TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Error! Bookmark not defined.

1........... Annex 1: Baseline and Scenarios for water resources....................................................... 5

1.1........ Trends for state of water resources, pressures and drivers based on reported information and external sources 5

1.1.1..... What are the underlying causes leading to the status of EU waters?.................................. 5

1.1.2..... Past trends for extreme events......................................................................................... 8

1.1.3..... Pressures and drivers.................................................................................................... 10

1.1.4..... Baseline for the state of water resources........................................................................ 11

1.1.5..... Unsustainable trends in water resources use and availability............................................ 13

1.2........ Hydro-economic modelling........................................................................................... 15

2........... Annex 2: Detailed analysis of measures.......................................................................... 16

2.1........ Measures for controlling diffuse pollution, protecting ecosystems and promoting natural water retention 17

2.1.1..... Description................................................................................................................... 17

2.1.2..... Key information on the impacts of the measures............................................................. 18

2.1.3..... Barriers for implementation........................................................................................... 27

2.1.4..... Degree of implementation as reflected by the RBMPs.................................................... 30

2.1.5..... Key EU policy instruments that would unlock / guide the implementation........................ 32

2.2........ Measures improving water availability............................................................................ 35

2.2.1..... Description................................................................................................................... 35

2.2.2..... Key information on the cost-effectiveness (risks and benefits)........................................ 36

2.2.3..... Barriers for implementation........................................................................................... 42

2.2.4..... Degree of implementation as reflected by the RBMPs.................................................... 44

2.2.5..... Key EU policy instruments that would unlock / guide the implementation........................ 44

2.3........ Water efficiency measures............................................................................................. 45

2.3.1..... Description................................................................................................................... 45

2.3.2..... Impacts........................................................................................................................ 49

2.3.2.1.. Water saving potential and cost effectiveness................................................................. 49

2.3.2.1.. agriculture..................................................................................................................... 49

2.3.2.2.. Industry........................................................................................................................ 49

2.3.2.3.. Energy.......................................................................................................................... 50

2.3.2.4.. public water supply and use.......................................................................................... 51

2.3.2.5.. Economic impacts......................................................................................................... 56

2.3.2.6.. Social Impacts.............................................................................................................. 60

2.3.2.7.. Environmental impacts.................................................................................................. 64

2.3.3..... Barriers for implementation........................................................................................... 70

2.3.4..... Degree of implementation as reflected by the RBMPs.................................................... 76

2.3.5..... Key EU policy instruments that would unlock / guide the implementation........................ 77

3........... Annex 3: Stakeholder and public consultations............................................................... 79

3.1........ Stakeholder and public consultation for the policy reviews supporting the Blueprint......... 79

3.1.1..... Assessment River Basin Management Plans................................................................... 79

3.1.2..... Review Water Scarcity & Droughts policy.................................................................... 79

3.1.3..... Fitness Check............................................................................................................... 81

3.1.4..... Modelling of scenarios, measures and objectives........................................................... 86

3.2........ Public Consultation on policy options............................................................................ 86

3.2.1..... Horizontal options......................................................................................................... 86

3.2.2..... Options unlocking specific measures.............................................................................. 88

3.3........ Stakeholder Consultation on policy options................................................................... 91

3.4........ Calendar of main events................................................................................................ 95

4........... Annex 4: Inter-service consultation................................................................................ 95

4.1........ Impact Assessment Steering Group............................................................................... 95

4.2........ Impact Assessment Board............................................................................................ 96

5........... Annex 5: Key studies/work carried out by external consultants....................................... 99

6........... Annex 6: References................................................................................................... 104

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

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

1. Annex 1: Baseline and Scenarios for water resources

1.1. Trends for state of water resources, pressures and drivers based on reported information and external sources

1.1.1. What are the underlying causes leading to the status of EU waters?

The assessment of the underlying causes for the current (and future) State of water resources, described in the previous section, follows a DPSIR framework cycle (Driving forces, Pressures, States, Impacts, Responses) that can be synthesised as in the figure below:

DPSIR framework for the Blueprint - Source: DG Environment, 2012

The present section explores the main Pressures (pollutant emissions, water use, physical restructuring) affecting the state of water resources and identifies the anthropogenic and natural Drivers of these pressures. Then it looks at the degree of implementation of policy Responses, i.e. concrete measures and support actions (institutional framework, policies and legislations, allocation instruments, knowledge base) that would be able to tackle both pressures and drivers if sufficiently implemented.

The main pressures having an impact on the aquatic ecosystems are diffuse pollution sources (e.g. from agriculture, airborne pollution); hydromorphological alterations (physical modifications of surface water bodies e.g. from hydropower, navigation and flood protection) and water abstraction. The picture below shows that these pressures occur in the majority of MS and in a large number of water bodies

Percentage of river water bodies with significant pressures (number of MS in brackets): Source: EEA (2012)

Although considerable success has been achieved in reducing the discharge of pollutants into Europe’s waters in recent decades (mainly thanks to the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWD) and the Integrated Pollution Prevention & Control Directive (IPPCD)), point source pollution is still reported as a significant pressure in more than 40% of transitional waters, indicating that there are remaining challenges related to urban and industrial waste water in many deltas and estuaries in Europe. Furthermore, although downward trends in pollution related to urban and industrial wastewater can be observed in most of Europe's surface waters, these trends have levelled in recent years and there are still significant gaps in particular in Eastern and Southern MS[1].

Progress has been significant in reducing the diffuse pollution of nitrates from agriculture[2] and there has also been a gradual reduction in phosphorus concentrations in many European lakes (primarily thanks to improved wastewater treatment and bans on phosphates in detergents). However, agriculture is still mentioned in more than 90% of the River Basins Management Plans (RBMPs) as a main driver causing significant impacts on water quality and quantity.

Declines in emissions have been observed for some hazardous chemicals such as heavy metals from waste water treatment plants and some pesticides as a result of restrictions on their use[3], but the persistency of some restricted substances means that they will still be found for decades in the water environment. Other substances such as pharmaceuticals and personal care products, often referred to as emerging pollutants, are increasingly being monitored and found in water bodies across the EU. A number of these have properties which pose risk via or to the aquatic environment.[4]

Around 40% of surface water bodies are subject to significant hydro-morphological pressures, which, from the assessment of the RBMPs, emerge as the most significant pressure on river water bodies. Only 12% of such water bodies have been designated as Heavily Modified with a lower environmental objective by the Member States. This means that MS should achieve good ecological status for the remaining 28%, by taking necessary measures to reduce the hydro-morphological pressure such as Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRMs).

Water abstraction (from surface or ground water bodies) is a main cause of water stress when it goes beyond natural limits (over-abstraction). Main pressures from water consumption (water which is not returned to the water body after use) are concentrated on irrigation and domestic demand, including tourism. Agriculture is the main consumptive user, in particular in the South of Europe, where it is responsible for up to 70% of total water use. In addition, there is considerable ‘loss’ of water (around 40%) in public distribution and supply networks prior to it reaching consumers, thus aggravating shortages in already water scarce regions. Moreover, illegal abstraction is also a worrying phenomenon. It is estimated (WWF, 2006) that in Spain alone there are more than half a million illegal wells. This situation calls for ways to increase water efficiency and tackle illegal water abstraction.

The pressures on EU waters presented above are themselves due to some drivers that can be expressed in terms of demographic growth, land use and economic activity.

Although the European population is increasing slowly over time, analysis of regional trends over the last 15 years show increasing regional variations, with a trend of East-West polarisation, mostly due to negative migration balance in Eastern Europe, and a demographic increase in most of the urban regions and in South-West Europe, mainly due to internal and external migrations (see figure below). This results in a higher demand for water that can stress local water balances.

Annual net migration development for 2001-2005(Source ESPON, 2008)

These demographic changes are associated with intense land-use changes, in particular the continued expansion of artificial surfaces (urban sprawl and infrastructure development) at the expense of agricultural land, grasslands and wetlands across Europe, with impacts on the water cycle and water resources (lower recharge of ground water, increase flood risk, leaching of pollutants) (EEA, 2010). Recent studies show that deforestation by urbanisation and industrialisation in coastal areas of certain basins such as the Western Mediterranean can disturb the regional water cycle, reducing precipitation in the region (Ellison et al. 2011), while urbanisation (soil sealing) in the Mediterranean can trigger floods in Central Europe.

