COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources
Date: 2012-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: drought, fixing of prices, flood, sustainable development, use of water, water consumption, water management in agriculture, water pollution, water protection














EUR-Lex - 52012SC0382R(01) - EN











|



52012SC0382R(01)

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources /* SWD/2012/0382 final/2 */









TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT
ASSESSMENT......................... 4
1........... Annex 1: Baseline and Scenarios
for water resources....................................................... 5
1.1........ Trends for state of water resources,
pressures and drivers based on reported information and external sources 5
1.1.1..... What are the underlying causes
leading to the status of EU waters?.................................. 5
1.1.2..... Past trends for extreme events......................................................................................... 8
1.1.3..... Pressures and drivers.................................................................................................... 10
1.1.4..... Baseline for the state of water
resources........................................................................ 11
1.1.5..... Unsustainable trends in water
resources use and availability............................................ 13
1.2........ Hydro-economic modelling........................................................................................... 15
2........... Annex 2: Detailed analysis of
measures.......................................................................... 16
2.1........ Measures for controlling diffuse
pollution, protecting ecosystems and promoting natural water retention            17
2.1.1..... Description................................................................................................................... 17
2.1.2..... Key information on the impacts of
the measures............................................................. 18
2.1.3..... Barriers for implementation........................................................................................... 27
2.1.4..... Degree of implementation as
reflected by the RBMPs.................................................... 30
2.1.5..... Key EU policy instruments that
would unlock / guide the implementation........................ 32
2.2........ Measures improving water
availability............................................................................ 35
2.2.1..... Description................................................................................................................... 35
2.2.2..... Key information on the
cost-effectiveness (risks and benefits)........................................ 36
2.2.3..... Barriers for implementation........................................................................................... 42
2.2.4..... Degree of implementation as
reflected by the RBMPs.................................................... 44
2.2.5..... Key EU policy instruments that
would unlock / guide the implementation........................ 44
2.3........ Water efficiency measures............................................................................................. 45
2.3.1..... Description................................................................................................................... 45
2.3.2..... Impacts........................................................................................................................ 49
2.3.2.1.. Water saving potential and cost
effectiveness................................................................. 49
2.3.2.1.. agriculture..................................................................................................................... 49
2.3.2.2.. Industry........................................................................................................................ 49
2.3.2.3.. Energy.......................................................................................................................... 50
2.3.2.4.. public water supply and use.......................................................................................... 51
2.3.2.5.. Economic impacts......................................................................................................... 56
2.3.2.6.. Social Impacts.............................................................................................................. 60
2.3.2.7.. Environmental impacts.................................................................................................. 64
2.3.3.....  Barriers for implementation.......................................................................................... 70
2.3.4..... Degree of implementation as
reflected by the RBMPs.................................................... 76
2.3.5..... Key EU policy instruments that
would unlock / guide the implementation........................ 77
3...........  Annex 3: Stakeholder and public
consultations.............................................................. 79
3.1........ Stakeholder and public
consultation for the policy reviews supporting the Blueprint......... 79
3.1.1..... Assessment River Basin Management
Plans................................................................... 79
3.1.2..... Review Water Scarcity &
Droughts policy.................................................................... 79
3.1.3..... Fitness Check............................................................................................................... 81
3.1.4..... Modelling of scenarios, measures
and objectives........................................................... 86
3.2........ Public Consultation on policy
options............................................................................ 86
3.2.1..... Horizontal options......................................................................................................... 86
3.2.2..... Options unlocking specific
measures.............................................................................. 88
3.3........ Stakeholder Consultation on
policy options................................................................... 91
3.4........ Calendar of main events................................................................................................ 95
4........... Annex 4: Inter-service
consultation................................................................................ 95
4.1........ Impact Assessment Steering Group............................................................................... 95
4.2........ Impact Assessment Board............................................................................................ 96
5........... Annex 5: Key studies/work
carried out by external consultants....................................... 99
6........... Annex 6: References................................................................................................... 104
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's
Water Resources
1.           Annex
1: Baseline and Scenarios for
water resources
1.1.        Trends
for state of water resources, pressures and drivers based on reported
information and external sources
1.1.1.     What
are the underlying causes leading to the status of EU waters?
The assessment of the underlying causes for
the current (and future) State of water resources, described in the previous
section, follows a DPSIR framework cycle (Driving forces, Pressures, States,
Impacts, Responses) that can be synthesised as in the figure below:
DPSIR framework for the Blueprint - Source:
DG Environment, 2012
The present section explores the main
Pressures (pollutant emissions, water use, physical restructuring) affecting
the state of water resources and identifies the anthropogenic and natural
Drivers of these pressures. Then it looks at the degree of implementation of
policy Responses, i.e. concrete measures and support actions (institutional
framework, policies and legislations, allocation instruments, knowledge base)
that would be able to tackle both pressures and drivers if sufficiently
implemented. 
The main pressures having an impact on the
aquatic ecosystems are diffuse pollution sources (e.g. from agriculture,
airborne pollution); hydromorphological alterations (physical modifications of
surface water bodies e.g. from hydropower, navigation and flood protection) and
water abstraction. The picture below shows that these pressures occur in the
majority of MS and in a large number of water bodies
Percentage of river water bodies with
significant pressures (number of MS in brackets): Source: EEA (2012)
Although considerable success has been
achieved in reducing the discharge of pollutants into Europe’s waters in recent
decades (mainly thanks to the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Directive
(UWWD) and the Integrated Pollution Prevention & Control Directive
(IPPCD)), point source pollution is still reported as a significant pressure in
more than 40% of transitional waters, indicating that there are remaining
challenges related to urban and industrial waste water in many deltas and
estuaries in Europe. Furthermore, although downward trends in pollution related
to urban and industrial wastewater can be observed in most of Europe's surface
waters, these trends have levelled in recent years and there are still
significant gaps in particular in Eastern and Southern MS[1].
Progress has been significant in reducing
the diffuse pollution of nitrates from agriculture[2] and
there has also been a gradual reduction in phosphorus concentrations in many
European lakes (primarily thanks to improved wastewater treatment and bans on
phosphates in detergents). However, agriculture is still mentioned in more than
90% of the River Basins Management Plans (RBMPs) as a main driver causing
significant impacts on water quality and quantity.
Declines in emissions have been observed
for some hazardous chemicals such as heavy metals from waste water treatment
plants and some pesticides as a result of restrictions on their use[3], but the persistency of some
restricted substances means that they will still be found for decades in the
water environment. Other substances such as pharmaceuticals and personal care
products, often referred to as emerging pollutants, are increasingly being monitored
and found in water bodies across the EU. A number of these have properties
which pose risk via or to the aquatic environment.[4] 
Around 40% of surface water bodies are
subject to significant hydro-morphological pressures, which, from the
assessment of the RBMPs, emerge as the most significant pressure on river water
bodies. Only 12% of such water bodies have been designated as Heavily Modified 
with a lower environmental objective by the Member States. This means that MS
should achieve good ecological status for the remaining 28%, by taking
necessary measures to reduce the hydro-morphological pressure such as Natural
Water Retention Measures (NWRMs).
Water abstraction (from surface or ground
water bodies) is a main cause of water stress when it goes beyond natural
limits (over-abstraction). Main pressures from water consumption (water which
is not returned to the water body after use) are concentrated on irrigation and
domestic demand, including tourism. Agriculture is the main consumptive user,
in particular in the South of Europe, where it is responsible for up to 70% of
total water use. In addition, there is considerable ‘loss’ of water (around
40%) in public distribution and supply networks prior to it reaching consumers,
thus aggravating shortages in already water scarce regions. Moreover, illegal
abstraction is also a worrying phenomenon. It is estimated (WWF, 2006) that in Spain alone there are more than half a million illegal wells. This situation calls for ways
to increase water efficiency and tackle illegal water abstraction.
The pressures on EU waters presented above
are themselves due to some drivers that can be expressed in terms of
demographic growth, land use and economic activity. 
Although the European population is
increasing slowly over time, analysis of regional trends over the last 15 years
show increasing regional variations, with a trend of East-West polarisation,
mostly due to negative migration balance in Eastern Europe, and a demographic
increase in most of the urban regions and in South-West Europe, mainly due to
internal and external migrations (see figure below). This results in a higher
demand for water that can stress local water balances.
Annual net migration development for
2001-2005(Source ESPON, 2008)
These demographic changes are associated
with intense land-use changes, in particular the
continued expansion of artificial surfaces (urban sprawl and infrastructure
development) at the expense of agricultural land, grasslands and wetlands
across Europe, with impacts on the water cycle and
water resources (lower recharge of ground water, increase flood risk, leaching
of pollutants) (EEA, 2010). Recent studies show that deforestation
by urbanisation and industrialisation in coastal areas of certain basins such
as the Western Mediterranean can disturb the regional water cycle, reducing
precipitation in the region (Ellison et al. 2011), while urbanisation (soil
sealing) in the Mediterranean can trigger floods in Central Europe. 
The process of conversion into more
intensive agriculture is still on-going in Central and
Eastern Europe, while intensity remains high in Western Europe, maximising the
crop production-oriented functions of ecosystems, with the subsequent impact on
chemical and ecological status of water due to nitrates, phosphates and
pesticides, and on the water cycle due to drainage (Kravçik et al, 2008). Water
pollution and abstraction from industry has been affected by changes in the
structure of industrial production in Europe, by improvements in the processes
and by regulations on waste water treatment. Regarding consumers, there is an
increasing pressure on water resources derived from upgraded standard of living
and the use of water consuming technologies in houses or crops in the gardens
(Iglesias, 2007). 
1.1.2.     Past
trends for extreme events
Drought is a natural phenomenon. It is a
temporary, negative and severe deviation along a significant time period and
over a large region from average precipitation values (a rainfall deficit),
which might lead to meteorological, agricultural, hydrological and
socioeconomic drought, depending on its severity and duration. Data from the
recent 30 years suggest that drought events are increasing in frequency across Europe. South-eastern Europe is increasingly facing extended periods of droughts, and both
Northern and Western Europe have been affected in more recent years. A
prolonged drought across the entire Iberian Peninsula was experienced in the
years 1990-1995, while large parts of continental Europe were affected by
droughts in 2003. Most recently, UK, France, Germany and Poland experienced a very dry spring in 2011.
Main drought events in Europe, 2000–2009 -
source: EEA.
Floods are extreme events that can have
large impacts on human societies and ecosystems. They arise from a multitude of
causes and can have very different consequences depending on regional and local
circumstances. Floods are part of the natural hydrological cycle, but adverse
impacts arise when water masses inundate infrastructures and land that cannot
cope with excessive water. Major flood disasters in Europe have caused loss of
lives and economic loss that amount to billions of euro, but aggregated over
large areas small local floods also produce significant losses. Analyses of
trends of past flood events suggest flood hazard have increased in parts of Europe. Available evidence suggests high flows have been increasing in northern Europe,
especially in western Britain and coastal Scandinavia. Regional patterns are,
however, diverse, with many weak negative trends occurring in northern Europe
as well, and a very mixed pattern in central Europe, mainly as concerns fluvial
floods.. 
Flood trends[5] across Europe, 1962 – 2004 - Source (Stahl et al.
