EN Official Journal of the European Union C 327/93

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources’

COM(2012) 673 final

on the ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) River Basin Management Plans’

COM(2012) 670 final

and on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Report on the Review of the European Water Scarcity and Droughts Policy’

COM(2012) 672 final

2013/C 327/16

Rapporteur: Georges CINGAL

Co-rapporteur: An LE NOUAIL MARLIÈRE

On 11 November 2012, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources

COM(2012) 673 final.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 June 2013.

At its 491st plenary session, held on 10 and 11 2013 (meeting of 10 July), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 128 votes to 101 with 17 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 The EESC welcomes the Commission's communication, but feels that the document does not propose enough pro-active measures to provide solutions to the various problems identified.

1.2 The EESC therefore invites the Commission to acknowledge the need to: — democratise water management, i.e. to give consumers their rightful place in river basin management bodies, — set up a European water inspectorate to ensure that all regions are treated fairly, — take account of substances of concern (chemicals, nanoelements, etc.).

1.3 The EESC welcomes the Commission's commitment to incorporating water-related objectives into other key policies such as the CAP, the Cohesion Fund, Structural Funds and policies on renewable energy. At the same time, it notes that much more needs to be done to achieve real consistency between policies and to remove incentives to over abstraction, morphological damage and water pollution.

1.4 The EESC invites the Commission to clarify the issue of resource sustainability. While the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (1) lays down an obligation not to damage water resources, the EU is seen to be allowing the development of projects to safeguard the energy supply. This previously marginal issue risks becoming a recurring problem with projects to extract shale gas. The EESC feels that water resources are the top priority.

1.5 The EESC advises the Commission to encourage the Member States to implement strictly Article 9 of the WFD (the polluter-pays principle) in order to achieve good water quality.

1.6 The EESC invites the Commission to clarify what it means by "water stress". If it is using the conventional definition – demand for water exceeds the available resources – we are often liable to act too late (forest mortality, etc.). It is therefore necessary, as well as defining minimum environmental flows, to establish alert levels that can trigger preventative action before those minimum levels are reached, so as to avoid critical situations.

1.7 The EESC urges the Commission to use cohesion policy instruments (ERDF, ESF, European territorial cooperation, etc.) to encourage: — local authorities to develop tertiary treatment facilities at sewage works, — economic stakeholders to take a closer interest in their property's resilience to climate change, by promoting natural mechanisms (soil, vegetation, etc.) to protect water resources, for example using the carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio as a soil quality indicator, — the best initiatives (LIFE action plan, etc.).

1.8 The EESC urges the Commission to publicise the best available techniques (BATs). The objective of closing the water cycle no longer seems unrealistic, judging by the progress made in, for example, the paper industry. In contrast, the EESC considers it necessary to establish standards and rules to reduce leakage in networks.

1.9 The EESC urges the Commission to propose a legislative instrument that gradually increases the focus on effectiveness in water management (metering, transport, treatment, etc.). Domestic use cannot be the sole focus, and nor can voluntary approaches. Integrated management relates to all river basins.

1.10 The EESC encourages the Commission to expand the list of pollutants (nanoelements and carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic chemicals) that must not be present in surface water or aquifers in the interests of public health (2), and to draft recommendations for the re-use of treated water. It considers the European Environment Agency's report No 1/2013 – "Late lessons from early warnings II" (3) – to be extremely valuable.

1.11 The EESC reiterates its concerns regarding financial compensation for transfers, and urges the Commission to exercise the greatest possible caution. All projects must be brought to the attention of the public (see the Aarhus Convention) and be subject to open debate. The EESC notes that a transfer system would be unfair and detrimental to the most disadvantaged populations, regardless of whether or not they receive financial compensation.

2. Background

2.1 In 2000, the WFD established a legal framework to protect and restore clean water across Europe and to ensure its long-term, sustainable use. The general objective of the WFD is to get all the EU's water – for example, lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater aquifers – into a healthy state by 2015.

