COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Communication Report on the Review of the water scarcity & droughts policy in the EU
Date: 2012-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: drought, price regulations, use of water, water consumption, water management in agriculture, water protection

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 14.11.2012  
SWD(2012) 380 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Communication Report on the Review of the water scarcity & droughts policy in the EU

Accompanying the document 

{COM(2012) 672 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Contents 

1. 

INTEGRATION OF WATER SCARCITY AND DROUGHTS ISSUES 
INTO THE RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS......................................... 5 

1.1. 

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 5 

1.2.  Relevance of Water Scarcity and Droughts....................................................... 5 

1.2.1.  Occurrence of Drought ........................................................................ 6 

1.2.2.  Occurrence of Water Scarcity ............................................................. 6 

1.3.  Causes of Droughts and Water scarcity............................................................. 7 

1.3.1.  Causes of Droughts.............................................................................. 7 

1.3.2.  Causes of Water Scarcity..................................................................... 7 

1.4.  Effects of Water Scarcity and Droughts............................................................ 8 

1.5.  Data on water demand and water availability trend scenarios .......................... 8 

1.5.1.  Water demand trend scenarios............................................................. 8 

1.5.2.  Water availability trend scenarios ....................................................... 9 

1.6.  Measures to deal with Water Scarcity and Droughts ........................................ 9 

1.7. 

Inter-linkages between Water Scarcity and sector policies............................. 11 

1.8.  Quality of data and assumptions...................................................................... 12 

1.9.  Transboundary cooperation on Water Scarcity and Droughts ........................ 12 

2.  EX-POST ASSESSMENT OF THE 2007 COMMUNICATION ....................... 14 

2.1.  Putting the right price tag on water ................................................................. 14 

2.1.1.  Review of existing initiatives ............................................................ 14 

2.1.2.  Evaluation of initiatives..................................................................... 15 

2.2.  Allocating water and water-related funding more efficiently ......................... 17 

2.2.1. 

Improving land-use planning............................................................. 17 

2.2.2.  Financing water efficiency ................................................................ 20 

2.3. 

Improving drought risk management .............................................................. 23 

2.3.1.  Review of existing initiatives ............................................................ 23 

2.3.2.  Evaluation of initiatives..................................................................... 25 

2.4.  Considering additional water supply infrastructures....................................... 27 

2.4.1.  Review of existing initiatives ............................................................ 27 

2.4.2.  Evaluation of initiatives..................................................................... 28 

2.5.  Fostering water efficient technologies and practices....................................... 29 

2.5.1.  Review of existing initiatives ............................................................ 29 

2.5.2.  Evaluation of initiatives..................................................................... 29 

2.6.  Fostering the emergence of a water-saving culture in Europe ........................ 31 

2.6.1.  Review of existing initiatives ............................................................ 31 

 
 
2.6.2.  Evaluation of initiatives..................................................................... 32 

2.7. 

Improving knowledge and data collection ...................................................... 33 

2.7.1.  Water scarcity and drought information system................................ 33 

2.7.2.  Research and technological development opportunities ................... 36 

3 

 
 
 
4 

 
 
1. 

INTEGRATION OF WATER SCARCITY AND DROUGHTS ISSUES INTO THE RIVER 

BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

1.1.  Introduction 

As  part  of  the  overall  assessment  of  the  River  Basin  Management  Plans  (RBMPs) 
submitted  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  a  specific  assessment  has  been 
completed  to  see  how  water  scarcity  and  droughts  have  been  considered  in  plans.  This 
report  includes  information  found  in  the  RBMPs  that  have  been  delivered  by  Member 
States,  covering  most  of  the  EU  with  the  exception  of  PT,  EL,  parts  of  ES  and  BE. 
Additional  information  from  MS  and  stakeholders  has  been  taken  into  account  as 
relevant. 

RBMPs analysed 

1.2.  Relevance of Water Scarcity and Droughts 

The  first  aspect  that  has  been  assessed  is  whether  the  RBMPs  have  identified  either 
droughts  or  water  scarcity  as  relevant  issues  for  the  River  Basin  Districts,  and  if  they 
have been adequately differentiated according to their causes. The assessment shows that 
for 14 RBDs Water Scarcity and Droughts (WS&D) are not clearly distinguished or the 
information on this matter is not clear. 

Both  drought  and  water  scarcity  are  said  to  take  place  together  in  the  majority  of  the 
RBDs where they are considered as relevant phenomena (23 RBDs). 

5 

 
 
 
1.2.1.  Occurrence of Drought 

Droughts are reported in the plans for a wide range of RBDs across Europe, although the 
results  from  the  screening  exercise  show  that  approximately  40%  (44  RBDs)  of  the 
RBMPs  assessed,  do  not  consider  drought  as  a  relevant  phenomenon.  According  to  10 
RBMPs, drought spells are recognised as RBD-wide phenomena, and for 27 other RBDs, 
local or sub-basins drought spells are reported. In 15 RBDs, droughts and water scarcity 
affect part of or the entire basin, but the two conditions are not clearly distinguished.  

1.2.2.  Occurrence of Water Scarcity 

Water  scarcity  is  reported  in  a  number  of  RBDs  across  Europe,  but  in  41%  of  the 
screened  RBDs  (46  RBDs),  the  plans  do  not  consider  water  scarcity  as  a  relevant 
concern.  For  9  RBDs  river  basin-wide  water  scarcity  was  reported  and  for  32  RBDs, 
local or sub-basin water scarcity was reported. In 15 RBDs, droughts and water scarcity 
affect  part  of  or  the  entire  basin,  but  water  scarcity  and  droughts  are  not  clearly 
distinguished.  

Therefore,  according  to  the  assessment,  41  RBMPs  clearly  report  water  scarcity 
phenomena.  The  list  of  RBDs  facing  water  scarcity  includes  almost  the  whole  EU 
Mediterranean  area,  but  also  some  areas  in  Central,  Eastern  and  Northern  Europe  with 
significant water scarcity at local level, mainly due to large water usage in comparison to 
availability. The maps above and underneath respectively show the European RBDs and 
the  occurrence  of  droughts  and  water  scarcity  as  reflected  by  the  RBMPs.  The  results 
show that drought is not only common in Southern Europe, but also in other parts of the 
EU. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
1.3.  Causes of Droughts and Water scarcity 

1.3.1.  Causes of Droughts 

The  most  common  causes  of  drought  are  irregular  rainfall  patterns  (43  RBDs)  and  the 
decrease in natural available resources (34 RBDs), but only in 50% of the corresponding 
RBMPs quantitative data are reflected. Moreover, only 26 of these RBDs consider both 
as  drivers  for  droughts,  showing  the  misconception  that  droughts  are  only  a  natural 
meteorological  phenomenon  due  to  irregular  rainfall  patterns  that  decreases  natural 
available water resources independent from water use.  

Only 19 RBMPs have reported causes not related with the meteorological nature of the 
phenomenon  such  as  past  and  current  water  over-allocation,  new  water  demands  from 
agriculture and tourism or water use technologies that do not foster efficient water use. 
Some RBMPs do not include information on the causes of droughts, although the RBDs 
are said to be affected by this phenomenon. 

1.3.2.  Causes of Water Scarcity  

According to the RBMPs, water scarcity situations in RBDs are also (mainly) caused by 
irregular  rainfall  patterns  (for  40  RBDs)  and  a  decrease  in  natural  available  water 
resources  (for  36  RBDs),  though  only  1/3  of  the  plans  provide  data  that  support  this 
analysis.  

Only  17  RBMPs  recognise  past  and  current  over  allocation  of  resources  as  a  cause  of 
water  scarcity  problems  and  a  similar  number  of  RBMPs  identify  new  water  demands 
(for urban uses, agriculture, industrial and tourism sector) as causes for upcoming water 
scarcity problems (e.g. RBDs from AT, CZ, EE, FI, FR, IT and UK). 

7 

 
 
 
1.4.  Effects of Water Scarcity and Droughts 

From the screening exercise of the RBMPs, different effects were identified and can be 
expected  to  be  caused  by  past,  current  and  future  droughts  spells  or  water  scarcity 
scenarios, depending on their frequency and magnitude. 

•  Degradation  of  surface  water  quality  was  reported  as  a  significant  effect  for 
both  drought  (23  RBDs)  and  water  scarcity  (30  RBDs)  situations.  Other 
“environmental  effects”,  such  as  the  degradation  of  groundwater  quality  and 
wetlands degradation are also identified as main effects of WS&D according to 
the  assessment.  The  disruption  of  ecological  flow  regime,  was  reported  as  an 
effect  for  16  RBDs  in  the  case  of  drought  spells  and  for  30  RBDs  for  water 
scarcity. 

•  Urban water supply shortages were reported as an effect (and also expected in 
future scenarios) both for drought spells (18 RBDs) and water scarcity situations 
(32 RBDs). 

•  Groundwater  over-abstraction  was  reported  as  an  effect  in  13  RBDs  for 

droughts and in 36 RBDs for water scarcity scenarios. 

•  Economic  losses  in  the  agricultural  sector,  in  the  tourism  sector  or  in  the 
industrial  sector  were  surprisingly  not  reported  as  significant  effects  for  the 
majority of the RBMPs assessed. The main effects are mentioned for agriculture, 
in only 5 RBDs (due to drought) and 6 RBDs (due to water scarcity). 

1.5.  Data on water demand and water availability trend scenarios 

Regarding  the  assessment  on  water  demands  and  water  availability  (for  both  current 
situations and trend scenarios) the different RBMPs present a varying level of detail and 
analysis.  

1.5.1.  Water demand trend scenarios 

The  RBMPs  contain  data  on  water  demand  trend  scenarios  for  almost  35%  of  the 
screened RBDs and for the majority of them the data are also analysed by water use type. 
The  completeness  of  the  timeline  of  these  projections  (e.g.  2015,  2021  and  2027)  and 
information  regarding  the  geographical  scope,  magnitude  and  trend  data  for  each 
itemised water use, have not been assessed. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Trend scenarios are provided itemised  by water use

Trend scenarios are provided but are not itemised by water use

No data on future trend scenarios are provided

Others

Not clear

However, it is worrying that almost 50% of the assessed RBMPs do not include data on 
future  trend  scenarios.  This  is  particularly  problematic  for  those  RBDs  that  have 
identified WS&D as RBD-wide issues. 

8 

 
 
 
1.5.2.  Water availability trend scenarios 

Regarding the analysis of the water availability trends, the assessment shows that in less 
than 25% of the RBMPs, these scenarios are provided; in addition, only around 8% of the 
RBMPs provide itemised data (by water type). The completeness of the timeline of these 
projections  (e.g.  2015,  2021,  2027)  and  information  regarding  the  geographical  scope, 
magnitude and trend data for each itemised water type have not been assessed so far. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Trend scenarios itemised by type of water

Trend scenarios are provided but are not itemised by type of water

No data on future trend scenarios are provided

Others

Not clear

However,  it  is  clear  that  in  more  than  50%  of  the  assessed  RBMPs,  no  data  on  future 
water  availability  trend  scenarios  are  provided.  This  is  particularly  worrying  for  those 
RBDs that have identified WS&D as RBD-wide issues. 