2011), quoted in (EEA, 2012
1.1.3.     Pressures
and drivers
Point source pollution is still reported as
a significant pressure in more than 40% of transitional waters, indicating that
there are remaining challenges related to urban and industrial waste water in
many estuaries in Europe.
The average concentrations of orthophosphate
in European rivers halved over the past 20 years. During the past few decades
there has also been a gradual reduction in phosphorus concentrations in many
European lakes. Phosphorus levels have declined in recent years due primarily
to improved wastewater treatment and bans on phosphates in detergents. 
They therefore need to be considered
alongside other substances during the regular review of the priority substances
list under the Water Framework Directive. The Water Framework Directive
complements action on chemicals under other sectoral legislation, for example
the REACH Regulation, Plant Protection Products and Biocides legislation[6].
Some of the existing physical modifications
of surface water bodies are linked to specific legitimate uses such as storage
of drinking water, agriculture, hydropower, navigation, flood protection, etc.
Where the benefits achieved by the physical modification cannot be reasonably
achieved by other means that are a significantly better environmental option,
Article 4.3 of the WFD allows Member States (MS) to designate the water bodies
as Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB). This is subject to the condition that
the change necessary to bring back the water body to good ecological status
would have a significant adverse effect on a sustainable development activity.
An alternative objective to good ecological status is applied to these water
bodies, namely good ecological potential, which takes into account the physical
modification that is necessary for the use. 
Across most of the continent, urbanisation
and the accumulation of assets in flood prone areas have led to increasing
trends in the damages and economic consequences of floods. Urbanisation (soil
sealing) in the Mediterranean can trigger floods in Central Europe.
On the other hand, deforestation by
urbanisation and industrialisation in coastal areas of certain basins including
the Western Mediterranean can disturb the regional water cycle, reducing
precipitation in the region (Ellison et al. 2012).
Predominant net land conversions in Europe 1990–2006 (source EEA, 2010)
1.1.4.     Baseline
for the state of water resources
The Baseline developed in the context of
this Impact Assessment takes on board geographical and economic disparities
across the EU, the uncertainty on climate and socio-economic drivers, and
includes the achievements by water policy in restoring and preserving the water
cycle and improving the ecological and chemical status of all river basins. The
outlook has a medium term horizon (2030) enabling the identification of gaps in
current policy implementation and supporting an optimisation model, and a
longer term horizon (2050) with a greater uncertainty, to be used for the
building of a robust decision making framework. 
As indicated by recent IPCC Special Report
on Extreme Events[7],
"projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios
generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these
signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this
time frame." The reference period 1981-2010, including inter-annual
variability, is therefore used in the context of the 2030 scenarios, while
results provided by the ClimWatAdapt project are used to describe the
vulnerability of water resources for the horizon 2050.
The on-going assessment of RBMP provides
information on the likely uptake of the measures and resulting pressures to
water bodies:
·                        
In many RBMPs, there is considerable scope for
greater implementation of source control measures across all sectors and for
the restoration of water bodies which have been significantly altered through
physical modifications, leading to changes in water flows, habitat
fragmentation and obstructions of species migration.
·                        
RBMPs include modification of the water pricing
system to foster a more efficient use of water (in 49% of the RBMPs), the
improvement of the efficiency of water agricultural uses (in 45% of the RBMPs),
measures to enhance water metering (in 40% of the RBMPs) and measures to
increase treated water reuse (in 50% of the RBMPs).
Impact of other EU policies
The MFF Communication mentions that
Environment and Climate objectives need to be reflected in all instruments to
ensure they contribute to the shift towards a low carbon, resource efficient
and climate resilient economy, which includes obviously the measures needed for
the protection of water resources. The communication mentions the intention to
increase the proportion of climate related expenditure to at least 20% in the
next EU budget (2014-2020). This potentially includes most water management
measures as long as they contribute to low carbon economy (water savings,
energy savings in water supply and treatment, low input agriculture, etc.) or
climate change adaptation (prevention of water scarcity, droughts and floods).
Structural Funds will be available for
water resource protection measures, in particular waste-water treatment or
recycling plants. They can also support actions to restore ecosystems
(including in Mediterranean coastal areas) and actions for green infrastructure
projects (natural water retention measures).
The European Commission's proposals[8] for a reform of the CAP after
2013 include a number of measures with a direct or indirect impact on water
resources management, in particular:
·                        
30% of direct payments to be tied to a greening
component, ensuring that EU farmers receiving direct payments go beyond the
requirements of cross-compliance and deliver environmental and climate benefits
as part of their everyday activities.
·                        
Cross-compliance standards for maintaining soil
organic matter level and the protection of wetlands and carbon rich soils. Both
standards are aimed at climate change mitigation and adaptation but they should
also benefit water quality and water quantity.
·                        
The proposal also foresees the inclusion of the
Water Framework Directive and the Directive on the sustainable use of
pesticides into cross-compliance once they are fully implemented by Member
States and concrete rules relevant to farming are identified.
·                        
Extension of the scope of the Farm Advisory
System to inter alia the protection of water
·                        
Rural development policy should continue to
offer a range of measures which will influence water quality, water quantity
and the hydro morphology. Some of these will operate through investments (e.g.
in more efficient irrigation systems or in forestry); others through payments
to reward beneficial or mitigating practices (e.g. the Agri-environment-climate
measures) or to compensate for disadvantages (e.g. payments to areas particularly
affected by implementation of the Water Framework Directive); still others
through support for training activities and co-operation on environmental
projects. Particular conditions have been proposed for support for investments
in irrigation. 
·                        
The ambition is that the system of designing
rural development programmes should be based more on outputs (results), less on
inputs (spending). It will function through more detailed
"priorities" – some of which will explicitly mention water – and improved
indicators. However, as a safeguard, Member States will be required to spend at
least 25 % of their envelope from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development (EAFRD) on three key measures relevant to water.
The baseline takes also on board the
policies agreed in the Climate and Energy package, i.e. the legally binding
targets for renewable energy sources (RES) to achieve a 20% overall share and a
specific 10% share in transport and the legally binding targets for non-ETS GHG
emissions and the ETS target to achieve the 20% reduction target in 2020
compared to 2005[9].
1.1.5.     Unsustainable
trends in water resources use and availability
A lack of ambition has been found in many
RBMPs as regards achieving the environmental objectives of good ecological
status or potential as well as extensive reliance on exemptions. In general,
the extensive use of exemptions is not supported by transparent justification
of the criteria applied, indicating a degree of arbitrariness in their
application. Where deadlines for achieving the environmental objectives are
extended beyond 2015, it is often unclear by when the objectives will be
reached.[10]
 Water status according to the RBMP
assessment 
According to the assessment of Water
Scarcity and Droughts policy, the policy responses currently in place are not
fundamentally reversing the trend in water scarcity in the medium time horizon
(2030). Without modification to the institutional and policy measures already
implemented or planned, water scarcity in 2030 is expected to increase.
Vulnerability to extreme events
The frequency of heavy precipitation events
is likely to increase in many areas of the globe, including Europe; this can
cause flash flood and pluvial flood events. It is also very likely that mean
sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water
levels.[11]
Droughts are also projected to increase.
At global level, the recent GEO-5 report[12] states that despite the
progress, there are concerns that the limit of sustainability of water
resources, both surface- and ground-water, has already been reached or
surpassed in many regions, that demand of water continues to increase and that
water-related stress on both people and biodiversity is escalating rapidly.
These trends (mapped e.g. in Vörösmarty et al. 2010) confirm the importance of
complementing the analysis of EU water resources with an assessment of the
impact of goods and services imported into the EU on global water resources,
taking into account local water management contexts.
The future water situation and developments
in the water sector have been examined in Europe until 2050 by the ClimWatAdapt
project[13]
in terms of vulnerability to water scarcity, droughts and floods. The analyses
show that climate change has a major effect on extreme events, i.e. the
occurrence of droughts and floods. On the other side, future vulnerability to
water scarcity is more dependent on socio-economic development than on climate
change impacts, i.e. changes in water use are likely to have more impact on
water scarcity than changes in water availability resulting from climate
change. Water quality will deteriorate as a consequence of climate change, e.g.
because in cases where reduced runoff will lead to lower dilution rates or, on
the other hand, in cases where a much higher runoff will cause higher nutrient
loads.
1.2.        Hydro-economic
modelling
In the context of the Impact assessment for
the Blueprint, refining the result of ClimWatAdapt, the Joint Research Centre
of the European Commission developed a baseline scenario bringing together
climate, land-use and socio-economic scenarios and looking at the implication
for water resources availability and use under different policy scenarios. The
methodology and the results are described in the support study JRC, 2012. Service
contract to support the impact assessment of the Blueprint to safeguard
Europe’s waters - A multi-criteria optimisation of scenarios for the protection
of water resources in Europe, available on https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/5a1d878b-9734-46b1-8513-7b32adbd9349
2.           Annex
2: Detailed analysis of measures
The assessment of the state of Europe's
waters and of the pressures and drivers at the basis of these status (main
report and Annex 1) demonstrates that there is a need for further
implementation of water resource management measures in all sectors to improve
water resource efficiency and sustainability (see DPSIR figure). The scheme
below explains how these measures cover qualitative and quantitative water
aspects. It also reflects the choices to be made to reduce water stress,
between reducing demand and increasing the availability of clean water:
This annex
describes the measures mentioned in the main report and provides detailed
information on:
–                        
Information sources, including studies done in
the context of the Blueprint
–                        
Key information on the cost-effectiveness,
benefits and side-effects
–                        
Barriers for implementation (Market failures,
Financing sources, Regulatory support, Concrete rules or definitions, Lack of
coordination, Societal, Political, etc.)
–                        
Degree of implementation as reflected by the
RBMPs
–                        
Key EU policy instruments that would unlock /
guide the implementation (integration, funding, knowledge base, governance
issues)
2.1.        Measures
for controlling diffuse pollution, protecting ecosystems and promoting natural
water retention  
2.1.1.     Description
The WFD environmental objective of good
ecological status includes a holistic assessment of the aquatic ecosystems,
including hydro morphological aspects. Healthy aquatic ecosystems are necessary
to maintain and improve the ecological functioning of ecosystems and thereby
also increase biodiversity. Around 70% of the habitats and species protected by
EU nature legislation are water dependent. A well-functioning aquatic ecosystem
provides services such as self-purification and water retention through
connection with its natural floodplain, and proves/shows the maintenance and
improvement of water quality and quantity, increasing its resilience to natural
or man-made alterations.
Economic activities such as hydropower
generation, navigation, agriculture, forestry, land drainage, urban sprawl and
flood protection have physically altered the aquatic ecosystems across the EU,
reducing their capability to function properly and their ability to host a rich
biodiversity and reducing the delivery of valuable ecosystem services. The
information provided by Member States in their RBMPs shows that more than 40%
of the water bodies in the EU are affected by significant hydromorphological
pressures and impacts.
Measures to restore ecosystem functionality
are key for achieving the WFD environmental objectives of good ecological
status and to restore ecosystem services. The objective is to work with nature
and not against it. Some of these key measures focus on:
–                        
Restoring the riparian area of water courses,
which provides a natural barrier for pollutants (e.g. nutrients and
pesticides), increases biodiversity linked to the aquatic environment, improves
resilience and prevents erosion by providing bank stability.
