monitoring requirements will primarily be imposed to the operators of the reclamation plants and the Member States shall ensure that the information is made available online to the public. The proposed Regulation would include additional monitoring requirements on the quality of reclaimed water. Member States would need to verify compliance with the permit conditions based on monitoring data obtained pursuant to the legal instrument on water reuse, the Water Framework Directive and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and other relevant information.

Detailed reporting obligations will be developed with consultation of experts in Member States taking into account experience gained in the Fitness Check on environmental reporting and follow-up actions, in particular as regards the use of advanced information and communication technologies (ICT).

Given the expected evolution both in knowledge and in the policy framework as regards contaminants of emerging concern the legal instrument shall include a review clause within 6 years after its entry into force.

(1) It concluded: "Regarding water re-use there is a need to ensure the effective operation of the Internal Market to support investment and use of re-used water. The assessment, including stakeholder consultation, found that this can only be achieved through the development of new regulatory standards at EU level. Therefore, the preferred option is for the Commission to pursue appropriate health/environment protection standards for re-use of water and, subsequently, to propose a new Regulation containing these subject to a specific impact assessment."

(2) To note in this context that reference to water reuse is made in a Commission Staff Working Document on Agriculture and Sustainable Water Management in the EU (SWD(2017) 153final) as one of a number of measures that has the potential to reduce negative impacts associated with over-abstraction.

(3)   https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/water-assessments-2012

(4)

 The overall impacts on the economy due to the 2003 drought have been estimated at a minimum of EUR 8.7 billion (mainly concerning Mediterranean countries, France and the UK), measured as the estimated losses directly resulting from the drought (EC, 2007). Immediate effects of droughts, such as damage to agriculture and infrastructure, as well as more indirect effects, such as a reluctance to invest in an area at risk, can also have a serious economic impact. A 1% increase in the area affected by drought can slow a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth by 2.7% per year (Brown et al., 2013). In Catalonia, Spain, a simulation of the macroeconomic impact of water restrictions to the Catalan economy for the year 2001 showed that restrictions on non-priority water uses following a drought warning would have led to a loss of gross added-value of about EUR 1.196bn (0.97% of Catalonia’s GDP), while extended restrictions in the case of an extreme drought would have caused a loss of EUR 8.079bn, representing 6.52% of the GDP (Gonzalez et al., 2009). 

(5)   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/COM-2012-672final-EN.pdf

(6)   http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40803619

(7) Forzieri, G., Feyen, L., Russo, S., Vousdoukas, M., Alfieri, L., Outten, S., Migliavacca, M., Bianchi, A., Rojas, R., Cid, A. Multi-hazard assessment in Europe under climate change (2016) Climatic Change, 137 (1-2), pp. 105-119. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-016-1661-x; Forzieri, G., Feyen, L., Rojas, R., Flörke, M., Wimmer, F., Bianchi, A.; Ensemble projections of future streamflow droughts in Europe (2014) Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 18 (1), pp. 85-108. DOI: 10.5194/hess-18-85-2014

(8)  Figure 1 and 2 are produced using JRC’s LISFLOOD water resources model (De Roo et al, 2000). The 2 degree global temperature increase maps are an average of 5 climate models and simulate the consequences when global temperature increase equals 2 degrees. Within an high emission scenario, without signification climate mitigation (RCP8.5 world) this situation is already reached around 2040. In a milder emission world (~RCP 4.5) this may be reached around 2055. When we would stay within the Paris agreement, we may be getting close to this situation, but without ever reaching it, at least not in this century. The 2 degree assessment includes projections of land use change (using JRC’s LUISA system) until 2050, GDP projections, population projections and water demand projections until 2100 (Bisselink, De Roo, Bernhard, 2017). A comparison is made between the ensemble means of the 2oC warming period and the baseline period (1981-2010).

(9)   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/COM-2012-672final-EN.pdf  

(10) Report "Actions to Streamline Environmental Reporting" (COM(2017)312) and Fitness Check evaluation (SWD(2017)230)

(11) Most recently, Member States expressed support at a meeting of Directors-General for Environment in Tallinn on 23 October 2017. The latest meeting of the Member States' Common Implementation Strategy Ad-hoc Task Group on Water Reuse was held on 6-7 November 2017 a number of Member States and stakeholders expressed strong support for regulation of water reuse at the EU level, pledging for recognising the severity of water stress that they are facing with all accompanying consequences.

(12) In particular the Commission is assessing the updated River Basin Management Plans that Member States were to adopt by December 2015 and will publish an implementation report by December 2018.

(13) mainly due to fragmentation of responsibilities for and authorities over different parts of the water cycle; and a lack of communication and cooperation among stakeholders from different sectors involved in the whole water cycle, in particular between water supply (incl. for irrigation) and sanitation stakeholders.

(14) 2017/C 163/01 of 23 May 2017

(15)  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/pdf/BIO_IA%20on%20water%20reuse_Final%20Part%20I.pdf

(16) http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/The_fruit_and_vegetable_sector_in_the_EU_-_a_statistical_overview

(17)   https://www.ventureradar.com/search/ranked/Water%20AND%20Reuse/  

(18) Bio Intelligence and Cranfield University, 2012: Water Performance of Buildings, Study for the European Commission, DG Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/BIO_WaterPerformanceBuildings.pdf

(19) https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/best-environmental-management-practice  
In particular rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling are included as BEMP in the sectoral reference document for Tourism (2013) and in the best practice report by JRC for Building and Construction (2012) and Public Administration (2015)

(20)   http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Efficient_Buildings/documents.html  

(21)   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/pdf/EU_level_instruments_on_water-2nd-IA_support-study_AMEC.pdf

(22) These measures include enforcement actions launched by the Commission, bilateral meetings with MS on RBMPs, CIS Guidance documents on Art. 9, CIS Peer review process, etc.

(23) Guidance for the implementation of this Regulation introduces some standards for irrigation water, which also covers treated waste water. These voluntary standards do not address all risks, as environmental risks are not covered.

(24)

 Note that this represents the range of different limits for different uses (e.g. crops, irrigation methods). For E. coli, as indicated in RD 1620/2007, the limits are 0 for more stringent values, and 10.000 for less stringent.

(25) General statistics from Eurostat show that there is an increasing trend occurrence of one or more work-related health problems in the sector of agriculture, hunting and forestry, namely 8% of the workforce in 2007 compared to 5% of the workforce in 1999. Moreover, the survey carried out by Eurostat in 2005 found that in the EU27, 8% of workers reported exposure to chemicals, dust, fumes, smoke, or gases (8%). The results of the survey in 2007 show that at least for a quarter of their working time, some persons were exposed to chemical products (15%) and infectious materials (9%).

(26) Italy

(27) http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/The_fruit_and_vegetable_sector_in_the_EU_-_a_statistical_overview

(28)   https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/rahmenbedingungen-fuer-die-umweltgerechte-nutzung  

(29)   http://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/who-we-are/governance/index.html

(30) See the notification by the Commission through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-653_en.htm?locale=en  

(31) See report by EFSA: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/en-176  

(32) See articles: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-ecoli-idUSTRE74S12V20110531 and http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/07/spanish-produce-paid-a-price-for-europes-o104-outbreak/  

(33) FP7 project DEMOWARE report: http://demoware.eu/en/results/deliverables/deliverable-d5-2-trust-in-reuse.pdf

(34) An assessment of 2015 RBMPs is ongoing, hence this figure will very likely change, as there are developments in some Member States.

(35)   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/pdf/Report-UnplannedReuse_TUM_FINAL_Oct-2017.pdf  

(36)

 This general objective was identified as a priority in the Blueprint in 2012 and the Circular Economy Action Plan in 2015.

(37)

 General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 (Decision No 1386/2013/EU), and more especially its following objectives:

·"To protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital", with actions ensuring that by 2020:

(b) the impact of pressures on transitional, coastal and fresh waters (including surface and ground waters) is significantly reduced to achieve, maintain or enhance good status, as defined by the Water Framework Directive;

(f) the nutrient cycle (nitrogen and phosphorus) is managed in a more sustainable and resource-efficient way;

·"To turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green and competitive low-carbon economy" with actions ensuring that by 2020:

(b) the overall environmental impact of all major sectors of the Union economy is significantly reduced, resource efficiency has increased, and benchmarking and measurement methodologies are in place. Market and policy incentives that foster business investments in resource efficiency are in place, while green growth is stimulated through measures to foster innovation;

(c) structural changes in production, technology and innovation, as well as consumption patterns and lifestyles have reduced the overall environmental impact of production and consumption, in particular in the food, housing and mobility sectors;

(38) In this context, it should be noted that in a number of Member States, important progress in particular on water pricing was made through the related ex-ante conditionality, which made the availability of EU funding (regional and agricultural) contingent upon meeting certain legal requirements of the WFD.

(39)  COM(2015) 614 final, Annex I

(40)   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/pdf/Guidelines_on_water_reuse.pdf

(41) https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/c2f004b6-4c4b-4bbc-8d7d-37938c6c6390/Water%20reuse%20%26%20recycling%20within%20EU%20Reference%20Documents.pdf

(42) 2017/C 163/01 of 23 May 2017

(43) Terminology used in scientific literature and UN context

(44) e.g. ES, CY

(45) ECJ Judgement cases C-119/2002, and C-335/07

(46)

Italian guidelines for site-specific risk assessment for contaminated sites (Decreto legislative 152/06) http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/files/temi/siti-contaminati-02marzo08.pdf

(47) A first rough estimate of the total EU water reuse volume in 2025 was developed for the purposes of this study: under a Business As Usual (BAU) scenario, a volume of around 1,700 Mm3/y could be reached (i.e. total volume of reclaimed water that would be reused in 2025 in the absence of further EU policy actions) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/pdf/BIO_IA%20on%20water%20reuse_Final%20Part%20I.pdf .

(48) In particular using IA Tools #16-31, see http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_tool_en.htm

(49)  Pistocchi, A., Aloe, A., Dorati, C., Alcalde Sanz, L., Bouraoui, F., Gawlik, B., Grizzetti, B., Pastori, M., Vigiak, O., The potential of water reuse for agricultural irrigation in the EU. A Hydro-Economic Analysis, EUR 28980 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN    978-92-79-77210-8, doi 10.2760/263713

(50) The example of a particular Member State may further illustrate this point. The drought of the summer of 2017 resulted in an estimated loss of EUR 2 billion for the Italian farming sector (see above section 1). Italy currently applies water reuse for irrigation to a very limited extent. Water reuse could, however, cover an estimated 47% of all irritation demand in Italy (see below Figure 10), which would positively contribute to alleviating water stress and avoiding economic loss.

(51)

A paper on the Po plain in Italy, Musolino et al. (2017) quantifies the impact of droughts on the overall welfare (farmers+consumers) in the order of EUR 500-1000 million/year during drought years. The affected population is more than 16 million persons. This may suggest a cost of about EUR 30-60/person during drought years and is in fact in line with the figures on the willingness to pay provided above. The authors stress that farmers alone benefitted from drought as the price increase was stronger than the production loss in the area. As reuse contributes to water stress reduction in the order of 10%, we may assume an indirect benefit of EUR 50-100 million during drought years, for the Po plain alone. Considering a drought that simultaneously affects an area 10 times as big as the Po plain in Europe, the indirect benefits for the whole of Europe would go back to EUR 500-1000 million during a drought year. Source: Dario Musolino, Alessandro de Carli, Antonio Massarutto, Evaluation of the socioeconomic impacts of the drought events: The case of the po river basin. Europ. Countrys. · 1 · 2017 · p. 163-176 DOI: 10.1515/euco-2017-0010.

(52) During summer 2017, a drought hit the whole territory of Italy causing losses to agriculture, that farmers estimated at least at € 2bn ( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40803619 ). Notably, also regions traditionally not s uffering from water scarcity were hit.

(53)

  Reports/90179/Water-Resources/90193/Water-Reuse/97338/Establishing-a-Robust-Case-for-Final-Effluent-Reuse---An-Evidence-Base also quoted in http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/pdf/EU_level_instruments_on_water-2nd-IA_support-study_AMEC.pdf

(54) These percentages are the average of figures for the years 2000s and latest available year collected by EUROSTAT and reported by the European Environment Agency (EEA): https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/use-of-freshwater-resources-2/assessment-2 . Countries are grouped as follows: East: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania*, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia; South: Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Portugal; West: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland*, France, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden, England and Wales, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland.

(55)  Arithmetic average 7.7%, irrigation volume-weighted average 13.7%, average of the two 10.7%.

(56)  Reuse potential is computed for the three zones by aggregating the volumes shown by country in Figure 13.

