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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the range of neutral to significantly positive depending on to what extent it is followed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the range of neutral to significantly positive depending on to what extent it is followed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Box 2 Example from Spain: it was estimated the desalination installation at Carboneras – Europe’s largest reverse osmosis plant - uses one third of the electricity supplied to Almeria province. The more than 700 Spanish desalination plants produce about 1.6 million m3 of water per day. According to the estimates (1.78 kg of CO2 per m3 of water) on CO2 production from desalination, this translates into about 2.8 million kg CO2 per day. It can be argued therefore that desalination is contributing significantly to Spain’s overall GHG emissions of XX per year, which have increased to +19.4% in 2015 compared to 1990 levels . This may be a foretaste of the dilemmas and choices between different adaptation options that Member States will face in future years as the impacts of climate change are felt increasingly widely (Ecologic 2008).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total that can be allocated near WWTPs, regardless of cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guidance document on safety of agricultural products with a "fit-for-purpose" approach (minimum quality requirements set depending on the food crop category and irrigation technique) and protection of local public health and of the environment (the Risk Management Framework)

- an accompanying Guidance on the implementation of the Key Risk Management Principles to be elaborated together with MS

Legal instrument ensuring safety of agricultural products with a "fit-for-purpose" approach (minimum quality requirements set depending on the food crop category and irrigation technique) and protection of local public health and of the environment (the Key Risk Management Framework Principles)

- an accompanying Guidance on the implementation of the Key Risk Management Principles to be elaborated together with MS

Legal instrument ensuring safety of agricultural products with a "one-size-fits-all" approach (the most stringent minimum quality requirements set regardless of the food crop category and irrigation technique) and protection of local public health and of the environment (the Key Risk Management Framework Principles)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The general objective is to contribute to alleviating water scarcity across the EU, in the context of adaptation to climate change, by increasing the uptake of water reuse for agricul