–                        
Restoring the longitudinal continuity and
lateral connectivity of water courses by dismantling existing unused barriers
and incorporating appropriate fish passes /ladders for migratory species, by
removing artificial embankments, lowering river banks, and reconnecting the
flood plain with the river, as well as  habitat restoration (by restoring bed
and bank structure) and establishing minimum ecological flow. These measures are
necessary for achieving GES.
–                        
Restoring the natural flow regime of the river
(reconnecting meanders or side cut off arms and re-meandering of formerly
straightened water courses,), and other flow management measures construction
of retention basins, operational modifications of hydro peaking, floodplain and
wetlands restoration.  
Measures for preventing and controlling
diffuse pollution at the source (in synergy with the Nitrates directive and
good agricultural practices) include regulating fertilizer and manure
spreading, conversion of arable land to grassland, buffer zones, plant cover,
crop  rotation, woodland creation and wetland restoration. These measures
target diffuse pollution but have multiple benefits. 
It has been increasingly recognized that
these measures, also have a strong capacity for increasing natural water
retention and most of them can be classified as Natural water retention
measures (NWRM). NWRM aim to safeguard and enhance the water storage potential
of landscape, soil, and aquifers, by restoring ecosystems, natural features,
and characteristics of water courses and by using natural processes. They are
adaptation measures aiming at reducing vulnerability of water resources to
climate change and other anthropogenic pressures. They  use nature to regulate
the flow and transport of water so as to smooth peaks and moderate extreme
events (floods, droughts, desertification, salination) and they are relevant
both in rural and urban areas. They include forestry measures (Continuous Cover
Forestry, riparian forests, afforestation), sustainable agriculture practices
(buffer strips, crop practices, grasslands, terracing, green cover, no/reduced
tillage, early sowing), sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) (i.e. filter
strips, swales green roofs)  with a focus on urban areas but also partially
applicable to other land uses, and measures that focus on increasing the
storage in catchment and alongside rivers (i.e. restoration of wetlands,
restoration of  flood plains and lakes, integration of basins and ponds, river
re-meandering and natural bank stabilization).
2.1.2.     Key information on the impacts of the measures 
The measures focusing on restoring
ecosystem functionality, controlling diffusion pollution and promoting natural
water retention deliver multiple Ecosystem Services (ESS), such as flood hazard
reduction, water flow regulation, water quality regulation (i.e. purification),
water provisioning, soil quality regulation (improvement), provision of habitat
(regulation of the biotic environment) and cultural services, and atmospheric
regulation (i.e. air quality improvement, climate regulation). Most of them can
be regarded either as component of Green Infrastructure or as measures supporting
Green Infrastructure, contributing to integrated goals dealing with nature and
biodiversity conservation and restoration, and sustainable landscaping.  Their
multi-functionality contributes to their cost-efficiency and renders them good
candidates for sustainable climate adaptation measures. Quantification and
Valuation of the ESS they provide is important for assessing their
cost-effectiveness even though in many cases the benefits cannot be monetized.
NWRM have  direct impacts on hydrology and
water retention related to improving  soil’s water storage capacity, limiting
soil erosion, increasing groundwater recharge, conserving water in natural
systems decreasing flow velocity, controlling runoff  and reducing flood peaks.
NWRM and measures traditionally implemented with a focus on the protection of
ecosystems have impact on water quantity regulation and on physico-chemical,
hydro morphological, and biological quality elements contributing to WFD
objectives.  Restoring riparian areas of surface waters (either with protected
vegetated buffer zones or the establishment of riparian forests) goes beyond
the concept of buffer strip to provide a natural fully functional barrier to
protect water bodies. This measure provides water purification services and
improves river quality by reducing pollution caused by of nutrients,
pesticides, and suspended solids, flow (mass) regulation services by regulating
erosion and sediment transport in addition to leading to runoff control and
ultimately flood hazard reduction. It contributes to the achievement of GES and
it improves both the aquatic and the terrestrial ecosystems as it provides
ecological corridors providing habitat services (STELLA (2012), WRC et. al.
(2012), River Basin Network (2012)).
In addition to the establishment of
riparian forests, sustainable forestry practises such as Continuous Cover
Forestry and well- designed afforestation of arable land have significant
benefits on reducing flood hazard reduction by slowing the flow (increasing
evapotranspiration and infiltration) and improving significantly downstream water
quality, while delivering multiple ecosystem services such as carbon
sequestration, regulation of biotic environment (i.e. habitat provision), and
cultural services.
Other measures addressing water protection
in agriculture have multiple physiochemical, ecological and hydrological
effects (WRC et. al. (2012), River Basin Network (2012)) providing water
quality and flow regulation services as well as contributing to regulation of
the biotic environment  (STELLA (2012), WRC et. al. (2012), River Basin Network
(2012)).
Hydromorphological measures (i.e. re-meandering,
natural bank stabilization) have multiple benefits, improving all aspects of
GES including improvement/regulation of hydrological regime (regulating river
flows, improving the hydrological balance, increasing groundwater recharge and
summer low-flow, increasing water exchange between the surface and the
subsurface environment, and improving chemical and biological status). The
improvement of GES leads to increasing clean water availability and providing a
water provisioning service (STELLA (2012), River Basin Network (2012)) in
addition to the regulation of the physical environment.  In addition they
contribute to improving the landscape and creating recreational opportunities
providing multiple cultural services. However in order to better valuate these
measures it is essential that the environmental and resource cost is properly
taken into consideration in cost recovery systems. 
Related measures for increasing storage
alongside rivers such as restoration of lakes, wetlands and floodplains, and
creation of buffer basins are amongst the most effective measures for natural
water retention. They play an important role in reducing flood hazard
reduction, storing water as well as increasing water availability. They improve
quality of ground water and surface water acting as natural filters and are
valuable for habitat provision. Benefits related to floodplain /wetland
restoration have been quantified /monetized in terms of ESS in various case
studies (Grossmann 2012).
Sustainable storage Systems provide
significant water flow regulation services by contributing  to groundwater
recharge,  runoff control, and consequently flood and pollution risk reduction.
They provide a natural water purification service and this can be quantified, 
As the benefits of these measures target
all the population and not the land-users /owners, it cannot be expected that
these measures will be financed by the land users. There is a need for either
funding these measures through different mechanisms or providing the means for
compensations (i.e. PES). Selection of the measures on local and national level
should be performed taking to consideration their cost-effectiveness,
accounting both for their positive and negative impacts in economic,
environmental, and social terms.
Environmental Impacts 
Most of the proposed measures mitigate
soil degradation processes and have significant impact on soil quality
and function improvement. Forests (and related measures i.e. afforestation
of abandoned land, CCF) improve soil quality as a result of increased organic
matter, the action of  tree root complexes, the presence of soil fauna, which
leads to a macro-pore structure that can result to a ''sponge effect'' i.e.
higher infiltration rates  (Nisbet and Thomas, 2006) . Most agricultural
measures (including no-tillage and crop practices) have a direct impact on soil
quality increasing organic carbon stock, improving biological activity and soil
structure, and reducing erosion (EC-JRC 2009).  Crop rotation leads to
decreased soil erosion reducing soil losses; for example a rotation involving
corn, hay, and pasture corps may reduce soil losses by 30 % compared to
continuous corn crops (WRC, 2012). These benefits have positive impacts both in
terms of agricultural production and hydrological regulation. Urban measures
that lead to decreased soil sealing (i.e. filter strips and swales) also can
significantly improve soil quality and functioning;  for example infiltration
rates can be increased up to 87 % by grass filter strips  (STELLA, 2012).
These measures contribute to the regulation of flow
and reduction of water resource vulnerability to CC (and other pressures);
natural water storage increase in the soil, landscape, and aquifer result in
increased water availability and mitigate flood events by decreasing runoff. The flow regulation impact of certain measures on flood
reduction is more pronounced in smaller scales but not within large basins
(Nisbet and Thomas (2006)). It
was concluded in a pan-European study involving hydrological data from
catchments spanning a wide range of forest types, climate conditions and
soil/geology that forestry can have a significant effect on flood flows at the
small catchment scale forest growth could result in a 10-20% reduction in peak
flows in headwater catchments, while forest drainage and felling could have the
opposite effect. (Robinson et al. (2003)).
Wetlands are one of the most effective measures in terms of flow regulation as they
increase water storage, contribute to groundwater replenishment and attenuate
run-off.  
One possible negative impact on water
availability is that afforestation could under certain conditions result in
low dry season flows depending on the species used and the climatic conditions
because of the increased water use (Calder et al. (2007)). In order to fully
assess this ''forest cover- water yield debate'' the effect of afforestation on
the regional water cycle needs to be taken to account considering potential of
increased evapotranspiration and temperature moderation to contribute to
increase precipitation cycles (Ellison et al. 2012).   More over even though
the soil structure in forests areas favours groundwater recharge, there is
evidence that in semi-arid area catchments and in drought periods forests
(including dense riparian canopies) could result in lower stream flows and
decreased groundwater recharge (STELLA 2012). Finally the effect of
afforestation on the water balance is affected by vegetation used (i.e.
coniferous vs. deciduous forests) and on whether the previous land-use required
irrigation. 
A well designed combination of agriculture
related measures can have a great impact on runoff reduction and on
increase of groundwater recharge. For specific sites it is estimated that
conversion of cropland to grassland the average reduction in peak run-off will
range from 50-55 % and 40-45% for a five and 25 year 24-hour recurrence (WRC et
al 2012). A 10 % conversion of arable land to permanent grassland for a
catchment in Czech Republic was estimated to have 20 % reduction on the surface
runoff and an 11% increase on the ground water recharge. No and reduced tillage
promotes water uptake and infiltration, while reducing evaporation; it can lead
to soil-moisture increase of up to 300 % and 35 % respectively (EC-JRC 2009). Urban natural water retention measures can lead to run-off
reductions that can be significantly higher than when using conventional
systems; green roofs for example retain 40-90% of rain
water, depending on their design (STELLA 2012). Moreover they contribute to recharge
groundwater and aquifers in areas under water supply stress. 
The reduction of field erosion attributed
to agriculture and forestry measures, and reduction of bank erosion as a result
of riparian management and river restoration measures leads to an improved hydromorphological
status of surface water bodies. More over most measures improve the
hydrological regime by increasing the connection to groundwater and regulating
flow capacity and dynamics Hydromorphological measures such as bank structure
restoration, and river re-meandering can reduce stream velocities and improve
connectivity with groundwater reducing hydrological response times in high
flows effectively leading to a decreased flood risk. Other
measures that increase storage along-side rivers include wetland /lake
restoration, buffer ponds. These result in increased water availability
at the landscape as well as reduced flood risk. 
These measures can have significant
contribution to the improvement of physico-chemical status of surface and
ground water bodies. Agriculture related measures reduce the need for
fertilizer application, and limit leaching of pesticides and nutrients
improving both surface and groundwater quality.  Conversion of arable land to
grassland can result in 22 % decrease of N-loads and 21 % decrease of N
concentrations. Catch crops target primarily Nitrogen leaching, leading to a 25
-50 % reduction, depending on soil type and other conditions; targeting an area
of 140.000 hectares in a Swedish catchment catch crops let to reduced N loading
of 11-16 kg N ha -1 y-1 (River Basin Network (2012)). The
scenarios modelled in PEER 2012 report, illustrate that relevant cap greening
measures can lead to significant nutrient (i.e. for Nitrogen ranging from 40%
to 94 %) and that  restoration of floodplains and wetlands can decrease
Nitrogen loading in European seas by 7 % (PEER 2012).  