(57)  This requires that nutrients in reused water are taken into account in the planning of crop fertilization, and that fertilization is efficient. If these conditions are not met, reuse may simply contribute to transfer pollution from surface water bodies (where wastewater is typically discharged) to soil and aquifers where fertilizers may leach.

(58) Birol, E., P. Koundouri, and Y. Kountouris (2007), Farmers’ demand for recycled water in Cyprus: A contingent valuation approach, in Wastewater Reuse––Risk Assessment, Decision-Making and Environmental Security, edited by M. K. Zaidi, pp. 267–278, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

(59) Tziakis, I., I. Pachiadakis, M. Moraittakis, K. Xideas, G. Theologis and K. P. Tsagarakis (2009), Valuing benefits from wastewater treatment and reuse using contingent valuation methodology, Desalination, 237, 117–125.

(60)   http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/environment/air-emissions-inventories/main-tables  

(61) California’s Water-Energy Relationship, 2005 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-011/CEC-700-2005-011-SF.PDF

(62)   http://www.thesourcemagazine.org/the-role-of-water-in-the-circular-economy/

(63)

 Appendix D of AMEC study, Processed data by the authors

(64) It is to be noted that the TIA has been concluded before the JRC modelling has been completed, hence there is a potential discrepancy regarding the available data.

(65) For example, Malta opted out of a Directive on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union because it has no railway system and no plans to introduce one.

(66) Report "Actions to Streamline Environmental Reporting" (COM(2017)312) and Fitness Check evaluation (SWD(2017)230)

(67)

 WFD reporting guidance 2016

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels,13.6.2018

SWD(2018) 249 final/2

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum requirements for water reuse

{COM(2018) 337 final}

{SEC(2018) 249 final}

{SWD(2018) 250 final}

Table of content

Annexes

Annex 1 – Procedural information

Annex 1a – Water reuse in impact assessment of Blueprint (excerpt)

Annex 2 - Synopsis report on consultation activities

Annex 3 - Who is affected by the initiative and how

Annex 3a –SME test

Annex 4 - Analytical models used in preparing the impact assessment

References

Annex 5 - Problem tree

Annex 6 - The purposes and benefits of reusing water - situation in selected Member States

Annexes

Annex 1 – Procedural information

Organisation and timing

Work on this impact assessment started in August 2013, when DG ENV signed a contract with an external contractor to further analyse the possibilities for the maximisation of water reuse in the EU, and to assess the impact of the possible measures.

Taking over a pre-existing Inter-Service Group an Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) led by DG ENV was set up and met 9 times, between December 2014 and September 2017. The Directorates-General (DGs) of the Commission SG, SJ, AGRI, CLIMA, CNECT, ECFIN, GROW, JRC, MARE, MOVE, REGIO, RTD, SANTE, and TRADE were invited to participate in the work of this group; all nominated representatives. AGRI, SANTE, JRC, RTD and SG were the DGs that contributed the most actively to the work of the IASG. All nominated members of the group were regularly consulted and informed on progress.

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB)

[NB: section to be replaced in the final draft after RSB "formal" consultation, to briefly explain how the Board's recommendations have led to changes compared to the earlier draft. This will include a table with the first column identifying the Board's recommendation and the second column how the IA Report has been modified in response).]

A meeting between all members of the RSB and DG ENV was held on 13 February 2017, also attended by members of SG and JRC, aiming at providing early feedback on the main expectations of the Board regarding this initiative. The table below summarises the comments raised by the RSB in the meeting and how they were followed-up:

The RSB discussed the Impact Assessment report on 25 October 2017. A negative opinion, requesting a resubmission of the Impact Assessment report, was issued on 27 October 2017. The table below summarises the main and further considerations and adjustment requirements raised by the RSB in its opinion and how they were followed-up:

The RSB received a revised version of the draft Impact Assessment report on 1 December 2017. A positive opinion with reservations was issued on 19 January 2018. The table below summarises the main and further considerations and adjustment requirements raised by the RSB in its opinion and how they were followed-up:

Sources used in the impact assessment

The main information sources for this Impact Assessment are the preceding impact assessment (2012) and subsequent supporting studies as well as the scientific basis developed by JRC (minimum quality requirements), together with a hydro-modelling by JRC. Moreover, by teaming up with other Directorate-Generals (DG REGIO and DG RTD) specific aspects have been assessed, namely the impacts on innovation and territorial impacts.

Quality of the information collected: Significant effort was put into the collection of evidence and where possible, triangulation was performed to cross check the validity and robustness of information. Nevertheless, it was not feasible to arrive at monetised and quantified impacts on all aspects. In these cases, a qualitative assessment was performed. The Impact Assessment builds on detailed data on water scarcity and droughts in Europe, as well as future projections and a cost-benefit analysis of the use of treated waste water for agricultural irrigation. The modelling assumptions were based on expert judgements. The choice of options and the underlying scientific work developing minimum quality requirements was discussed with Member States and stakeholders in the context of the Common Implementation Strategy under the Water Framework Directive, and adapted accordingly.

Usefulness of the information collected. The underlying scientific work of developing the minimum quality requirements, the data collected and the modelling for the Impact Assessment are a useful basis for further decision-making.

COM(2012) 672, Report on the Review of the European Water Scarcity and Droughts

Policy

COM(2012) 673, Impact Assessment for the Blueprint

BIO-Deloitte (2014), Optimising water reuse in the EU

COM/2015/614, Communication on Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy, Annex I

SWD (2015) 50, Report on the progress in implementation of the Water Framework

Directive Programmes of Measures: The Water Framework Directive and the Floods

Directive: Actions towards the ‘good status’ of EU water and to reduce flood risks

SWD(2017) 153, Commission SWD on Agriculture and Sustainable Water Management in the EU

Forzieri, G., Feyen, L., Rojas, R., Flörke, M., Wimmer, F., Bianchi, A.

Ensemble projections of future streamflow droughts in Europe (2014) Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 18 (1), pp. 85-108. DOI: 10.5194/hess-18-85-2014

JRC (2014) Water Reuse in Europe: Relevant guidelines, needs for and barriers to

innovation

Forzieri, G., Feyen, L., Russo, S., Vousdoukas, M., Alfieri, L., Outten, S., Migliavacca, M., Bianchi, A., Rojas, R., Cid, A. Multi-hazard assessment in Europe under climate change

(2016) Climatic Change, 137 (1-2), pp. 105-119. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-016-1661-x

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure (2016) UK Ltd, IEEP, ACTeon,

IMDEA and NTUA, EU-level instruments on water reuse

CIS Guidelines on Integrating Water Reuse into Water Planning and Management in the context of the Water Framework Directive (2016) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/pdf/Guidelines_on_water_reuse.pdf

COM (2016)105, Eighth Report on the Implementation Status and the Programmes for

Implementation (as required by Article 17) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC

concerning urban waste water treatment

Alberto Pistocchi, Alberto Aloe, Chiara Dorati, Laura Alcalde Sanz, Bernard Bisselink, Fayçal Bouraoui, Bernd Gawlik, Emiliano Gelati, Bruna Grizzetti, Marco Pastori, Ine Vandecasteele, Olga Vigiak, Hydro-economic analysis of the water reuse potential for agricultural irrigation in the EU. JRC Science for Policy Reports, 2017 (draft).

REGIO (2017) Assessment of territorial impacts

RTD (2017) Assessment of impacts on research and innovation

JRC (2017) Development of minimum quality requirements for water reuse in

agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge

SCHEER (2017) Scientific advice on proposed EU minimum quality requirements for

water reuse in agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge  https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/scheer/docs/scheer_o_010.pdf

EFSA (2017) Technical report on proposed EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1247/epdf .

Report on Water reuse and recycling within EU reference documents

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/c2f004b6-4c4b-4bbc-8d7d-37938c6c6390/Water%20reuse%20%26%20recycling%20within%20EU%20Reference%20Documents.pdf

Characterization of unplanned water reuse in the EU (Final Report 2017), Jörg E. Drewes, Uwe Hübner, Veronika Zhiteneva, Sema Karakurt , TUM

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/pdf/Report-UnplannedReuse_TUM_FINAL_Oct-2017.pdf  

Report by FP7 project DEMOWARE: http://demoware.eu/en/results/deliverables/deliverable-d5-2-trust-in-reuse.pdf

WHO Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater 

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/wwuvol2intro.pdf

CDPH (2014) Regulations related to recycled water. California Code of Regulations.

California Department of Public Health, Sacramento, California, USA.

EEA (2012) Towards efficient use of water resources in Europe. EEA report No 1/2012. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Annex 1a – Water reuse in impact assessment of Blueprint (excerpt)

The Commission has been considering the issue of water reuse for a number of years and has documented its findings to date in several steps. In the 2012 Communication "A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources" (COM(2012) 673) water reuse for irrigation or industrial purposes was found to have a lower environmental impact and potentially lower costs than other alternative water supplies, whereas it is only used to a limited extent in the EU. A Fitness check of EU Freshwater policy (SWD(2012) 393) published in November 2012, as a building block of the Blueprint, assessed the performance of the measures taken, both in environment and in other policy areas, in achieving the objectives already agreed in the context of water policy. It also identified the major gaps to be closed in order to deliver environmental objectives more efficiently. In relation to wastewater reuse, the Fitness check concluded that "alternative water supply options with low environmental impact need to be further relied upon" in order to address water scarcity. A particular issue emphasised by stakeholders in the public consultation of the Fitness Check was the lack of EU common quality requirements for reuse of wastewater in irrigation. Several policy options to promote water reuse were considered in the impact assessment of the Blueprint (SWD(2012) 382)

The following are more detailed excerpts from the relevant sections of the above mentioned documents, including the major gaps identified, whose closure can be partly addressed with increased water reuse:

Fitness Check of EU Freshwater Policy – SWD/2012/393 1

2.3. Gaps - Managing water demand and availability

Moreover, alternative water supply options with low environmental impact such as water re-use need to be further relied upon. In this context, a particular issue that was emphasised by industry stakeholders in the public consultation was the lack of EU standards for re-use of waste water in irrigation. The concern expressed is that the lack of EU-level standards could inhibit free movement of agricultural produce in the single market and inhibit investment by the water industry.

2.5. Appropriateness of Policy instruments

The slow progress in relation to water efficiency in buildings and agriculture or on alternative water supply sources such as water re-use also raises questions about the relevance of continued reliance on voluntary approaches.

5.2. Coherence within EU water policy

It should be noted that the issue of re-use of waste water for different purposes (such as irrigation or industrial uses) is not specifically addressed by EU water policy through EU wide re-use standards (public consultation and stakeholder workshop). Although relevant to the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, this is not an issue of coherence between water legislation, but rather a gap in the policy framework (see section on relevance).

A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources - COM(2012) 673

2.4. The vulnerability of EU waters: problems and solutions

In the stakeholder consultations leading to the Blueprint, one alternative supply option – water re-use for irrigation or industrial purposes – has emerged as an issue requiring EU attention. Re-use of water (e.g. from waste water treatment or industrial installations) is considered to have a lower environmental impact than other alternative water supplies (e.g. water transfers or desalinisation), but it is only used to a limited extent in the EU. This appears to be due to the lack of common EU environmental/health standards for re-used water and the potential obstacles to the free movement of agricultural products irrigated with re-used water. The Commission will look into the most suitable EU-level instrument to encourage water re-use, including a regulation establishing common standards. In 2015, it will make a proposal, subject to an appropriate impact assessment, to ensure the maintenance of a high level of public health and environmental protection in the EU.

Table 4

3. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK FOR EU WATER POLICY

The Commission will consider developing a regulatory instrument setting EU-wide standards for water re-use, thereby removing obstacles to the widespread use of this alternative water supply. This would help alleviate water scarcity and reduce vulnerability.

Impact Assessment (IA) of the Blueprint - Executive summary (SWD/2012/381) 2

1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES

[…] Overall, stakeholders were supportive of non-legislative EU action to tackle water problems. […] Some legislative options were also supported, such as a possible new regulation on water re-use standards. […]

2. POLICY CONTEXT, PROBLEM DEFINITION AND SUBSIDIARITY

Second, there is a risk that the WFD goals will not be achieved because of a lack of integration and coherence with other policy areas […], further support is needed:

[…](7) for the uptake of water re-use through common EU standards.

5. IDENTIFYING THE PREFERRED OPTIONS PACKAGE AND ITS IMPACTS

The assessment of the options can be considered as a screening of the various approaches for each of the 12 issues identified. On the basis of the assessment performed, it appears that in most of the cases, the most appropriate options fall under a guidance approach. The regulatory approach is recommended for only 3 issues (water efficiency in appliances/water related products, water re-use and knowledge dissemination) as the current policy context, in particular with respect to the implementation of the WFD and the MFF, leads to postponing most of the regulatory and conditionality policy options to a later stage. The preferred options are those in red and underlined in table 1.