1.6.  Measures to deal with Water Scarcity and Droughts  

A set of 22 specific measures to deal with water scarcity and droughts were selected as 
parameter to analyse the completeness of the battery of measures considered in the plans 
of  the  different  European  RBDs.  In  addition  to  the  “standard”  set  of  measures,  some 
RBMPs  include  other  actions,  which  were  also  taken  into  account  in  the  screening 
exercise. The figure below summarizes the results of the assessment. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Subsidies for shifting to less water-demanding  land uses

Modification of the water pricing system to foster a more efficient use of water

Measures to enhance the resilience of the ecosystems to water scarcity and droughts

Restrictions to new urban developments

Restrictions to new irrigation schemes

Improvement of the efficiency of water agricultural uses

Reduction of losses in urban distribution networks

Adoption of binding performance criteria for new buildings and for public and private networks

Reduction/ management  of groundwater abstraction (e.g. by controls, registers)

Measures to enhance water metering

Development of fiscal or economic incentives for the promotion of water efficient devices or practices

Establishment  of water rights markets or schemes to facilitate  water reallocation

Development of Drought Risk Managment  Plans

Measures to enhance water governance

Training, education and capacity-building in water saving

Studies, research and pilot projects to solve water scarcity problems and improve the response to droughts

Promotion of rainwater harvesting

Measures to increase treated water re-use

Measures to foster aquifer recharge

Development or upgrade of reservoirs or other water regulation works

Development or upgrade of water transfer schemes

Development or upgrade of desalination plants

Other measures

Not included

Included but unable to assess significance

Low importance

Moderate importance

High importance

The “top-5” list of measures considered within the RBMPs assessed includes:  

1.  Reduction/management of groundwater abstraction 

2.  Training, education and capacity building in water saving,  

9 

 
 
 
 
3.  Studies, research and pilot projects to solve water scarcity problems and improve 

the response to droughts,  

4.  Reduction of losses in urban distribution networks 

5.  Modification of the water pricing system to foster a more efficient use of water 

Great  efforts  are  said  to  be  planned  for  the  reduction/  management  of  groundwater 
abstraction (considering that it is included in >90% of RBMPs, and reflected as a priority 
in  more  than  60%  of  these  plans).  However,  the  positive  impact  of  this  measure  still 
remains unclear, especially taking into consideration that other “enabling” measures that 
are pre-conditions or should support its implementation (e.g. measures to enhance water 
metering) are much less present in the RBMPs priorities.  

In  spite  of  the  investments  and  efforts  planned  (in  the  mid  and  long-term)  regarding 
studies, research, pilot projects, training, education and capacity building (in aprox. 55 % 
of the RBMPs), the impact of these measures is unclear, given the general nature. 

Measures envisaged in about half of the assessed RBMPs include the modification of the 
water pricing system to foster a more efficient use of water (in 49% of the RBMPs), the 
improvement  of  the  efficiency  of  water  agricultural  uses  (also  present  in  45%  of  the 
RBMPs),  measures  to  enhance  water  metering  (in  40%  of  the  RBMPs)  or  measures  to 
increase treated water reuse (in 50% of the RBMPs). 

Measures  included  in  the  “other  measures”  category  such  as  ecological  reconstruction 
(restoring  longitudinal  and  lateral  connectivity),  use  of  best  available  techniques  in 
industry, 
the 
authorizations for abstractions with the needs of the aquatic environment, are included in 
a great proportion of the RBMPs assessed.  

improving  knowledge  on  future  water  demands  or  reconciling 

Among  the  measures  that  are  less  common  within  the  RBMPs,  the  development  or 
upgrade of desalination plants and the establishment of water rights markets or schemes 
to facilitate water reallocation are the least considered. According to the assessment, the 
restrictions  to  new  water-demands  (urban,  irrigation)  are  planned  only  for  15%  of  the 
assessed  RBMPs;  and  –even  more  worrying  –  only  in  one  basin  out  of  the  41  water-
scarce RBDs in Europe. 

Measures to enhance the resilience of the ecosystems (e.g. ensuring minimum ecological 
flow)  are  very  relevant  to  ensure  the  achievement  of  the  WFD  objectives  in  areas  that 
face  WS&D,  and  are  planned  in  45%  of  the  RBMPs.  The  development  of  Drought 
Management Plans (DMPs) was reflected in 41% of the assessed RBMPs. 

Some  of  the  main  categories  of  measures  and  their  representation  in  the  RBMPs  are 
presented graphically below. 

10 

 
 
Finally, the majority of the RBMPs include measures to improve efficiency, knowledge 
and  governance  and  to  increase  water  supply.  Less  than  half  of  the  RBMPs  include 
economic/pricing-oriented measures and less than 20% envisages restrictions to land-use. 

1.7.  Inter-linkages between Water Scarcity and sector policies 

Water  scarcity  problems  can  be  caused  by  an  inadequate  design  of  related  policies  in 
water-using sectors. To address this issue, the RBMPs should take into consideration the 
inter-linkages  between  the  different  policy  areas,  as  well  as  propose  measures  for  the 
reduction of water scarcity and the mitigation of drought in the RBD. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The influence of other sector policies on the reduction of water scarcity and the mitigation of drought effects is described and measures are proposed to harmonise those policies with that 
reduction/mitigation
The influence of other sector policies on the reduction of water scarcity and the mitigation of drought effects is described but no measures are proposed to harmonise those policies with that 
reduction/mitigation
Preassures on water resources by sector at present and in the future are identified

The influence of other sector policies on water scarcity and the mitigation of drought effects is not described or mentioned

Others

Information not clear, no information found or not relevant 

According  to  the  screening  exercise,  only  for  6  RBDs,  the  influence  of  other  sectoral 
policies  on  the  reduction  of  water  scarcity  and  the  mitigation  of  drought  effects  is 
described,  and  measures  are  proposed 
the 
reduction/mitigation.  For  only  12%  of  the  assessed  RBMPs,  the  pressures  on  water 
resources by sector at present and in the future are identified.  

those  policies  with 

to  harmonise 

For almost 75% of the RBMPs assessed, the influence of other sector policies on water 
scarcity and the mitigation of drought effects is not described or not relevant/unclear. Of 
these RBMPs, more than 2/3 suffer from water scarcity and/or drought. 

11 

 
 
 
 
1.8.  Quality of data and assumptions 

For an adequate design and definition of the general water planning scheme, that should 
be  translated  into  the  corresponding  RBMPs  and  their  associated  Programmes  of 
Measures  (PoMs),  it  is  necessary  to  use  transparent  data  and  clear  assumptions.  The 
assessment exercise addresses this issue through one of its questions. The results can be 
summarized as in following figure: 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The sources of data for present water consumption are explicitly mentioned

The sources of data for present water availability  are explicitly mentioned

Projections of future water demand are based on explicit assumptions

Projections of future water availability  are based on explicit assumptions

Uncertainity of data is made explicit in the dataste  used

Uncertainity of data is taken into account when starting  the expected results in the Programme of Measures

TimeSpanExplicit

Social Conflicts Account

Inter-relations (positive and negative) between measures are highlighted

The resources  of funds to implement the Programme of Measures are specified for each measure separately

yes

no

In almost 45% of the assessed RBMPs, the sources of data for present water consumption 
and for water availability are explicitly mentioned; however, in only 20-25% of the plans, 
projections  of  future  water  demand  and  water  availability  are  based  on  explicit 
assumptions.  

For almost 20% of the assessed plans, uncertainty of data is made explicit in the dataset 
used and, when relevant, the time span of the dataset is made explicit. For less than 10% 
of the screened RBMPs, the sources of funds to implement the Programme of Measures 
are  specified  for  each  measure  separately,  and  for  even  less  RBMPs  (around  5%)  the 
uncertainty  of  data  is  taken  into  consideration  when  stating  the  expected  results  in  the 
Programme of Measures.  

Moreover, for none of the assessed RBMPs, the existing social conflicts were considered 
as  a  risk  for  successful  implementation,  and  for  a  very  small  portion  of  them  the 
interrelation (either positive or negative) between measures was highlighted. This shows 
the lack of transparency and adequacy of the analysis regarding key quantitative aspects 
of the water planning scheme, within most of the assessed RBMPs 

1.9.  Transboundary cooperation on Water Scarcity and Droughts  

Regarding  the  65  International  RBMPs,  their  approach  to  deal  with  WS&D  in  a 
transboundary context can be summarised as follows:  

• 

In around 60% of the plans, the information on transboundary coordination in the 
field of water scarcity and droughts is not clear, no information is found or it can 
be considered as “not relevant”; 

•  2% of the plans include co-ordinated measures for the entire international RBD, 
and  for  around  5%  of  the  assessed  plans  specific  co-ordinated  measures  for  the 
different transboundary water bodies were identified; 

12 

 
 
 
•  10% of the plans identify joint challenges as the way to address WS&D issues in 
shared  water  bodies  and  in  15%  of  the  plans,  transboundary  cooperation  was 
indicated as a general coordination issue. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

By using co-ordinated measures for the entire international RBD

By using co-ordinated measures for transboundary water bodies

By identifying joint challenges

Others

As a general co-ordination between Member States

Information not clear, no information found or not relevant

13 

 
 
 
 
2.  EX-POST ASSESSMENT OF THE 2007 COMMUNICATION 

The  ex-post  assessment  on  the  Communication  on  Water  Scarcity  and  Droughts  in  the 
EU1  is  intended  to  evaluate  whether  the  Communication  "has  achieved  its  objectives”. 
However, given that  many activities are currently being implemented,  the  evaluation is 
intermediate  and  intended  to  give  input  to  further  policy  developments.  The  following 
evaluation questions were used: 

1) Were the objectives met and coherent with other actions? 

2) What were the main impacts?  

3) Have Drivers, Pressures or Impacts been addressed? 

4) Is this course of action still appropriate? 

The evaluation is mainly based on: 

•  MS follow up reports to the 2007 Communication (2008, 2009 and 2010) 
•  EU annual reports (20082, 20093  and 20104) 
•  Gap Analysis and Database of WS&D Measures and Support Actions5 
•  Reports on specific policy instruments 

Sections 2.1-2.7 below show the assessments for each of the 7 policy options identified 
in the 2007 Communication. 

2.1.  Putting the right price tag on water  

According to 2007 Communication, policy options aimed at putting the right price tag on 
water must address the implementation at the EU level of the “polluter pays principle” in 
the  water  sector,  mainly  making  the  user  pay  for  the  water  supply  and  wastewater 
treatment associated costs.  

2.1.1.  Review of existing initiatives 

According  to  WFD6  Article  9,  MS  had  to  develop  a  water  pricing  policy  by  2010  to 
provide  an  adequate  incentive  for  users  to  consume  water  in  a  more  efficient  manner. 

1 COM (2007) 414 final 

2 First Follow-up Report (COM(2008) 875 final) to the Communication on water scarcity and droughts in 

the EU COM (2007) 414 final 

3 Second Follow-up Report (COM(2010)228 final) to the Communication on water scarcity and droughts 
in the EU COM (2007) 414 final 

4 Third Follow-up Report (COM(2011) 133 final) to the Communication on water scarcity and droughts in 

the EU COM (2007) 414 final 

5 Water Scarcity & Droughts Policy in the EU - Gap Analysis. Final Report from ACTeon to the European 

Commission, 2012 

6 Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p.1 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
One of the key elements on which the water tariffs policies should be based, is a reliable 
metering  system  for  water  abstraction.  Within  the  period  of  2008-2010  water  metering 
was extended generally within all MS, though further action is required. Data reliability 
on water consumption is still a concern at EU level. 