Most of the measures lead to improvement of
biological status of surface water bodies. Measures addressing
hydromorphological pressures lead to improved fish access to upstream sprawing
habitats , enlarge the potential of habitat size, strengthening their natural
life cycle; a hydropower by-pass can  significantly increase total area nursing
grounds (i.e for  salmonids by 20 % ) in Sweden, bed structure restoration can
lead to increase of fish types (i.e from 10 to 20) threefold fish density and
annual production increase and  increase in benthic invertebrate taxa (i.e.
from 202 to 273), bank structure restoration and re-meandering lead to increase
of macrophytes (WRC et al., 2012). Measures that improve water physico-chemical
status and regulate water flows have beneficial effects on the biological
status. Besides the improvement of biological status which benefits aquatic
ecosystems these measures provide habitat benefits for different
ecosystem types (STELLA 2012, IEEP et al (2012a) ) .  
Some of these measures (wetland
restoration, forestry measures, urban measures, and agricultural practices)
have a positive impact on air quality improvement and climate change
mitigation increasing the sinks for greenhouse gases.  Conversion to
Cropland to Grassland for example can lead to soil organic carbon stocks
increase by 19 % and sequestration of 332 kg C/ha y for a few decades (WRC et
al., 2012). 
Ambient temperature and precipitation can be affected by certain measures such as forestry and urban
green infrastructure and water temperature is also influenced by certain
measures for example riparian forests. 
Economic impacts
The costs of implementing green
infrastructure projects and natural water retention measures have been
estimated by a number of recent studies. In a study carried as support of Green
Infrastructure Strategy (IEEP 2012a) the costs of green infrastructure schemes
at project level were identified based on an analysis of 50 initiatives. The
range of project costs varies considerably, depending on the scope and local
conditions. For freshwater and wetlands management and restoration the average
project costs was 575.5 € million, with a minimum cost of about 128,000 € and a
maximum cost of over 4€ billion. Multi-functional farmland and forestry
projects tend to be much cheaper with an average cost of 115.5€ million and a
minimum cost of only 50,000 €. 
The cost associated with implementation of
these measures is a major factor to be considered. The NWRM study provides indicative
average EU unit investment and operating and maintenance costs (including
opportunity costs) as shown in table below: 
 Measure || Investment unit cost (€/ha) || Operation and maintenance unit cost (€/ha/year) ||
 Riparian forests || 7,527 || 502 ||
 Aforestation /Reforestation /CCF || 3,310 || 500 ||
 Urban (swales) || 163,174 || 30,024 ||
 Urban (infiltration) || 783,234 || 73,211 ||
 Urban (permeable surfaces) || 705,589 || 5,222 ||
 Urban (Green Roofs) || 537,512 || 14,132 ||
 Grassland || 0 || 371 ||
 Buffer strips (along rivers/ arable land) || 48 || 509 ||
 Soil conservation  crop practices || 0 || 110 ||
 No/ reduced tillage || 0 || 31 ||
 Green Cover || 0 || 144 ||
 Traditional terracing || 0 || 10,818 ||
 Early Sowing || 0 || 61 ||
 Buffer ponds || 53,360 || 58 ||
 Wetland (restoration /creation) || 15,776 || 348 ||
 Floodplain restoration || 258,647 || 25,865 ||
 Re-meandering || 610 || 2 ||
Investment costs include land requirements
(acquisition and compensation) and construction and rehabilitation (investment,
design and contingency). Operational costs include         operation and
maintenance and administrative costs (enforcement costs, monitoring, extension
of  networks) and other costs (i.e. possible income loss). 
The largest impact of these costs would be
potentially on the affected land users, mainly farmers. They would need to go
through a learning process and adapt their land practices; decreasing operating
income and potentially increasing operational costs or they could sell their
land and relocate. The extent of these impacts and the impact on the internal
market will depend on the availability of support from a land compensation
scheme or service payments. The increased adoption of green infrastructure
could negatively impact the construction sector, by shifting away from grey
infrastructure. One important aspect to consider is that the implementation of
NWRMs upstream to reduce run-off can reduce the need for grey infrastructure
projects downstream, thus saving costs as Green Infrastructure measures are
often low cost solutions. In France, the economic benefits of natural water
storage were calculated in terms of the replacement costs of building grey
infrastructure like dams. Several studies indicate benefits ranging from €
37/ha/year to € 617/ha/year[14].

As discussed in this study different types
of sources (scientific, case studies) recognise that these measures provide a
wide range of benefits for flood control and provision of other ecosystem
services especially water provision and purification.  A cost-benefit analysis
found that natural measures lead to flood protection benefits of around €740
million (all actualised benefits 2010-2100), recreational benefits of around
€22 million and provide ecosystem services to the tune of around €130 million
(Morris and Camino 2011).
Floods and associated damages is a serious
concern for Europe. The baseline flood hazard damage, based
on the 2010 GDP of the EU (€12,268.4 billion), is estimated for Europe in the following table (STELLA,2012 )
  Reference || Flood damage 
 (% of GDP) || € billion/year 
 Annual average flow || 0.08 || 9.8 
 10 year flood period || 0.15 || 18.4 
 20 year flood period || 0.2 || 24.5 
 50 year flood period || 0.25 || 30.7 
 100 year flood period || 0.3 || 36.8 
Flood protection and hazard reduction, a direct result of runoff reduction,  is one of the most important
benetics that can be valuated. Different measures have proven to make
significant contribution to flood hazard reduction. Estimations for the
marginal values of flood protection benefits for inland
wetland restorations range from €37/ha/yr to €617/ha/yr (IEEP et al (2012a)  and
for coastal wetlands are estimated  up to £ 2498 /ha/year for (Morris and
Camino 2011). In terms of EU-wide scenario modelling performed by the JRC (JRC
2012) in the context ofthis Impact assessment effective regional NWRM measures
can reduce flow peaks (averaged out for 21 RU regions > 3000 Km for a 20
year return period) by 1- 4 %.  The impact is evident at the local level where
these effects are pronounced: urban natural water retention measures for
example in dense European cities can result in flood peaks reduction of up to
20 %,  crop practices can lead to a reduction of flood peaks in certain
sub-catchments (in Danube area) of up to 15 %. Site specific analyses can
provide more detailed information for the impact of certain measures on
specific catchments with local reductions of up to 50 % (WRC et al. 2012). 
Increasing the storage capacity in the
soil, landscape, and aquifers can lead to higher water availability in general
(both in terms of groundwater and surface water), but especially to a more
balanced situation in dry Summer months (JRC 2012). Urban Natural water
retention measures for example can result local increase of low flows up to 20%
in areas near Paris and London.  
Beyond flood hazard reduction, water flow
and quality regulation and is also associated with the increase of clean water
availability which can have important economic benefits in terms of water
stress reduction and water provisioning. In terms of benefits relating to
increase of water availability the NWRM study (STELLA (2012)) estimates and
groundwater recharge benefit to be proportionate to the groundwater abstraction
cost (€0.055/m3). The increase of clean water availability
can influence positively different sectors of the economy. Beyond the impacts
that reduced water stress can have on agricultural and fisheries production,
this can have significant impacts on industry and tourism. This impact is
analysed with the hydro-economic modelling performed for this impact
assessment.
There are positive and negative impacts for
agricultural production. In addition to reduced water stress and the
soil improvement impacts of certain agricultural related measures can result in
increased soil fertility and improved agricultural production: Crop
rotation and catch crops contributes
to improving the health status of grown plants lead to a reduced need for N fertiliser
application on the crops and/or a higher yield for the
succeeding crop(s). For example N fertiliser is not needed for legume crops. Yields for a crop grown
in rotation with other crops are usually 5 to 15% greater than for continuous
monoculture of that same crop (WRC et al 2012, River Basin Network 2012)). More
over certain measures can result in decrease production costs. Catch
corps (in Southern regions) can lead to reduced irrigation needs and water
consumption (River Basin Network (2012)). However certain measures that result
in decrease of the arable land (even if CAP consistent) could result in
decreased production It is therefore important to properly evaluate the impact
of agriculture related measures that when performing CBA analysis the
sustainability constraints are taken to consideration. Reduced tillage can also
be driven by the cost reductions  (e.g. fuel, equipment, and labour reduction).
A case study in the Uckermark area, Denmark  estimates cost savings of
€28-70/ha/year or an average of €49/ha/year (EC-JRC 2009. 
The improvement of water quality and
quantity can have significant Avoided water treatment (drinking water) costs.
''High levels of nitrogen can result in increased costs for drinking water
production and can result in missed revenue derived from recreation in and
around waters (Elsin et al. 2010). A frequently used method of estimating the
value of changes in land use or the results of river and wetland restoration
consists of estimating the averted costs of water treatment (La Notte et al.
2012). These averted costs are a portion of the benefits that result from an
improvement of the water quality as expressed by a reduction of nitrogen
concentration. Cost savings are a social benefit and a straightforward way to
link water quality changes to particular economic outcomes (Elsin et al.
2010).'' (PEER 2012)
The reduction of runoff especially in urban
areas with SuDS can lead to reduction of drainage infrastructure cost.
In terms of infrastructure SuDS construction costs can be as low as 1/4 of
conventional drainage costs; for example £61,400 (for SuDS) as compared to
£272,600 (conventional drainage) were required to reduce runoff at a UK
school-site to greenfield rate.  Beyond drainage infrastructure SuDS can reduce
costs of waste water treatment infrastructure and can lead to avoided
waste water treatment costs for areas with combined sewers systems.
Retrofitting SuDS in urban areas involves disconnecting drained areas from
sewer systems and using natural water retention to reduce both sewers overflows
but also needs for treating rain- water in waste water treatment plants in
Urban areas which can significantly decrease the investments and operational
costs required for waste water treatment. (For conventional waste water
treatment the operational cost of waste water treatment is on the average € 1.9/m3 (JRC 2012) and the capital investment is USD 593-741/m3 per day (€474 – 593/m3
per day). (OECD, 2012)).
These green infrastructure related measures
under consideration can create opportunities for recreational activities
which can lead to business developments and green job development which relates
to social benefits. By improving cultural heritage Green Infrastructure
projects increase the recreational benefits of an area, which enhances a
region’s ability to attract tourism.  A green infrastructure initiative in
central England targeting has resulted in 20 new tourism attractions, and
attracts 8.7m visitors annually, bringing tourism revenues of €321 million to
the local economy (Naumann et al., 2011).
Social Impacts
Beyond the avoided costs and job opportunities that can be created
the social benefits related to these measures can be viewed within the context
of Green Infrastructure. As a result of access to green space and recreation
opportunities include improved levels of physical activity, promotion of health
and mental well-being, and facilitation of social interaction, inclusion and
community cohesion. (Forest Research, 2010). In addition social impacts arise
from an increase in temporary jobs due to project implementation and in
full-time jobs for maintenance and from increased tourism opportunities and
local recreation opportunities. 
Social impacts related to job creation are highlighted by anecdotal
evidence and serve as an indicator for potential impacts:
·                        
Improved employment and labour markets: 
·                        
The restoration of riverside areas in Lyon, France created between 60-120 temporary jobs in 17 companies (Naumann et al., 2011).