Table 1: List of options considered in the Impact Assessment - options in red and underlined are retained

Impact Assessment (IA) of the Blueprint - SWD/2012/382 3

·Impact Assessment report (Part I)

2.4    Problem definition for the Blueprint (pg. 18)

2.4.2. Lack of policy integration in support to specific measures

Even if a proper implementation of economic and communication instruments can help for a further uptake of measures that can provide a cost-efficient response to water resource problems, there are cases for which additional support from policy and funding instruments is

needed:

…

·The lack of common EU standards for water re-use for agriculture and industrial uses limits a potentially important alternative water source - especially for water stressed areas where this option could be cheaper than desalinisation or transfers19. The lack of common health/environmental standards threatens farmers using re-used water to irrigate crops for export within the single market and prevents industry from making long-term investment decisions. It also constitutes a barrier for innovation.

2.7    The need to act at EU level (pg. 29, 31)

Lack of integration of water issues into other policies (pg. 31)

·The main barrier to expansion of water re-use is the lack of common standards at EU level, in particular in agriculture. While guidelines for agricultural water re-use have been defined by the World Health Organisation36, and by different countries, such as the USA37 and Australia, a uniform solution for Europe is lacking. Establishing standards for the functional operation of the single market is an appropriate EU level response, taking into account EU Health, Agriculture and Energy policies.

4.    Policy options (pg. 36)

4.7    Water re-use (pg. 39)

The problem analysis highlighted that a critical problem to address in the Blueprint is that there are no common standards for waste water reuse. Taking account of the detailed problem analysis and baseline, the following options were identified to be assessed within the Impact Assessment:

·develop CIS guidance on certification schemes for water re-use (Option 7a1),

·the Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) to adopt standards water re-use (Option 7a2),

·an EU Regulation establishing standards for water re-use (option 7b), and

·provision of funding through Cohesion Funds and/or EIB loans (Option 7d).

5.    Analysis of the impacts of the options (pg. 41)

5.7    Water re-use (pg. 44)

The options concerned with water re-use all seek to stimulate the re-use of waste water in agriculture as a means of providing an alternative water supply and so reduce the pressure on surface and ground water sources and provide a stable supply to users in times of scarcity and drought. The impacts of water re-use are, therefore, common to all of the options and largely only differ to the extent that the options would be effective at stimulating water re-use.

The primary economic benefits of water re-use are to the agriculture sector and water industry sector. Water re-use ensures to farmers and horticulturalists a more reliable water supply, less dependant on precipitations, as it benefits from the priority given to drinking water in periods of drought, leading to more certainty in economic investment. Furthermore, farmers can benefit from nutrients contained in waste water, so reducing their costs for the use of fertilisers. The water industry sector benefits from alternative water treatment requirements, which can be less stringent and, therefore, less costly than requirements for treatment for discharge to surface waters.

The economic benefits translate into social benefits. Security of the agricultural producers enables jobs to be secured, providing benefits to local communities. Furthermore, it can enable traditional agricultural production to continue in water stressed areas that would otherwise be under threat from water scarcity and so maintain cultural traditions. However, health concerns do arise from the re-use of water for agricultural products. Therefore, the standards proposed to be adopted for options 7a, 7b1 and 7b2 would all be required to meet the necessary health standards. Furthermore, funding (option 7d) should only be provided to schemes which guarantee health standards are to be complied with.

The environmental benefits are proportional to the reduction in pressure on surface and ground waters from supply of re-used water as an alternative to abstraction. Ecological flows are more likely to be maintained, protecting aquatic ecosystems and, therefore, helping to meet WFD requirements. Furthermore, diversion of waste water to agriculture may result in less discharge of nutrients, etc., to surface waters.

The extent of these impacts is proportional to the effectiveness of the options. The primary problem facing water re-use is the lack of EU-level standards which could result in different standards across the Member States, leading to barriers in the trade of agricultural products. Voluntary standards (option 7a1) developed at EU level would provide a basis for a common approach, but the option cannot prevent Member States adopting a different approach and, therefore, cannot prevent barriers in the internal market. CEN standards (option 7a2) might be more likely to be adopted by Member States, but they suffer the same flaw as option 7a1. A Regulation (option 7b) does not have this problem and would guarantee that internal market barriers would not arise. The development of each of these options has similar costs, although the direct applicability of a Regulation would have lower burdens on Member States as it would not require transposition. The public consultation and stakeholder views all show more support for a binding Regulation as the effective means to overcome the problem compared to the other options. The option would be fully coherent with other EU water law and policy.

Option 7d (funding) is not an alternative to the other options, but can accompany any of the other options. Given public and private expenditure constraints, investment in water treatment and distribution for irrigation is constrained in some regions. Areas eligible for Cohesion Funds and EIB loans can benefit from additional investment support. The effectiveness of this option (and the resulting economic, social and environmental impacts) would be directly proportional to the level of available investment.

6.    Identifying the preferred options package and its impacts (pg. 48)

6.1    Proposed package (pg. 49)

·Regarding water re-use there is a need to ensure the effective operation of the internal market to support investment and use of re-used water. The assessment, including stakeholder consultation, found that this can only be achieved through the development of new regulatory standards at EU level. Therefore, the preferred option is for the Commission to pursue appropriate health/environment protection standards for re-use of water and, subsequently, to propose a new Regulation containing these subject to a specific impact assessment.

·Annex to the Impact Assessment report (Part II)

2.2. Measures improving water availability (pg. 35)

2.2.1. Description

Desalination is the specialised treatment method used to remove dissolved minerals and mineral salts (demineralisation) from the feed-water (fresh water, brackish water, saline water, but mainly from sea water) and thus to convert it to fresh water mainly for domestic, irrigation or industrial use. In Europe, several countries have turned to desalination technologies, especially in the southern more water scarce areas. Several Member States use desalination as an alternative water supply source to remedy water stress situations. In 2008 Spain had the largest desalination capacity in the EU with up to 713 Mm3/day. Malta had a desalination capacity of 14 Mm3/day (more than 45% of its total water needs), while Italy reached around 0,75 Mm3/day, and Cyprus around 0,093 Mm3/day (TYPSA 2012). More and more Northern European Countries also use this option. For example, in the UK, the company Thames Water has built a desalination plant for meeting the future water demands of the London metropolitan area.

Water transfers – are used to transfer water from one river basin where water is considered abundant to another one where water is scarce. The interbasin transfer of water, when implemented on a large scale, is one of the most significant human interventions in natural environmental processes. Water transfer has potential for substantial beneficial effects through alleviation of water shortages that impede continuing development of regions without adequate local water supplies. But transfer also has potential to limit future development of the area of the transfer's origin and to produce other negative effects.

Groundwater recharge is a hydrologic process where water moves downward from the soil surface towards groundwater. Recharge occurs both naturally (through the water cycle) and man-induced (i.e. artificial groundwater recharge), where rainwater, surface water and/or reclaimed water is routed to the subsurface. Artificial groundwater recharge aims at the increase of the groundwater potential. This is done by artificially inducing large quantities of surface water (from streams or reservoirs) to infiltrate the ground. It is commonly done at rates and in quantities many times in excess of natural recharge. The number of aquifer recharge and re-use schemes in Europe, and around the world, has expanded in recent years. The primary driver for this expansion has been the increasing demand for water to meet agricultural, industrial, environmental, and municipal needs. In southern Europe, the uptake is predominantly motivated by agricultural and municipal water needs, whereas in Northern Europe groundwater recharge is mostly found in densely populated areas for use in households (e.g. Berlin, The Netherlands).

Dams and reservoirs for water storage can be potentially used in most water scarce areas, where water efficiency measures can't fully resolve the problem. A dam is a barrier that produces changes in the hydro-morphological and physico-chemical conditions of the impounded river. River damming is one of the most ancient techniques used for water supply.

Large dams have long been promoted as providing "cheap" hydropower and water supply, reducing also flood impacts to populated floodplains. A reservoir is natural or artificial pond or lake used for the storage and regulation of water. Reservoirs may be created in river valleys by the construction of a dam or may be built by excavation in the ground or by conventional construction techniques. These measures, in general, are considered more expensive and might have significant negative impacts to the environment.

There are two types of water re-use: direct and indirect. Direct wastewater re-use is treated wastewater that is piped into a water supply system without first being incorporated in a natural stream or lake or in groundwater. Indirect wastewater re-use involves the mixing of reclaimed wastewater with another water supply source before re-use. The mixing occurs for example when the groundwater is too saline and needs to be improved by the treated waste water. Re-use of treated wastewater is a valuable resource for water supply in areas where water is limited. It has the potential to become an alternative source of water after relevant treatment. It could be used for irrigation in agriculture, industrial uses and specific uses in buildings provided that all relevant safety standards are respected. Re-use of treated wastewater is an accepted practice in several European countries with limited rainfall and very limited water resources, where it has become already an integral effective component of long term water resources management. However, only a few countries developed comprehensive reuse standards. Strict quality controls to minimise the risk of environmental contamination and human health problems due to water re-use. In addition, proper household metering and water pricing strategies are important drivers for the implementation of water reuse systems.

Rainwater harvesting is the process of collecting, diverting and storing rainwater from an area (usually roofs or another surface catchment area) for direct or future use. This is a technology that can be used to supply water to agriculture, households and industry.

2.2.2. Key information on the cost-effectiveness (risks and benefits)

In theory alternative water supply options, especially desalination, can deliver unlimited amount of water. In practice all the options have a lot of limitations in terms of costs and negative economic, environmental and social impacts. Cost-effectiveness of the options is as follow:

Desalination plants involve high capital costs, maintenance and operational costs and recurrent costs, because of its reliance on high energy requirements and if its location is far from urban areas a distribution network needs to be installed to transfer desalinated water to the mains water supply. It affects the cost-effectiveness of desalination bringing high desalination costs (0,21 – 1,06 Euro/m3). Distribution costs of desalinated water: to transport 1 m3 of water is estimated at 0.037 € per 100 m of vertical transport and 0.043 € per 100 km of horizontal transport. Other costs, related to the pre-treatment and the concentrate disposal, has to be also considered within the desalination process. Miller (2003) estimates pre-treatment costs to account for up to 30% of O&M costs while Younos (2004) estimates the costs of brine disposal between 5 to 33% of total desalination costs (Ecologic, 2008).

Development of the water transfer infrastructure involves very high costs. Example from England: the capital cost of water transfer infrastructure (to meet demand for water in south east England) is estimated to be between £8 million to £14 million per megaliter, which is 4 times more than developing new resources in south east. To transport 1 m3 of water is estimated at 0.037 € per 100 m of vertical transport and 0.043 € per 100 km of horizontal transport (EA 2006).

Concerning water recharge costs of water supply are lower than in the case of desalination or water transfers. It is mainly owing to lower investment, treatment and distribution costs. In the Belgian case study cost of producing water from ground water recharge was estimated to be 0.5 €/m³, which was cheaper than transferred water from outside the region (0.77 €/m³) (in 2007) (TYPSA 2012). There is no need of large storage structures to store water. Structures required are mostly small and cost-effective and less evaporation losses are produced. An extensive and expensive tertiary treatment is required for using waste water to recharge ground waters (although in most situations in the EU these are in place in any case). Strict quality controls to minimise the risk of environmental contamination and human health problems are needed, what entails costs, which should be taken into consideration.

Costs effectiveness of storage reservoirs seems to be the most expensive water supply option. In UK costs of winter storage reservoirs are calculated as follows: lay-lined reservoirs: €3.20/m3 to 6,70 EUR/m3, Reservoirs with a synthetic liner: 4,90 EUR/m3 to 15,80 EUR/m3, including energy (CO2) from pumping twice (from borehole/river to reservoir; and from reservoir to field) (BIO 2012). In Australia case study expanding reservoir capacity costs were estimated on AUD 2,40/ kL (OECD 2011). However overall benefit (to farmers) of moving to irrigation reservoirs is estimated at 14 EUR/m3 to 27 EUR/m3 as well as additional (non-monetised) benefits associated with improved security and flexibility of supply (case study from UK) (BIO 2012). Those benefits should be taken into account while considering water supply alternatives.