The process of conversion into more intensive agriculture is still on-going in Central and Eastern Europe, while intensity remains high in Western Europe, maximising the crop production-oriented functions of ecosystems, with the subsequent impact on chemical and ecological status of water due to nitrates, phosphates and pesticides, and on the water cycle due to drainage (Kravçik et al, 2008). Water pollution and abstraction from industry has been affected by changes in the structure of industrial production in Europe, by improvements in the processes and by regulations on waste water treatment. Regarding consumers, there is an increasing pressure on water resources derived from upgraded standard of living and the use of water consuming technologies in houses or crops in the gardens (Iglesias, 2007).

1.1.2. Past trends for extreme events

Drought is a natural phenomenon. It is a temporary, negative and severe deviation along a significant time period and over a large region from average precipitation values (a rainfall deficit), which might lead to meteorological, agricultural, hydrological and socioeconomic drought, depending on its severity and duration. Data from the recent 30 years suggest that drought events are increasing in frequency across Europe. South-eastern Europe is increasingly facing extended periods of droughts, and both Northern and Western Europe have been affected in more recent years. A prolonged drought across the entire Iberian Peninsula was experienced in the years 1990-1995, while large parts of continental Europe were affected by droughts in 2003. Most recently, UK, France, Germany and Poland experienced a very dry spring in 2011.

Main drought events in Europe, 2000–2009 - source: EEA.

Floods are extreme events that can have large impacts on human societies and ecosystems. They arise from a multitude of causes and can have very different consequences depending on regional and local circumstances. Floods are part of the natural hydrological cycle, but adverse impacts arise when water masses inundate infrastructures and land that cannot cope with excessive water. Major flood disasters in Europe have caused loss of lives and economic loss that amount to billions of euro, but aggregated over large areas small local floods also produce significant losses. Analyses of trends of past flood events suggest flood hazard have increased in parts of Europe. Available evidence suggests high flows have been increasing in northern Europe, especially in western Britain and coastal Scandinavia. Regional patterns are, however, diverse, with many weak negative trends occurring in northern Europe as well, and a very mixed pattern in central Europe, mainly as concerns fluvial floods..

Flood trends[5] across Europe, 1962 – 2004 - Source (Stahl et al. 2011), quoted in (EEA, 2012

1.1.3. Pressures and drivers

Point source pollution is still reported as a significant pressure in more than 40% of transitional waters, indicating that there are remaining challenges related to urban and industrial waste water in many estuaries in Europe.

The average concentrations of orthophosphate in European rivers halved over the past 20 years. During the past few decades there has also been a gradual reduction in phosphorus concentrations in many European lakes. Phosphorus levels have declined in recent years due primarily to improved wastewater treatment and bans on phosphates in detergents.

They therefore need to be considered alongside other substances during the regular review of the priority substances list under the Water Framework Directive. The Water Framework Directive complements action on chemicals under other sectoral legislation, for example the REACH Regulation, Plant Protection Products and Biocides legislation[6].

Some of the existing physical modifications of surface water bodies are linked to specific legitimate uses such as storage of drinking water, agriculture, hydropower, navigation, flood protection, etc. Where the benefits achieved by the physical modification cannot be reasonably achieved by other means that are a significantly better environmental option, Article 4.3 of the WFD allows Member States (MS) to designate the water bodies as Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB). This is subject to the condition that the change necessary to bring back the water body to good ecological status would have a significant adverse effect on a sustainable development activity. An alternative objective to good ecological status is applied to these water bodies, namely good ecological potential, which takes into account the physical modification that is necessary for the use.

Across most of the continent, urbanisation and the accumulation of assets in flood prone areas have led to increasing trends in the damages and economic consequences of floods. Urbanisation (soil sealing) in the Mediterranean can trigger floods in Central Europe.

On the other hand, deforestation by urbanisation and industrialisation in coastal areas of certain basins including the Western Mediterranean can disturb the regional water cycle, reducing precipitation in the region (Ellison et al. 2012).

Predominant net land conversions in Europe 1990–2006 (source EEA, 2010)

1.1.4. Baseline for the state of water resources

The Baseline developed in the context of this Impact Assessment takes on board geographical and economic disparities across the EU, the uncertainty on climate and socio-economic drivers, and includes the achievements by water policy in restoring and preserving the water cycle and improving the ecological and chemical status of all river basins. The outlook has a medium term horizon (2030) enabling the identification of gaps in current policy implementation and supporting an optimisation model, and a longer term horizon (2050) with a greater uncertainty, to be used for the building of a robust decision making framework.

As indicated by recent IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events[7], "projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame." The reference period 1981-2010, including inter-annual variability, is therefore used in the context of the 2030 scenarios, while results provided by the ClimWatAdapt project are used to describe the vulnerability of water resources for the horizon 2050.

The on-going assessment of RBMP provides information on the likely uptake of the measures and resulting pressures to water bodies:

· In many RBMPs, there is considerable scope for greater implementation of source control measures across all sectors and for the restoration of water bodies which have been significantly altered through physical modifications, leading to changes in water flows, habitat fragmentation and obstructions of species migration.

· RBMPs include modification of the water pricing system to foster a more efficient use of water (in 49% of the RBMPs), the improvement of the efficiency of water agricultural uses (in 45% of the RBMPs), measures to enhance water metering (in 40% of the RBMPs) and measures to increase treated water reuse (in 50% of the RBMPs).

Impact of other EU policies

The MFF Communication mentions that Environment and Climate objectives need to be reflected in all instruments to ensure they contribute to the shift towards a low carbon, resource efficient and climate resilient economy, which includes obviously the measures needed for the protection of water resources. The communication mentions the intention to increase the proportion of climate related expenditure to at least 20% in the next EU budget (2014-2020). This potentially includes most water management measures as long as they contribute to low carbon economy (water savings, energy savings in water supply and treatment, low input agriculture, etc.) or climate change adaptation (prevention of water scarcity, droughts and floods).

Structural Funds will be available for water resource protection measures, in particular waste-water treatment or recycling plants. They can also support actions to restore ecosystems (including in Mediterranean coastal areas) and actions for green infrastructure projects (natural water retention measures).

The European Commission's proposals[8] for a reform of the CAP after 2013 include a number of measures with a direct or indirect impact on water resources management, in particular:

· 30% of direct payments to be tied to a greening component, ensuring that EU farmers receiving direct payments go beyond the requirements of cross-compliance and deliver environmental and climate benefits as part of their everyday activities.

· Cross-compliance standards for maintaining soil organic matter level and the protection of wetlands and carbon rich soils. Both standards are aimed at climate change mitigation and adaptation but they should also benefit water quality and water quantity.

· The proposal also foresees the inclusion of the Water Framework Directive and the Directive on the sustainable use of pesticides into cross-compliance once they are fully implemented by Member States and concrete rules relevant to farming are identified.

· Extension of the scope of the Farm Advisory System to inter alia the protection of water

· Rural development policy should continue to offer a range of measures which will influence water quality, water quantity and the hydro morphology. Some of these will operate through investments (e.g. in more efficient irrigation systems or in forestry); others through payments to reward beneficial or mitigating practices (e.g. the Agri-environment-climate measures) or to compensate for disadvantages (e.g. payments to areas particularly affected by implementation of the Water Framework Directive); still others through support for training activities and co-operation on environmental projects. Particular conditions have been proposed for support for investments in irrigation.

· The ambition is that the system of designing rural development programmes should be based more on outputs (results), less on inputs (spending). It will function through more detailed "priorities" – some of which will explicitly mention water – and improved indicators. However, as a safeguard, Member States will be required to spend at least 25 % of their envelope from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) on three key measures relevant to water.

The baseline takes also on board the policies agreed in the Climate and Energy package, i.e. the legally binding targets for renewable energy sources (RES) to achieve a 20% overall share and a specific 10% share in transport and the legally binding targets for non-ETS GHG emissions and the ETS target to achieve the 20% reduction target in 2020 compared to 2005[9].