Many  MS  have  undertaken  direct  action  to  address  the  water  pricing  issue.  First  steps 
were  taken  in  2008  by  defining  national  strategies  for  water  abstraction,  metering  for 
high-volume  consumers  such  as  the  agriculture  sector  (ES,FR),  promotion  of  general 
water metering regarding water abstraction and consumption data (CY,FR, PT) or linking 
compliance  with  water  metering  with  authorization/permits  for  water  abstraction 
(FR,UK).  

In 2009 and 2010 water tariffs were introduced by a few more MS and in others tariffs 
were  still  under  development  at  the  end  of  2010.  Other  widespread  water  pricing 
measures are the adoption of block-tariff systems (i.e. volumetric pricing), penalties for 
excessive  consumption  (closely  linked  with  enforcement  of  the  water  metering)  and 
discounts for water savings. 

There  is  still  a  significant  lack  of  recovery  of  both  financial  and  environmental  costs 
from agricultural water use. For about a third of the EU MS, operational and maintenance 
costs  for  the  provision  of  irrigation  water  for  agriculture  are  only  partly  recovered 
(generally  borne  by  farmers  themselves),  whilst  associated  capital  costs  (investments 
such as reservoirs) are often subsidized by public authorities.  

As a result, it often remains unclear which share of investment costs can be allocated to 
the  different  water  users.  Volumetric  pricing  systems  is  considered  as  one  of  the  most 
effective tariff structures with regard to actually providing incentives for water savings in 
agriculture.  A  recent  study  concluded  that  both  water  pricing  and  allocation  systems 
should  be  based  on  environmental  flow  regimes,  as  key  factors  to  control  water  over- 
abstraction  and  guarantee  the  adequate  provision  of  the  environmental  services 
associated7.  

2.1.2.  Evaluation of initiatives 

2.1.2.1.  Were the objectives met and coherent with other actions? 

Efforts taken at EU level (specially in the case of enforcement of water metering) are all 
concurring  in  moving  towards  a  water  efficient  and  water-saving  society,  thus  in 
accordance  with the objectives of the water scarcity and droughts policy. 

However, despite the 2010 deadline, neither the objective of full implementation of the 
WFD in terms of recovery of costs associated with water services nor the implementation 
of the “polluter pays” principle within MS have been reached. 

Even  though  increases  in  the  price  paid  for  water  services  provision  do  not  necessarily 
entail  water  consumption  decreases,  cost  recovery  from  water  services  is  crucial  for 
better  awareness  of  the  real  value  of  water  (as  a  resource)  and  to  contribute  to  a  more 
water efficient society. 

7 The role of water pricing and water allocation in agriculture in delivering sustainable water use in Europe, 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/agriculture_report.pdf 

15 

 
 
                                                 
2.1.2.2.  What were the main impacts? 

There is currently little information regarding the impacts of water pricing, in particular 
as full implementation of the water pricing provisions is still pending. More experience is 
needed in order to gain knowledge on the economic and environmental impacts of these 
measures. 

Most existing studies are modeling and ex-ante assessments, and have been criticized by 
Molle  and  Berkoff  (20078,  in  Garrido  and  Calatrava,  20109)  for  overestimating  the 
income  impact  of  pricing  policies  and  also  for  underestimating  the  water  demand 
elasticity.  Recent  studies  conclude  that  policy  makers  should  expect  less  change  from 
water  pricing  (particularly  in  agriculture),  considering  that  most  analyses  conclude  that 
demand  is  somewhat  inelastic  to  water  pricing,  although  it  is  responsive  to  agro-
environmental policies and farm prices. 

According  to  the  information  provided  by  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA, 
201110),  based  on  national  statistics  on  household  water  consumption  both  from  Spain 
and Estonia, as the water tariffs increase, water consumption decreases. This is also the 
case  for  Denmark  (EEA,  200911).This  supports  the  expected  impact,  suggested  in  the 
2007  Communication  regarding  the  reduction  of  domestic  consumption  when  water 
tariffs  are  applied,  especially  if  they  are  supported  by  the  introduction  of  a  reliable 
metering system. 

2.1.2.3.  Have Drivers, Pressures or Impacts been addressed? 

Putting the right price tag on water tackles both drivers and pressures of water scarcity 
and/or  droughts  such  as  population  developments,  economic  aspects,  land  use  or 
technological changes. 

2.1.2.4. 

Is this course of action still appropriate? 

Further implementation of the water pricing policy including recovery of costs associated 
with  water  services  and  valuation  of  water  resources  is  crucial  to  address  the  WS&D 
challenge  across  Europe,  provided 
that  other  complementary  measures  –e.g. 
modernization  of  the  conveyance  infrastructure,  large-scale  installation  of  metering 
devices- are also put in place. Water pricing policies should be introduced gradually, so 
as to allow users to adapt to changes. In this regard the Payment for Ecosystem Services 
(PES) could be considered as a complement to current water pricing mechanisms. 

8 Molle, F., Berkoff, J., 2007. “Water pricing in irrigation: mapping the debate in the light of experience”. 
In Molle, F., and Berkoff, J., (eds.), 2007 - “Irrigation Water Pricing”, Chapter 2 - CAB International. 

9  Garrido,  A  and  Calatrava,  J.  2010  “Agricultural  Water  Pricing:  EU  and  Mexico”.  Background  reports 
supporting  the  OECD  study  (2010)  Sustainable  Management  of  Water  Resources  in  Agriculture, 
www.oecd.org/water. 

10  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  201:  http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/water-

pricing-and-household-water/ 

11 EEA, 2009. “Water resources across Europe: confronting water scarcity and drought”. EEA Report No. 

2/2009. 

16 

 
 
                                                 
MS face different  challenges in the implementation of water pricing policies, and price 
structures  should  be  adapted  to  local  circumstances.  Nevertheless,  integration  of  data, 
development of a common framework for water pricing and efforts to ensure that all EU 
MS are setting the price right should remain a priority at the European level. 

2.2.  Allocating water and water-related funding more efficiently  

Policy options in the 2007 Communication designed to allocate water and water-related 
funding  more  efficiently  address  two  separate  issues:  (1)  improving  land-use  planning 
and (2) financing water efficiency. 

2.2.1. 

Improving land-use planning 

2.2.1.1.  Review of existing initiatives 

In order to support sustainable agriculture, including sustainable water use, the European 
Union  introduced  two  new  water-related  standards  in  the  cross  compliance  regime  in 
2008.  Relevant  for  water  scarcity  issues  is  the  Good  Agricultural  and  Environmental 
Condition (GAEC) requiring compliance with authorization procedures in case of use of 
water  for  irrigation.  This  standard  is  applicable  as  from  2010.  It  is  also  proposed  to  be 
maintained  for  the  next  programming  period  as  part  of  Commission  proposals  for  the 
CAP reform adopted on 12 October 201112. All but one MS notified that standards on the 
authorisation  of  the  use  of  water  for  irrigation  were  set  by  linking  payments  with 
permitting, one of the main approaches to authorization.  

In  general,  regulations  are  in  place  at  national  level  regarding  authorisation  for  water 
abstraction.  MT  and  IE  reported  that  they  are  improving  their  current  procedures, 
focussing  on  modernising  their  system  of  registration  and  tackling  unauthorised 
abstraction.  In  addition,  some  MS  reported  that  restrictions  of  water  use  are  applied  in 
order to preserve aquatic life and ecological status of water bodies. Several countries also 
reported that they are adopting prosecution procedures for illegal abstractions (AT, PT, 
RO)  but  illegal  abstractions  remain  an  important  challenge  in  a  number  of,  particularly 
southern,  MS.  Finally,  Spain  and  France  have  introduced  bans  on  increases  in  water 
abstraction in overexploited areas. 

To  address  the  issues  of  biofuels,  a  study13  was  commissioned  in  2008  assessing  the 
impact  of  bioenergy  development  on  water  availability.  The  study  indicated  that 
currently, bioenergy production has a limited effect on water consumption. A significant 
increase  in  biomass  production  in  the  EU  will  not  need  to  increase  the  total  irrigation 
water  consumption.  Stricter  water  use  restrictions  are  only  needed  in  the  most  water 
scarce  regions  to  reach  this  low  additional  pressure  on  water  resources  for  biomass 
cropping. In order to reach the bioenergy targets by 2020 it is most efficient therefore to 
stimulate the cropping of biomass in the Northern and central parts of Europe than in the 
South.  The  taking  into  use  of  additional  land  and  efficient  production  techniques  are 
more critical in reaching the targets than access to irrigation water Sustainability criteria 

12  Legal  proposals  for  the  CAP  post  2013  further  aim  to  strengthen  funding  for  water  management 
(http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-

efficiency. 

water 

measures 
proposals/index_en.htm) 

and 

13 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/2009Bioenergy.pdf 

17 

 
 
                                                 
have  been  developed  within  the  Renewables  Directive14  but  they  do  not  specifically 
address water impacts due to the limited effects mentioned above.  

At EU level land-use policy options were included in the White Paper on adaptation to 
climate  change,  focusing  on  introducing  adaptation  measures  on  water  management  in 
rural development; the work is still on-going.  

Most  MS  reported  that  they  have  fully  implemented  the  Environmental  Impact 
Assessment15 (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment16 (SEA) Directives; 
only  Romania  reported  that  implementation  is  still  on-going.  In  most  MS  the  SEA  is 
applied  at  national  level  and  several  MS  reported  that  RMBPs  were  subject  to  SEA. 
Additionally,  the    EIA  procedures  were  also  applied  to  water  infrastructure  (UK), 
hydroelectric dams (PT) and desalination plants (CY).  

2.2.1.2.  Evaluation of initiatives 

Were the objectives met and coherent with other actions? 

Efforts  at  EU  level  targeted  three  main  policy  areas:  agriculture  (CAP),  biofuels,  and 
climate change adaptation (White paper). With respect to ensuring sustainable water use 
in agriculture, progress has been made at EU level to better incorporate water quantity as 
well  as  water  quality  issues  into  the  CAP:  in  general,  measures  included  in  the  legal 
proposal  for  the  next  funding  period,  including  the  proposed  cross-compliance  rules, 
actually  have  the  potential  to  prompt  sustainable  land  use  practices.  With  respect  to 
assessing the inter-linkages between biofuel development and water availability, the EU 
tendered  a  project  investigating  the  impact  of  biofuel  development  on  water  resources, 
which  found  that  biomass  production  for  biofuels  would  not  necessarily  increase 
irrigation.    While  the  Renewables  Directive  introduced  sustainability  criteria,  none  of 
them  are  related  to  water  resources  or  irrigation  efficiency  due  to  the  limited  effects 
biofuel  production  has  on  water  use.  It  can  be  concluded  that  it  is  more  appropriate  to 
address  water  scarcity  in  a  horizontal  way  across  all  types  of  agricultural  production 
rather than addressing individual types of production (such as food, feed, fiber, biomass, 
or biofuel). 

At MS level, more effort are still needed in a few MS to strengthen the process for the 
implementation process for the SEA Directive.  