One of the most cost promising water supply alternatives is water recycling. The capital costs are low to medium for most wastewater re-use systems and are recoverable in a very short time. Experience from Australia: cost of recycling urban storm water (for non potable) – AUD 1,20-2,00 /kL; (for potable) – AUD 1,30-1,70 /kL; recycling treated sewage water – non-potable AUD 1,90/kL; potable AUD 2,50/kL (OECD 2011). Costs of waste water irrigation even tend to be lower than for groundwater irrigation, because the pumping effort needed is lower. However wastewater re-use may not be economically feasible if it requires an additional distribution network and storage facilities. Strict quality controls to minimise the risk of environmental contamination and human health problems are needed, what entails costs, which should be taken into consideration.

Total treated wastewater life cycle cost converted into €/m3 (TYPSA 2012):

Cost effectiveness of rain water harvesting is related to the need of financing the capital investments and operation/maintenance costs for relatively large storage tanks in situations where there is a poor rainfall distribution. These cost are relatively high as presents experiences from different countries: Australia - cost of rain water tanks – AUD 3,75/kL (OECD 2011); in Belgium a RWHS for private households requires a large investment and the price reaches the value of around €1.8 to 4/m³ of RW used. The regulation specifies minimum requirements that aim at a cost-efficient introduction of RWHS. On the other hand, the savings amount to €1.7/m³ for avoided use of mains water. As with current regulations, the costs for sewage and sewage treatment are recovered on the basis of m³ of mains water used, the RW user benefits from an additional €2/m³ for avoided costs for sewage and sewage treatment; in Malta the estimated cost of using the water produced by a RWH system reaches the value of €5 to 11/m³ depending on the varying construction costs.

According to expertise the water saving potential for measures which are associated with rain water harvesting (rain water flowing from a roof is transferred via a pipe to a container in order to be used, for example, for gardening or car wash activities) is expected to meet up to 80% and 50% of households needs in France and UK, respectively (ACTeon et al., 2012). Concerning water harvesting in agriculture the overall benefit (to farmers) of moving to irrigation reservoirs can be estimated at 14 EUR/m3 to 27 EUR/m3 (discounted over 25 years

at 4%), or annualised benefits of 0,80 EUR/m3 to 1,55 EUR/m3 per year (BIO 2011).

Economic impacts

·Provision of adequate and reliable water supply in urban areas encourages general economic development;

·Guarantee of water supply during peak water demand periods (e.g. the tourist season), and because of its reliability it can support other and new economic activities;

·High investment and O&M costs related to treatment and distribution.

·In case of water storage reservoirs the need to devote a land, which otherwise could be used for some economic activities should be considered. The location of desalination plants also implies land-use planning issues: they are mostly located in coastal zones (already densely populated), and have impact on the value of land – “not in my back yard”.

·In case of water reuse there are some additional positive economic impacts:

oReusing the total volume of treated wastewater in Europe could cover nearly 44.14% of the agricultural irrigation demand and avoid 13.3% of abstraction from natural sources (Defra 2011). In Israel of all sewage that is treated, 75.5% (358 Mm³) is used for irrigation, representing 40% of the total water use in agricultural irrigation. Recently assessments point that the percentage had risen to 87% by 2007 and the objective is to reach 95% of reclaimed water by the end of the decade (Defra 2011).

ouse of the nutrients of the wastewater (e.g. nitrogen and phosphate) resulting to the reduction of the use of synthetic fertilizer and, reduction of treatment costs (reclaimed water, can be used for agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, industry, and non-potable urban uses). However there are some technological restraints related to crop type, presence of chemicals/nutrients not synchronized with crop requirements in using treated wastewater.

The potential of the water reuse source hasn't been exploited so far in Europe: by 2006 the total volume of reused treated wastewater in Europe was 964 Mm³/yr, which accounted for 2.4% of the treated effluent. The treated wastewater reuse rate was high in Cyprus (100%) and Malta (just under 60%), whereas in Greece, Italy and Spain treated wastewater reuse was only between 5 % and 12 % of their effluents. Nevertheless, the amount of treated wastewater reused was mostly very small (less than 1%) when compared with a country’s total water abstraction (TYPSA 2012).

Water reuse and desalinisation require a continue enhancement of technologies in order to lower the use of energy and minimize environmental impacts on the aquatic environment. This is, therefore, an area for investment in innovation to ensure the cost-effectiveness of measures. Unlike water transfers, that increase water supply in one basin, at the expense of other basins, desalination has the advantage of decoupling water production from the hydrometeorological cycle.

Rainwater harvesting can have strong economic impact by reducing water costs paid by households, agriculture or industry to pay for mains water supply. The economic potential of this supply option is estimated very high. Rainwater harvesting could save 20 to 50% of the total potable water use in a standard home, whereas grey water recycling could save 5 to 35%, as seen in the UK experience (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012). In Bedfordshire, one of the drier parts of England, the MAAF study showed that one hectare of roof area might theoretically provide sufficient water to irrigate 2,5 hectares of potatoes (at 80% efficiency).

Environmental impacts

All alternative sources of water supply reduce the demand on mains water supplies and reduce pressure on environment.

Most of alternative supply options are related to the intensive use of energy. Among them the most energy consuming is desalination. If the energy is from using the use of fossil fuels, this will increase GHG emissions. This is linked to the higher amounts of energy needed to desalt water (between 3.5 and 24 kWh/m3 according to the technology), especially with thermal processes. On the basis of an average European fuel mix for power generation, it has been estimated that a revers osmosis plant produces 1.78 kg of CO2 per m3 of water, while thermal multi stage flash leads to 23.41 kg CO2/m3 and multiple effect distillation to 18.05 kg CO2/m3 (Ecologic 2008).

Example from Spain: it was estimated the desalination installation at Carboneras – Europe’s largest RO plant - uses one third of the electricity supplied to Almeria province. The more than 700 Spanish desalination plants produce about 1.6 million m3 of water per day. According to the estimates (1.78 kg of CO2 per m3 of water) on CO2 production from desalination, this translates into about 2.8 million kg CO2 per day. It can be argued therefore that desalination is contributing significantly to Spain’s overall GHG emissions, which have been skyrocketing to +52.3% in 2005 compared to 1990 levels – moving Spain well beyond its European burden sharing target of +15%. This may be a foretaste of the dilemmas that will face other Member States in future years as the impacts of climate change are felt increasingly widely (Ecologic 2008).

Other environmental impacts of desalination varying severity depending on local conditions are on the aquifer and on the marine environment as a result of the concentrated brine management and water treatment and plant maintenance activities, water intake activities, and noise.

Water transfers and water supply projects, such as the construction of reservoirs and dams or irrigation schemes have significant negative environmental impacts in terms of biodiversity, wetlands, water availability and environmental flow. There are big uncertainties regarding how much water will be able to be transferred in the future.

Additionally construction of reservoirs and dams or irrigation schemes, can have negative consequences on biodiversity, especially in water scarce areas. As an example, planned irrigation schemes in the water poor Ebro basin in Spain were linked to significant declines in bird distribution (ACTeon et al., 2012). It is contributing as well to the discontinuity along the river, impeding fish species to reach their spawning grounds and is responsible for blocking of sediment transport to the sea is the main responsible of deltas and beaches regression.

Groundwater recharge reduces the threat of over-exploitation of existing aquifers, and decreases the risks of seawater intrusion into aquifers at or near the coast. It guarantees available for both the economy and the environment surface and groundwater resources during summer and drought periods. Fewer evaporation losses are produced, contrary to dam or impoundment alternatives, that in southern countries could reach levels up to 1m/year (TYPSA 2012). In the contrary it reduces pressure on water bodies from reduction in summer abstractions.

Waste water reuse not only reduces the demands of freshwater, but can also reduce the pollution of rivers and groundwater by nutrients. From another side if there is no strict quality controls, there could be the risk of environmental contamination and human health problems (water-borne diseases and skin irritations).

The direct waste water reuse in households results in increased GHG emissions in existing homes, whereas its installation in new homes, alongside with other water efficiency measures, shows net carbon benefits. Different biological and bio-mechanical systems apply to single residential dwellings, commercial buildings or multi-use buildings. These systems have different operational energy and carbon intensities. For grey water reuse, the latter range from 0.6 kWh/m3 for short-retention to 3.5 kWh/m3 for small membrane bioreactors (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012).

The same environmental impact concerns rain water harvesting. The need of construction and

maintenance of the necessary infrastructure may lead to negative energy/treatment/GHG impacts. The retrofitting of household rainwater harvesting results in increased GHG emissions in existing homes, whereas its installation in new homes, alongside with other water efficiency measures, shows net carbon benefits. Different biological and biomechanical systems apply to single residential dwellings, commercial buildings or multi-use buildings. These systems have different operational energy and carbon intensities. For rainwater harvesting, the latter range from 1.0 kWh/m3 for direct feed to 1.5 kWh/m3 for header tank (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012). For water harvesting in agriculture the same negative effects should be taken as those identified for water storage (dams and reservoirs).

The positive environmental impact of rain water harvesting is the reduction of the amount of urban storm runoff due to its buffering effect on storm events, which in turn reduces the amount of pollutants being washed into surface waters that are used to recharge shallow groundwaters.

Social impacts

In general alternative water supply alternatives provide adequate and reliable water supply in urban areas and encourage general economic development and job creation.

Water transfers provide right distribution of benefits between the area of transfer origination and area of water delivery. However by contributing to the development of regions without adequate local water supplies it may limit future development (economic productivity) in the area of the transfer's origin. It can cause problems of inter-regional or international fights for water rights, as drought extreme events are complex to manage.

Water storage change land use in the region, which can lead to low social acceptance.

The general public or specific groups may refuse to consume products that are associated with the waste water re-use – the so called “yuk” factor.

There is the potential for impacts on health arising from these options (which would be stronger with a regulatory approach). These impacts would depend on whether building standards included requirements for re-use of water within the buildings (which would, therefore, need to be subject to subsequent IA if this were proposed). Reduced water flows can result stagnate in pipes, leading to microbial growth, although this concern is largely theoretical at present and currently design and control have reduced this problem. With regard to rainwater harvesting and to grey water reuse health issues are linked especially to installation, maintenance and operation of these sources. Stored rainwater can be contaminated with Enterococci (EUREAU 2011b). Also, back-wash systems (as part of the design of a reuse system for maintenance and cleaning) could contaminate drinking water supplies.

Having said this, public perceptions of possible health impacts are a barrier. Actions to control water quality include health codes, procedures for approval of service, regulations governing design and construction specifications, inspections, and operation and maintenance (US EPA, 2004) and standards have been adopted in national law (e.g. France, Spain and UK) for rainwater harvesting and grey water re-use to address this issue.

Poorer families will not have the financial resources to invest in the technology of water harvesting, and reap the benefits of lower water costs. The same concerns tenants who will not have the opportunity to reap the benefits of lower household water costs, as landlords do not benefit from this type of investment.

2.2.3. Barriers for implementation

Market failures, regulatory and policy support

There is the lack of the application of best practices in integrated water management by water managers at a national or basin level to produce RMBPs that are coherent and cost effective. In general at a national or basin level the institutional or administrative structures are not in place. It causes problems in the development and implementation of an integrated water resource management plan for the administration, management, protection and sustainable development of the raw water resources at a basin and water body level.

The existing RMBPs hardly apply the principles of: polluter pays, cost recovery, cost effectiveness and disproportionate costs. It means that they do not meet society’s overall water objectives for quality and quantity i.e. a RBMP that is harmonized with socioeconomic development objectives resulting in water bodies that will achieve good ecological status.

There is the lack of coherence between the RBMPs and other sectorial plans resulting in inability of basin mangers to fully evaluate the costs and benefits between measures in order to select the most cost effective ones for society. For example: there is lack of sufficient linkage with related policies such as CAP, land-use planning; artificial water storage very often is not in line with rural development rules and existing legislation (too strict existing standards).

There is a general lack of clear institutional roles between water resource managers (responsible for quantity and quality) and competent authorities for environment whose focus is on water quality and the environment. The efficient and cost effective management of water resources requires the management and implementation of measures that are for the common and cost effective good of multiple users and are not solely linked to one user or user group. This requires an institutional framework with the capacity to administrate, evaluate, select and manage the implementation of common water resource.

Lack of full cost recovery of water services, including financial, environmental and resource costs makes difficult to take economically and environmentally sound decisions on the choice of best water supply option.

There is lack of guidelines or criteria for water reuse taking into account regional characteristics. The absence of an EU regulatory framework presents a significant barrier as standards commonly agreed terminology are the basis for the success of water reuse projects.

The lack of standards has caused administrations to take a rather conservative approach and has led to mistrust and misunderstandings regarding users who do not have of trust, credibility and confidence, especially in the agricultural sector. In some countries the governing standards put unnecessary limits on the use of the treated waste water or led to illegal uses.