1.1.5. Unsustainable trends in water resources use and availability

A lack of ambition has been found in many RBMPs as regards achieving the environmental objectives of good ecological status or potential as well as extensive reliance on exemptions. In general, the extensive use of exemptions is not supported by transparent justification of the criteria applied, indicating a degree of arbitrariness in their application. Where deadlines for achieving the environmental objectives are extended beyond 2015, it is often unclear by when the objectives will be reached.[10]

Water status according to the RBMP assessment

According to the assessment of Water Scarcity and Droughts policy, the policy responses currently in place are not fundamentally reversing the trend in water scarcity in the medium time horizon (2030). Without modification to the institutional and policy measures already implemented or planned, water scarcity in 2030 is expected to increase. Vulnerability to extreme events

The frequency of heavy precipitation events is likely to increase in many areas of the globe, including Europe; this can cause flash flood and pluvial flood events. It is also very likely that mean sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels.[11] Droughts are also projected to increase.

At global level, the recent GEO-5 report[12] states that despite the progress, there are concerns that the limit of sustainability of water resources, both surface- and ground-water, has already been reached or surpassed in many regions, that demand of water continues to increase and that water-related stress on both people and biodiversity is escalating rapidly. These trends (mapped e.g. in Vörösmarty et al. 2010) confirm the importance of complementing the analysis of EU water resources with an assessment of the impact of goods and services imported into the EU on global water resources, taking into account local water management contexts.

The future water situation and developments in the water sector have been examined in Europe until 2050 by the ClimWatAdapt project[13] in terms of vulnerability to water scarcity, droughts and floods. The analyses show that climate change has a major effect on extreme events, i.e. the occurrence of droughts and floods. On the other side, future vulnerability to water scarcity is more dependent on socio-economic development than on climate change impacts, i.e. changes in water use are likely to have more impact on water scarcity than changes in water availability resulting from climate change. Water quality will deteriorate as a consequence of climate change, e.g. because in cases where reduced runoff will lead to lower dilution rates or, on the other hand, in cases where a much higher runoff will cause higher nutrient loads.

1.2. Hydro-economic modelling

In the context of the Impact assessment for the Blueprint, refining the result of ClimWatAdapt, the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission developed a baseline scenario bringing together climate, land-use and socio-economic scenarios and looking at the implication for water resources availability and use under different policy scenarios. The methodology and the results are described in the support study JRC, 2012. Service contract to support the impact assessment of the Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s waters - A multi-criteria optimisation of scenarios for the protection of water resources in Europe, available on https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/5a1d878b-9734-46b1-8513-7b32adbd9349

2. Annex 2: Detailed analysis of measures

The assessment of the state of Europe's waters and of the pressures and drivers at the basis of these status (main report and Annex 1) demonstrates that there is a need for further implementation of water resource management measures in all sectors to improve water resource efficiency and sustainability (see DPSIR figure). The scheme below explains how these measures cover qualitative and quantitative water aspects. It also reflects the choices to be made to reduce water stress, between reducing demand and increasing the availability of clean water:

This annex describes the measures mentioned in the main report and provides detailed information on:

– Information sources, including studies done in the context of the Blueprint

– Key information on the cost-effectiveness, benefits and side-effects

– Barriers for implementation (Market failures, Financing sources, Regulatory support, Concrete rules or definitions, Lack of coordination, Societal, Political, etc.)

– Degree of implementation as reflected by the RBMPs

– Key EU policy instruments that would unlock / guide the implementation (integration, funding, knowledge base, governance issues)

2.1. Measures for controlling diffuse pollution, protecting ecosystems and promoting natural water retention

2.1.1. Description

The WFD environmental objective of good ecological status includes a holistic assessment of the aquatic ecosystems, including hydro morphological aspects. Healthy aquatic ecosystems are necessary to maintain and improve the ecological functioning of ecosystems and thereby also increase biodiversity. Around 70% of the habitats and species protected by EU nature legislation are water dependent. A well-functioning aquatic ecosystem provides services such as self-purification and water retention through connection with its natural floodplain, and proves/shows the maintenance and improvement of water quality and quantity, increasing its resilience to natural or man-made alterations.

Economic activities such as hydropower generation, navigation, agriculture, forestry, land drainage, urban sprawl and flood protection have physically altered the aquatic ecosystems across the EU, reducing their capability to function properly and their ability to host a rich biodiversity and reducing the delivery of valuable ecosystem services. The information provided by Member States in their RBMPs shows that more than 40% of the water bodies in the EU are affected by significant hydromorphological pressures and impacts.

Measures to restore ecosystem functionality are key for achieving the WFD environmental objectives of good ecological status and to restore ecosystem services. The objective is to work with nature and not against it. Some of these key measures focus on:

– Restoring the riparian area of water courses, which provides a natural barrier for pollutants (e.g. nutrients and pesticides), increases biodiversity linked to the aquatic environment, improves resilience and prevents erosion by providing bank stability.

– Restoring the longitudinal continuity and lateral connectivity of water courses by dismantling existing unused barriers and incorporating appropriate fish passes /ladders for migratory species, by removing artificial embankments, lowering river banks, and reconnecting the flood plain with the river, as well as habitat restoration (by restoring bed and bank structure) and establishing minimum ecological flow. These measures are necessary for achieving GES.

– Restoring the natural flow regime of the river (reconnecting meanders or side cut off arms and re-meandering of formerly straightened water courses,), and other flow management measures construction of retention basins, operational modifications of hydro peaking, floodplain and wetlands restoration.

Measures for preventing and controlling diffuse pollution at the source (in synergy with the Nitrates directive and good agricultural practices) include regulating fertilizer and manure spreading, conversion of arable land to grassland, buffer zones, plant cover, crop rotation, woodland creation and wetland restoration. These measures target diffuse pollution but have multiple benefits.

It has been increasingly recognized that these measures, also have a strong capacity for increasing natural water retention and most of them can be classified as Natural water retention measures (NWRM). NWRM aim to safeguard and enhance the water storage potential of landscape, soil, and aquifers, by restoring ecosystems, natural features, and characteristics of water courses and by using natural processes. They are adaptation measures aiming at reducing vulnerability of water resources to climate change and other anthropogenic pressures. They use nature to regulate the flow and transport of water so as to smooth peaks and moderate extreme events (floods, droughts, desertification, salination) and they are relevant both in rural and urban areas. They include forestry measures (Continuous Cover Forestry, riparian forests, afforestation), sustainable agriculture practices (buffer strips, crop practices, grasslands, terracing, green cover, no/reduced tillage, early sowing), sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) (i.e. filter strips, swales green roofs) with a focus on urban areas but also partially applicable to other land uses, and measures that focus on increasing the storage in catchment and alongside rivers (i.e. restoration of wetlands, restoration of flood plains and lakes, integration of basins and ponds, river re-meandering and natural bank stabilization).

2.1.2. Key information on the impacts of the measures

The measures focusing on restoring ecosystem functionality, controlling diffusion pollution and promoting natural water retention deliver multiple Ecosystem Services (ESS), such as flood hazard reduction, water flow regulation, water quality regulation (i.e. purification), water provisioning, soil quality regulation (improvement), provision of habitat (regulation of the biotic environment) and cultural services, and atmospheric regulation (i.e. air quality improvement, climate regulation). Most of them can be regarded either as component of Green Infrastructure or as measures supporting Green Infrastructure, contributing to integrated goals dealing with nature and biodiversity conservation and restoration, and sustainable landscaping. Their multi-functionality contributes to their cost-efficiency and renders them good candidates for sustainable climate adaptation measures. Quantification and Valuation of the ESS they provide is important for assessing their cost-effectiveness even though in many cases the benefits cannot be monetized.

NWRM have direct impacts on hydrology and water retention related to improving soil’s water storage capacity, limiting soil erosion, increasing groundwater recharge, conserving water in natural systems decreasing flow velocity, controlling runoff and reducing flood peaks. NWRM and measures traditionally implemented with a focus on the protection of ecosystems have impact on water quantity regulation and on physico-chemical, hydro morphological, and biological quality elements contributing to WFD objectives. Restoring riparian areas of surface waters (either with protected vegetated buffer zones or the establishment of riparian forests) goes beyond the concept of buffer strip to provide a natural fully functional barrier to protect water bodies. This measure provides water purification services and improves river quality by reducing pollution caused by of nutrients, pesticides, and suspended solids, flow (mass) regulation services by regulating erosion and sediment transport in addition to leading to runoff control and ultimately flood hazard reduction. It contributes to the achievement of GES and it improves both the aquatic and the terrestrial ecosystems as it provides ecological corridors providing habitat services (STELLA (2012), WRC et. al. (2012), River Basin Network (2012)).