·                        
In the UK for every €1million spent on
agri-environmental measures under the Environmental Stewardship scheme one
Full-time job is supported (Mills, et al., 2010 in IEEP, 2011).
·                        
An IA of promoting GI over grey infrastructure
for flood management found that investments in ecosystem based solutions reduce
jobs in sectors focusing on conventional flood management but an increase in
jobs through GI projects negatives the loss and overall net effect as neutral
(IEEP, 2011). 
·                        
Improved job quality: According to IEEP (2011),
GI enhance labour productivity through improved health as a result of better
air quality, green views, and increased outdoor recreational activities. IEEP
references a 2009 Study of a forest project in England, which estimated annual
net benefits of £20,000 as a result of reduced sick days, as well as annual
cost savings of £13,000 as a result of improved health through physical
recreation. In addition, the study found that better air quality resulted in
net annual benefits at £116,000 due to less air pollution (Regeneris, 2009 in
IEEP, 2011).
For many of the measures involving site
restoration and environmental protection, existence value is an important
''non-use'' social benefit. This can have different origins including moral,
spiritual, cultural heritage, and aesthetic reasons (Dana 2004).  The
Willingness to Pay (WTP), an estimate of what society is willing to pay for
restoration actions can be an indication of value that individuals place on
certain measures that focus on ecosystem protection. According to PEER (2012),
a study in Danish catchment for WTP for ecological status improvement, concluded
that the WTP for improving ecological status of lakes and fjords which
originally have ''poor''  status to good / very good, ranged from 68.59 €
person-1 year- to 128.77 € person-1 year. These values can be further affected
by the individual income and distance to the water bodies. Similarly based on UK studies for estimating the non-market benefits, the average WTP for ecological status improvement
of rivers and lakesis  £55/household/year (Morris and Camino, 2011). A
meta-analysis on WTP for wetland conservation provided an estimated function of
WTP in terms of scope, income, and distance decay, for the EU-27 which ranges
from €2 - €27 (annual per person) (Grossmann, 2012). 
On the other hand, there are potential
negative social impacts in case land users would abandon their land or would
suffer from losing operating income/increased operating costs which are not
compensated for.
Overall the impacts that are attributed to
these measures can be summarized in the following table: 
 Impact Measure   ||  Environmental || Economic || Social 
 Measures for controlling diffuse pollution, protecting ecosystems and promoting natural water retention || Improvement of chemical status of  surface and ground water bodies Improvement of hydro morphological status of surface water bodies Improvement of biological status of surface water bodies Improvernt of quantitative status of groundwater bodies Regulation of flow and reduction of water resource vulnerability to CC (and other pressures) Habitat improvement Soil quality and functioning improvement Air quality improvent (sink for greenhouse gases) Positive influence on temperature and precipitation   || Reduce flood hazard costs Reduce water stress and increase water availability benefits activities in different sectors (agriculture, fisheries, industry, tourism) Reduce waste water treatment costs (by reducing treated runoff) Reduce drinking water treatment costs (by improving water quality of  ground and surface sources) Promote green growth (eco-tourism, and recreational services, eco-engineering and eco-design (i.e. SuDS) Carbon offsets   || Improved access to sufficient and high quality water Reduce stress related to impacts of  extreme events (scarcity and floods) Provide a healthier  /pleasant living environment Provide access / proximity to nature with recreational opportunities Existence value (moral, spiritual, cultural, aesthetic…)   
2.1.3.     Barriers
for implementation
Market failures:
As discussed above cost effectiveness of
the measure is not always evident (especially since certain ESS can not be
accounted for). Certain measures require a large investment. Because of the
scale of measure applicability there is the issue that different stakeholders
bear the costs and different stakeholders receive the benefits. Thus financing
becomes a key issue. 
Also implementation of these measures could
lead to loss of revenues as they often provoke land-use changes, involving the
extensification of farming practices, losing productive land and decreasing
productivity.  In addition, land with economic value would be necessary to
implement the measures and to restore or connect the landscape (STELLA (2012)).
Payments for Ecosystem Services based on private initiatives could be an
effective tool for resolving conflicts, and compensating market failures to
address these loses, but there is still need for a wider methodological
framework for its application and this tool is not always feasible for
application by non private entities. 
Financing sources
So far these measures have been implemented
to some degree through co-financing of EU funds, such as the LIFE Programme,
but these funds are not enough for a wide implementation of these measures. 
Other EU funds such as the Structural and Cohesion funds are being used for
fairly large investments (tens or hundreds of million euros) of man-made
measures such as dikes, have not yet been utilized natural retention water
measures investments (STELLA (2012)). Some of the EU policies, such as the CAP,
provide subsidies to compensate for losses related to land use / practice
changes. The EU's rural development policy has been rather more successful at
channelling funding into investments in ecosystem protection (as well as into
annual payments serving similar objectives) – though there have been obstacles
to doing so (e.g. the limited duration of rural development programmes, the
need to find match-funding from national / regional budgets, other objectives
competing for funding). 
Regulatory support
Certain barriers in terms of integrating
these measures with other policy implementation actions can attributed directly
to regulatory support in the EU and MS level. There is lack of binding targets
in EU policies (and funding instruments) and prospects for supporting the
measures only through voluntary measures resulting in lack of motivation,
discretionary power  to MS can lead to low uptake of the measures (i.e CAP,
Cohesion, Structural).
The measures may simultaneously impact
stakeholders representing different sectors leading to potential conflicts of
different land users especially if their multifunctionality is not properly
exploited. This is more complicated because while the ''burden'' of these
measures in terms of cost (and land use management) are quantifiable in a local
level the benefits are often fully quantifiable in a larger scale (even though
there are local benefits). EU policies influence LU with different constraints
(WFD, FD, Nature and Biodiversity, Cohesion, CAP), but spatial planning is
decided on MS level. Even though the objectives of different policies could be
simultaneously achieved under these measures, that are multifunctional by
nature resulting in decreased land demand on a national scale, the implications
on the local scale and stake-holders need to be addressed and resolved with an
integrated spatial planning that accounts for these requirements.
Lack of concrete rules or definitions
The lack of concrete rules /definitions in
relation to these measures, or the scope of existing rules, can lead to reduced
uptake of these measures, and/ or reduced efficiency of the implemented
measures. 
The timing of guidelines issuing in
relationship to policy implementation can also be crucial. For WFD for example
Climate change was introduced in CGD24, published in 2009; therefore it was too
late to be included in most of the first management cycle of River Basin
Management Plans (RBMP), and is recommended for the second management cycle of
the RBMPs (2015) and the Flood Risk Management Plans in 2015. 
As more information becomes available
through further investigations, hydro morphological measures should be defined
and described in the river basin management plans (e.g. their geographical
extent, technical details). Methods used to define minimum ecological flow
requirements (national or regional methods) should be clearly indicated in the
plans. On EU level, there is a need for more standardised methods and
development of a common understanding for setting minimum ecological flow. In
the Member States, monitoring programmes should target stretches where minimum
flows are applied, to gain further knowledge on the specific effects of minimum
flow application on biological quality elements. In combination with lack of
guidance, training and tools that would lead to wider implementation of these
measures at EU level, the lack of skilled personnel in particular posts, or
lack of NWRM knowledge and skills in certain sections (forestry/agriculture),
In some cases the main obstacle for the implementation of measures (i.e. early
sowing/filter swales) is that they are unknown /or that their effectiveness is
underappreciated . More over regional authorities do not have tools or capacity
to implement the climate check and take to account climate change in planning
programs of measures (STELLA (2012)).
Technical barriers that hinder the
development of concrete rules include:
–                        
Lack of tools for quantification of certain
benefits (i.e. correlation of measure's impact to specific ESS indicator). This
can be cumbersome for certain ESS i.e. provision of habitat or impact on water
quality (IEEP et al. 2012a).
–                        
Lack of practical economic valuation tools and
comprehensive CBA methodologies especially for valuation of benefits and
assessment of trade offs (IEEP et al. 2012a Ecologic Instituted and GHK
Consulting 2011) are not mainstream (still need development) 
Lack of coordination
Implementation of these measures requires
co-ordination between different levels of authorities (national, regional,
local) and broad range of stakeholders (i.e. farmers) representing different
sectors. This would require dynamic, flexible, and well integrated and
efficient governance structures. 
Coordination is also important for the long-term
maintaining proper measure implementation. Certain measures (i.e. SuDS) require
commitment for continuous management / maintenance of public areas which bring
additional costs and administrative burden on local management authorities (Northern
Ireland Environmental Agency 2011). Maintenance can be crucial for other
measure effectiveness for example  if riparian forests are not maintained
properly they could have adverse impacts on floods ((STELLA (2012)).
In addition to long-term action, certain measures
i.e. establishment of terracing require collective action in order to become
most effective, therefore requiring some formalized form of commitment which
would also need regulatory support (i.e. requirement in the CAP for large scale
action for certain payments).
With respect to hydromorphological
measures, RBMPs should be precise on the expected effects, especially on the
way they are expected to improve the GES/GEP at water body level. Moreover
programmes of Measures should distinguish between hydromorphological measures
proposed for natural and for heavily modified or artificial water bodies. The
linkage between specific water uses, types of hydromorphological pressures and
specific hydrohydro morphological measures should be detailed in the river basin
management plans.
Societal barriers
Beyond legislation requirements, the
objective of achieving good ecological status is not considered as a priority
by society.  This can be attributed to the fact that its is taken out of its
broader social and economic context, and in order to be more appreciated by
stakeholders the linkage to the societal benefits needs to be demonstrated. 
(Everard 2012) 
More over respect to reducing vulnerability
to extreme events, there is difficulty for the society to accept the impact
that soft measures may have, and as a result there is  lack of willingness to
support them (STELLA (2012)).. This difficulty is partly related to the lack of
knowledge regarding using nature's capacity and natural approaches for
protecting environmental resources and reducing their vulnerability, and
minimizing related risks. There are misconceptions about technological / grey
infrastructure solutions being always superior and necessary to deal with
environmental problems and CC related risks and extreme events and lack of
awareness to the potential of ecosystem services to provide the solution or to
be part of the solution. (For example the removal of hard bank stabilisation
could be rejected by riparian populations due to fear of losing control over
floods.) 
Overall there is lack of prioritization for
nature conservation in general and long-term water resource protection. Society
is mostly interested on immediate impacts rather than long term impacts that,
so there is resistance to change practices if the problems are not pressing, or
if it is not evident that the solution will have an immediate and effective
response. To this, it is important to involve – at all stages - farmers on the
definition and planning of measures ensuring a common understanding of
objectives. It is necessary that farmers are absolutely committed to the
implementation of measures – including the acceptance of pricing policies.
Societal resistance is also related to the
lack of incentives (i.e. financial) for promoting such soft measures. However
even if compensations are offered, there is resistance to change practices if
the problems to be solved by the land use management concerns a different group
of stakeholders (i.e. downstream) in which case incentives need to be stronger.
Finally land owners believe they should
have freedom for deciding management practices that will provide them biggest
returns and resistance can be attributed to insecurities that related to
potential loss of income. 