Lack of financing is considered the single most significant barrier to wider use of reclaimed wastewater.

Reclaimed water is not the only source available for groundwater recharge, also water excess due to floods or wet periods are available to be naturally (ponds) or artificially (wells) injected. When treated wastewater (expensive tertiary treatment is needed) is used for groundwater recharging there is a need to have strict controls to ensure that no pollution problems to the groundwater bodies appear.

Financing sources

Lack of financial incentives and of sufficient information on the available techniques, best practices and the benefits of using treated waste water or harvested rain water put limits to the use of these alternative water sources.

Important barrier to the implementation of alternative water sources are the high costs associated with them. When current water supply is provided from cheap local sources (groundwater or surface water), water produced by desalination or ground water recharge are likely to be more costly. In these cases it is not financially obvious to introduce these water supply options, especially if the current water prices do not reflect all the economic costs, nor the environmental and resource costs. Costs per m³ water produced may be very different for similar technologies or supply options in the different Member States that implies that the barriers for implementation vary country by country.

Lack of implementation and coordination

There is a need of a high quality monitoring system and quality assurance for consumer's acceptance (concerns especially water reuse, water recharge and rain water harvesting).

Desalination can be a replacement for potable water supply purposes, although its supply regime is rigid and inflexible, and so is best suited for supplying a fixed amount of water (according to its design specifications). There are, particular environmental and economic concerns about the high energy requirements of the desalination process, meaning that mitigation measures are needed to either improve efficiency or incorporate the use of renewable energy resources. In addition, there are also concerns about the impact on the environment of disposing brine – meaning that adequate mitigation measures have to be incorporated to deal with brine disposal. These concerns are an opportunity to develop new technologies, that more efficient, with less environmental impact.

There are problems to find available land for construction of big desalination plants.

Knowledge base

In the context of river basin planning, water reuse options tend to be excluded or forgotten as stakeholders are not well informed about the link between water supply and wastewater treatment. As such, research results from feasibility studies on water use have not been taken up in practice, especially in areas where water supply and wastewater are managed by different companies or agencies.

Interbasin water transfer proposals needs thorough evaluation to determine if they are justified considering all associated impacts. There are uncertainties concerning water availability in the future (how much water will be available to be transferred).

Investments in artificial water storage and the creation of new resources should be based on economic analysis. They usually bore high investment, maintenance and operation costs, long investment procedures and significant potential impacts on the environment that have to be taken into consideration. They should be considered as an option when other options to improve water efficiency, including the application of economic instruments have been implemented.

2.2.4. Degree of implementation as reflected by the RBMPs

The development or upgrade of reservoirs or other water regulation works is included in about 30% of the RBMPs, development or upgrade of water transfer schemes in 23%. Measures to foster aquifer recharge are included in 33% of the plans.

The development or upgrade of desalination plants (in about 1% of the plans) and the establishment of water rights markets or schemes to facilitate water reallocation (in about 2% of the plans) are the least considered.

There is little quantitative information on the waste water reuse. While at EU level water reuse amounts to less than 1% of the countries' total water abstraction, in Cyprus and Malta the treated wastewater reuse rate of their effluents is high (respectively 100% and 60%) (TYPSA 2012). This currently under-exploited measure has a high potential. Nevertheless treated waste water reuse and rainwater harvesting are not identified as main measures in the RBMPs. According to the preliminary analysis of RBMPs there were no measures related to WWR and RWH included in almost 50% of the assessed RBMPs.

2.2.5. Key EU policy instruments that would unlock / guide the implementation

EU Policy instruments related to use of economic instruments

Economic incentives could help in ''unlocking'' the measures. This supposes the proper implementation of the WFD economic principles of polluter-pays principle, the principle of cost recovery, including environmental and resource costs. Alternative water supply is more costly than conventional sources, especially if water prices do not cover all costs. It may be difficult to introduce the measures without economic incentives such as temporarily applied subsidies.

While choosing the best water supply option economic analysis taking into account full cost recovery of water services, including financial, environmental and resource costs should be the base to take economically and environmentally sound decision.

EU Policy instruments related to governance and integration

To strengthen the “quantitative dimension” of the WFD implementation by establishment of systematic water balance assessment/water accounts at sub-catchment level and the dynamic modelling of water resources for the preparation of next RBMP. This will provide information on where and how water efficiency can be improved and which alternative water supply sources should be developed in a cost-effective way.

Water reuse:

The key recommendation of the Mediterranean Component of the EU Water Initiative (MED EUWI) Wastewater Reuse Working Group is to develop a commonly agreed European and Mediterranean guidance framework for treated wastewater reuse planning, water quality recommendations, and applications.

Awareness raising campaigns and advisory services could improve the public and user awareness and acceptance of the water reuse. Improve implementation of cost recovery and provision of economic incentives to promote and make water reuse cost effective.

Other sources:

The application of desalination and artificial recharge could be facilitated by improving the political and public acceptance. Prior to starting such type of new investment an awareness raising campaign and extensive consultation with the stakeholders and public should be carried out. This should be combined with a high quality monitoring system for ensuring their safe use and improving consumers' acceptance.

Since desalination facilities might have significant negative impact on the environment the inclusion of these facilities under the scope of the IED (2010/75/EU) and EIA (85/337/EEC) Directives should be considered.

EU Policy instruments related to funding

Implementation of alternative water supply measures requires high investment costs, so potentially they can enter to the scope of EU funds financing. As they can trigger substantial economic, environment and social impacts, there should be introduced strict assessment procedures to allow their implementation and financing, only while efficiency measures are fully addressed and can't resolve water shortage problems.

EU Policy instruments related to knowledge base

Further research and innovation activities:

-To get cost efficient and more environmental friendly techniques and technologies available for desalination technologies.

-To develop available techniques, best practices and the benefits of using treated waste water or harvested rain water.

-To adapt water markets.

Annex 2 - Synopsis report on consultation activities

The consultation process for a possible new EU initiative on water reuse began in 2012 and continued until July 2017 in various forms, both organised and ad hoc. The implementation of the consultation strategy involved collecting and analysing input from a wide range of stakeholders as well as two online public consultations with the aim to:

(1) Provide an opportunity to express views on the present and potential development of water reuse in the EU, on the opportunity to further promote water reuse in different kinds of sectors and on possible/desirable actions that could be taken at EU level;

(2) Gather specialised input (data and factual information, expert views) on specific aspects of the benefits and barriers affecting the development of water reuse (e.g. available treatment techniques and related costs, existing and planned legislation in Member States, risk management approaches etc.) with the aim of filling the data and information gaps in view of refining the policy options and preparing the impact assessment.

The following identified stakeholders' categories have been targeted in consultation activities:

This document summarises the various contributions received 5 and, based on the analysis of this input, identifies issues that stakeholders regard as priorities when further developing water reuse at EU level. These findings have been used in the preparation of the impact assessment and the updating of the scientific basis of the proposal (the JRC report in Annex 7) and will further be used to inform the decision-making process in view of a new instrument to regulate specific aspects of water reuse at EU level (agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge).

In the consultation process, stakeholders also put forward a number of suggestions going beyond the current scope of a possible instrument on water reuse at EU level and these will be taken into consideration in future exercises addressing other aspects of water reuse.

II. Consultation results by activities and stakeholder group

Scientific Committees

To ensure the proposal will be based on up-to-date scientific knowledge and will provide the appropriate level of safety as regards human health and the environment, EFSA and SCHEER were consulted on the penultimate version of the technical report developed by the JRC (December 2016) which is mentioned above.

EFSA approved its technical report on 22 May 2017. It reviewed whether the methodology used was appropriate, the defined food crop categories were appropriate, the proposed minimum quality requirements were sufficient, and any risks had been overlooked. Following its analysis, EFSA issued recommendations 6 .

SCHEER delivered its scientific advice on 9 June 2017. It examined four questions: Is the methodology used by the JRC considered appropriate? Do the proposed minimum quality requirements provide sufficient protection against environmental risks that may be associated with water reuse for agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge? Do the proposed minimum quality requirements provide sufficient protection against human health risks that may be associated with water reuse for aquifer recharge? And have any risks been overlooked? The SCHEER concluded that, while the methodology chosen was appropriate and the report considers many important elements, the document is deficient in key details 7 .

The opinions of the two scientific Committees have been duly taken into account in the finalisation of the technical content of the proposal and its assessment in terms of health and environmental impacts.

Consultation of experts in Member States and stakeholder organisations

Consultation took place in the framework of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Water reuse was discussed in 6 meetings of the former Working Group on the Programmes of Measures (September and November 2013, March and October 2014, March and October 2015). A dedicated activity on water reuse and an Ad-hoc Task Group (ATG) was included in the CIS work programme for 2016-2018 to accompany the development of related actions. 8  

EU Member States and public authorities responsible for water management

During the detailed discussions held with Member States' experts, broad support for the concept of water reuse was overall apparent, with some notable exceptions. Representatives of those Member States currently already practicing water reuse in the relevant areas (agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge) have generally been more in favor. These include notably Spain 9 and Italy 10 but also others (Cyprus, Malta, Portugal, and Bulgaria). France has also expressed its support for an EU legal instrument.

Despite the political support expressed by the Council (see above), some Member State representatives at technical level have expressed certain reservations about the initiative. These include Germany 11 , Austria 12 and the Netherlands 13 . At the latest meeting of the CIS ATG on Water reuse, broad support for the EU initiative on water reuse was expressed. Support for a legal instrument was particularly strong from Member States currently already facing water scarcity and severe impacts of droughts and climate change. There were also some positions expressed concerning the type of EU instrument, and a few Member States seemed to prefer a Guidance document to an EU legal instrument as a starting point.

Consultation of water users (in particular farmers)

The farmers' association at EU level (COPA-COGECA) participated in the expert group exchanges and issued a position in writing and participated in various conferences. They were overall appreciative of the concept, stating that it will contribute to a more resilient farming sector, help overcome pressures deriving from climate change and, in upcoming years, be not only an alternative supply option but rather the most important source of clean water. Challenges highlighted were the need to identify the right quality of water, whereby the minimum quality requirements must take into account specific local needs and give flexibilities to the regions and Member States. Reclaimed water for irrigation should be nutrient-free as well as particle-free. Affordability of the proposed water reuse schemes should be carefully considered. COPA-COGECA further indicated that the compliance should be at the point where reclaimed water is discharged by the treatment plant. Finally, any new instrument should be light and not inflict administrative burden. It should only apply to those practicing reuse.

Water industry, both operators of water services (water supply and sanitation) and suppliers of technology for water treatment

The initiative is of interest to both operators of water services (water supply and sanitation) and suppliers of technology for water treatment – e.g. European federation of national associations of drinking water suppliers and waste water services (EUREAU), Water supply and sanitation technology platform (WSSTP), European Centre of Employers and Enterprises providing Public services (CEEP), European Irrigation Association (EIA), European Water Association (EWA);

Positions taken by industry representatives have generally been supportive; they were aware of the potential of harmonizing quality standards on water reuse for technological and economic development. Water reuse is already happening in many countries and the demand for reused water will continue growing due to climate change. Technologies exist to provide safe reused water and scientific evidence shows that potential negative impacts can be mitigated. In this respect, proper risk assessment and monitoring are key tools to ensure water reuse safety. Private companies were by far the most positive across types of stakeholders about the safety of water reused compared to other sources of freshwater (groundwater or water from rivers).

The industry has, however, also highlighted a number of challenges, particularly potential legal constraints and administrative burden related to the development of water reuse, as well as the cost of implementation. They also mentioned the low price of freshwater compared to reused water. For example, EUREAU, while overall supportive of the work on water reuse, felt that possible EU requirements cannot be a “one size fits all” solution and must not be imposed on Member States. In particular, they must reflect different water quality levels depending on the intended use of treated water. It must remain economically viable on top of protecting human health and the environment. Industry has also requested that the issue of liability be clarified in a possible new instrument.

NGOs active in the water area (including European Environmental Bureau; WWF)

NGOs were generally supportive of the concept and work. They were, however, concerned with the safety of reclaimed water and felt that a possible new EU instrument would need to set minimum criteria that are stringent enough to ensure the needed protection of the environment, as well as human health.

Consultation of academia and experts, research and innovation organisations 

Within the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on Water , several action groups set up in recent years address water reuse, such as: Industrial Water Reuse and Recycling (InDuRe ), Water & Irrigated agriculture Resilient Europe (WIRE ), Real Time Water Quality Monitoring (RTWQM ), Verdygo - modular & sustainable wastewater treatment . The European Technology Platform for Water (WssTP) initiated by the Commission is also very active on water reuse with a dedicated multi-stakeholders working group on water reuse. These groups have been regularly informed about the initiative and invited to provide feedback on the technical development of the proposal.