In addition to the establishment of riparian forests, sustainable forestry practises such as Continuous Cover Forestry and well- designed afforestation of arable land have significant benefits on reducing flood hazard reduction by slowing the flow (increasing evapotranspiration and infiltration) and improving significantly downstream water quality, while delivering multiple ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, regulation of biotic environment (i.e. habitat provision), and cultural services.

Other measures addressing water protection in agriculture have multiple physiochemical, ecological and hydrological effects (WRC et. al. (2012), River Basin Network (2012)) providing water quality and flow regulation services as well as contributing to regulation of the biotic environment (STELLA (2012), WRC et. al. (2012), River Basin Network (2012)).

Hydromorphological measures (i.e. re-meandering, natural bank stabilization) have multiple benefits, improving all aspects of GES including improvement/regulation of hydrological regime (regulating river flows, improving the hydrological balance, increasing groundwater recharge and summer low-flow, increasing water exchange between the surface and the subsurface environment, and improving chemical and biological status). The improvement of GES leads to increasing clean water availability and providing a water provisioning service (STELLA (2012), River Basin Network (2012)) in addition to the regulation of the physical environment. In addition they contribute to improving the landscape and creating recreational opportunities providing multiple cultural services. However in order to better valuate these measures it is essential that the environmental and resource cost is properly taken into consideration in cost recovery systems.

Related measures for increasing storage alongside rivers such as restoration of lakes, wetlands and floodplains, and creation of buffer basins are amongst the most effective measures for natural water retention. They play an important role in reducing flood hazard reduction, storing water as well as increasing water availability. They improve quality of ground water and surface water acting as natural filters and are valuable for habitat provision. Benefits related to floodplain /wetland restoration have been quantified /monetized in terms of ESS in various case studies (Grossmann 2012).

Sustainable storage Systems provide significant water flow regulation services by contributing to groundwater recharge, runoff control, and consequently flood and pollution risk reduction. They provide a natural water purification service and this can be quantified,

As the benefits of these measures target all the population and not the land-users /owners, it cannot be expected that these measures will be financed by the land users. There is a need for either funding these measures through different mechanisms or providing the means for compensations (i.e. PES). Selection of the measures on local and national level should be performed taking to consideration their cost-effectiveness, accounting both for their positive and negative impacts in economic, environmental, and social terms.

Environmental Impacts

Most of the proposed measures mitigate soil degradation processes and have significant impact on soil quality and function improvement. Forests (and related measures i.e. afforestation of abandoned land, CCF) improve soil quality as a result of increased organic matter, the action of tree root complexes, the presence of soil fauna, which leads to a macro-pore structure that can result to a ''sponge effect'' i.e. higher infiltration rates (Nisbet and Thomas, 2006) . Most agricultural measures (including no-tillage and crop practices) have a direct impact on soil quality increasing organic carbon stock, improving biological activity and soil structure, and reducing erosion (EC-JRC 2009). Crop rotation leads to decreased soil erosion reducing soil losses; for example a rotation involving corn, hay, and pasture corps may reduce soil losses by 30 % compared to continuous corn crops (WRC, 2012). These benefits have positive impacts both in terms of agricultural production and hydrological regulation. Urban measures that lead to decreased soil sealing (i.e. filter strips and swales) also can significantly improve soil quality and functioning; for example infiltration rates can be increased up to 87 % by grass filter strips (STELLA, 2012).

These measures contribute to the regulation of flow and reduction of water resource vulnerability to CC (and other pressures); natural water storage increase in the soil, landscape, and aquifer result in increased water availability and mitigate flood events by decreasing runoff. The flow regulation impact of certain measures on flood reduction is more pronounced in smaller scales but not within large basins (Nisbet and Thomas (2006)). It was concluded in a pan-European study involving hydrological data from catchments spanning a wide range of forest types, climate conditions and soil/geology that forestry can have a significant effect on flood flows at the small catchment scale forest growth could result in a 10-20% reduction in peak flows in headwater catchments, while forest drainage and felling could have the opposite effect. (Robinson et al. (2003)). Wetlands are one of the most effective measures in terms of flow regulation as they increase water storage, contribute to groundwater replenishment and attenuate run-off.

One possible negative impact on water availability is that afforestation could under certain conditions result in low dry season flows depending on the species used and the climatic conditions because of the increased water use (Calder et al. (2007)). In order to fully assess this ''forest cover- water yield debate'' the effect of afforestation on the regional water cycle needs to be taken to account considering potential of increased evapotranspiration and temperature moderation to contribute to increase precipitation cycles (Ellison et al. 2012). More over even though the soil structure in forests areas favours groundwater recharge, there is evidence that in semi-arid area catchments and in drought periods forests (including dense riparian canopies) could result in lower stream flows and decreased groundwater recharge (STELLA 2012). Finally the effect of afforestation on the water balance is affected by vegetation used (i.e. coniferous vs. deciduous forests) and on whether the previous land-use required irrigation.

A well designed combination of agriculture related measures can have a great impact on runoff reduction and on increase of groundwater recharge. For specific sites it is estimated that conversion of cropland to grassland the average reduction in peak run-off will range from 50-55 % and 40-45% for a five and 25 year 24-hour recurrence (WRC et al 2012). A 10 % conversion of arable land to permanent grassland for a catchment in Czech Republic was estimated to have 20 % reduction on the surface runoff and an 11% increase on the ground water recharge. No and reduced tillage promotes water uptake and infiltration, while reducing evaporation; it can lead to soil-moisture increase of up to 300 % and 35 % respectively (EC-JRC 2009). Urban natural water retention measures can lead to run-off reductions that can be significantly higher than when using conventional systems; green roofs for example retain 40-90% of rain water, depending on their design (STELLA 2012). Moreover they contribute to recharge groundwater and aquifers in areas under water supply stress.

The reduction of field erosion attributed to agriculture and forestry measures, and reduction of bank erosion as a result of riparian management and river restoration measures leads to an improved hydromorphological status of surface water bodies. More over most measures improve the hydrological regime by increasing the connection to groundwater and regulating flow capacity and dynamics Hydromorphological measures such as bank structure restoration, and river re-meandering can reduce stream velocities and improve connectivity with groundwater reducing hydrological response times in high flows effectively leading to a decreased flood risk. Other measures that increase storage along-side rivers include wetland /lake restoration, buffer ponds. These result in increased water availability at the landscape as well as reduced flood risk.

These measures can have significant contribution to the improvement of physico-chemical status of surface and ground water bodies. Agriculture related measures reduce the need for fertilizer application, and limit leaching of pesticides and nutrients improving both surface and groundwater quality. Conversion of arable land to grassland can result in 22 % decrease of N-loads and 21 % decrease of N concentrations. Catch crops target primarily Nitrogen leaching, leading to a 25 -50 % reduction, depending on soil type and other conditions; targeting an area of 140.000 hectares in a Swedish catchment catch crops let to reduced N loading of 11-16 kg N ha -1 y-1 (River Basin Network (2012)). The scenarios modelled in PEER 2012 report, illustrate that relevant cap greening measures can lead to significant nutrient (i.e. for Nitrogen ranging from 40% to 94 %) and that restoration of floodplains and wetlands can decrease Nitrogen loading in European seas by 7 % (PEER 2012).

Most of the measures lead to improvement of biological status of surface water bodies. Measures addressing hydromorphological pressures lead to improved fish access to upstream sprawing habitats , enlarge the potential of habitat size, strengthening their natural life cycle; a hydropower by-pass can significantly increase total area nursing grounds (i.e for salmonids by 20 % ) in Sweden, bed structure restoration can lead to increase of fish types (i.e from 10 to 20) threefold fish density and annual production increase and increase in benthic invertebrate taxa (i.e. from 202 to 273), bank structure restoration and re-meandering lead to increase of macrophytes (WRC et al., 2012). Measures that improve water physico-chemical status and regulate water flows have beneficial effects on the biological status. Besides the improvement of biological status which benefits aquatic ecosystems these measures provide habitat benefits for different ecosystem types (STELLA 2012, IEEP et al (2012a) ) .

Some of these measures (wetland restoration, forestry measures, urban measures, and agricultural practices) have a positive impact on air quality improvement and climate change mitigation increasing the sinks for greenhouse gases. Conversion to Cropland to Grassland for example can lead to soil organic carbon stocks increase by 19 % and sequestration of 332 kg C/ha y for a few decades (WRC et al., 2012).