Even  prior  to  the  publication  of  RBMPs,  most  MS  had  identified  basins  facing  quasi-
permanent or permanent water stress or scarcity. Efforts have been made at MS level to 
introduce  and/or  strengthen  regulations  regarding  water  abstraction,  as  shown  by  the 
number  of  MS  that  reported  that  restrictions  on  water  use  are  applied  to  achieve  good 
ecological status. However, enforcement remains a problem in a number of MS. 

A key issue that has not been addressed is the tourism sector. This is clearly highlighted 
in the 2009 Follow up report with the need to reduce water demand in the peak tourism 
season and minimise water stress. 

14 Directive 2009/28/EC 

15 Directive 2011/92/EU 

16 Directive 2001/42/EC 

18 

 
 
                                                 
What were the main impacts?  

Improving land-use planning at EU and MS level involves a number of actions, including 
promoting  sustainable  agriculture,  improving  the  framework  for  EIAs  and  SEAs,  and 
setting  up  regulations  to  restore  sustainable  water  balance.  The  identification  of  quasi-
stressed or stressed river basins also helps to identify where efforts are most needed.  

Evidence suggests that Cross Compliance is having a positive effect in terms of ensuring 
compliance  with  obligations17.  However,  it  is  too  early  to  assess  whether  this  has  been 
the  case  for  the  water  GAEC  mentioned  above  which  was  introduced  in  2008Any 
restriction  in  water  use  is  expected  to  change  the  type  of  crops  grown,  either  towards 
crops  with  lower  water  requirements  or  towards  higher-value  crops;  in  both  cases,  a 
change in land use can be expected18. Administrative costs borne by farmers could result 
in  a  slightly  lowered  agriculture  welfare  (-0.6%)  across  the  EU  for  reaching  full 
compliance16. 

Have Drivers, Pressures or Impacts been addressed? 

At  European  level  mainly  the  pressures  from  water  scarcity  and  droughts  have  been 
tackled  by  proposing  measures  such  as:  Compliance  with  authorisation  procedures  at 
farm  level  for  irrigation  water  use  (CAP  current  and  future  programming  periods), 
inclusion of the WFD into cross compliance (CAP future period), widening the scope of 
the  Farm  Advisory  System  to  issues  such  as  protection  of  water  (CAP  future  period), 
linking  water  saving  requirements  to  financing  of  irrigation  infrastructure  (CAP  future 
period),  promoting  adaptation  and  water  management  measures  in  regional  and  rural 
development  policies19  (current  period).  No  action  was  taken  at  EU  level  to  address 
drivers and very little is being done to address impacts as these are often to be addressed 
at MS level.  

At  national  level  drivers  are  being  tackled  in  some  cases  by  restricting  new  urban 
developments in water scarce areas (ES) and by farm advice on water efficient irrigation 
practices (FR). Pressures are being tackled in terms of research on less water consuming 
crops (FR), guidelines and information on irrigation (SE), prohibiting deforestation (BG), 
reduction of irrigated crop areas (FR), conservation of water through soil improvements 
(DE),  Soil  Best  Management  Practices  (EL)  and  implementation  of  abstraction 
authorisation  procedures  for  irrigation  (all  MS).  Impacts  have  been  responded  to  by 
limiting  irrigation  in  case  of  drought  (FR,  SE),  establishing  collective  irrigation 
management in water scarce basins (FR), planting local, drought resistant trees (BG, CY, 
DE ,EE) 

The  national  level  interventions  show  a  highly  fragmented  picture  with  very  few  MS 
implementing support actions or technical measures related to land-use. Moreover, there 
are currently no examples of integrated land-use planning taking place, where economic 

17  Alliance  Environment  (2007):  Evaluation  of  the  application  of  cross  compliance  as  foreseen  under 

Regulation 1782/2003 Executive Summary - 26/07/2007 

18 Dworak, T., Strosser, P., Joyce, J. (2009): Scenarios of water demand management – Impacts at regional 
the  European  Commission,  DG  Environment. 

level 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Summary_Scenarios.pdf 

(summary)  Final  Report.  Study 

for 

19 White paper on Adaptation to Climate Change, COM (2009) 147 final. 

19 

 
 
                                                 
activities in a basin are collectively assessed to determine the best course of action. The 
emphasis of actions taken is on pressures and impacts and less so on drivers. This may be 
due to the fact that pressures and impacts are more urgent issues to address compared to 
drivers in the short term. 

Is this course of action still appropriate? 

Improving  land-use  planning  is  a  key  challenge  in  addressing  water  scarcity  and 
droughts.  As  highlighted  by  the  2007  Communication,  the  economic  development  of 
some river basins can lead to adverse effects on water resources availability, especially in 
water scarce regions.  All key economic sectors need to be addressed in order to ensure 
sustainable land-use planning. Water abstraction for agriculture still represents nearly ¼ 
of all abstractions across the EU, with percentages much higher in the southern MS and 
much  of  EU  water  consumption.  All  economic  activity,  including  irrigation,  should  be 
adapted to the amount of water available locally.  

The  current  actions  taken  at  EU  level  set  a solid  framework  to  drive  MS  to  implement 
measures  at  national  level.  However,  at  national  level  it  is  clear  that  most  MS  are  not 
adequately addressing land-use issues. 

2.2.2.  Financing water efficiency 

2.2.2.1.  Review of existing initiatives 

The  2007  Communication  highlighted  the  need  to  improve  the  financing  of  water 
efficiency within the framework of existing regional and rural development policies. 

In the case of the cohesion policy, in the current funding period, about 30% of the total 
cohesion policy funding has been allocated to directly and indirectly environment-related 
projects, belonging to different areas of environmental management and protection, with 
a major focus on waste water treatment (13 bn€)  and infrastructures for the management 
and distribution of water (8 bn €) which can  include investments in water efficiency20. In 
addition  about  €  5.8  bn  will  be  spend  on 
the  prevention  of  natural  disasters  which 
includes many projects on sustainable water management such as “green” infrastructure 
approaches and ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change. 

In  2009  the  Commission  prepared  a  Working  Document  Regions  2020  –  “The  climate 
change  challenge  to  European  Regions”21,  which  highlighted  the  need  for  action  in  the 
field  of  water  scarcity  and  droughts.  The  2010  Communication  “Regional  Policy 
contributing to sustainable growth in Europe 2020”22 calls for increasing investments in 
environmental  programmes  by  focussing  on  investing  more  and  better  in  sustainable 
growth.  Three  priorities  have  been  identified  in  this  area:  a  low-carbon  economy, 
ecosystem  services,  and  biodiversity  and  eco-innovation.  In  this  context,  the  above-
mentioned  Working  Document  calls  for  managing  authorities  to  use  regional  policy 
funding  for  natural  risk  prevention  to  preserve  natural  resources,  including  water,  and 

20  European  Commission,  September  2010 

-  Cohesion  policy 

and 

the 

environment, 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/cohesion.pdf 

21 Regions 2020 - The Climate Change Challenge For European Regions 

22 COM(2010) 553 final 

20 

 
 
                                                 
adaptation to climate change as well as prioritization of green infrastructure. In addition, 
the  Communication  emphasizes  the  need  to  consider  the  water  hierarchy  and  give 
priority  to  projects  on  water  savings  and  water  efficiency.  Under  the  second  pillar  on 
investing  better,  the  paper  calls  for  managing  authorities  to  give  priority  to  projects  on 
water  savings,  increased  efficiency  in  water  utilisation,  water  pricing  policy  or  cost-
effective measures on demand management.  

In addition, the Commission's legal proposals for the 2014-2020 cohesion policy23 both 
include addressing needs for investment in water sector and protecting/restoring 
biodiversity, including green infrastructure. Common indicators for water include 
estimated reduction of leakage in water distribution network, aiming to reduce wastage of 
water. 

The Commission's proposals for a post-2013 rural development policy explicitly set out 
"improving water management" and "increasing efficiency in water use by agriculture" 
as elements of the six formal priorities of the policy around which MS and regions must 
design their rural development programmes. The proposals also make the existence of an 
appropriate water pricing policy an "ex ante conditionality" of partnership contracts and 
rural development programmes, and they link support for investments in irrigation to 
water-quantity-related issues. 

At EU level, the European Investment Bank adopted a new lending policy for the water 
sector taking into account both the 2007 Communication and the White paper on Climate 
change.  The  Bank  now  considers  4  efficiency  measures  to  finance  in  the  water  sector 
under the condition that demand side management options have been implemented: water 
use  by  consumers  (households,  industry,  agriculture  and  hydropower);  efficiency  in 
allocation  across  different  users;  efficiency  of  the  utility  in  managing  the  system;  and 
efficiency of the system itself. .  

At  national  level,  MS  need  to  ensure  efficient  use  of  the  above  mentioned  EU  and 
national  funds  to  improve  water  demand  management  and  to  promote  fiscal  incentives 
for the promotion of water-efficient devices. 

In this respect reporting from MS suggest that most MS are using rural development 
funding; only IE, NL and SE mention that no funds are being used to this end and a few 
MS (EE, HU) mention that they are using cohesion policy funds. National funds are also 
being used to a large extent to fund projects related to rainwater harvesting and 
modernisation of irrigation (ES). 

2.2.2.2.  Evaluation of initiatives 

Were the objectives of the policy met and coherent with other actions? 

Efforts at EU level targeted three main funding opportunities: cohesion policy funding, 
the CAP and investments under the European Investment Bank. All three funds have 
taken steps to enhance effective water management. 

With respect to Structural and Cohesion funds, one of the main goals was to refine the 
existing Community Strategic Guidelines. The legal proposals about cohesion policy post 

23 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_en.cfm 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2013 address water issue with a much stronger focus on water efficiency and priority 
given to demand management options as highlighted in the Common Strategic 
Framework2. The objectives have therefore been met in part. 

The 2008 changes to the CAP and the legal proposal for the CAP post-2013 have made 
proposed improvements in providing funding for water management measures. The same 
can be said for the European Investment Bank. 

The EU funds available for water management measures complement each other as they 
cover different economic sectors and regions. While cohesion policy funding and EIB 
funds focus more on water infrastructure, the CAP focuses on measures at farm level. 
Additionally, while the CAP only covers rural areas, the cohesion policy funding and 
EIB funds can be used in both rural and urban areas.  

What were the main impacts? 

The  main  aims  of  financing  water  efficiency  is  on  the  one  hand  to  enhance  the 
opportunities  of  European  and  Member  State  support  to  finance  water  efficient 
technologies and water management infrastructure, and on the other hand to ensure that 
the water hierarchy, where efficiency comes before new supply, is adhered to at national 
level. 

In general, it is not possible to provide an estimate of economic or environmental impacts 
from  enhanced  funding  for  water  saving  and  efficiency  measures,  but  specific 
illustrations at a more local level give indications of the costs and environmental benefits 
of individual projects that have been supported through enhanced funding opportunities. 

At EU level, estimates show that the 2008 Health Check of the CAP and the European 
Economic  Recovery  Package  together  injected  some  €  5  billion  of  additional  funding 
(including transfers from Pillar I of the CAP) into rural development policy. Based on the 
information communicated to the Commission by MS in 2009, they allocated 26.9% of 
these  additional  resources  to  water  management  in  their  existing  rural  development 
programmes.  However, 
these 
programmes  (including  spending  decided  before  the  Health  Check)  is  not  precisely 
known. 

total  funding  allocated 

to  water  management 

in 

Additionally,  in  the  2007-2013  programming  of  the  Cohesion  Policy,  more  than  6%  of 
the  total  allocations  are  used  for  investments  in  infrastructure  related  to  water 
management.  In  addition  a  large  share  of  the  €  5.8  billion  for  "risk  prevention"  under 
Cohesion Policy support projects on "water", including water scarcity. 