2.2 The Commission notes that authorities have often failed to combine the objectives of effectiveness and fairness (it would therefore make sense to apply the polluter-pays principle, by eliminating counter-productive or harmful subsidies) with a view to balancing revenue against investment expenditure.

2.3 On 14 November 2012, the Commission published the "Blueprint Package", comprising: — a communication on a blueprint to safeguard Europe's water resources, — a report on the review of the European water scarcity and droughts policy, — a report on the implementation of the WFD and the river basin management plans.

2.3.1 Given that water is such a vital resource, its management is an issue for EU citizens and therefore also presents challenges in terms of the necessary expertise. The executive summaries of technical evaluations and impact assessments are important enough to be worth distributing to civil society organisations (CSOs) and should therefore be available in the different EU languages.

2.3.2 The Commission's proposals are based on a variety of studies, in particular the following European Environment Agency (EEA) publications: — Towards efficient use of water resources in Europe, Report No 1/2012, 68 pages, — European waters – assessment of status and pressures, Report No 8/2012, 96 pages, — European waters – current status and future challenges – a synthesis, 51 pages, — Water resources in Europe in the context of vulnerability, Report No 11/2012, 92 pages.

2.3.3 The review of European water scarcity and droughts policy is to be welcomed inasmuch as demand is increasing while supply remains static, and, as noted in a number of United Nations reports, the drought line is moving northwards.

2.4 The Water Blueprint sets out a three-tier strategic approach, accompanied by actions in 25 stages: — improving implementation of current EU water policy by making full use of the opportunities provided by the current laws, — increasing the integration of water policy objectives into other relevant policy areas such as agriculture, fisheries, renewable energy, transport and the Cohesion and Structural Funds, — filling the gaps of the current framework, particularly in relation to the tools needed to increase water efficiency.

2.5 The Water Blueprint time horizon is closely related to the EU's 2020 Strategy and, in particular, to the Resource Efficiency Roadmap, of which the Blueprint is the water milestone.

2.6 On 22 September 2010, the EESC published an information report adopted by the REX section entitled "Decent work and sustainable development around the Mediterranean: the fresh water, sea water and sanitation sectors". This report, which was presented at the Euromed Summit of Economic and Social Councils in November 2010, set out the problems associated with increasing water scarcity around the Mediterranean, the social consequences and the funding conditions for associated projects. On 15 June 2011, the Committee adopted an exploratory opinion on the Integration of water policy into other EU policies (4), in response to a request from the Hungarian Presidency; it also adopted an opinion on Priority substances in the field of water policy (5) on 23 May 2012, and one on the European Innovation Partnership on Water (6) on 13 December 2012. We would also refer to the opinions on the Thematic strategy for soil protection (7) and the 7th Environment Action Programme (8).

3. General comments

3.1 The EESC agrees with the Commission that the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is the right tool for improving the ecological status of Europe's waters, but this objective can only be achieved if the databases are managed by independent bodies and if implementation of the directive is rigorously strengthened. 47 % of the EU's waters will not have achieved good status by 2015, even though the blueprint assesses progress made in water management and proposes certain measures to be implemented by 2020.

3.2 Some Member States have been slow to implement Article 9 of the WFD since it was adopted in 2000, which is holding back efforts to achieve good water status. The EESC feels that water managers must follow the polluter-pays principle at all times and in all places in setting prices for water and sanitation services, and recommends that the blueprint should apply both to regions with water shortages and to regions with surpluses.

3.2.1 The EESC finds it highly regrettable that the Member States are delaying the implementation of the WFD and denying the public access to better quality water, and will therefore support the Commission tirelessly in its efforts to make all Member States comply with the WFD.

3.3 However, the EESC is concerned to note that the Commission is not proposing enough innovative measures to improve the effectiveness of water management. Demand is expected to outstrip supply by up to 40 % by 2030, which means that shortages will affect the majority of Member States. The Commission's approach is highly risky in that it is based solely on existing instruments and does not, apart from the Ecodesign Directive, propose a "per-product" management policy to meet the requirements of households, industry (including quarries) and farming. In these circumstances, there is a risk of more and more watercourses running dry or becoming polluted. The EESC is concerned that the public are still paying to subsidise production systems that do not take a sustainable approach. Integrated water resource management (IWRM) is only a general reference point, and the circumstances in which it should apply to all river basins need to be clarified.