Ambient temperature and precipitation can be affected by certain measures such as forestry and urban green infrastructure and water temperature is also influenced by certain measures for example riparian forests.

Economic impacts

The costs of implementing green infrastructure projects and natural water retention measures have been estimated by a number of recent studies. In a study carried as support of Green Infrastructure Strategy (IEEP 2012a) the costs of green infrastructure schemes at project level were identified based on an analysis of 50 initiatives. The range of project costs varies considerably, depending on the scope and local conditions. For freshwater and wetlands management and restoration the average project costs was 575.5 € million, with a minimum cost of about 128,000 € and a maximum cost of over 4€ billion. Multi-functional farmland and forestry projects tend to be much cheaper with an average cost of 115.5€ million and a minimum cost of only 50,000 €.

The cost associated with implementation of these measures is a major factor to be considered. The NWRM study provides indicative average EU unit investment and operating and maintenance costs (including opportunity costs) as shown in table below:

Measure || Investment unit cost (€/ha) || Operation and maintenance unit cost (€/ha/year) ||

Riparian forests || 7,527 || 502 ||

Aforestation /Reforestation /CCF || 3,310 || 500 ||

Urban (swales) || 163,174 || 30,024 ||

Urban (infiltration) || 783,234 || 73,211 ||

Urban (permeable surfaces) || 705,589 || 5,222 ||

Urban (Green Roofs) || 537,512 || 14,132 ||

Grassland || 0 || 371 ||

Buffer strips (along rivers/ arable land) || 48 || 509 ||

Soil conservation crop practices || 0 || 110 ||

No/ reduced tillage || 0 || 31 ||

Green Cover || 0 || 144 ||

Traditional terracing || 0 || 10,818 ||

Early Sowing || 0 || 61 ||

Buffer ponds || 53,360 || 58 ||

Wetland (restoration /creation) || 15,776 || 348 ||

Floodplain restoration || 258,647 || 25,865 ||

Re-meandering || 610 || 2 ||

Investment costs include land requirements (acquisition and compensation) and construction and rehabilitation (investment, design and contingency). Operational costs include operation and maintenance and administrative costs (enforcement costs, monitoring, extension of networks) and other costs (i.e. possible income loss).

The largest impact of these costs would be potentially on the affected land users, mainly farmers. They would need to go through a learning process and adapt their land practices; decreasing operating income and potentially increasing operational costs or they could sell their land and relocate. The extent of these impacts and the impact on the internal market will depend on the availability of support from a land compensation scheme or service payments. The increased adoption of green infrastructure could negatively impact the construction sector, by shifting away from grey infrastructure. One important aspect to consider is that the implementation of NWRMs upstream to reduce run-off can reduce the need for grey infrastructure projects downstream, thus saving costs as Green Infrastructure measures are often low cost solutions. In France, the economic benefits of natural water storage were calculated in terms of the replacement costs of building grey infrastructure like dams. Several studies indicate benefits ranging from € 37/ha/year to € 617/ha/year[14].

As discussed in this study different types of sources (scientific, case studies) recognise that these measures provide a wide range of benefits for flood control and provision of other ecosystem services especially water provision and purification. A cost-benefit analysis found that natural measures lead to flood protection benefits of around €740 million (all actualised benefits 2010-2100), recreational benefits of around €22 million and provide ecosystem services to the tune of around €130 million (Morris and Camino 2011).

Floods and associated damages is a serious concern for Europe. The baseline flood hazard damage, based on the 2010 GDP of the EU (€12,268.4 billion), is estimated for Europe in the following table (STELLA,2012 )

Reference || Flood damage

(% of GDP) || € billion/year

Annual average flow || 0.08 || 9.8

10 year flood period || 0.15 || 18.4

20 year flood period || 0.2 || 24.5

50 year flood period || 0.25 || 30.7

100 year flood period || 0.3 || 36.8

Flood protection and hazard reduction, a direct result of runoff reduction, is one of the most important benetics that can be valuated. Different measures have proven to make significant contribution to flood hazard reduction. Estimations for the marginal values of flood protection benefits for inland wetland restorations range from €37/ha/yr to €617/ha/yr (IEEP et al (2012a) and for coastal wetlands are estimated up to £ 2498 /ha/year for (Morris and Camino 2011). In terms of EU-wide scenario modelling performed by the JRC (JRC 2012) in the context ofthis Impact assessment effective regional NWRM measures can reduce flow peaks (averaged out for 21 RU regions > 3000 Km for a 20 year return period) by 1- 4 %. The impact is evident at the local level where these effects are pronounced: urban natural water retention measures for example in dense European cities can result in flood peaks reduction of up to 20 %, crop practices can lead to a reduction of flood peaks in certain sub-catchments (in Danube area) of up to 15 %. Site specific analyses can provide more detailed information for the impact of certain measures on specific catchments with local reductions of up to 50 % (WRC et al. 2012).

Increasing the storage capacity in the soil, landscape, and aquifers can lead to higher water availability in general (both in terms of groundwater and surface water), but especially to a more balanced situation in dry Summer months (JRC 2012). Urban Natural water retention measures for example can result local increase of low flows up to 20% in areas near Paris and London.

Beyond flood hazard reduction, water flow and quality regulation and is also associated with the increase of clean water availability which can have important economic benefits in terms of water stress reduction and water provisioning. In terms of benefits relating to increase of water availability the NWRM study (STELLA (2012)) estimates and groundwater recharge benefit to be proportionate to the groundwater abstraction cost (€0.055/m3). The increase of clean water availability can influence positively different sectors of the economy. Beyond the impacts that reduced water stress can have on agricultural and fisheries production, this can have significant impacts on industry and tourism. This impact is analysed with the hydro-economic modelling performed for this impact assessment.

There are positive and negative impacts for agricultural production. In addition to reduced water stress and the soil improvement impacts of certain agricultural related measures can result in increased soil fertility and improved agricultural production: Crop rotation and catch crops contributes to improving the health status of grown plants lead to a reduced need for N fertiliser application on the crops and/or a higher yield for the succeeding crop(s). For example N fertiliser is not needed for legume crops. Yields for a crop grown in rotation with other crops are usually 5 to 15% greater than for continuous monoculture of that same crop (WRC et al 2012, River Basin Network 2012)). More over certain measures can result in decrease production costs. Catch corps (in Southern regions) can lead to reduced irrigation needs and water consumption (River Basin Network (2012)). However certain measures that result in decrease of the arable land (even if CAP consistent) could result in decreased production It is therefore important to properly evaluate the impact of agriculture related measures that when performing CBA analysis the sustainability constraints are taken to consideration. Reduced tillage can also be driven by the cost reductions (e.g. fuel, equipment, and labour reduction). A case study in the Uckermark area, Denmark estimates cost savings of €28-70/ha/year or an average of €49/ha/year (EC-JRC 2009.

The improvement of water quality and quantity can have significant Avoided water treatment (drinking water) costs. ''High levels of nitrogen can result in increased costs for drinking water production and can result in missed revenue derived from recreation in and around waters (Elsin et al. 2010). A frequently used method of estimating the value of changes in land use or the results of river and wetland restoration consists of estimating the averted costs of water treatment (La Notte et al. 2012). These averted costs are a portion of the benefits that result from an improvement of the water quality as expressed by a reduction of nitrogen concentration. Cost savings are a social benefit and a straightforward way to link water quality changes to particular economic outcomes (Elsin et al. 2010).'' (PEER 2012)

The reduction of runoff especially in urban areas with SuDS can lead to reduction of drainage infrastructure cost. In terms of infrastructure SuDS construction costs can be as low as 1/4 of conventional drainage costs; for example £61,400 (for SuDS) as compared to £272,600 (conventional drainage) were required to reduce runoff at a UK school-site to greenfield rate. Beyond drainage infrastructure SuDS can reduce costs of waste water treatment infrastructure and can lead to avoided waste water treatment costs for areas with combined sewers systems. Retrofitting SuDS in urban areas involves disconnecting drained areas from sewer systems and using natural water retention to reduce both sewers overflows but also needs for treating rain- water in waste water treatment plants in Urban areas which can significantly decrease the investments and operational costs required for waste water treatment. (For conventional waste water treatment the operational cost of waste water treatment is on the average € 1.9/m3 (JRC 2012) and the capital investment is USD 593-741/m3 per day (€474 – 593/m3 per day). (OECD, 2012)).