MS  are  not  yet  fully  taking  advantage  of  opportunities  to  fund  water  efficiency 
programmes at national level. Isolated cases and best practice examples show the benefits 
of water efficiency devices, but there is no widespread application of this policy option.  

Have Drivers, Pressures or Impacts been addressed? 

Support  actions  and  technical  measures  (i.e.  responses)  applied  at  the  EU  and  national 
levels appear to only tackle pressures. 

At  European  level  pressures  from  agriculture,  households  and  economic  activities  in 
general  are  addressed  as  follows:  increasing  modulation  from  pillar  1  to  pillar  2  (CAP 
current period), proposal to link 30% of direct payments to greening measures (CAP post 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
2013), proposal to link water saving requirements to financing of irrigation infrastructure 
(CAP post 2013), promoting adaptation and water management measures in regional and 
rural  development  policies  (White  paper  on  Adaptation),  emphasis  of  water  demand 
management  in  Regional  and  Cohesion  Funds  and  emphasis  of  water  demand 
management in European Investment Bank funding. 

At national level the focus is also on the same pressures, for example: 10% water saving 
requirements for irrigation investment (RO); Eco-cheques for rainwater harvesting (BE) 
and establishing minimal requirements for granting funds to improve irrigation efficiency 
(CY). 

Is this course of action still appropriate? 

Improving conditions for EU and national funds to ensure the financing of water saving 
measures  remains  an  important  policy  option.  However,  it  is  unclear  whether  efforts 
taken at EU level are translated into action at MS level; some Member States decided to 
make only a limited use of Structural, Cohesion and EIB funds to address water scarcity 
and  droughts.  It  is  also  unclear  whether  the  Commission  proposals  to  reform  the  CAP 
will ultimately contain the above-mentioned greening elements. 

A call for evidence regarding support actions and technical measures implemented at MS 
level  has  showed  very  few  examples  of  MS  improving  funding  opportunities  for  water 
efficiency. Only a few MS engaged in developing fiscal incentives for the promotion of 
water-efficient devices and practices. Given the magnitude of water scarcity problems in 
Europe, it is important that MS make a greater effort to increase funding programmes for 
the installation of water saving devices in various economic sectors. 

2.3.  Improving drought risk management 

The  2007  Communication  set  out  for  a  shift  in  drought  risk  management  away  from  a 
crisis response to a comprehensive risk management approach. This should be based on a 
profound  understanding  of  the  drivers  and  impacts  of  drought  including  advanced 
monitoring  and  early  warning  systems  at  the  European  level.  In  addition  to  this  new 
approach,  the  optimisation  of  the  use  of  the  EU  Solidarity  Fund  and  European 
Mechanism  for  drought  risk  management  was  also  put  forward.  The  Communication 
complemented the EU Water Framework Directive, which mentions droughts as potential 
threats  which  may  undo  the  efforts  to  achieve  good  ecological  status  of  the  EU  water 
bodies. 

2.3.1.  Review of existing initiatives 

The  European  Commission  has  promoted  and  monitored  development  of  drought  risk 
management  plans  across  the  MS.  In  2007  the  Expert  Network  on  Water  Scarcity  and 
Droughts  produced  a  report  on  drought  management  plans  as  part  of  the  Common 
Implementation  Strategy  (CIS)  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive6.  The  2010-2012 
mandate of the Network included, among others, defining commonly accepted indicators 
for  water  scarcity  and  drought  and  a  review  of  methods  for  developing  drought  risk 
maps.    Another  CIS  guidance  document  endorsed  in  2009  addressed  adaptation  to 

23 

 
 
climate change in water management24, highlighting the role of drought risk management 
plans in climate adaptation efforts.  

The following WS&D indicators are now available on a pre-operational basis: 

•  Precipitation indicators (updated monthly) 
•  Soil  moisture:  actual  values  and  anomalies  with  respect  to  long-term  averages 
(updated daily, historical data available as ten-day average values, a 7 day forecast is 
available) 

•  Vegetation response: actual values and anomalies with respect to long-term averages 

(updated every 10 days) 

•  A combined drought indicator that is targeted to agricultural drought (updated every 
10 days). This indicator has been developed and tested on historical drought events. 

Work  is  ongoing  to  improve  the  soil  moisture  indicator  and  for  testing  possibilities  for 
meteorological forecasting. 

The  web-based  European  Drought  Observatory  (EDO)  for  drought  forecasting, 
assessment and monitoring has been developed at the Join Research Center (JRC). EDO 
provides  up-to-date  drought-related  information  at  different  scales.  Respecting  the 
subsidiarity  principle,  the  JRC  processes  information  at  the  EU  level,  whereas 
national/regional  datasets  are  managed  at  MS/River  Basin  level  or  by  regional 
environmental authorities.  

During 2011 and early 2012 the prototype of the European Drought Observatory (EDO) 
has been further developed. Key improvements have been made revising the selection of 
meteorological stations and re-calculating the baseline statistics from the historical time 
series.  

In addition to the interoperability arrangements with the Drought Management Centre for 
South  East  Europe  (DMCSEE),  the  Spanish  Observatory  for  Sustainability  (OSE),  and 
the Ebro River Basin Authority, new groundwater indicators (actual levels and trends) for 
France (BRGM) and higher resolution meteorological indicators for Slovenia have been 
added.  

The European Solidarity Fund (EUSF) has been activated for a case of drought only once 
in response to the 2008 drought in Cyprus. The persisting and severe drought conditions 
compromised  public  water  supply  and  forced  Cyprus  to  deploy  exceptional  emergency 
drought measures including temporary water shipping from Greece.  

In  the  context  of  the  Civil  Protection  Financial  Instrument25  projects  addressing 
prevention, preparedness and response to disaster risk, including drought, are eligible for 
funding. From among the funded projects, the PREEMPT (Policy-relevant assessment of 
socio-economic effects of droughts and floods26) project sets to assist the authorities to 

24 Guidance document No. 24, River Basin Management In A Changing Climate (2009) 

25 Civil Protection Financial Instrument (2007/162/EC) 

26 http://www.feem-project.net/preempt 

24 

 
 
 
                                                 
better appreciate the risks posed by droughts and floods and focused on four participating 
countries: Italy, Spain, Belgium and Germany 

Drought Risk Management Plans (DRMPs) are in place or under development in several 
MS,  either  as  a  part  of  the  River  Basin  Management  Plans  or  as  a  separate,  but 
interlinked  planning  instrument.  Most  MS  have  systems  for  drought  monitoring  and 
forecast in place.  

2.3.2.  Evaluation of initiatives 

2.3.2.1.  Were the objectives met and coherent with other actions? 

The  objectives  of  the  initial  supporting  action  have  been  partially  met.  Good  progress 
was achieved at MS level, with respect to the number of countries in which the Drought 
Risk  Management  Plans  (DRMP)  have  been  implemented  or  are  under  development. 
Ideally and following CIS guidance documents, DRMPs should contain quantitative and 
measurable  targets  for  water  conservation  and  set  measures  to  achieve  these  targets, 
prioritized according to their performance and implementation costs. A prerequisite of a 
drought risk management plan is i) an in-depth knowledge about the pattern of water uses 
and their welfare values, ii) medium- to long-term projections of climate variability and 
change,  and  iii)  understanding  of  the  drivers  influencing  water  demand  in  the  water-
intensive economic sectors and public water consumption. 

While  the  EIS  work,  especially  on  indicators  has  progressed  well,  the  quality  of  MS 
DRMP needs further improvement. 

The  development  of  EDO  has  progressed  as  planned.  The  European  Solidarity  Fund  is 
still  insufficiently  deployed  for  coping  with  drought  emergencies  which  fulfill  the 
eligibility criteria. These  rules  are  being  revised in order to streamline screening of the 
applications.  

Promoting  drought  risk  management  in  Europe  is  fully  in  line  with  the  principles  of 
subsidiarity, proportionality and solidarity as well as in accordance with the relevant EU 
legislation.  The  DRMPs  should  be  closely  coordinated  with  both  the  Flood  Risk 
management Plans27 and WFD RBMPs. 

2.3.2.2.  What were the main impacts? 

All  three  actions  (EDO,  DRMPs  and  Solidarity  Fund)  contribute  to  reducing  the 
economic losses and environmental hardship caused by droughts, but each of them in a 
different way. Drought risk management plans contain drought risk mitigation measures, 
reducing  the  vulnerability  of  communities  and  water  sensitive  sectors  to  drought.  The 
avoided  damage  depends  on  the  pattern  of  water  abstraction  and  use,  and  on  the 
efficiency of water application. The only Europe-wide assessment of drought economic 
costs  –  100  billion  Euro  over  the  last  30  years,  or  6.2  billion  Euro/year  for  the  recent 
years  –  is  based  on  a  survey  and  self-reported  damages  with  little  quality  check  and 
assurance. 

27 As required by Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks 

25 

 
 
                                                 
2.3.2.3.  Were Drivers, Pressures or Impacts addressed? 

The  disaster  risk  management  is  typically  organized  along  five  stages  including 
prevention,  protection,  preparedness,  response,  recovery  and  review.  The  supporting 
actions advanced by the 2007 Communication refer mainly to preparedness and recovery. 
In doing so, they contribute to reducing impacts of deficient precipitation. 

Both at EU and MS level the measures on drought management are mainly focused on 
impacts as for example: a report produced by the Expert Network on Water Scarcity and 
Droughts  on  drought  management  plans  as  part  of  CIS;  a  CIS  guidance  document 
addressing  adaptation  to  climate  change  in  water  management;  EDO  for  drought 
monitoring  and  forecasting;  activation  of  the  EUSF  for  the  2008  drought  in  Cyprus; 
funding  within  the  Civil  Protection  Financial  Instrument  of  projects  addressing 
prevention, preparedness and response to disaster risk, including drought; Drought Risk 
Management Plans and systems of drought monitoring and forecast at MS level. 

2.3.2.4. 

Is this course of action still appropriate? 

DRMPs are a fundamental instrument in a risk preparedness strategy, and indispensable 
for a good water and risk governance. The DRMP should draw on knowledge about the 
past  drought  episodes  and  their  impacts,  be  operationally  connected  to  drought 
monitoring and early warning systems, and contain specific mitigation measures to be put 
in place in order to reduce the expected impacts and guarantee sufficient water provision 
for  critically  important  water  uses.  The  Plans  should  specify  the  actors  and  their 
responsibilities  in  coping  with  droughts.  DRMPs  should  be  developed  in  a  coordinated 
way across the MS and become more widespread under the WFD. The developments so 
far have been valuable but not sufficient.  