3.4 The EESC welcomes the measures to protect ecosystems, and supports efforts to preserve natural aquifers. These efforts will be beneficial in terms of the resilience of species and ecosystems to climate change, particularly if they are accompanied by appropriate actions under the common agricultural policy and rural development policy. Unfortunately, the Commission has not put enough emphasis on the interface between water and the climate. Actions need to be identified to ensure that meteoric water is retained in soil and percolates into groundwater.

4. Specific comments

4.1 Water is a fundamental issue, as it is essential for human life and natural ecosystems, as well as being part of mankind's shared natural heritage.

4.2 Water and sanitation policy must be embedded in a sustainable development policy ensuring that this resource meets people's current needs and is preserved for future generations. In Europe and across the world, many people do not have access to this vital resource. The United Nations' recognition that access to sufficient safe drinking water and to sanitation is a universal human right will allow more than a million people in Europe without access to clean, safe and affordable water and several million European citizens without sanitation systems to exercise a fundamental right (9).

4.3 To this end, the EESC urges the European Commission to propose legislation establishing access to water and sanitation as a human right as set out by the United Nations, and to promote the provision of water and sanitation as vital public services for all. European law should require governments to provide the population with guaranteed sanitation and sufficient safe drinking water. The EESC recommends that: — the European institutions and the Member States should be required to ensure that all residents can exercise their right to water and sanitation, — water supply and management of water resources should not be subject solely to "internal market rules", and water services should be exempted from liberalisation and from the scope of the directive on concessions (10), — the EU should step up efforts to achieve universal access to water and sanitation within its territory.

4.4 Access to water is a fundamental right that is closely linked to the provision of water-related services and to water pricing. In this connection, the EESC notes that the Commission launched an investigation into the French water market in January 2012, which is still ongoing. Three of the leading multinational groups in the global water market are French. The Committee supports the scope of these formal antitrust proceedings, which follow on from investigations at the companies in question in Spring 2010. The proceedings will help the Commission establish whether the three companies, "together with their trade association Fédération Professionnelle des Entreprises de l'Eau (FP2E)", have coordinated their behaviour on French water and waste water markets, in breach of EU antitrust rules, and whether they colluded with respect to elements of the price invoiced to end consumers. The EESC is keen to see the result of these proceedings.

4.5 Transfers from one body of water to another entail considerable investment, can present significant environmental risks, do not encourage the judicious use of resources, and exacerbate inequality because it is the richest economic operators who can afford to pay the most for scarce resources.

4.6 The communication simply suggests using BATs to reduce leakages from networks. This issue should be dealt with by establishing standards and improving regulation for each river basin. Setting standards has proved valuable in improving services and productivity. The Commission could consider developing a plan for reducing leakages.

4.7 When project promoters are planning infrastructure projects that change conditions in a body of water, they absolutely must respect the biodiversity preservation objectives. The EESC points out that a number of Ramsar sites have been sacrificed on the altar of irrigation. It stresses that the blueprint does not envisage repairing damage that has already been done, and that the proposals are inadequate as only fish ladders or fish lifts are mentioned. It is regrettable that the blueprint does not mention the imperative need to protect headwaters and small bodies of water (pools, ponds, peat bogs, etc.).

Brussels, 10 July 2013. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Henri MALOSSE

(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73.

(2) OJ C 229, 31.7.2012, p. 116-118.

(3) http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/the-cost-of-ignoring-the.

(4) OJ C 248, 25.8.2011, p. 43-48.

(5) OJ C 229, 31.7.2012, p. 116-118.

(6) OJ C 44, 15.2.2013, p. 147-152.

(7) OJ C 168, 20.7.2007, p. 29-33.

(8) OJ C 161, 6.6.2013, s. 77-81.

(9) OJ C 44, 15.2.2013, p. 147-152.

(10) O.J. C 191, 29.6.2012, pp. 84-96.