Political barriers
Despite the ambitious targets of WFD, the
main problem against action is lack of political will for establishment of
binding targets in particular to mandatory measures for land users. The
political will could be adversely affected by all other barriers, in particular
societal, financial, and timing. One major characteristic of these measures is
that they are often cross-sectoral and this can lead to different type of
barriers i.e. opposition to specific leadership focus.
Timing barriers can reduce political will.
Some measures (i.e. forestry) benefits are not immediate, they start becoming
effective after certain years for example in CCF project it took 30 to 40 years
for the diversity of structure to become apparent.  This can lead to measures
loosing societal interests and political influence
These barriers can be tackled with
different responses. Knowledge base for technical barriers (and other) and
societal, Integration for spatial, timing, financial, Governance for
institutional, and timing, Economic Incentives for financial and societal and
political will can be affected by all types of responses.
2.1.4.     Degree
of implementation as reflected by the RBMPs
Certain measures that promote natural water
retention and protect the ecosystems by targeting diffuse pollution, and 
improving ecological status and potential  are included in the RBMPs (measures
for restoring hydromorphological conditions, agricultural measures,), but their
scope and timing are often unclear and exemptions are foreseen. There is
therefore scope for a wider implementation of these measures, with a larger
perspective. 
A significant proportion of RBMPs include measures
to restore hydromorphological conditions of surface water bodies (e.g.
buffer strips, restoration of wetlands or floodplains) or measures ensuring the
continuity of the river body for fish migration or sediment transport. However,
the high proportion of exemptions applied by the MS indicate that the expected
level of implementation of these measures is far from that needed to achieve good
ecological status. As regards protected areas, 60% of the plans include
measures to protect water bodies used for the production of drinking
water, including safeguard zones, which are also NWRM.
NWRM measures were implemented in some
countries as part of climate checks of RBMP (STELLA (2012)). In Ireland a
climate check was carried out when elaborating the Programmes of Measures; for
example the Western River Basin District River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) has
gone through a climate check and proposes no-regret measures and win-win
measures including   establishing buffer zones of agricultural land to reduce
diffuse nutrient pollution, ecological improvements for increasing the water
retention capacity of soil and helping against increased flood risk, altered
and the creation of buffers around water bodies to improve the soil and subsoil
water retention and reduce the flood risk.  In Germany the River Elbe RBMP
refers to the catalogue of measures published by the Working Group Water of the
Länder (LAWA), and has already integrated no-regret measures into its planning
that promote restoration of typical run-off and natural retention. Another
example is the Tisza River’s RBMP, which covers parts of Ukraine, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Serbia.  This RBMP states that aquatic ecosystems are more
resilient to the impact of climate change when they are healthy and well
maintained stating that any action geared towards more resilient ecosystems is
a no-regret measure. Overall however this Green Infrastructure approach for
reducing vulnerability of water resources is currently still under-exploited.
The environmental impacts of forestry are acknowledged in certain cases but
they are not necessarily linked to WFD objectives. 
Several RBMP from other countries also
mention no-regret measures to some extend. According to the preliminary
analysis of RBMP,(WRC et al 2012, EC 2012c) hydro morphology measures have been
introduced in water management, for example re-meandering is measures are
proposed in 32 % of the plans and natural bank stabilization (removal of
structures) in 70 %.
In 40% of RBDs (48 of 119 RBDs reported by
Member States), no clear links were reported between uses, pressures, and hydromorphological
measures but there is partial information on links between uses and measures or
between pressures and measures. For example, a plan may indicate the number of
fish passes proposed to restore river continuity at specific barriers, but the
water uses which these barriers serve are not stated (e.g. navigation, hydropower
etc.).
In the case of hydropeaking which is a
pressure related to the use of water for hydropower, the ecological status of
water bodies can be improved through operational modifications (e.g. downstream
“buffer” reservoirs) that reduce the volume and frequency of artificially
generated abrupt waves and avoid extreme water level fluctuations. In RBDs
which report the interruption of longitudinal continuity (dams, weirs,
impoundments) due to hydropower use, fish ladders, bypass channels or removal of
structures have been proposed as measures in different combinations. In RBDs
with HMWBs designated due to hydropower (91 out of 119 RBDs), relevant measures
proposed to deal with hydropower-related pressures are varying. In ca. 65-70%
of these RBDs, removal of structures and fish ladders are proposed, but only
30% of these RBDs propose operational modifications of hydropeaking. 
With respect to targeting diffuse pollution
the Member States have all included agricultural measures in the programmes of
measures with a great variety of technical, non-technical measures or economic
instruments relevant to water protection in agriculture. The measures that have
been applied in different river basins of various member states included
establishment of Wetlands, Buffer Strips, cover crops and catch crops, crop rotation, conversion of arable land to grass land, and woodland
creation ((WRC et al 2012, River Basin Network 2012). However it remains unclear to what extent
the measures will deliver and will enable the river basins to reach the good
status of water. The scope of the measures (e.g. type / number of farms
targeted, geographical coverage expected), the timing and the financing are
often unclear. In particular the link with the Rural Development Programmes is
often missing (only present clearly in 60% of the RBMPs). Moreover the
hydromorphological impact of agriculture is not always sufficiently
acknowledged and addressed in the plans, and the potential of these measures
for nature water retention is not fully exploited.  Finally there was little
involvement of the farmers in the preparation of the first RBMPs and in the
practical selection of the measures (the level of involvement has been assessed
as significant in 18%, moderate in 30% and basic in 30% of the RBMPs.
2.1.5.     Key
EU policy instruments that would unlock / guide the implementation
Integration
The new greening component of the CAP legal
proposal for Pillar I has potential for supporting these measures provided that
the implementing rules support these actions. The maintenance of permanent
pastures is important for measure "Restoring Meadows and Pastures'' as
long as the baseline selected for preservation target is not distorted by the
time the measure enters to effect.  The ecological focus areas could be applied
for traditional terracing, afforestation of agricultural land, riparian
forests, basins and ponds, buffer strips along water courses and arable land,
and certain Sustainable drainage systems for example filter strips and swales.
Restoration of riparian areas is important in agriculture landscapes, and is at
the expense of a very small percentage of land (less than 0.5% according to EEA
estimates). The Ecological Focused Area proposed by the Commission in the CAP
pillar I proposal, if used wisely along water courses (i.e. in a contiguously),
together with the EAFRD, can play a very important role in promoting the
restoration of riparian areas in the agricultural context.
Concerning cross compliance the agriculture
NWRM could be supported through different GAECs (buffer strips, soil
conservation crop practices, nor or reduced tillage, early sowing, and
traditional terracing). Moreover, WFD in cross compliance as an SMR has the
potential to include NWRM though in a preliminary stage it would only include
basic requirements.
Streamlining with other environmental
policies is important. The links of WFD with Nature directives  were recently
highlighted in the FAQ (http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/thematic_documents/biodiversity_water/faq-wfd-bhd_20dec2011/_EN_1.0_&a=d) and in a discussion paper on the synergies
of Water, Marine, Biodiversity, and Nature objectives agreed by the water
directors(http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/thematic_documents/biodiversity_water/biodiv-water-marine/_EN_1.0_&a=d
). The Common Implementation Framework of Nature and Biodiversity policy is developing a framework on ecosystem and ecosystem services mapping, and a no net loss
initiative. Synergies with these initiatives will be
explored. Similar efforts are on-going for streamlining
of monitoring and reporting of monitoring results under the NiD, WFD and SoE. Most natural water retention measures can
be regarded as a component of Green Infrastructure contributing to integrated
goals dealing with nature and biodiversity conservation and restoration,
landscaping, etc. and therefore should be supported by the up-coming Green Infrastructure
strategy, which could contribute to resolving integrated spatial planning
conflicts. Finally it is expected that these measures will be supported by the
Climate Adaptation Strategy since they are adaptation measures. 
Funding
The Common Strategic Framework (CSF) funds,
and more specifically the EARDF, ERDF, and Cohesion funds, could be exploited
for funding these measures. 
With respect to EAFRD there are
possibilities to fund these measures through several rural development articles
including investments in farm improvements, forest area developments,
afforestation and creation of woodland, prevention and restoration of damage to
forests, investments for the resilience and environmental value of forest
ecosystems, Agri-environment- climate commitments, Natura 2000 and Water
framework directive payments, forest-environmental and climate services and
forest conservation., In the scope of agri-environment-climate payments there
could be scope to clarify the possible relevance of these payments to water
through delegated acts implementing the rural development regulation. Related
capacity building could be enhanced using the knowledge transfer and
information actions, the farm advisory services, and the co-operation actions,
can help promote this green infrastructure approach and help overcome certain
barriers. In the CAP legal proposal it is stipulated that the WFD should be
considered in the Farm Advisory Services in the next CAP. The LEADER action
provides additional opportunities for public-private partnerships and
inter-territorial and transnational co-operation and this can receive support
from other CSF funds. According to the Commission's proposal for rural
development policy for after 2013, Member States / regions would have to
analyse their water-related needs within the system of strategic programming
and, if appropriate, choose measures to address those needs
.
These measures can play a positive role in
sustainable development (urban and rural) and create employment opportunities.
Exploring funding possibilities through Cohesion and ERD funds is encouraged as
they can relate to the different investment priorities including (promoting
low-carbon strategies for urban areas, supporting dedicated investment for
adaptation to climate change, addressing the significant needs for investment
in the water sector, protecting and restoring biodiversity, improving the urban
environment). Again the degree of to which these measures will be supported
with the Cohesion and ERD funds depends highly on the investment priorities
that are included in the operational programs for each Member State but also to
the selection of investments that is made to support these priorities. It is up
to the MS to decide for example if grey or green infrastructure investments
will be made for flood protection (considering flood protection is set to as a
priority).  Another inhibiting factor is the lack of tangible indicators
related to these measures. As it is required that the operational programs
identify specific indicators for monitoring purposes, it is crucial for NWRM
and other measures related to ecosystem protection to be correlated to
quantifiable and clear indicators. 
The multifunctionality of the measures
renders them possible for integrated territorial investments (ITI) for the ERDF
and Cohesion Funds, as they can be related to more than one priority axis of
one or more operational programmes. For example investments in Continuous Cover
Forestry (to substitute clear-felling systems) can deliver objectives under
protecting the environment priorities – addressing the needs of water sector
(improving groundwater quality and quantity) and protecting biodiversity and
soil protection and promoting ESS (positive impact on habitats, improved soil
structure and organic content) but also in promoting climate change adaptation
and risk prevention and management (flood hazard reduction). It will be however
essential for the MS to have access to information, tools, and guidance to
identify and select measures that provide optimum benefits for several areas
and sectors. More over the essential governance structures for effective
collaboration between sectors will need to be in place.
Knowledge base
The “LIFE+ Environment Policy and
Governance guidelines” indicate favourable recommendations under the listed
themes (e.g., forests, water, soil, climate change, etc.) and to some degree
projects in line with the concept of natural water retention were funded. In
the 2012 call there are specific references and opportunities for NWRM in the
Life Environment. Moreover opportunities are provided for Development best
practice examples for integration of WFD concerns into sector policies
(including improving fish migration, habitat restoration, reducing
eutrophication sources) and green / blue infrastructures. 