EDO  is  expected  to  become  fully  operational  by  the  end  of  2012.  The  experimental 
design  and  operation  phase  has  been  successful.  However,  the  EDO  should  be  further 
developed  to  become  a  one-stop  portal  for  information  about  the  ongoing  and  past 
droughts, and interconnected with the European Water Information System (WISE). The 
EDO  should  be  extended  to  contain  a  database  of  past  drought  events  in  Europe,  in  a 
similar  way  as  the  Flood  Impact  Database  currently  designed  by  the  European 
Environment  Agency.  Furthermore,  the  EDO  should  be  interlinked  with  the  main 
national and regional drought monitoring systems, providing more detailed and spatially 
focused information about the ongoing drought situation.  

Finally,  the  EUSF  has  supported  drought  relief  and  recovery  operations  only  once,  to 
help to tackle the impacts of 2008 drought in Cyprus. To this end, Cyprus received 7.6 
million Euro. The 2009 annual report3 highlights the difficulty of activating the EUSF for 
slow-onset  disasters  such  as  droughts.  In  fact,  the  EUSF  regulation  requires  that 
applications  are  submitted  within  10  weeks  of  the  first  damage  caused  by  the  disaster 
which is inappropriate for droughts whose onset is difficult to determine. Furthermore, in 
order  to  become  a  fully-fledged  instrument  of  disaster  risk  reduction  or  pooling  in 
Europe,  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  EUSF  could  capitalize  national  public-private 
insurance programs and provide support for government risk transfer28. In doing so, the 

28  Hochrainer,  S.,  Linnerooth-Bayer,  J.  and  Mechler,  R.  2010.  The  European  Union  Solidarity  Fund:  Its 

Legitimacy, Viability and Efficiency. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change, 15(7): 797-810. 

26 

 
 
                                                 
EUSF  could  make  insurance  more  affordable  to  vulnerable  communities  and  sectors 
currently on their own in dealing with drought risk. 

2.4.  Considering additional water supply infrastructures 

The 2007 Communication indicates additional water supply infrastructures as a possible 
alternative  option  to  mitigate  the  impacts  of  severe  drought,  in  regions  where  demand 
still  exceeds  water  availability  even  after  all  prevention  measures  (water  saving,  water 
pricing  policy  etc.)  have  been  implemented.  The  specific  policy  objectives  identified 
were: 

•  At  the  EU  level,  a  Commission  assessment  of  all  alternative  options  must  be 

prepared. 

•  At MS level, it must be ensured that all adverse effects linked to any additional 
water  supply  infrastructure  are  fully  taken  into  account  in  the  environmental 
assessment.  Moreover,  the  expected  consequences  of  climate  change  and  the 
objective  to  be  achieved  within  the  Energy  Policy  for  Europe  must  be  fully 
considered in order to avoid any incompatibility. 

2.4.1.  Review of existing initiatives 

In relation to alternative water supply options, a study (Campling et al., 2008)29 for the 
Commission assessed the risks and impacts of four options (desalination, wastewater re-
use, ground-water recharge, and rainwater harvesting) and revealed that it is not possible 
to  provide  an  EU-wide  set  of  best  available  mitigation  options.  The  potential  problems 
and  mitigation  options  differ  between  locations  and  technologies.  Therefore  mitigation 
measures  have  to  be  designed  to  deal  with  local  conditions.  Alternative  water  supply 
options  may  be  more  expensive  than  conventional  options  but  subsidies  to  compensate 
for price differences should only help users in the transition towards more sustainable use 
of water where the price of water reflects its true cost. 

The role of alternative water supply options is likely to grow in the future due to climate 
change  and  the  reduction  of  water  availability.  Therefore  particular  attention  should  be 
paid to their implementation and the continuous improvement of knowledge in the field.  

On ensuring that all adverse effects linked to any additional water supply infrastructure 
are fully taken into account in the environmental assessment the MS replies reflected in 
the  2008  and  2009  follow-up  reports  indicate  that  Environmental  Impact  Assessment 
studies are required. 

MS refer to some new water infrastructure (desalination plants, dams, tunnels, etc.) and 
indicate that adverse effects linked to the infrastructure are fully taken into account in the 
Environmental  Impact  Assessment  and  occasionally  in  the  Strategic  Environmental 
Assessment studies. 

29 Campling, P., L. De Nocker, W.  Schiettecatte,  A. I. Iacovides, T.  Dworak, E.  Kampa M. Álvarez Arenas, O. Le 
Mat 2008  “Assessment of the risks and impacts of four alternative water supply options” 

27 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
2.4.2.  Evaluation of initiatives 

2.4.2.1.  Were the objectives met and coherent with other actions?  

The  assessment  suggests  that  the  objectives  of  this  policy  option  have  been  met  in  the 
MS that replied to the questionnaires of 2008 to 2010 as they all indicate enactment of 
legislation/regulations, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 30 studies and, for some, 
application  of  Strategic  Environmental  Assessments  (SEA)31  to  new  water  supply 
infrastructure  plans.  The  measure  is  as  such  coherent  with  these  key  EU  legal 
instruments.   

Moreover,  an  assessment  of  the  main  alternative  water supply  options  has been carried 
out. 

2.4.2.2.  What were the main impacts?  

Conserving  water  resources  and  increasing  water  use  efficiency  is  one  of  the  most 
effective methods of providing additional water quantities but the volume of water they 
make  available  may  be  insufficient  to  meet  a  large  portion  of  the  increasing  water 
demand. Innovative water management practices offer potential but take time to become 
effective to address short-term problems. Thus, often, conventional or non-conventional 
water supply infrastructures need to be considered.  

Non- conventional water supply options such as water transfers or desalination may have 
very  important  economic  and  environmental  impacts,  which  need  to  be  assessed  on  a 
case by case basis. 

2.4.2.3.  Were Drivers, Pressures or Impacts addressed? 

Policy  aimed  at  creating  additional  water  supply  can  tackle  either  pressures  or  impact, 
depending on the measures chosen but does not respond to drivers. 

With  wastewater  reuse  it  is  possible  to  obtain  additional  supply  without  relying  on 
available water resources, but rather using water which has already been used. In other 
words,  resources  are  used  which  were  already  affected  by  pressures  (water  use).  In 
contrast,  desalination  responds  to  impacts  rather  than  pressures,  as  demand  for  water 
remains  unchanged  (pressures  stay  thus  constant)  and,  in  order  to  reduce  impact  on 
available resources, additional water supply is created through desalination. 

2.4.2.4. 

Is this course of action still appropriate? 

The policy option on “considering additional water supply infrastructures” is one of the 
options of the 2007 Communication to be considered after all other policies exhaust their 
water  saving  potential.  The  priorities  set  in  the  Communication  remain  valid  and  need 
continued attention and adherence by MS. 

30 Directives 85/337/EC, 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and 

private projects on the environment 

31 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment 
of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment 

28 

 
 
                                                 
 
2.5.  Fostering water efficient technologies and practices  

2.5.1.  Review of existing initiatives 

Water efficient technologies and practices are becoming wide-spread across Europe and 
are expected to deliver significant results in terms of water savings. 

There  is  scope  for  further  implementing  or  improving  existing  legislative  measures 
including the Eco-Design Directive32 which covers some water-using  equipment (white 
goods)  and  water-using  appliances  (taps,  shower  heads,  toilets)  and  the  Construction 
Products  Directive33,  which  could  enable  introducing  appropriate  standards  related  to 
water efficiency for construction products 

Additional measures directly related to technologies and practices at both European and 
national  levels  can  also  prove  useful  in  mitigating  the  impacts  of  water  scarcity  and 
drought.  These  include  exchange  of  best  practices,  enhanced  research,  widespread 
monitoring and decision-making tools, effective advisory services and the drawing-up of 
voluntary agreements with economic sectors. 

2.5.2.  Evaluation of initiatives 

2.5.2.1.  Were the objectives met and coherent with other actions? 

Efforts  at  EU  level  with  respect  to  fostering  water  efficient  technologies  and  practices 
have  been  varied  and  many,  including  inter-alia  water  saving  and  water  recycling 
technologies,  new  governance  structures  and  targets  for  water  efficiency  in  different 
sectors. 

At  the  EU  level  the  initiatives  are  coherent  and  compatible  with  other  policies.  Water 
efficient  technologies  and  practices  are  able  to  run  alongside  many  other  measures  and 
interventions  at  both  an  EU  and  MS  level.  The  extent  to  which  MS  adopts  such  water 
efficient practices depends on their needs. 

Different  approaches  have  been  followed  with  respect  to  irrigated  agriculture  such  as 
substantial efficiency gains by reviewing application schedules, or modernizing irrigation 
technologies e.g. from flood irrigation to sprinkler, or from sprinkler to drip irrigation – 
depending on crops. Uncertainty remains however on how water saving at the field level 
is  effectively  translated  into  overall  water  saving  at  the  farm  and  regional  (river  basin) 
levels: in some cases, modernization has led to more area being cultivated rather than to 
reduced water use34. 

32 Directive 2009/125/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council Establishing a framework for 

the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products 

33 Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and 
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, now repealed by the EC 
and Regulation No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down 
harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 
89/106/EEC, which will take effect from 2013 onwards 
34 Water  saving potential  in  agriculture  in Europe:  findings from  existing studies  and  application  to  case 

studies. Final report, European Commission DG ENV, January 2012.  

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
With  respect  to  water  for  domestic  use,  recent  studies  stressed  that  there  is  a  large 
diversity  of  conveyance  efficiency  in  potable  water  supply  systems  (from  52%  to 
92.7%35). While additional improvements are necessary for many systems, differences in 
conveyance  efficiencies  can  be  justified  and  represent  efficient  conditions  adapted  to 
different  physical,  financial,  legal,  institutional,  regulatory,  environmental  and  socio-
economic context under which water utilities operate. In some cases, water distribution 
systems  with  low  conveyance  efficiency  can  be  at  their  most  optimal  conveyance 
efficiency  level,  meaning  that  there  is  no  further  benefit  to  either  society  or  the 
environment  to  reduce  leakages  further  i.e.  additional  investments  in  leakage  reduction 
would result in increased costs to the public but would not result in additional benefits to 
either the public or the environment. 

Efficiency  in  practice  can  also  be  viewed  from  a  policy  perspective,  with  the 
establishment of coherent and inter-related processes for different plans in general, and 
between  the  RBMPs  and  other  plans  in  particular.  Experience  to  date  stresses  that  the 
RBMPs  have  not  been  adequately  coordinated  with  other  internal  strategic  physical  & 
socio-economic planning documents prior to adaption. The lack of coordination between 
socio-economic  plans,  rural  development  plans,  spatial  development  plans  and  basin 
plans,  together  with  the  absence  of  supporting  financing  plans,  severely  hinders  the 
implementation of the RBMPs in general and of measures and actions relevant to WS&D 
(when specified in these RBMPs) in particular.  

The  Alliance  for  Water  Stewardship  (AWS)  is  currently  developing  performance 
standards  which  can  be  used  globally  to  certify  water  users  who  voluntarily  practice 
sustainable  water  management  (AWS,  2011).  The  scheme,  developed  with  stakeholder 
involvement,  will  have  stringent  standards  on  water  stewardship  and  will  be  able  to 
promote  efficient  practices  by  water  utilities  and  by  socio-economic  operators  that  use 
significant  quantities  of  water  in  their  operations  (including  agricultural  producers, 
beverage  manufacturers,  food  processors  and  other  food  producers).  To  qualify  for 
certification, the AWS anticipates that applicants will be required to measure their direct 
and indirect water consumption along with other physical and chemical characteristics in 
the  local  water  sheds  in  which  they  operate,  ensuring  that  links  between  water  system 
efficiency and water stress is adequately accounted for.  