These green infrastructure related measures under consideration can create opportunities for recreational activities which can lead to business developments and green job development which relates to social benefits. By improving cultural heritage Green Infrastructure projects increase the recreational benefits of an area, which enhances a region’s ability to attract tourism. A green infrastructure initiative in central England targeting has resulted in 20 new tourism attractions, and attracts 8.7m visitors annually, bringing tourism revenues of €321 million to the local economy (Naumann et al., 2011).

Social Impacts

Beyond the avoided costs and job opportunities that can be created the social benefits related to these measures can be viewed within the context of Green Infrastructure. As a result of access to green space and recreation opportunities include improved levels of physical activity, promotion of health and mental well-being, and facilitation of social interaction, inclusion and community cohesion. (Forest Research, 2010). In addition social impacts arise from an increase in temporary jobs due to project implementation and in full-time jobs for maintenance and from increased tourism opportunities and local recreation opportunities.

Social impacts related to job creation are highlighted by anecdotal evidence and serve as an indicator for potential impacts:

· Improved employment and labour markets:

· The restoration of riverside areas in Lyon, France created between 60-120 temporary jobs in 17 companies (Naumann et al., 2011).

· In the UK for every €1million spent on agri-environmental measures under the Environmental Stewardship scheme one Full-time job is supported (Mills, et al., 2010 in IEEP, 2011).

· An IA of promoting GI over grey infrastructure for flood management found that investments in ecosystem based solutions reduce jobs in sectors focusing on conventional flood management but an increase in jobs through GI projects negatives the loss and overall net effect as neutral (IEEP, 2011).

· Improved job quality: According to IEEP (2011), GI enhance labour productivity through improved health as a result of better air quality, green views, and increased outdoor recreational activities. IEEP references a 2009 Study of a forest project in England, which estimated annual net benefits of £20,000 as a result of reduced sick days, as well as annual cost savings of £13,000 as a result of improved health through physical recreation. In addition, the study found that better air quality resulted in net annual benefits at £116,000 due to less air pollution (Regeneris, 2009 in IEEP, 2011).

For many of the measures involving site restoration and environmental protection, existence value is an important ''non-use'' social benefit. This can have different origins including moral, spiritual, cultural heritage, and aesthetic reasons (Dana 2004). The Willingness to Pay (WTP), an estimate of what society is willing to pay for restoration actions can be an indication of value that individuals place on certain measures that focus on ecosystem protection. According to PEER (2012), a study in Danish catchment for WTP for ecological status improvement, concluded that the WTP for improving ecological status of lakes and fjords which originally have ''poor'' status to good / very good, ranged from 68.59 € person-1 year- to 128.77 € person-1 year. These values can be further affected by the individual income and distance to the water bodies. Similarly based on UK studies for estimating the non-market benefits, the average WTP for ecological status improvement of rivers and lakesis £55/household/year (Morris and Camino, 2011). A meta-analysis on WTP for wetland conservation provided an estimated function of WTP in terms of scope, income, and distance decay, for the EU-27 which ranges from €2 - €27 (annual per person) (Grossmann, 2012).

On the other hand, there are potential negative social impacts in case land users would abandon their land or would suffer from losing operating income/increased operating costs which are not compensated for.

Overall the impacts that are attributed to these measures can be summarized in the following table:

Impact Measure || Environmental || Economic || Social

Measures for controlling diffuse pollution, protecting ecosystems and promoting natural water retention || Improvement of chemical status of surface and ground water bodies Improvement of hydro morphological status of surface water bodies Improvement of biological status of surface water bodies Improvernt of quantitative status of groundwater bodies Regulation of flow and reduction of water resource vulnerability to CC (and other pressures) Habitat improvement Soil quality and functioning improvement Air quality improvent (sink for greenhouse gases) Positive influence on temperature and precipitation || Reduce flood hazard costs Reduce water stress and increase water availability benefits activities in different sectors (agriculture, fisheries, industry, tourism) Reduce waste water treatment costs (by reducing treated runoff) Reduce drinking water treatment costs (by improving water quality of ground and surface sources) Promote green growth (eco-tourism, and recreational services, eco-engineering and eco-design (i.e. SuDS) Carbon offsets || Improved access to sufficient and high quality water Reduce stress related to impacts of extreme events (scarcity and floods) Provide a healthier /pleasant living environment Provide access / proximity to nature with recreational opportunities Existence value (moral, spiritual, cultural, aesthetic…)

2.1.3. Barriers for implementation

Market failures:

As discussed above cost effectiveness of the measure is not always evident (especially since certain ESS can not be accounted for). Certain measures require a large investment. Because of the scale of measure applicability there is the issue that different stakeholders bear the costs and different stakeholders receive the benefits. Thus financing becomes a key issue.

Also implementation of these measures could lead to loss of revenues as they often provoke land-use changes, involving the extensification of farming practices, losing productive land and decreasing productivity. In addition, land with economic value would be necessary to implement the measures and to restore or connect the landscape (STELLA (2012)). Payments for Ecosystem Services based on private initiatives could be an effective tool for resolving conflicts, and compensating market failures to address these loses, but there is still need for a wider methodological framework for its application and this tool is not always feasible for application by non private entities.

Financing sources

So far these measures have been implemented to some degree through co-financing of EU funds, such as the LIFE Programme, but these funds are not enough for a wide implementation of these measures. Other EU funds such as the Structural and Cohesion funds are being used for fairly large investments (tens or hundreds of million euros) of man-made measures such as dikes, have not yet been utilized natural retention water measures investments (STELLA (2012)). Some of the EU policies, such as the CAP, provide subsidies to compensate for losses related to land use / practice changes. The EU's rural development policy has been rather more successful at channelling funding into investments in ecosystem protection (as well as into annual payments serving similar objectives) – though there have been obstacles to doing so (e.g. the limited duration of rural development programmes, the need to find match-funding from national / regional budgets, other objectives competing for funding).

Regulatory support

Certain barriers in terms of integrating these measures with other policy implementation actions can attributed directly to regulatory support in the EU and MS level. There is lack of binding targets in EU policies (and funding instruments) and prospects for supporting the measures only through voluntary measures resulting in lack of motivation, discretionary power to MS can lead to low uptake of the measures (i.e CAP, Cohesion, Structural).

The measures may simultaneously impact stakeholders representing different sectors leading to potential conflicts of different land users especially if their multifunctionality is not properly exploited. This is more complicated because while the ''burden'' of these measures in terms of cost (and land use management) are quantifiable in a local level the benefits are often fully quantifiable in a larger scale (even though there are local benefits). EU policies influence LU with different constraints (WFD, FD, Nature and Biodiversity, Cohesion, CAP), but spatial planning is decided on MS level. Even though the objectives of different policies could be simultaneously achieved under these measures, that are multifunctional by nature resulting in decreased land demand on a national scale, the implications on the local scale and stake-holders need to be addressed and resolved with an integrated spatial planning that accounts for these requirements.

Lack of concrete rules or definitions

The lack of concrete rules /definitions in relation to these measures, or the scope of existing rules, can lead to reduced uptake of these measures, and/ or reduced efficiency of the implemented measures.

The timing of guidelines issuing in relationship to policy implementation can also be crucial. For WFD for example Climate change was introduced in CGD24, published in 2009; therefore it was too late to be included in most of the first management cycle of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP), and is recommended for the second management cycle of the RBMPs (2015) and the Flood Risk Management Plans in 2015.

As more information becomes available through further investigations, hydro morphological measures should be defined and described in the river basin management plans (e.g. their geographical extent, technical details). Methods used to define minimum ecological flow requirements (national or regional methods) should be clearly indicated in the plans. On EU level, there is a need for more standardised methods and development of a common understanding for setting minimum ecological flow. In the Member States, monitoring programmes should target stretches where minimum flows are applied, to gain further knowledge on the specific effects of minimum flow application on biological quality elements. In combination with lack of guidance, training and tools that would lead to wider implementation of these measures at EU level, the lack of skilled personnel in particular posts, or lack of NWRM knowledge and skills in certain sections (forestry/agriculture), In some cases the main obstacle for the implementation of measures (i.e. early sowing/filter swales) is that they are unknown /or that their effectiveness is underappreciated . More over regional authorities do not have tools or capacity to implement the climate check and take to account climate change in planning programs of measures (STELLA (2012)).