Under the new regulations for 2014-2020
opportunities for funding could be feasible both under the Climate Action and
the Environment Action subprograms. Under the Climate Action possible funding
is expected thought the Climate Adaptation Priority Area, as these measures
target reducing vulnerability of water resources to CC, and under the
Environment Action funding is expected both under the Environment and Resource
efficiency and the Biodiversity priority areas. However even though the scope
of LIFE funding is expanded to certain degree with the inclusion of integrated
projects the budget is small compared to other instruments, allowing for a
small number of integrated projects. The instrument is mostly indented to
provide best case examples with demonstration and /or innovation aspects.
Projects that try to fill in knowledge gaps, demonstrate applicability, and
provide tools for overcoming barriers would be good candidates. This can assist
policy development, however it funding through this instrument cannot provide
the investments needed for un-locking these measures. 
Research funding mechanisms i.e. FP6, FP7
have supported research projects in environment related thematic areas  filling
in the knowledge gaps that are be related to certain technical barriers, as
well as projects development of  knowledge brokerage tools (i.e. WISE-RTD[15]).  Other science Policy
interfacing activities, such as the ad-hoc Science-Policy Interfacing Activity
under the WFD Common Implementation Framework also contribute to accelerating
research results dissemination and improving transfer and usability of relevant
research outputs.  The European Innovation Partnership on Water (EC COM(2012)
216 final) also has the potential to support partnerships and innovative
ecosystem-based solutions that involve measures described above. 
Governance issues
In relationship to the WFD, NWRM could be
further promoted for the program of measures (for both basic/supplementary).
They can contribute to achieving WFD environmental objectives, safeguarding
water quality, reducing diffuse pollution, enhancing hydromorpological
conditions, ensuring GW recharge,  reducing water resource vulnerability to CC,
and serving as CC adaptation measures in relation to water management.
In addition to GD12 and GD24, new guidance
documents could be developed for identifying the role of these measures for
achieving WFD and FD objectives. (or thematic guidelines for different group
i.e. forest measures, SuDS, etc.). In terms of ''unlocking'' the measures their
implementation this can be done within the scope of any future activity that
focuses on implementing the ESS with RBMPs, NWRM can be an example of applying
the Ecosystem Services Approach.
2.2.        Measures
improving water availability
2.2.1.     Description
Desalination
is the specialised treatment method used to remove dissolved minerals and
mineral salts (demineralisation) from the feed-water (fresh water, brackish
water, saline water, but mainly from sea water) and thus to convert it to fresh
water mainly for domestic, irrigation or industrial use. In Europe, several
countries have turned to desalination technologies, especially in the southern
more water scarce areas. Several Member States use desalination
as an alternative water supply source to remedy water stress situations.
In 2008 Spain had the largest desalination capacity in the EU with up to 713
Mm3/day. Malta had a desalination capacity of 14 Mm3/day (more than 45% of its
total water needs), while Italy reached around 0,75 Mm3/day, and Cyprus around 0,093 Mm3/day (TYPSA 2012). More and more Northern European Countries also
use this option. For example, in the UK, the company Thames Water has built a
desalination plant for meeting the future water demands of the London metropolitan area. 
Water transfers – are used to transfer water from one river basin where water is
considered abundant to another one where water is scarce. The interbasin
transfer of water, when implemented on a large scale, is one of the most
significant human interventions in natural environmental processes. Water
transfer has potential for substantial beneficial effects through alleviation
of water shortages that impede continuing development of regions without
adequate local water supplies. But transfer also has potential to limit future development
of the area of the transfer's origin and to produce other negative effects. 
Groundwater recharge is a hydrologic process where water moves downward from the soil
surface towards groundwater. Recharge occurs both naturally (through the water
cycle) and man-induced (i.e. artificial groundwater recharge), where rainwater,
surface water and/or reclaimed water is routed to the subsurface. Artificial
groundwater recharge aims at the increase of the groundwater potential. This is
done by artificially inducing large quantities of surface water (from streams
or reservoirs) to infiltrate the ground. It is commonly done at rates and in
quantities many times in excess of natural recharge. The number of aquifer
recharge and re-use schemes in Europe, and around the world, has expanded in
recent years. The primary driver for this expansion has been the increasing
demand for water to meet agricultural, industrial, environmental, and municipal
needs. In southern Europe, the uptake is predominantly motivated by agricultural
and municipal water needs, whereas in Northern Europe groundwater recharge is
mostly found in densely populated areas for use in households (e.g. Berlin, The Netherlands).
Dams and reservoirs for water
storage can be potentially used in most water scarce areas, where water
efficiency measures can't fully resolve the problem. A dam is a barrier that
produces changes in the hydro-morphological and physico-chemical conditions of
the impounded river. River damming is one of the most ancient techniques used
for water supply. Large dams have long been promoted as providing
"cheap" hydropower and water supply, reducing also flood impacts to
populated floodplains. A reservoir is natural or artificial pond or lake used
for the storage and regulation of water. Reservoirs may be created in river
valleys by the construction of a dam or may be built by excavation in the
ground or by conventional construction techniques. These measures, in general,
are considered more expensive and might have significant negative impacts to
the environment
There are two types of water re-use:
direct and indirect. Direct wastewater re-use is treated wastewater that is
piped into a water supply system without first being incorporated in a natural
stream or lake or in groundwater. Indirect wastewater re-use involves the
mixing of reclaimed wastewater with another water supply source before re-use.
The mixing occurs for example when the groundwater is too saline and needs to
be improved by the treated waste water. Re-use of treated wastewater is a
valuable resource for water supply in areas where water is limited. It has the potential
to become an alternative source of water after relevant treatment. It could be
used for irrigation in agriculture, industrial uses and specific uses in buildings
provided that all relevant safety standards are respected. Re-use of treated
wastewater is an accepted practice in several European countries with limited
rainfall and very limited water resources, where it has become already an
integral effective component of long term water resources management. However,
only a few countries developed comprehensive reuse standards. Strict quality
controls to minimise the risk of environmental contamination and human health
problems due to water re-use. In addition, proper household metering and water
pricing strategies are important drivers for the implementation of water reuse
systems. 
Rainwater harvesting is the process of collecting, diverting and storing rainwater from
an area (usually roofs or another surface catchment area) for direct or future
use. This is a technology that can be used to supply water to agriculture, households
and industry.
2.2.2.     Key
information on the
cost-effectiveness (risks and benefits)
In theory alternative
water supply options, especially desalination, can deliver unlimited amount of
water. In practice all the options have a lot of limitations in terms of costs
and negative economic, environmental and social impacts. Cost-effectiveness of
the options is as follow:
Desalination plants
involve high capital costs, maintenance and operational costs and recurrent
costs, because of its reliance on high energy requirements and if its location
is far from urban areas a distribution network needs to be installed to
transfer desalinated water to the mains water supply. It affects the
cost-effectiveness of desalination bringing high desalination costs (0,21 –
1,06 Euro/m3). Distribution costs of desalinated water: to transport 1 m3 of
water is estimated at 0.037 € per 100 m of vertical transport and 0.043 € per
100 km of horizontal transport. Other costs, related to the pre-treatment and
the concentrate disposal, has to be also considered within the desalination
process. Miller (2003) estimates pre-treatment costs to account for up to 30%
of O&M costs while Younos (2004) estimates the costs of brine disposal
between 5 to 33% of total desalination costs (Ecologic,
2008).
Development of the water
transfer infrastructure involves very high costs. Example from England: the
capital cost of water transfer infrastructure (to meet demand for water in
south east England) is estimated to be between £8 million to £14 million per
megaliter, which is 4 times more than developing new resources in south east. To
transport 1 m3 of water is estimated at 0.037 € per 100 m of vertical transport
and 0.043 € per 100 km of horizontal transport (EA 2006).
Concerning water
recharge costs of water supply are lower than in the case of desalination or
water transfers. It is mainly owing to lower investment, treatment and
distribution costs. In the Belgian case study cost of producing water from
ground water recharge was estimated to be 0.5 €/m³, which was cheaper than
transferred water from outside the region (0.77 €/m³) (in 2007) (TYPSA 2012). There
is no need of large storage structures to store water. Structures required are
mostly small and cost-effective and less evaporation losses are produced. An
extensive and expensive tertiary treatment is required for using waste water to
recharge ground waters (although in most situations in the EU these are in
place in any case). Strict quality controls to minimise the risk of
environmental contamination and human health problems are needed, what entails
costs, which should be taken into consideration.
Costs effectiveness of
storage reservoirs seems to be the most expensive water supply option. In UK costs of winter storage reservoirs are calculated as follows: lay-lined reservoirs:
€3.20/m3 to 6,70 EUR/m3, Reservoirs with a synthetic liner:
4,90 EUR/m3 to 15,80 EUR/m3, including energy (CO2) from
pumping twice (from borehole/river to reservoir; and from reservoir to field) (BIO
2012). In Australia case study expanding reservoir capacity costs were
estimated on AUD 2,40/ kL (OECD 2011). However overall benefit (to farmers) of
moving to irrigation reservoirs is estimated at 14 EUR/m3 to 27 EUR/m3 as well
as additional (non-monetised) benefits associated with improved security and
flexibility of supply (case study from UK) (BIO 2012). Those benefits should be
taken into account while considering water supply alternatives.
One of the most
cost promising water supply alternatives is water recycling. The capital costs
are low to medium for most wastewater re-use systems and are recoverable in a very
short time. Experience from Australia: cost of recycling urban storm water (for
non potable) –  AUD 1,20-2,00 /kL; (for potable) –  AUD 1,30-1,70 /kL;
recycling treated sewage water – non-potable AUD 1,90/kL; potable  AUD 2,50/kL
(OECD 2011). Costs of waste water irrigation even tend to be lower than for
groundwater irrigation, because the pumping effort needed is lower. However wastewater
re-use may not be economically feasible if it requires an additional
distribution network and storage facilities. Strict quality controls to
minimise the risk of environmental contamination and human health problems are
needed, what entails costs, which should be taken into consideration.
Total treated wastewater life cycle cost converted into €/m3 (TYPSA
2012):
 Reuse alternative || Recommended treatment process || Annual costs (€/m³)a, b 
 Agriculture || Activated sludge[16] || 0.16-0.44 
 Livestock  || Trickling filter || 0.17-0.46 
 Industry and power generation || Rotating biological contactors || 0.25-0.47 
 Urban irrigation – landscape || Activated sludge, filtration of secondary effluent || 0.19-0.59 
 Groundwater recharge – spreading basins || Infiltration – percolation || 0.07-0.17 
 Groundwater recharge – injection wells || Activated sludge, filtration of secondary effluent, carbon adsorption, reverse osmosis of advanced wastewater treatment effluent  || 0.76-2.12 
Cost
effectiveness of rain water harvesting is related to the need of financing the
capital investments and operation/maintenance costs for relatively large
storage tanks in situations where there is a poor rainfall distribution. These
cost are relatively high as presents experiences from different countries:
Australia - cost of rain water tanks – AUD 3,75/kL (OECD 2011); in Belgium a
RWHS for private households requires a large investment and the price reaches
the value of around €1.8 to 4/m³ of RW used. The regulation specifies minimum
requirements that aim at a cost-efficient introduction of RWHS. On the other
hand, the savings amount to €1.7/m³ for avoided use of mains water. As with
current regulations, the costs for sewage and sewage treatment are recovered on
the basis of m³ of mains water used, the RW user benefits from an additional
€2/m³ for avoided costs for sewage and sewage treatment; in Malta the estimated
cost of using the water produced by a RWH system reaches the value of €5 to
11/m³ depending on the varying construction costs.