2.5.2.2.  What were the main impacts? 

At EU level it is very difficult to assess the extent to which water efficient technologies 
have  resulted  in  economic  and  environmental  impacts,  these  being  best  assessed  at  a 
national  level  as  the  true  environmental  cost  will  depend  on  the  true  cost  of  water,  the 
specific environmental conditions at a local level and the full range of costs and benefits. 

Generally,  the  cost  of  a  water  efficiency  scheme  may  be  less  significant  than  that  of  a 
new  resource  measure,  but  the  long  term  yield  of  such  measures  has  a  degree  of 
uncertainty  due  to  a  possible  rebound  effect  (i.e.  increase  in  efficiency  leading  to  an 
increase in consumption).   

35  Resource  and  Economic  efficiency  of  Water  Distribution  Networks,  ERM  Final  Report  to  the 

Commission 2012 

30 

 
 
                                                 
A key issue that has not been addressed is the longevity of the measures.  The short term 
effectiveness has been demonstrated by many MS but the sustainability of this is as yet 
unclear.   

2.5.2.3.  Were Drivers, Pressures or Impacts addressed? 

Support  actions  and  technical  measures  (i.e.  responses)  applied  at  the  EU  and  national 
level  tackle  pressures  and  impacts  and  to  some  extent  drivers.    The  specific  way  the 
initiatives have tackled the issue depends on the measures chosen. 

2.5.2.4.  Can this course of action be still considered appropriate? 

Given  current  and  expected  future  magnitude  of  the  challenge  of  water  scarcity  and 
droughts at European level this course of action is  a  vital recommendation of the  2007 
Communication.    A  wide  range  of  applications  of  water  efficient  technologies  and 
practices show that important water savings are feasible.  More importantly, a consistent 
water  efficiency  message  can  foster  behavioural  change  in  the  population  with  lasting 
positive effects.   

There is a risk, however, that water savings with a positive long term effect on the water 
balances of the aquatic ecosystems are not fully considered in comparison to increasing 
supply from, inter alia, desalination or new reservoirs.  At national level MS should rely 
more  on  water  efficient  technologies  and  practices  as  part  of  a  twin  track  approach  to 
water resource planning and as a tool against water scarcity and drought.     

2.6.  Fostering the emergence of a water-saving culture in Europe 

As  a  cumulative  effect  of  climate  and  other  environmental  changes,  a  fast  growing 
population  and  the  efforts  to  decarbonize  energy  supplies,  the  demand  for  water  may 
increasingly exceed the renewable yield of water and its interannual distribution. This is 
why  a  culture  of  water  saving  becomes  imperative  throughout  Europe.  To  this  end,  a 
number of awareness raising, education, training and capacity building activities can be 
deployed.  

The  2007  Communication  on  water  scarcity  and  drought  COM(2007)  414  final 
envisaged the following goals: 

•  attempts to translate a water-saving culture into corporate social responsibility; 
• 
•  an  attempt  to  expand  existing  EU  schemes  whenever  appropriate  in  order  to 

inclusion of rules on water management in certification schemes; and  

promote water efficient devices and water-friendly products. 

2.6.1.  Review of existing initiatives 

In 2009, the Directive 2009/125/EC, established a framework for the setting of ecodesign 
requirements  for  energy-related  products,  including  energy-using  products  and  other 
energy related products which do not use energy but have an impact on energy and can 
therefore contribute to saving energy. Among the latter products are water-using products 
such as shower heads or taps. In addition, because water is used for energy generation, 
any saving of energy translates into reduced water abstraction or consumption. In other 
words,  energy  saving  has  side-benefits  for  conservation  of  water  resources.  The  term 
‘water-energy  nexus’  refers  to  the  inextricably  linked  nature  of  water  and  energy 

31 

 
 
 
resources:  supplying  energy  requires  water  and  impacts  water  quality,  while  supplying 
water requires energy.  

Energy and water are essential resources of the buildings sector. Building codes are the 
regulatory instrument determining the resource use and other performance characteristics 
of  buildings.  Building  codes,  if  implemented  properly,  are  cost-effective  in  reducing 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  from  buildings.  At  the  European  level  the  recently  recast 
Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive  (EPBD)36  regulates  the  energy  use  of 
buildings, adopting an integrated approach to different aspects of energy use.   

A  number  of  different  awareness  campaigns  were  lunched  at  EU  level.  The 
Aquawareness, the European Water Awareness and Water Stewardship Programme, was 
launched  in  2008  by  the  European  Water  Partnership  (EWP).  The  initiative  involves 
many stakeholders from various sectors across Europe.   

MS  have  developed  and  implemented  a  number  of  awareness  raising  and  training 
campaigns,  aiming  at  enhancing a  water–saving  culture.  These  initiatives  take  different 
forms  and  are  implemented  by  various  public  and/or  private  bodies  including 
governments,  river  basin  authorities,  irrigation  associations,  educational  institutions, 
NGOs, local stewards and campaigners etc. Part of the information and awareness-raising 
campaigns is information provision about for example the state of the water resources in 
the MS and public access to the River Basin District Management Plans. The portfolio of 
regulatory  instruments  relevant  for  the  development  of  a  water-saving  culture  includes 
among others building codes and water requirements (e.g. harvesting of rainwater, dual 
pipeline  system  for  white  and  grey  water,  etc.);  and  the  ‘river  contracts  ‘,a  form  of 
agreement between authorities and stakeholders. 

2.6.2.  Evaluation of initiatives 

2.6.2.1.  Were the objectives met and coherent with other actions? 

Despite a number of activities launched at EU level, and while fully acknowledging the 
indirect impacts on water use achieved by Ecodesign of energy related products, there is 
no labelling which is directly related to water. No consistent indicator of the development 
of  a  water  saving  culture  can  be  identified  at  this  level.  In  addition,  the  attempts  to 
initiate  a  water  scarcity  related  scheme  in  the  framework  of  the  European  Alliance  on 
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has not been further pursued as the members of 
CSR felt that such an initiative might be at risk of duplication with other initiatives.  

There  is  a  great  variety  of  actions  undertaken  at  the  MS  level  to  promote  water  saving 
and this shows high level of creativity and commitment but the picture is one of many 
piecemeal activities without an overall strategic approach with large impact. 

There  is  a  scope  to  integrate  an  EU  water-related  labelling  and/or  certification  scheme 
within  existing  schemes  which  make  the  consumer  aware  of  environmental  impacts  of 
certain products or business practices.   

36  Directive  2010/31/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19  May  2010  on  the  energy 

performance of buildings (recast) 

32 

 
 
                                                 
2.6.2.2.  What were the main impacts? 

The  great  diversity  of  activities  promoting  a  water  saving  culture  makes  it  difficult  to 
assess  their  impacts.  The  actions  on  a  water  saving  culture  identified  in  the  2007 
Communication  are  not  able  to  promote  a  shift  from  low  to  higher  value  water  uses 
(allocation  efficiency).  Instead,  they  contribute  to  promote  water  use  efficiency  and 
reduce wasteful use of water. Hence the development of a water saving culture in Europe 
should  be  seen  as  an  addition  to  the  efforts  aimed  at  maximising  overall  society’s 
benefits from water uses.  

the  performance  of  water 

Generally, 
labelling,  certification  and  environmental 
footprinting is limited to the cost-efficiency of further reduction in water consumption. In 
other  words,  the  companies  will  engage  in  activities  aimed  at  reducing  consumption  of 
water up to the level this pursuit is cost efficient and/or contributes to achieving business 
objectives. The possible outcomes (water savings) thus depend on the initial efficiency of 
water use which varies depending on a host of environmental, institutional, cultural and 
socioeconomic conditions.  

2.6.2.3.  Were Drivers, Pressures or Impacts addressed? 

The policy aimed at fostering a water saving culture is mainly meant to tackle pressures. 

At EU level, pressures have been tackled inter alia through the: Eco design requirements 
for  energy-related  products  (ERP);  Energy  Performance  of  Building  Directive  (EPBD) 
(2010/31/EU). However, eco-design for taps and showerheads is still not included in the 
work plan of the eco-design directive. At MS level   examples  of  pressures  addressed 
include:  Austria:  Food  Ministry’s  initiative  "Generation  blue"  offers  information  of  a 
wise  and  sustainable  use  of  resources;  Belgium  (Flanders):  ‘water  audit’  scheme  is 
promoted  as  a  tool  to  study  the  water  management  of  a  farm;  Cyprus:  educational 
programme  on  water-saving  culture  at  elementary  schools  and  kindergardens;  Italy 
(Emilia Romagna): participation in the LIFE project WaterClick called “WATer Against 
Climate Change). 

2.6.2.4. 

Is this course of action still appropriate? 

The action is appropriate and should be continued but aiming at developing a structured 
effort towards the development of a water saving culture. 

2.7.  Improving knowledge and data collection  

According to the 2007 Communication, policy options aimed at filling knowledge gaps 
and enhancing data collection must address two different issues: 1) a Water Scarcity and 
Drought  Information  System  throughout  Europa  and  2)  Research  and  technological 
development opportunities. 

2.7.1.  Water scarcity and drought information system 

2.7.1.1.  Review of existing initiatives  

At  the  EU  level,  some  significant  initiatives  have  been  undertaken  to  create  a  coherent 
information system on water scarcity and drought throughout Europe, among which the 
following programmes can be recalled: 

33 

 
 
•  Development  and  enhancement  of  GMES  services:  the  Global  Monitoring  for 
Environment  and  Security  is  an  Earth  observation  programme  which  delivers 
information on the Earth’s environment and is based on a space infrastructure and ‘in 
situ’ observation infrastructure. 

•  Water  quantity  data  collection  has  been  included  by  the  EEA  in  the  regular  data 
collection framework organised with the EIONET network of Member States. Data on 
water availability, abstraction and use are annually collected, at RDB scale and with 
monthly resolution 

•  EUROSTAT/OECD  Joint  Questionnaire  on  Inland  Waters  (JQIWA):  The  reporting 
aims  at  the  collection  of  data  on  water  quantity  (availability,  abstraction,  use)  at 
country level and on annual scale via the statistical services. 

•  Water Information System for Europe Maps: The creation of relevant maps on water 
quantity and water scarcity at EU scale is currently on going by the EEA, and the first 
maps in WISE are expected to be launched in 2012. 

•  System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water (SEEAW):  Incorporating 
the SEEAW standard methodology, EEA is currently working on the development of 
asset accounts for Europe with the purpose of producing water balances for Europe. 
To  enhance  this  initiative  a  vast  collection  of  daily  streamflow  data  started  in  June 
2011. The Commission has also awarded a contract to support this activity. 

•  Commission (JRC) European Drought Observatory (EDO): The JRC has advanced the 
implementation  of  the  EDO  prototype  and  drought  related  maps  are  currently 
available. 

•  Indicators and scenarios bringing together hydrological, climate, land-use  and  socio-
economic  databases  for  an  assessment  of  the  implications  for  water  resources 
availability, use and demand under different policy scenarios. The database and maps 
developed  by  the  Commission  (JRC)  contributed  to  the  Impact  Assessment  of  the 
Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources. 