Representatives of academia and experts were strongly in favour of EU action for water reuse for agricultural irrigation; however an EU action on aquifer recharge has not been supported by all. They demonstrated particular interest in the approach that would be chosen concerning risk perception and the proper protection of public health and the environment. A preference for a risk-based approach as a key element to build trust and confidence was also voiced. Other important elements were management practices, transparency and involvement of the public.

Representatives of the research and innovation community had a preference for mandatory EU minimum quality requirements which were seen as innovation-friendly if certain conditions, such as the balanced scope of water quality parameters and stringency of limit values, are met. They would boost R&I at all phases driven by the needs to demonstrate technical performance, efficiency and reliability of conventional and new technologies (filtration, disinfection, membranes, advanced oxidation, etc.), economic viability of water reuse projects, and social and environmental benefits. In addition, new and innovative ways of monitoring would be stimulated.

EU institutions

The Commission communicated to the Council and the Parliament its intention to address water reuse with a new initiative in two Communications (COM(2012)673) and COM(2015)614). The Council provided feedback in its conclusions on these two Communications. It further elaborated on its expectations as regards the proposal in its Conclusions on Sustainable Water Management (11902/16) under the Slovak Presidency (17 October 2016) which state that the Council

"EMPHASISES that water re-use, in addition to other water saving and efficiency measures, can be an important instrument to address water scarcity and to adapt to climate change as part of integrated water management; CALLS ON the Members States to take measures to promote water re-use practices, taking into account regional conditions where appropriate and whilst ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment, as water re-use can also deliver benefits in terms of economic savings, environmental protection, stimulating investments in new technologies and creating green jobs; STRESSES that well-treated urban waste water can be re-used for a variety of purposes in the agricultural sector, industrial applications, sustainable urban development and protection of ecosystems; and NOTES with interest the intention of the Commission to present in 2017 a proposal on minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU;"

The Parliament expressed expectations as regards the initiative in its resolution 14 on the follow-up to the European Citizens’ Initiative Right2Water of 8 September 2015. Like the Council, it expressed overall support to the concept of water reuse and the Commission's intention to develop a dedicated instrument; the Parliament notably "72. Encourages the Commission to draw up a European legislative framework for the reuse of treated effluent in order, in particular, to protect sensitive activities and areas". A number of events were also organised in the European Parliament by Members to discuss water reuse and the opportunity of a new EU legislation 15 .

The initiative was also considered by the Committee of the Regions, which, in its opinion 16 on "Effective water management system: an approach to innovative solutions" of February 2017, states that it " supports the Commission's intention to put forward, in 2017 – as part of the implementation of the Action Plan for the Circular Economy – a proposal for minimum requirements regarding the reuse of water […], ensuring that there are no disproportionate negative effects on other sectors, such as agriculture; The Committee of the Regions also stressed that differences between regions in terms of water availability must be taken into account. There should be no obligation to reuse water unless this can be justified.Communication on the development of the initiative

A roadmap on the initial initiative "Maximisation of water reuse in the EU" was published in September 2015 which was further elaborated and focussed in an inception impact assessment published in April 2016. Both documents were provided with an on-line mechanism inviting to provide feedback, but none has been received.

Dedicated Internet pages have been developed on DG ENV's Website providing information on the policy context and the implementation of the action plan to promote water reuse in the EU. Both pages reference all available information (e.g. IA support studies) and are regularly updated. A functional mailbox ENV-WATERREUSE@ec.europa.eu was created and has been used to communicate with citizens and stakeholders.

A public relations campaign was launched in January 2017 with the aim to effectively inform about, explain, promote and increase awareness and support of the EU initiative on water reuse as part of the circular economy (CE) package. This campaign was targeted to a few EU Member States selected for their interest (countries already practicing water reuse) and influence (countries that are active in the process of defining an EU action on water reuse with regard to the initiative, tentatively: Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. The target audiences are policy-makers and key stakeholders (water service operators, farmers and operators in the food supply chain, water intensive industries, NGOs etc.).

A Green Week session on Water Reuse took place on 5 June 2014 with the aim to present the Commission work on water reuse, the US Guidelines on water reuse, the agricultural sector's view on water reuse and the innovation potential of water reuse practices. Water reuse was showcased again in the Green Week 2017 in a session focusing on green jobs and skills in the water sector, with the objective to demonstrate how development and implementation of EU environmental policies benefits people and the economy by creating green jobs.

III. Horizontal assessment

This section is a horizontal assessment of the views of those consulted on the need for EU action and the scope and level of ambition of a potential new EU-level instrument, mainly based on the results of the two online public consultations.

A first internet-based public consultation ran from 30 July to 7 November 2014 to gather wider feedback from the interested public and the expert practitioners across the EU. In total, 506 respondents participated in the consultation. This included: 224 individual respondents, 222 companies and organisations, 43 public authorities and 17 other respondents. Twelve stakeholders uploaded additional documents and eight sent more detailed responses or position papers via email. Participation was particularly high in four Member States (France, Spain, Italy and Germany), which together made up more than 65% of total responses. About 95% of total answers were obtained from Member States’ organisations, 3% from EU-level organisations and 2% from other countries. Among private companies, nearly equal share of respondents represented large companies and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).

A second internet-based public consultation ran from 28 October 2016 to 27 January 2017 and focused on the more detailed policy options to set minimum requirements for reused water for irrigation and groundwater recharge.

In total, 344 respondents participated in the consultation. Responses were received on-line from 103 individuals (30% of respondents) and 239 stakeholders or experts (70% of respondents). Respondents represented a variety of stakeholders groups, economic sectors and countries:

After both online consultations a dedicated stakeholder meeting was held (on 4 December 2014 and in March 2017); draft results of the analysis were discussed with stakeholders and additional contributions were collected. The reports on the public consultations are available at the Website of the initiative mentioned above.

A. The need for EU action

Perceived benefits of water reuse

There is a wide perception among respondents of the benefits of reusing water for irrigation or aquifer recharge purposes with regards to the availability of water resources, in the context of water stress or scarcity, unsustainable abstractions and climate change (perception from more than 70% of respondents across and within different categories of respondents). The potential contribution of water reuse to the quality of water bodies, through preserving groundwater from salinization and reducing pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants, into rivers, is perceived by a large number of respondents as well. Furthermore, water reuse is also perceived by a number of respondents as a means to increase resource efficiency, foster innovation and contribute to soil fertilisation, although these benefits were considered more moderate compared to the former ones. Several respondents - in particular from the health, environment and agriculture sectors - expressed their concern about the difficulty for water users (in particular farmers) to accurately estimate the amounts of nutrients present in the reused water to fully benefit from nutrient recycling and prevent risks of environmental contamination.

On the other hand, respondents are much less inclined to perceive cost savings for authorities, increased revenues, or energy and carbon savings as benefits of water reuse.

The analysis per category of respondents shows in particular that:

Perceived barriers

The main barriers to water reuse as identified by respondents are similar for water reuse in irrigation and aquifer recharge. They primarily include:

In the specific case of irrigation, the distance between waste water treatment plants and irrigation fields is also seen as a key barrier (2nd most pointed out by respondents). In addition to recognising different barriers listed in the consultation, some respondents or participants to the Stakeholder meeting also expressed their concerns regarding potential risks for the environment of reusing water for irrigation, through the perturbation of environmental flows (e.g. limitation of river flows in regions affected by water scarcity) and the potential salinization through the reuse of waste water. In the case of aquifer recharge, additional concerns were expressed regarding risks of contamination of the aquifers and its irreversibility, due to the difficulty to remove pollutants from this water body.

On the other hand, significantly fewer respondents perceive awareness and availability of technical solutions to produce safe water as barriers, except in Eastern EU Member States.

Most barriers are perceived by respondents from Southern EU Member States and countries facing regular water stress, which practically experienced water reuse and often have stringent water reuse schemes in place.

Perceived safety of treated water reuse

There is an overall consensus amongst respondents about the safety of reused water compared to water from rivers, as nearly 70% of respondents (amongst those who had an opinion) consider reused water as at least as safe, both for irrigation and for aquifer recharge. In comparison, the safety of reused water compared to groundwater is more controversial, as 50% of respondents consider it less safe for irrigation and 44% for aquifer recharge.

These overall statistics hide in reality very different perceptions from specific categories of respondents. Some categories of respondents have a particularly positive or negative perception of reused water depending on their economic sector, type of organisations, situation of water stress or EU regions:

The perception of reused water safety may also significantly differ within categories of respondents, as it is the case within the agriculture, food and environment sectors, for which no clear position could be seen based on the public consultation.

Justification of EU-level instrument

Although in the online public consultations in 2016 and 2014 over 60% to 80% of all respondents were in favour of an EU regulatory framework, there is no clear consensus across all types of respondents on the most suitable type of EU instrument - as listed in the questionnaire - to promote water reuse in irrigation and in aquifer recharge. In addition, more than 80% of respondents to the online public consultation held in 2014 considered legally binding EU minimum standards as effective to ensure the environmental and health safety of water reuse practices.

The respondents which are mostly in favour of the instrument of an EU regulation, in both cases, are representatives from private companies, from the sanitation, drinking water, food industry and environment sectors, and/or from Southern countries. Respondents from agriculture and economics sectors 17 as well as industry or trade associations show less consensus on supporting this policy option.

Overall, the option of the instrument of a Commission recommendation is the 2nd preferred policy option within and across most categories of respondents, although CEN standards are generally preferred by respondents from agriculture, food and health sectors for water reuse in irrigation. The highest level of support for the use of Commission recommendations comes from water providers/utilities and public authorities as well as respondents from Eastern EU Member States.

These results should be considered with caution, as many comments - from respondents who selected the EU regulation or Commission recommendations - pointed to the preference for an EU Directive, which was perceived to provide both sufficient level of protection to reach its objectives and adaptability to be relevant to local contexts and needs. However, this was not listed in the closed list of policy options from the public consultation and also the impact assessment did not consider a Directive as an option as it would impose requirements also on Member States which otherwise don't intend to reuse water.

B. Scope and level of ambition

Objectives of the EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse

Respondents to the public consultation identify in their vast majority (>70%) the following objectives as key for the EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse:

These objectives are largely supported by the civil society and public authorities and are shared within and across economic sectors. They are also mostly shared within and across EU regions, except for the protection of human health of public directly exposed to water reuse in the case of irrigation, which was recognised as an objective by a lower share of Eastern EU Member States compared to other EU regions (50% vs. 70% for other EU regions).

In comparison, in the specific case of irrigation, the protection of agricultural productivity is not given as much importance (40% of respondents only think it should be covered). Yet, a large majority of respondents from the agriculture sector still considers it as an objective to be addressed by EU minimum quality requirements for irrigation (75% of respondents). A significantly higher share of respondents from Eastern EU Member States also identified it as an objective compared to other EU regions.

Specific aspects to be covered by minimum quality requirements for water reuse

Priority aspects to be covered by minimum quality requirements for water reuse in irrigation include: microbiological contaminants, monitoring, and other chemicals addressed by EU legislation, both for irrigation and groundwater recharge purposes. While these aspects are generally subject to large consensus within and across key categories of respondents (economic sectors, types of organisation), the following differences can be noted:

Other aspects are more controversial within and across categories of respondents, such as risk-based management or the question of nutrients. Risk-based management approaches were considered by many respondents and participants as relevant to ensure adequate protection of health and the environment, but their practical implementation was subject to extensive discussions. They can be perceived as costly, time-consuming and requiring specific expertise. The question of nutrients is considered as a priority aspect to be covered when reusing water for aquifer recharge while interest for such an aspect is more moderate for irrigation purposes. There, it can be seen both as a benefit from a recycling perspective and a key barrier for ends-users like farmers, with high risks of environmental contamination (nutrient surplus and leakage to the aquifer, eutrophication). Yet, this aspect is, in both cases, of very high interest to the health sector (73% in the case of irrigation and 79% in the case of aquifer recharge). Some respondents were concerned that water reuse, if not well regulated, may contribute to pollution of aquifers and soils, although to a lesser extent.

Other uses which are out of the scope of this initiative

A large majority of respondents considers the possibility or even the need for other types of uses than irrigation and aquifer recharge to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements. The limitation of the scope is described in section 1.2.1 of the IA report.

In particular, there is a large consensus, namely half of the respondents (and in particular within the health and the environment sectors) on the possibility or need to expand EU minimum requirements beyond agricultural irrigation to the irrigation of sport fields and urban green spaces.