Technical barriers that hinder the development of concrete rules include:

– Lack of tools for quantification of certain benefits (i.e. correlation of measure's impact to specific ESS indicator). This can be cumbersome for certain ESS i.e. provision of habitat or impact on water quality (IEEP et al. 2012a).

– Lack of practical economic valuation tools and comprehensive CBA methodologies especially for valuation of benefits and assessment of trade offs (IEEP et al. 2012a Ecologic Instituted and GHK Consulting 2011) are not mainstream (still need development)

Lack of coordination

Implementation of these measures requires co-ordination between different levels of authorities (national, regional, local) and broad range of stakeholders (i.e. farmers) representing different sectors. This would require dynamic, flexible, and well integrated and efficient governance structures.

Coordination is also important for the long-term maintaining proper measure implementation. Certain measures (i.e. SuDS) require commitment for continuous management / maintenance of public areas which bring additional costs and administrative burden on local management authorities (Northern Ireland Environmental Agency 2011). Maintenance can be crucial for other measure effectiveness for example if riparian forests are not maintained properly they could have adverse impacts on floods ((STELLA (2012)).

In addition to long-term action, certain measures i.e. establishment of terracing require collective action in order to become most effective, therefore requiring some formalized form of commitment which would also need regulatory support (i.e. requirement in the CAP for large scale action for certain payments).

With respect to hydromorphological measures, RBMPs should be precise on the expected effects, especially on the way they are expected to improve the GES/GEP at water body level. Moreover programmes of Measures should distinguish between hydromorphological measures proposed for natural and for heavily modified or artificial water bodies. The linkage between specific water uses, types of hydromorphological pressures and specific hydrohydro morphological measures should be detailed in the river basin management plans.

Societal barriers

Beyond legislation requirements, the objective of achieving good ecological status is not considered as a priority by society. This can be attributed to the fact that its is taken out of its broader social and economic context, and in order to be more appreciated by stakeholders the linkage to the societal benefits needs to be demonstrated. (Everard 2012)

More over respect to reducing vulnerability to extreme events, there is difficulty for the society to accept the impact that soft measures may have, and as a result there is lack of willingness to support them (STELLA (2012)).. This difficulty is partly related to the lack of knowledge regarding using nature's capacity and natural approaches for protecting environmental resources and reducing their vulnerability, and minimizing related risks. There are misconceptions about technological / grey infrastructure solutions being always superior and necessary to deal with environmental problems and CC related risks and extreme events and lack of awareness to the potential of ecosystem services to provide the solution or to be part of the solution. (For example the removal of hard bank stabilisation could be rejected by riparian populations due to fear of losing control over floods.)

Overall there is lack of prioritization for nature conservation in general and long-term water resource protection. Society is mostly interested on immediate impacts rather than long term impacts that, so there is resistance to change practices if the problems are not pressing, or if it is not evident that the solution will have an immediate and effective response. To this, it is important to involve – at all stages - farmers on the definition and planning of measures ensuring a common understanding of objectives. It is necessary that farmers are absolutely committed to the implementation of measures – including the acceptance of pricing policies.

Societal resistance is also related to the lack of incentives (i.e. financial) for promoting such soft measures. However even if compensations are offered, there is resistance to change practices if the problems to be solved by the land use management concerns a different group of stakeholders (i.e. downstream) in which case incentives need to be stronger.

Finally land owners believe they should have freedom for deciding management practices that will provide them biggest returns and resistance can be attributed to insecurities that related to potential loss of income.

Political barriers

Despite the ambitious targets of WFD, the main problem against action is lack of political will for establishment of binding targets in particular to mandatory measures for land users. The political will could be adversely affected by all other barriers, in particular societal, financial, and timing. One major characteristic of these measures is that they are often cross-sectoral and this can lead to different type of barriers i.e. opposition to specific leadership focus.

Timing barriers can reduce political will. Some measures (i.e. forestry) benefits are not immediate, they start becoming effective after certain years for example in CCF project it took 30 to 40 years for the diversity of structure to become apparent. This can lead to measures loosing societal interests and political influence

These barriers can be tackled with different responses. Knowledge base for technical barriers (and other) and societal, Integration for spatial, timing, financial, Governance for institutional, and timing, Economic Incentives for financial and societal and political will can be affected by all types of responses.

2.1.4. Degree of implementation as reflected by the RBMPs

Certain measures that promote natural water retention and protect the ecosystems by targeting diffuse pollution, and improving ecological status and potential are included in the RBMPs (measures for restoring hydromorphological conditions, agricultural measures,), but their scope and timing are often unclear and exemptions are foreseen. There is therefore scope for a wider implementation of these measures, with a larger perspective.

A significant proportion of RBMPs include measures to restore hydromorphological conditions of surface water bodies (e.g. buffer strips, restoration of wetlands or floodplains) or measures ensuring the continuity of the river body for fish migration or sediment transport. However, the high proportion of exemptions applied by the MS indicate that the expected level of implementation of these measures is far from that needed to achieve good ecological status. As regards protected areas, 60% of the plans include measures to protect water bodies used for the production of drinking water, including safeguard zones, which are also NWRM.

NWRM measures were implemented in some countries as part of climate checks of RBMP (STELLA (2012)). In Ireland a climate check was carried out when elaborating the Programmes of Measures; for example the Western River Basin District River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) has gone through a climate check and proposes no-regret measures and win-win measures including establishing buffer zones of agricultural land to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution, ecological improvements for increasing the water retention capacity of soil and helping against increased flood risk, altered and the creation of buffers around water bodies to improve the soil and subsoil water retention and reduce the flood risk. In Germany the River Elbe RBMP refers to the catalogue of measures published by the Working Group Water of the Länder (LAWA), and has already integrated no-regret measures into its planning that promote restoration of typical run-off and natural retention. Another example is the Tisza River’s RBMP, which covers parts of Ukraine, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Serbia. This RBMP states that aquatic ecosystems are more resilient to the impact of climate change when they are healthy and well maintained stating that any action geared towards more resilient ecosystems is a no-regret measure. Overall however this Green Infrastructure approach for reducing vulnerability of water resources is currently still under-exploited. The environmental impacts of forestry are acknowledged in certain cases but they are not necessarily linked to WFD objectives.

Several RBMP from other countries also mention no-regret measures to some extend. According to the preliminary analysis of RBMP,(WRC et al 2012, EC 2012c) hydro morphology measures have been introduced in water management, for example re-meandering is measures are proposed in 32 % of the plans and natural bank stabilization (removal of structures) in 70 %.

In 40% of RBDs (48 of 119 RBDs reported by Member States), no clear links were reported between uses, pressures, and hydromorphological measures but there is partial information on links between uses and measures or between pressures and measures. For example, a plan may indicate the number of fish passes proposed to restore river continuity at specific barriers, but the water uses which these barriers serve are not stated (e.g. navigation, hydropower etc.).

In the case of hydropeaking which is a pressure related to the use of water for hydropower, the ecological status of water bodies can be improved through operational modifications (e.g. downstream “buffer” reservoirs) that reduce the volume and frequency of artificially generated abrupt waves and avoid extreme water level fluctuations. In RBDs which report the interruption of longitudinal continuity (dams, weirs, impoundments) due to hydropower use, fish ladders, bypass channels or removal of structures have been proposed as measures in different combinations. In RBDs with HMWBs designated due to hydropower (91 out of 119 RBDs), relevant measures proposed to deal with hydropower-related pressures are varying. In ca. 65-70% of these RBDs, removal of structures and fish ladders are proposed, but only 30% of these RBDs propose operational modifications of hydropeaking.

With respect to targeting diffuse pollution the Member States have all included agricultural measures in the programmes of measures with a great variety of technical, non-technical measures or economic instruments relevant to water protection in agriculture. The measures that have been applied in different river basins of various member states included establishment of Wetlands, Buffer Strips, cover crops and catch crops, crop rotation, conversion of arable land to grass land, and woodland creation ((WRC et al 2012, River Basin Network 2012). However it remains unclear to what extent the measures will deliver and will enable the river basins to reach the good status of water. The scope of the measures (e.g. type / number of farms targeted, geographical coverage expected), the timing and the financing are often unclear. In particular the link with the Rural Development Programmes is often missing (only present clearly in 60% of the RBMPs). Moreover the hydromorphological impact of agriculture is not always sufficiently acknowledged and addressed in the plans, and the potential of these measures for nature water retention is not fully exploited. Finally there was little involvement of the farmers in the preparation of the first RBMPs and in the practical selection of the measures (the level of involvement has been assessed as significant in 18%, moderate in 30% and basic in 30% of the RBMPs.