•  WSD  Indicators  System:  the  CIS  expert  group  on  WS&D  has  defined  a  first  set  of 
indicators  on  drought  and  water  scarcity  for  awareness  raising  purposes.  The  Water 
Exploitation Index plus (WEI+) has been agreed. Integration of the indicators into the 
WISE and the EDO are to be further defined. 

•  Commission  specific  studies:  DG  Environment  has  launched  a  series  of  studies  on 
specific issues capturing aspects of WS&D and enhancing data gap filling. A study on 
“Climate  Water  Adaptation”  based  on  the  SCENES  WaterGap  model  has  produced 
different scenario runs to draw the future picture of water stress in Europe based on 
modeling, as well as a database of relevant measures. 

•  The  Drought  Management  Centre  for  Southeastern  Europe  has  focused  its  work  on 
monitoring  and  assessing  drought,  as  well  as  risks  and  vulnerability  connected  to 
drought.  Drought  monitoring  maps  of  south  east  are  online  and  monthly  drought 
bulletins are available. 

Many  MS  have  undertaken  independent  monitoring  and  data  collection  programmes, 
covering  a  variety  of  issues  and  variables  in  the  fields  of  water  management,  state  of 
water resources, water scarcity and droughts. Some highlights are: 

34 

 
 
•  Czech Republic: Study on temporal and spatial availability of hydrological drought in 
climate change conditions on the national territory, sponsored by the Ministry of the 
Environment; 

•  Italy:  Pilot  Project  against  drought  and  desertification  in  the  Piedmont  region, 
including  the  acquisition  and  collation  of  the  necessary  data  to  apply  the  ESAs 
methodology  (Environmentally  Sensitive  Areas)  and  allowing  the  calculation  of 
several quality indexes. 

•  Poland:  Establishment  of  a  Drought  Monitoring  System  (ADMS)  by  the  Institute  of 
Soil Science and Plant Cultivation – State Research Institute (IUNGPIB) on behalf of 
the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. It is aimed at indentifying those 
areas affected by crop losses due to drought conditions. 

•  Spain:  Development  of  the  Spanish  National  Water  Plan  and  the  Global  Drought 
Monitoring System. Development of Indicators System on Hydrological State (SIEH) 
and Catalogue of Droughts in Spain (CatSE) for the whole country.  

•  UK:  Development  by  the  Environment  Agency  of  a  website  dedicated  to  drought, 
where  various  information  is  displayed,  including  weekly  and  monthly  Water 
Situation Reports (bulletins)  

In addition to the above mentioned examples, other countries developed various forms of 
monitoring systems, data collection campaigns, information services at national level etc.  

2.7.1.2.  Evaluation of initiatives 

Were the objectives met and coherent with other actions? 

Efforts taken  at EU level  are all concurring in creating a wide and reliable information 
base  on  many  environmental  and  water-related  variables  across  Europe,  covering  also 
water  scarcity  and  droughts.  Nevertheless,  it  seems  that  the  first  objective  for  this  sub-
theme  (obtain  reliable  information  on  water  scarcity  and  droughts)  has  not  been  fully 
reached  yet.  When  examining  the  collected  information,  data  gaps  that  prevent 
comprehensive  assessments  are  still  identifiable  despite  the  considerable  effort  made. 
The  information  needed  in  relation  to  water  scarcity  is  generally  described  as  drivers, 
pressures,  state,  impact,  response.  Current  information  addresses  mainly  pressures  and 
state.  Therefore,  information  on  impacts  of  WS&D  is  not  widely  available,  nor  has  a 
common  typology  been  developed  and  definitions  still  need  harmonization  across  the 
EU. 

Moreover,  available  information  is  largely  qualitative  and  lacks  quantitative  data.  Even 
the data on state and pressures have significant gaps: data on water availability are often 
lacking,  as  well  as  data  on  environmental  requirements  associated  with  water  stress 
conditions. Similarly, the integration of all information sources in WISE is not achieved.  

Overall,  it  appears  that  more  coordination  of  the  MS  is  needed  with  respect  to  data 
acquisition and monitoring of water scarcity and droughts and, more generally, of water-
related  parameters,  in  order  to  obtain  reliable  and  comparable  data  which  can  then  be 
used at EU level. 

Looking  at  the  initiatives  undertaken  at  the  EU  level,  links  and  synergies  among  the 
different  programmes  should  be  identified  and  information  from  the  different  EU 

35 

 
 
research and regional projects need to be better coordinated in order to be taken up and 
exploited. 

There is generally a lack of coordination and coherence between national level initiatives 
and information systems which could be improved by a stronger intervention at the EU 
level. 

What were the main impacts? 

The  creation  of  information  systems  and  databases  are  the  necessary  and  fundamental 
basis for the development of prediction and early warning services on the one hand, and 
the design of water scarcity and drought management policies on the other. As these all 
concur  in  improving  and  enhancing  preparedness  to  drought  events  and  prevention  of 
water  scarcity  at  the  EU  level,  investments  in  the  creation  of  information  systems  will 
avoid  extra  social  and  environmental  costs  due  to  water  scarcity  and  droughts  in  the 
medium  and  long  term.  Due  to  the  above  short  comings  this  has  only  partially  been 
achieved. 

Were Drivers, Pressures or Impacts addressed? 

The collected information can be used for the identification of the problem, and impact 
assessment, and therefore trigger additional responses at EU level and/or MS level.  

Information systems at MS level focus on the description of the state of the environment, 
monitoring  of  impacts  and  identification  of  appropriate  responses  (e.g.  early  warning 
systems),  although  detailed  information  on  the  quantification  of  impacts  and  the 
responses’  effectiveness  is  not  available.  The  least  attention  is  given  to  the  monitoring 
and measuring of the Drivers: this may be due to the fact that data such as, for example, 
climate  variables,  are  often  registered  on  a  routine  basis,  so  MS  did  not  include  these 
monitoring  activities  while  reporting  on  the  specific  issues  of  water  scarcity  and 
droughts. The same may apply for the socio-economic drivers. 

Is this course of action still appropriate? 

The  great  efforts  undertaken  at  the  European  level  to  create  a  wide  and  reliable 
information system seem appropriate to the magnitude of the challenges they are meant 
to face. 

Considering  the  national  level,  MS  devised  monitoring  and  information  gathering 
programmes  which  may  not  fully  address  the  trans-boundary  component  of  WS&D. 
From  a  pan-European  perspective,  more  coordination  is  needed  in  order  to  overcome 
this. 

2.7.2.  Research and technological development opportunities 

2.7.2.1.  Review of existing initiatives  

Major research efforts which have been promoted and financed at the European level in 
relation to water scarcity and drought are listed below: 

•  XEROCHORE Support Action: it is the most important research programme tackling 
drought and, in particular, it aims at identifying the current state of the art of drought-
related national and regional policies ; the ultimate objective is to develop a road map 

36 

 
 
identifying  research  gaps  and  steps  to  be  taken  in  order  to  fill  them,  and  to  provide 
support to the European drought policy.  

•  Several  projects  within 

the  6th  Framework  Research  Programme,  such  as 
AQUASTRESS,  RECLAIM  WATER,  GABARDINE,  MEDINA,  MEDESOL, 
PLEIADeS  and  FLOWAID  and  DROUGHT-R&SPI  from  FP7,  provided  scientific 
and technological inputs in the field of water scarcity and droughts. 

•  In  addition  there  are  a  number  of  agricultural  irrigation/water  quality  projects  of 
interest  from  FP6  such  as  IRRIQUAL  and  SAFIR,  and  SIRRIMED  FIGARO  and 
TREAT&USE from FP7. 

•  Under the  IWRM-Net  programme  projects  related  to  WS&D  has  been  funded  under 

the 2nd call: Water2Adapt, ICARUS, Water Cap and Trade, CLIMAWARE 

MS  have  also  been  actively  promoting  research  and  development.  Many  projects  dealt 
with issues such as climate change, its impacts, proposed adaptation measures, its effects 
on expected water availability or on biological flows and resource availability as well as 
new  opportunities  for  the  food  processing-industry.  Some  ME  focused  on  the  role  that 
groundwater  resources  play  during  drought  events,  by  developing  further  research  on 
aquifer modeling (BE), artificial recharge (FR) and groundwater monitoring networks. 

Another research area which was addressed by several MS concerned water consumption 
and  efficient  resource  use,  investigating  for  example  consumer  behaviour  with  water 
using devices (UK), the correlation between water and energy efficiency of dish washers 
and  washing  machines  (UK),  improvements  of  efficiency  of  water using  devices (UK), 
improvement  of  agricultural  practices  including  irrigation  (CY,  ES,  FR),  assessment  of 
alternative water supply options (CY, FR). 

2.7.2.2.  Evaluation of initiatives 

Were the objectives met and coherent with other actions? 

EU projects have ensured a broad, pan-European approach to the issue of droughts, and 
to the most suitable policy measures to address it, producing also relevant science policy 
briefs. However, water scarcity was not the subject of a single, comprehensive research 
project, but it was rather tackled, together with other issues, by different projects within 
the 6th and 7th Framework Programme. 

There  is  weak  common  coordination  in  research  orientations  across  MS.  On  the  one 
hand, some MS concentrated research efforts on the same issues, on the other hand other 
issues related to water savings and efficiency have been poorly explored. This suggests a 
better coordination of MS research projects to expand coverage and reduce duplications. 

Given  the  objectives  set  by  the  2007  Communication  for  research  and  technological 
development  opportunities  (the  support,  coordination  and  dissemination  of  research 
effort  between  EU  and  MS  levels),  it  appears  that  further  efforts  are  necessary  in 
particular in relation to coordination. 

Which were the main impacts? 

Assessing the social, economic and environmental impact of research efforts is generally 
difficult as research policies do not have direct impacts but are rather aimed at generating 

37 

 
 
background  information  and  innovations  which  will  in  turn  feed  other  policy  measures 
and  interventions  with  a  direct  impact,  for  example,  on  water  allocation.  More 
specifically,  in  the  case  of  water  scarcity  and  drought-related  research  programmes, 
outcomes  are  expected  to  enhance  preparedness  and  to  bring  about  the  development  of 
adaptation  strategies  leading  to  social,  economic  and  environmental  benefits.  The  time 
lag between research programmes and the translation of findings into policy or societal 
impacts makes it hard to verify the achievement of these expected positive impacts. 

Were Drivers, Pressures or Impacts addressed? 

EU  research  projects  investigated  mainly  pressures  and  impacts  of  water  scarcity  and 
droughts,  while  drivers  were  investigated  within  the  XEROCHORE  Support  Action 
project. 

At  national  level,  although  some  attention  was  given  to  drivers  and  state,  the  greatest 
effort was, also, directed at tackling pressures and impacts. 

Is this course of action still appropriate? 

At  the  EU  level  great  efforts  have  been  made  in  research  activities,  particularly  on 
droughts,  while  water  scarcity  has  not  been  addressed  by  an  overarching  research 
initiative.  This  is  required  to  effectively  cover  all  relevant  issues  and  themes  related  to 
water scarcity in the future. 

Better  coordination  of  research  activities  e.g.  under  the  Joint  Programming  Initiative 
(JPI)  on  Water  and  better  linking  of  research  to  policy  making  and  markets  under  the 
Innovation Partnership on Water, is crucial for the future. 

38