The idea to expand EU minimum requirements particularly to industrial uses as well as to other urban uses is slightly more debated across respondents. Twenty percent and fifteen percent (respectively) of respondents would not like these uses to be covered by EU requirements (compared to 10% for both other uses), while 40% of respondents think they should be included. Comments from some respondents on industrial uses highlighted a possible confusion with regards to the scope of the water reuse initiative for irrigation and aquifer recharge: they put forward initiatives from the industry in terms of recycling and reuse of their own waste water, while the waste water considered in this initiative must be covered by the UWWTD.

Annex 3 - Who is affected by the initiative and how

This Annex sets out how the new legal instrument would function in practice in the Member States.

As indicated in the description of the policy options, the legislative instrument will require that any water reuse scheme is subject to a permit delivered by competent authorities in Member States; EU minimum quality requirements will apply to those permits. It will in no case be imposed on Member States to develop or promote water reuse in their territory.

The key principles of a risk management framework would be compulsory as part of the authorisation procedures and conditions of granting permits to any water reuse project in the EU (as described in section 4.2). The key principles would cover the different steps and operators of the water reuse system (urban waste water collection and treatment, additional treatment if any, distribution, storage if any and irrigation at farm). In practice, the legal instrument would foresee that, before such a permit can be authorised, the applicant of the permit has to perform a thorough identification and assessment of risks specific to the project and its environment. Key requirements for this risk assessment would be laid down based on description of the risk management framework in Annex 7 and would cover:

-description of the water reuse system;

-identification of hazards and risk assessment, in particular:

oadditional characterisation and monitoring of pollutants in raw effluent (source control);

ocharacterisation of human exposure and of the local environment vulnerability;

-determination of preventive measures to limit risks, e.g. including requirements on wastewater treatment, restrictions on crops and irrigation techniques, access to fields, buffer zones etc.

-operational procedures to ensure the system will deliver the appropriate safety, including verification of water quality and management of incidents and emergencies, need for advanced additional mitigation measures regarding treatment, access to fields, buffer zones etc.

Reflecting the outcome of the risk assessment, the permit to be delivered by competent authorities in the Member States would include additional conditions to the minimum requirements ensuring safety of agricultural products, in terms of:

-additional quality criteria (parameters and limit values) to be complied with, at the outlet of the (advanced) treatment plant or in more appropriate location in the system;

-monitoring frequencies for these quality criteria;

-additional preventive measures conditions;

-management plan and procedures to be followed when operating the water reuse system.

A water reuse scheme involves a number of operators, respectively in charge of collection and treatment of urban waste water, additional treatment for achieving the required quality for reuse (as necessary), possible storage, distribution to farms and to irrigated fields, application to crops etc. Designs of water reuse schemes are very diverse in Member States and distributions of roles and responsibilities differ widely; as a result holders of existing permits for water reuse may be any of the above operators, or any association of those.

Application of the "fit-for-purpose" approach

The legislative proposal requires different levels of quality depending on the crops and irrigation techniques. As a result, in the design of a water reuse scheme, a quality class will be targeted, and the treatment technology will be installed and operated accordingly. When this quality is lower than the most stringent one in the legislative proposal (class A) irrigation will be allowed only for certain crops and with certain irrigation techniques, as detailed in the legislation proposal. The "fit-for-purpose" requirements allow for certain flexibility in adapting the level of treatment to the actual use in irrigation:

- in farming areas where only crops with low sensitivity are grown with irrigation technique that prevent contact with edible part of the crop, a less stringent water quality will be allowed, thus saving treatment costs;

- where crops with different sensitivities are grown in different periods, the level of treatment can be adapted and changed between periods, e.g. by turning off or by-passing the most advanced disinfection treatment

- when crops with different sensitivities are grown in different areas with separated distributions systems, the level of treatment and the quality of reclaimed water can be adapted and different in the different distribution systems.

Application to existing water reuse schemes

Existing legislations in Member States already require water reuse schemes to be subject to an authorisation. Existing legislations and authorisations will need to be reviewed and possibly revised to comply with the new EU legislation. The legal instrument would set a transition period [2 years] for existing legislations and water reuse schemes to be made compliant.

As regards quality criteria, in many cases the ones imposed by existing legislations in Member States, are more comprehensive and more stringent than the ones required by the future legislative proposal. In a few cases where existing legislations and authorisations impose less stringent quality criteria, these will need revision, e.g. microbiological criteria for validation of the most stringent quality class (irrigation of crops consumed raw which edible part are in direct contact with reclaimed water) in Spain. This will impact on both the competent authorities (revision of legislation and existing permits) and holders of permits (adaptation of the level of treatment, with possible increase in treatment cost).

In many cases quality criteria in the new EU legislation will be less stringent than required by the national legislation. As the EU legislation will set only minimum requirements, Member States will not be obliged to change their legislation to align with the EU standards. However it is expected that this EU legislation will trigger discussion in Member States regarding the evidence base and relevance of national legislation. This would lead to some revision of existing national legislation, and be reflected in less costly treatment requirements.

Additionally existing authorisations in Member States are usually granted on the basis of an ex ante assessment of impacts; permit conditions are set to mitigate identified risks and impacts. This process (ex ante impact assessment and mitigation measures) fulfils to a certain extent the risk management framework required by the future legislative proposal. However in most cases part of this risk assessment will be missing, e.g. as regards accumulation of pollutants in soils. In those cases additional assessment and possibly additional conditions to the permit will be needed to comply with the new legislative instrument. Additional conditions will mostly consist of additional monitoring, and additional treatments. Depending on the decision by competent authorities in Member States this additional assessment and additional measures is likely to be at the expenses of the permit holder. As this additional risk assessment will further ascertain and quantify risks, it is expected that it will also contribute to fit existing conditions to actual risks, and in particular allow for less costly monitoring and treatment requirements.

Beyond possible specific changes to the treatment facility, it is expected that the new EU Legislation will not require any further change into the existing infrastructure, in particular as regards storage and conveyance of reclaimed water to farms, and a farm level.

Application to new water reuse schemes

Any new water reuse scheme shall be subject to a permit delivered by competent authorities in Member States and complying with the EU minimum quality requirements. This permit will be granted on the basis of a risk assessment by the applicant complying with the EU requirements. Permit conditions will include at least the minimum quality criteria of the new EU legislation and additional conditions as deemed necessary to manage the identified risks.

In Member States with no legislation in place, no new and specific legislation will be needed to regulate new projects as the EU legal instrument will provide a full-fledged legislative framework that can be directly implemented by competent authorities and applicants of permits.

In Member States where existing legislation already regulate water reuse, revision will be required within a transition period, on aspects for which the EU requirements are more stringent. For aspects where the EU legislation is less stringent, no revision will be legally required but some can be expected as result of discussion trigged by the new EU legislation.

When a new water reuse scheme is developed in an area where irrigation does not exist and/or when this project will convey water to farms or fields which were not irrigated before, investment will be necessary to develop the infrastructure downstream of the urban waste water treatment plant, both off-farm (facilities for additional water treatment, storage, distribution) and on-farm (distribution to field, irrigation material). The impact of the project is likely to increase the abstraction pressure on water resources. In those cases, it will be the responsibility of the competent authorities in Member States to check that this new / increased pressure will not impair the status of the water body, as required by the WFD, before issuing any such permit.

When a new water reuse scheme is developed to bring reclaimed water to farms which were already practicing irrigation before with individual access to water, investment will be necessary to develop an off-farm infrastructure downstream of the urban waste water treatment plant, both off-farm (facilities for additional water treatment, storage, distribution) but it is expected that on-farm equipment will not require significant additional investment. In cases where the farming area depends on a collective access to irrigation, it is expected that most of the distribution and storage infrastructure can also be used for reclaimed water; new investment will be limited to the additional treatment (if necessary) and conveyance from the urban waste treatment plant to the collective distribution system. In both cases the new water supply can be used either to substitute or to increase the volume of irrigation water. It will be the responsibility of the competent authorities in Member States to check that the project will not impair the status of the water body, as required by the WFD, before issuing any such permit. It is expected that, for most projects developed in water scarce areas, the volume of reclaimed water will result in a full or partial substitution of existing abstractions on over-exploited resources (and revision of existing abstraction permits accordingly), with a positive impact on those resources. However it could also result in the opposite impact with increased irrigation and increased negative impact on water resources, similarly to the "rebound effect" of water saving technologies which tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of water consumption (cf. Blueprint). The actual impact on water resources will ultimately depend on the decision of the competent authority that will have the possibility to condition the permit for a new water reuse scheme to a reduction of existing abstraction permits.

Coherence with other EU legislation

Quality requirements would complement, but not decrease, the ones laid down by the UWWTD and relevant European Case-Law 18 in particular as regards the quality of discharge effluents. When complying with the new legal instrument, reclaimed water at the outlet of the treatment plant would need to respect the criteria of the "clean water" as defined by the Regulation on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs (852/2004). Hence consistency with other relevant legislation is ensured in either approach. It is to be noted that this "clean water" definition pertains to its envisaged use in primary production and regarding the safety of foodstuffs. It does not prejudge its possible impact on water resources and ecosystems 19 . In practice the proposed legal instrument would foresee that whenever reclaimed water is used for agricultural irrigation in an EU Member State, this is subject to a permit. In any case the urban waste water treatment plant would still be subject to the application of the UWWTD, taking into account the nature of the area where the irrigation will take place, and farmers would retain the responsibility to maintain this status of clean water and of other duties laid by Regulation 852/2004 (as for any other irrigation sources). Member States competent authorities would be responsible for enforcing the permit and carrying out inspections as necessary.

As depicted in Figure 10 (see section 4.3.3 above), the legal instrument would set minimum requirements, and any Member State (Member State B in the Figure) could still adopt or retain more stringent legislation for water reuse in its territory. However, no Member State could ban imports of food products irrigated with reclaimed water in another Member State (Member State A in the Figure) enforcing the legal instrument.

Figure 10: trade of agricultural products irrigated with reclaimed water within the EU

As illustrated by Figure 10, the proposed instrument would complement existing legislation and address specific risks in the context of water reuse projects typically composed of:

-an urban waste water treatment plant

-a possible advanced treatment plant

-infrastructure conveying reclaimed water from the (advanced) treatment plant to farms irrigated fields, possibly with intermediary storage facilities.

Figure 23: Existing EU legislation and proposed instrument for water reuse

In this system, all impacts on surface waters, ground waters and dependent ecosystems are subject to provisions of existing water law, in particular the WFD, the Groundwater Directive and the Environment Quality Standards Directive. The UWWTD also sets requirements on the collection and treatment of urban wastewater and on the quality of effluent discharged to the environment, including specific requirements for discharges into sensitive areas and/or their catchments, nutrients removal and other treatments such as disinfection. These requirements also apply to water that will be reused. Given its nutrient content, reclaimed water is to be considered as a fertilizer and its application on agricultural land is subject to the provisions of the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC), in particular as regards periods when the land application of fertilizers is prohibited and balanced fertilization measures, such as the inclusion in fertilizer plans and in the records of fertiliser use, and also of the UWWTD if the irrigated lands are sensitive areas or their catchments, which require nutrients removal. Detailed interpretation of these requirements is provided in the “Guidelines on Integrating Water Reuse into Water Planning and Management in the context of the WFD”.

On the other hand, as mentioned above, the use of reclaimed water in irrigation for primary production of food products is subject to the requirements of the Regulation on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs. According to its Annex I / Part A setting hygiene provisions for primary production and associated operations:

2. As far as possible, food business operators are to ensure that primary products are protected against contamination, having regard to any processing that primary products will subsequently undergo. […]

4. Food business operators rearing, harvesting or hunting animals or producing primary products of animal origin are to take adequate measures, as appropriate:[…]

(d) to use potable water, or clean water, whenever necessary to prevent contamination; […]

Therefore as any other irrigation water source, reclaimed water for irrigation should comply with the definition of "clean water" at the point of use, i.e. water "that does not contain micro-organisms, harmful substances in quantities capable of directly or indirectly affecting the health quality of food" according to article 2 of Regulation 852/2004. This "clean water" requirement is not translated into a set of quality standards in the Regulation. Further details on implementation on grounds of this requirement are given in the Commission Notice on "Guidance document on addressing microbiological risks in fresh fruits and vegetables at primary production through good hygiene" (2017/C 163/01 of 23 May 2017).