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

Integration

The new greening component of the CAP legal proposal for Pillar I has potential for supporting these measures provided that the implementing rules support these actions. The maintenance of permanent pastures is important for measure "Restoring Meadows and Pastures'' as long as the baseline selected for preservation target is not distorted by the time the measure enters to effect. The ecological focus areas could be applied for traditional terracing, afforestation of agricultural land, riparian forests, basins and ponds, buffer strips along water courses and arable land, and certain Sustainable drainage systems for example filter strips and swales. Restoration of riparian areas is important in agriculture landscapes, and is at the expense of a very small percentage of land (less than 0.5% according to EEA estimates). The Ecological Focused Area proposed by the Commission in the CAP pillar I proposal, if used wisely along water courses (i.e. in a contiguously), together with the EAFRD, can play a very important role in promoting the restoration of riparian areas in the agricultural context.

Concerning cross compliance the agriculture NWRM could be supported through different GAECs (buffer strips, soil conservation crop practices, nor or reduced tillage, early sowing, and traditional terracing). Moreover, WFD in cross compliance as an SMR has the potential to include NWRM though in a preliminary stage it would only include basic requirements.

Streamlining with other environmental policies is important. The links of WFD with Nature directives were recently highlighted in the FAQ (http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/thematic_documents/biodiversity_water/faq-wfd-bhd_20dec2011/_EN_1.0_&a=d) and in a discussion paper on the synergies of Water, Marine, Biodiversity, and Nature objectives agreed by the water directors(http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/thematic_documents/biodiversity_water/biodiv-water-marine/_EN_1.0_&a=d ). The Common Implementation Framework of Nature and Biodiversity policy is developing a framework on ecosystem and ecosystem services mapping, and a no net loss initiative. Synergies with these initiatives will be explored. Similar efforts are on-going for streamlining of monitoring and reporting of monitoring results under the NiD, WFD and SoE. Most natural water retention measures can be regarded as a component of Green Infrastructure contributing to integrated goals dealing with nature and biodiversity conservation and restoration, landscaping, etc. and therefore should be supported by the up-coming Green Infrastructure strategy, which could contribute to resolving integrated spatial planning conflicts. Finally it is expected that these measures will be supported by the Climate Adaptation Strategy since they are adaptation measures.

Funding

The Common Strategic Framework (CSF) funds, and more specifically the EARDF, ERDF, and Cohesion funds, could be exploited for funding these measures.

With respect to EAFRD there are possibilities to fund these measures through several rural development articles including investments in farm improvements, forest area developments, afforestation and creation of woodland, prevention and restoration of damage to forests, investments for the resilience and environmental value of forest ecosystems, Agri-environment- climate commitments, Natura 2000 and Water framework directive payments, forest-environmental and climate services and forest conservation., In the scope of agri-environment-climate payments there could be scope to clarify the possible relevance of these payments to water through delegated acts implementing the rural development regulation. Related capacity building could be enhanced using the knowledge transfer and information actions, the farm advisory services, and the co-operation actions, can help promote this green infrastructure approach and help overcome certain barriers. In the CAP legal proposal it is stipulated that the WFD should be considered in the Farm Advisory Services in the next CAP. The LEADER action provides additional opportunities for public-private partnerships and inter-territorial and transnational co-operation and this can receive support from other CSF funds. According to the Commission's proposal for rural development policy for after 2013, Member States / regions would have to analyse their water-related needs within the system of strategic programming and, if appropriate, choose measures to address those needs

.

These measures can play a positive role in sustainable development (urban and rural) and create employment opportunities. Exploring funding possibilities through Cohesion and ERD funds is encouraged as they can relate to the different investment priorities including (promoting low-carbon strategies for urban areas, supporting dedicated investment for adaptation to climate change, addressing the significant needs for investment in the water sector, protecting and restoring biodiversity, improving the urban environment). Again the degree of to which these measures will be supported with the Cohesion and ERD funds depends highly on the investment priorities that are included in the operational programs for each Member State but also to the selection of investments that is made to support these priorities. It is up to the MS to decide for example if grey or green infrastructure investments will be made for flood protection (considering flood protection is set to as a priority). Another inhibiting factor is the lack of tangible indicators related to these measures. As it is required that the operational programs identify specific indicators for monitoring purposes, it is crucial for NWRM and other measures related to ecosystem protection to be correlated to quantifiable and clear indicators.

The multifunctionality of the measures renders them possible for integrated territorial investments (ITI) for the ERDF and Cohesion Funds, as they can be related to more than one priority axis of one or more operational programmes. For example investments in Continuous Cover Forestry (to substitute clear-felling systems) can deliver objectives under protecting the environment priorities – addressing the needs of water sector (improving groundwater quality and quantity) and protecting biodiversity and soil protection and promoting ESS (positive impact on habitats, improved soil structure and organic content) but also in promoting climate change adaptation and risk prevention and management (flood hazard reduction). It will be however essential for the MS to have access to information, tools, and guidance to identify and select measures that provide optimum benefits for several areas and sectors. More over the essential governance structures for effective collaboration between sectors will need to be in place.

Knowledge base

The “LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance guidelines” indicate favourable recommendations under the listed themes (e.g., forests, water, soil, climate change, etc.) and to some degree projects in line with the concept of natural water retention were funded. In the 2012 call there are specific references and opportunities for NWRM in the Life Environment. Moreover opportunities are provided for Development best practice examples for integration of WFD concerns into sector policies (including improving fish migration, habitat restoration, reducing eutrophication sources) and green / blue infrastructures.

Under the new regulations for 2014-2020 opportunities for funding could be feasible both under the Climate Action and the Environment Action subprograms. Under the Climate Action possible funding is expected thought the Climate Adaptation Priority Area, as these measures target reducing vulnerability of water resources to CC, and under the Environment Action funding is expected both under the Environment and Resource efficiency and the Biodiversity priority areas. However even though the scope of LIFE funding is expanded to certain degree with the inclusion of integrated projects the budget is small compared to other instruments, allowing for a small number of integrated projects. The instrument is mostly indented to provide best case examples with demonstration and /or innovation aspects. Projects that try to fill in knowledge gaps, demonstrate applicability, and provide tools for overcoming barriers would be good candidates. This can assist policy development, however it funding through this instrument cannot provide the investments needed for un-locking these measures.

Research funding mechanisms i.e. FP6, FP7 have supported research projects in environment related thematic areas filling in the knowledge gaps that are be related to certain technical barriers, as well as projects development of knowledge brokerage tools (i.e. WISE-RTD[15]). Other science Policy interfacing activities, such as the ad-hoc Science-Policy Interfacing Activity under the WFD Common Implementation Framework also contribute to accelerating research results dissemination and improving transfer and usability of relevant research outputs. The European Innovation Partnership on Water (EC COM(2012) 216 final) also has the potential to support partnerships and innovative ecosystem-based solutions that involve measures described above.

Governance issues

In relationship to the WFD, NWRM could be further promoted for the program of measures (for both basic/supplementary). They can contribute to achieving WFD environmental objectives, safeguarding water quality, reducing diffuse pollution, enhancing hydromorpological conditions, ensuring GW recharge, reducing water resource vulnerability to CC, and serving as CC adaptation measures in relation to water management.

In addition to GD12 and GD24, new guidance documents could be developed for identifying the role of these measures for achieving WFD and FD objectives. (or thematic guidelines for different group i.e. forest measures, SuDS, etc.). In terms of ''unlocking'' the measures their implementation this can be done within the scope of any future activity that focuses on implementing the ESS with RBMPs, NWRM can be an example of applying the Ecosystem Services Approach.

2.2. Measures improving water availability

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):

Reuse alternative || Recommended treatment process || Annual costs (€/m³)a, b

Agriculture || Activated sludge[16] || 0.16-0.44

Livestock || Trickling filter || 0.17-0.46

Industry and power generation || Rotating biological contactors || 0.25-0.47

Urb