Figure 24: Overview of benefits and costs

Annex 3a –SME test

Annex 4 - Analytical models used in preparing the impact assessment

This annex provides a description of the models used for certain aspects of this impact assessment:

·The model developer and nature (public/private/open source) of the model;

·Model structure and modelling approach with any key assumptions, limitations and simplifications;

·Intended field of application and appropriateness for the specific impact assessment study presented;

·Model validation and peer review with relevant references;

·The extent to which the content of the model and input data have been discussed with external experts;

·Explanation of the likely uncertainty in the model results and the likely robustness of model results to changes in underlying assumptions or data inputs;

·Explanation as to how uncertainty has been addressed or minimised in the modelling exercise with respect to the policy conclusions; and

·The steps taken to assure the quality of the modelling results presented in the IA.

We make use of a hydro-economic model to estimate the demand of water for irrigation, and the costs of treating and deploying reclaimed water to agricultural land within a distance of 10 km from existing wastewater treatment plants. On this basis, we conduct the analysis of volumes and costs of reclaimed water under the two policy options “one size fits all” (Ir1) and “fit for purpose” (Ir2) considered in the Impact Assessment.

The key elements of the models are summarized in Table 1 . In the following, we first introduce the models in more details, and then describe the main assumptions and sources of data used for the assessment. The material presented here is based on Pistocchi et al., 2018 30 .

In addition to describing the models used in this assessment, we provide details on (1) the quantification of the benefits from water reuse; and (2) the calculation of the administrative burden of the proposed instrument.

General aspects of the models used in the Impact assessment

The key assumptions and data sources are described in this Annex. The assessment refers to a conventional baseline where reuse is a negligible source of water for irrigation in Europe in the absence of specific policies, because of the lack of a clear legal framework enabling steady investment in this area. For the rest, we assume the water legislation (and particularly the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive) to be correctly implemented across Europe.

The most critical aspect of the assessment is the evaluation of costs of reclaimed water. The cost of wastewater reuse is computed as the sum of the cost of: 1) treatment of water for reuse; 2) building infrastructures for water storage and distribution (pipelines and pumps); and 3) energy for reclaimed water pumping from the wastewater treatment plant to the neighboring agricultural areas (Figure 1).

Figure 1 – scheme of the costs considered in this assessment.

Although both investment and operation costs of water reuse are highly dependent on conditions such as the level of treatment already existing at a plant and the size of the plant, mean levelized treatment costs 31 are pragmatically assumed to be constant across Europe. This assumption still enables analyzing the difference of the two policy options considered in the Impact Assessment, without the need for a representation of the variability of wastewater treatment plant conditions at European scale. Such representation would be anyway rather challenging to develop, due to the extreme sensitivity of investment and operation costs to local conditions. At the same time, while variable, the impact of treatment cost variability is attenuated by the variability of water transport costs that is, on the contrary, more predictable as it depends on distance, elevation differences and other relatively simple parameters (as also shown in the global sensitivity analysis exercise reported below). Therefore, in this assessment we refer to the mid-range of treatment costs provided by Iglesias et al., 2010. We assume option Ir2 to correspond to an intermediate treatment requirement corresponding to disinfection and depth filtration, and Ir1 to an advanced treatment with membrane filtration and disinfection.

In order to evaluate the potential of reusing reclaimed water, we estimate the cost of treatment and the cost of transport of water, which requires defining a source and a destination of reclaimed water in order to quantify a transport distance and an elevation difference for pumping. We assume that water sources coincide with wastewater treatment plants as depicted in the WaterBase – Wastewater v. 4.0 dataset made available at the European Environment Agency 32 . Moreover, we distribute in space the estimated irrigation demand assuming that all agricultural land excluding pastures is potentially irrigated, thus neglecting the actual distribution of irrigation infrastructure. We conduct appropriately aggregated calculations using the elementary sub-basins of the CCM2 database 33 as a mapping unit, without disaggregating results therein. A major source of uncertainty is represented by the spatial scale and resolution of the analysis. The assumptions made and the data used as input do not enable any conclusion on specific situations, but suggest only general trends valid at European scale. All conclusions of this assessment must be considered indicative at a broad strategic level, and can by no means serve the purposes of case-specific assessments. Particularly, the assessment cannot be regarded as a pointwise evaluation of the potential of a specific wastewater treatment plant, but as yielding representative frequency distributions of costs at a regional scale, such as EU NUTS2 level or river basins. Results are consistently presented at resolutions not finer than these.

The results of the EPIC model, while uncertain, have less critical implications for the conclusions of the study and were not subjected to specific uncertainty analysis. Their uncertainties are discussed on a qualitative basis, when necessary, in the specific sections of this document. EPIC has been calibrated using data publicly available from EUROSTAT and EEA.

This assessment is based on the current wastewater treatment plant system in the EU, as well as on current estimated irrigation requirements and fertilizer use. We do not make assumptions on other macroeconomic, socio-economic conditions nor policies and measures, as the scope is limited to quantifying a possible cost distribution for reuse of wastewater. Information on wastewater treatment plants in Europe is derived from the European Environment Agency’s Waterbase dataset, v. 4. Additional details on models, data, and the estimation of water quantity and quality at wastewater treatment plants are given in a JRC report accompanying this Impact Assessment.

Table 1 – models used in the assessment

Hydro-economic model

The equations used for the assessment of costs were developed specifically for the present assessment, following engineering assumptions widely adopted in practice, and are presented in a specific section of this report. The cost appraisal equations used for the assessment derive from the literature, and particularly from the FEASIBLE model (OECD, 2004) for what concerns the cost of pipelines and pumping stations these were already used in previous assessments at the European Commission (e.g. European Commission, 2010); for the costs of storage, we follow the assumptions made in Maton et al., 2010.

For the cost calculations, apart from the sensitivity analysis conducted on purpose to address uncertainties, comparisons have been drawn with costs reported from experts referring to real cases in Europe or comparable contexts. For the purposes of this assessment, we assume the costs indicated by Iglesias et al., 2010, to be representative of the whole European context. It must be stressed that the costs considered here are additional to those required anyway to comply with the legislation on urban wastewater treatment.

For policy option Ir2 (“fit-for-purpose”), we assume treatment costs for a reference condition where effluent standards for reclaimed water can be obtained by a treatment consisting of depth filtration and disinfection, for which Iglesias et al., 2010, report a mean investment cost in the range of 28-48 €/(m3/day) and an operation cost in the range 0.06-0.09 €/m3. Under option Ir2, in fact, it is possible that water is reused with lower treatment costs as well as higher treatment costs (the latter only for the share of water volumes requiring the highest standards). As it is currently impossible to assume how much of the water volume available for reuse will be treated at which level of quality, adopting a lower-middle level of treatment costs appears a reasonable pragmatic assumption. The range of levelized costs of treatment (LCOWt) is computed assuming a discount rate of 5% and a depreciation period of 20 years, as:

LCOWt = (LCOWt, min +LCOWt, max)/2

with

LCOWt, min=0.06 + 28 / pva(0.05, 20)/365

LCOWt, max=0.09 + 48 / pva(0.05, 20)/365

and with pva(r, n), representing the present value of investment cost annuity, defined in Equation 15 below. For policy option Ir1, we consider that membrane filtration and disinfection are required to achieve the quality standards. For this case, Iglesias et al., 2010, provide a mean investment cost in the range of 185-398 €/(m3/day) and an operation cost in the range 0.14-0.20 €/m3. We compute the levelized costs of treatment as:

LCOWt, min=0.14 + 185 / pva(0.05, 20)/365

LCOWt, max=0.20 + 398 / pva(0.05, 20)/365

Table 7 summarizes the adopted levelized costs.

Table 7 – water treatment costs assumed for the two policy options

The treatment costs are the only difference between the two policy options considered in this assessment. On the contrary, it is assumed that the infrastructure to distribute reclaimed water from wastewater treatment plants does not presently exist and needs to be developed.

The model adopted to calculate the cost of water distribution refers to the spatial support represented by the sub-basins of the CCM2 dataset 34 . Table 8 summarizes the attributes of sub-basins considered for model calculations.

Table 8 – summary of attributes of each sub-basin used in the calculation (SB=sub-basin)

For the generic i-th sub-basin, we define an equivalent WWTP with coordinates of the centre of mass of all WWTPs in the sub-basin, computed as:

where mi is the number of WWPs in the i-th sub-basin, Pk the capacity (PE) of the k-th WWTP in the sub-basin, and () its coordinates along the horizontal axes and elevation, respectively. We define an equivalent agricultural area in the sub-basin, with an extent equal to the total agricultural area Ai within the sub-basin, with coordinates of the centre of mass computed as 

where ni is the number of agricultural pixels in the i-th sub-basin, and () the coordinates of the k-th pixel along the horizontal axes and elevation, respectively. The dispersion of agricultural pixels around their center of mass is represented by the radius of inertia computed as:

Each sub-basin is characterized by a porosity, meant as the share of its area where water can be in principle transported through pipelines. The latter is assumed to coincide with the ensemble of:

-A buffer of 100 m around all road infrastructure

-Agricultural land with terrain slope below 35°.

Porosity is defined as:

In the analysis of costs of water reuse, we compute the length of pipelines assuming a Euclidean distance, hence a homogeneously accessible sub-basin, while in reality the actual length will tend to be higher depending on the tortuosity of its trail. We quantify the tortuosity using the theoretical model of Bruggeman (1935; see also Tjaden et al., 2016) for two-dimensional porosity:

Where a is a parameter depending on the geometry of the pores. For a space filled by cylinders, a=1 while, for a space filled by spheres, a=0.5. The higher a, the higher the tortuosity for a given porosity. In practice, a needs to be fitted to the specific case. In this exercise, we set a=0.5 by default. Moreover, we do not allow to exceed the value of 3.

Water potentially reclaimed at a given wastewater treatment plant may be transported for reuse within the plant’s sub-basin (i.e. “at the source”), or towards other “receptor” sub-basins. In this exercise, we assume that water cannot be conveniently transported to sub-basins more than 10 km away (on a straight line) nor to sub-basins with elevation differences representing an excessive pumping requirement. For the latter, we assume that sub-basins featuring an elevation range above 200 m would require excessive pumping efforts and we regard them as “inaccessible”. We exclude from this set those sub-basins corresponding to the valleys of relatively large rivers (those with Strahler order > 4 in the CCM2 database), where it is assumed that the valley bottoms may still host infrastructure despite the potentially high elevation ranges on the hillsides.

Within a “source” sub-basin, the flow of reclaimed water to agriculture (m3/day) is computed as:

where (m3/day) is the output discharge of the WWTP, (-) is the fraction of this discharge that is reclaimed (by default, =1), and (m3/day) is the irrigation demand in the sub-basin.

The length of the pipeline required to transport this flow to the agricultural area in the sub-basin is given by:

while the diameter of the pipeline (m) is computed using the Hazen-Williams formula as:

where J is the friction loss rate and C is a friction coefficient. We assume C=120 (-), valid for steel pipes, and J=0.005 (-). Under these assumptions, with Fi,i in m3/day, Equation 8 can be written as:

Di,i = 0.0104Fi,i0.3803

In addition to the transport of reclaimed water to the agricultural area, we account for the distribution of this water within the agricultural area itself. The radius of inertia Ri represents the average distance of agricultural areas from their centre of mass. We assume the investment in the infrastructure for distribution to the farms to be independent of the water reuse investment, while we compute the energy cost of distributing the reused water within the agricultural area of a sub-basin, as this contributes directly to the levelized cost of water.

The expenditure for a pipeline with diameter Δ is given in €/m by 35 :

as from the FEASIBLE model (OECD, 2004). This expenditure function is used to compute .

The energy required to transport and distribute the reclaimed water within the sub-basin (kWh/year) is computed as:

where g is the acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2) and is the efficiency of pumping. We assume =0.75. The power installation requirement (kW) of an equivalent pumping station for the transport and distribution of the reclaimed water flow is:

where Ti (days) is the duration of the irrigation period in the sub-basin. The expenditure for a pumping station of power S (€) is computed from the FEASIBLE model as:

The storage volume required for use of water in irrigation is computed as:

The cost of the storage volume is:

with i set to default of 5 €/m3 in line with Maton et al., 2010. Cost of storage is extremely variable. For natural storage (e.g. in floodplains), Grygoruk et al., 2013 report a value above 8 €/m3.

The expenditure for an investment can be converted into an equivalent annual cost by the “present value of annuity” factor:

where r is the annual interest rate and n is the number of years of useful life (or depreciation period) of the investment. We assume n=50 years for pipelines and storage, and n=15 for pumping stations, while r=0.05 (5%).

The total equivalent annual cost of water transport and distribution (€/year) is given by:

Where is the cost of energy (€/kWh) in the sub-basin. In this exercise, we assume a constant value =0.10 €/kWh. The cost of energy for industrial use reported by EUROSTAT is provided in Table 9 , suggesting the assumed value to be plausible for large industrial users across Europe.