According to expertise the water saving
potential for measures which are associated with rain water harvesting (rain
water flowing from a roof is transferred via a pipe to a container in order to
be used, for example, for gardening or car wash activities) is expected to meet
up to 80% and 50% of households needs in France and UK, respectively (ACTeon et
al., 2012). Concerning water harvesting in agriculture the overall benefit (to
farmers) of moving to irrigation reservoirs can be estimated at 14 EUR/m3 to 27
EUR/m3 (discounted over 25 years at 4%), or annualised benefits of 0,80 EUR/m3
to 1,55 EUR/m3 per year (BIO 2011)..
Economic impacts
·                        
Provision of adequate and reliable water supply
in urban areas encourages general economic development;
·                        
Guarantee of water supply during peak water
demand periods (e.g. the tourist season), and because of its reliability it can
support other and new economic activities; 
·                        
High investment and O&M costs related to
treatment and distribution.
·                        
In case of water storage reservoirs the need to
devote a land, which otherwise could be used for some economic activities
should be considered. The location of desalination plants also implies land-use
planning issues: they are mostly located in coastal zones (already densely
populated), and have impact on the value of land – “not in my back yard”.
·                        
In case of water reuse there are some additional
positive economic impacts:
·                        
Reusing the total volume of treated wastewater
in Europe could cover nearly 44.14% of the agricultural
irrigation demand and avoid 13.3% of abstraction from natural
sources (Defra 2011). In Israel of all sewage that is treated, 75.5% (358 Mm³)
is used for irrigation, representing 40% of the total water use in agricultural
irrigation. Recently assessments point that the percentage had risen to 87% by
2007 and the objective is to reach 95% of reclaimed water by the end of the
decade (Defra 2011).
·                        
use of the nutrients of the wastewater (e.g.
nitrogen and phosphate) resulting to the reduction of the use of synthetic
fertilizer and, reduction of treatment costs (reclaimed water, can be used for
agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, industry, and non-potable urban
uses). However there are some technological restraints related to crop type,
presence of chemicals/nutrients not synchronized with crop requirements in
using treated wastewater
The potential of the water reuse source
hasn't been exploited so far in Europe: by 2006 the total volume of reused
treated wastewater in Europe was 964 Mm³/yr, which accounted for 2.4% of the
treated effluent. The treated wastewater reuse rate was high in Cyprus (100%) and Malta (just under 60%), whereas in Greece, Italy and Spain treated wastewater
reuse was only between 5 % and 12 % of their effluents. Nevertheless, the
amount of treated wastewater reused was mostly very small (less than 1%) when
compared with a country’s total water abstraction (TYPSA 2012).
Water reuse and desalinisation require a
continue enhancement of technologies in order to lower the use of energy and
minimize environmental impacts on the aquatic environment. This is, therefore,
an area for investment in innovation to ensure the cost-effectiveness of
measures. Unlike water transfers, that increase water supply in one basin, at
the expense of other basins, desalination has the
advantage of decoupling water production from the hydro-meteorological cycle.
Rainwater harvesting can have strong economic impact by reducing water costs paid by households, agriculture or industry to
pay for mains water supply. The economic potential of this supply option is
estimated very high. Rainwater harvesting could save 20 to 50% of the total
potable water use in a standard home, whereas grey water recycling could save 5
to 35%, as seen in the UK experience (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012). In Bedfordshire, one of the drier parts of England, the MAAF study
showed that one hectare of roof area might theoretically provide sufficient
water to irrigate 2,5 hectares of potatoes (at 80% efficiency).
Environmental impacts
All alternative sources of water supply
reduce the demand on mains water supplies and reduce pressure on environment.
Most of alternative supply options are
related to the intensive use of energy. Among them the most energy consuming is
desalination. If the energy is from using the use of fossil fuels, this will
increase GHG emissions. This is linked to the higher amounts of energy needed
to desalt water (between 3.5 and 24 kWh/m3 according to the technology),
especially with thermal processes. On the basis of an
average European fuel mix for power generation, it has been estimated that a
revers osmosis plant produces 1.78 kg of CO2 per m3 of water, while
thermal multi stage flush leads to 23.41 kg CO2/m3 and multiple
effect distillation to 18.05 kg CO2/m3 (Ecologic 2008) 
Example from Spain: it was estimated the
desalination installation at Carboneras – Europe’s largest RO plant - uses one
third of the electricity supplied to Almeria province. The more than 700
Spanish desalination plants produce about 1.6 million m3 of water per day.
According to the estimates (1.78
kg of CO2 per m3 of water) on CO2
production from desalination, this translates into about 2.8 million kg CO2
per day. It can be argued therefore that desalination is contributing
significantly to Spain’s  overall GHG emissions, which have been skyrocketing
to +52.3% in 2005 compared to 1990 levels – moving Spain well beyond its
European burden sharing target of +15%. This may be a foretaste of the dilemmas
that will face other Member States in future years as the impacts of climate
change are felt increasingly widely (Ecologic 2008).
Other environmental
impacts of desalination varying severity depending on local conditions are on
the aquifer and on the marine environment as a result of the concentrated brine
management and water treatment and plant maintenance activities, water intake
activities, and noise.
Water transfers and water supply projects,
such as the construction of reservoirs and dams or irrigation schemes have
significant negative environmental impacts in terms of biodiversity, wetlands,
water availability and environmental flow. There are big uncertainties
regarding how much water will be able to be transferred in the future. 
Additionally construction of reservoirs and
dams or irrigation schemes, can have negative consequences on biodiversity,
especially in water scarce areas. As an example, planned irrigation schemes in
the water poor Ebro basin in Spain were linked to significant declines in bird
distribution (ACTeon et al., 2012). It is contributing as well to the
discontinuity along the river, impeding fish species to reach their spawning
grounds and is responsible for blocking of sediment transport to the sea is the
main responsible of deltas and beaches regression.
Groundwater recharge
reduces the threat of over-exploitation of existing aquifers, and decreases the
risks of seawater intrusion into aquifers at or near the coast. It guarantees
available for both the economy and the environment surface and groundwater
resources during summer and drought periods. Fewer evaporation losses are
produced, contrary to dam or impoundment alternatives, that in southern
countries could reach levels up to 1m/year (TYPSA 2012). In the contrary it
reduces pressure on water bodies from reduction in
summer abstractions
Waste water reuse not only reduces the
demands of freshwater, but can also reduce the pollution of rivers and groundwater
by nutrients; From another side if there is no strict quality controls, there
could be the risk of environmental contamination and human health problems
(water-borne diseases and skin irritations).
The direct waste water reuse in households
results in increased GHG emissions in existing homes, whereas its installation
in new homes, alongside with other water efficiency measures, shows net carbon
benefits. Different biological and bio-mechanical systems apply to single residential
dwellings, commercial buildings or multi-use buildings. These systems have
different operational energy and carbon intensities. For grey water reuse, the
latter range from 0.6 kWh/m3 for short-retention to 3.5 kWh/m3
for small membrane bioreactors (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012).
The same environmental impact concerns rain
water harvesting. The need of construction and maintenance of the necessary
infrastructure may lead to negative energy/treatment/GHG impacts. The
retrofitting of household rainwater harvesting results in increased GHG
emissions in existing homes, whereas its installation in new homes, alongside
with other water efficiency measures, shows net carbon benefits. Different
biological and bio-mechanical systems apply to single residential dwellings,
commercial buildings or multi-use buildings. These systems have different
operational energy and carbon intensities. For rainwater harvesting, the latter
range from 1.0 kWh/m3 for direct feed to 1.5 kWh/m3 for
header tank (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012). For water harvesting in
agriculture the same negative effects should be taken as those identified for
water storage (dams and reservoirs).
The positive environmental impact of rain
water harvesting is the reduction of the amount of urban storm runoff due to
its buffering effect on storm events, which in turn reduces the amount of
pollutants being washed into surface waters that are used to recharge shallow
groundwaters.
Social impacts
In general alternative
water supply alternatives provide adequate and reliable water supply in urban
areas and encourage general economic development and job creation. 
Water transfers provide
right distribution of benefits between the area of transfer origination and
area of water delivery. However by contributing to the development of regions
without adequate local water supplies it may limit future development (economic
productivity) in the area of the transfer's origin. It can cause problems of
inter-regional or international fights for water rights, as drought extreme
events are complex to manage.
Water storage change
land use in the region, which can lead to low social acceptance
The general public or
specific groups may refuse to consume products that are associated with the
waste water re-use – the so called “yuk” factor.
There is the potential for impacts on health arising from these
options (which would be stronger with a regulatory approach). These impacts
would depend on whether building standards included requirements for re-use of
water within the buildings (which would, therefore, need to be subject to
subsequent IA if this were proposed). Reduced water flows can result stagnate
in pipes, leading to microbial growth, although this concern is largely
theoretical at present and currently design and control have reduced this
problem. With regard to rainwater harvesting and to grey water reuse health
issues are linked especially to installation, maintenance and operation of
these sources. Stored rainwater can be contaminated with Enterococci (EUREAU 2011b). Also, back-wash systems (as
part of the design of a reuse system for maintenance and cleaning) could
contaminate drinking water supplies. 
Having said this, public perceptions of possible health impacts are
a barrier. Actions to control water quality include health codes, procedures
for approval of service, regulations governing design and construction
specifications, inspections, and operation and maintenance (US EPA, 2004) and standards have been adopted
in national law (e.g. France, Spain and UK) for rainwater harvesting and grey
water re-use to address this issue. 
Poorer families will
not have the financial resources to invest in the technology of water
harvesting, and reap the benefits of lower water costs. The same concerns tenants
who will not have the opportunity to reap the benefits of lower household water
costs, as landlords do not benefit from this type of investment. 
2.2.3.     Barriers
for implementation
Market failures, regulatory and policy
support
There is the lack of the application of best
practices in integrated water management by water managers at a national or basin level to produce RMBPs that are coherent and cost
effective. 
In general at a national or basin level the
institutional or administrative structures are not in place. It causes problems
in the development and implementation of an integrated water resource
management plan for the administration, management, protection and sustainable
development of the raw water resources at a basin and water body level. 
The existing RMBPs hardly apply the
principles of: polluter pays, cost recovery, cost-effectiveness and
disproportionate costs. It means that they do not meet society’s overall water
objectives for quality and quantity i.e. a RBMP that is harmonized with
socio-economic development objectives resulting in water bodies that will
achieve good ecological status. 
There is the lack of coherence between the
RBMPs and other sectorial plans resulting in inability of basin mangers to
fully evaluate the costs and benefits between measures in order to select the
most cost effective ones for society. For example:
there is lack of sufficient linkage with related policies such as CAP, land-use
planning; artificial water storage very often is not in line with rural
development rules and existing legislation (too strict existing standards).
There is a general lack of clear
institutional roles between water resource managers (responsible for quantity
and quality) and competent authorities for environment whose focus is on water
quality and the environment. The efficient and cost
effective management of water resources requires the management and
implementation of measures that are for the common and cost effective good of
multiple users and are not solely linked to one user or user group. This requires
an institutional framework with the capacity to administrate, evaluate, select
and manage the implementation of common water resource. 
Lack of full cost recovery of water
services, including financial, environmental and resource costs makes difficult
to take economically and environmentally sound decisions on the choice of best
water supply option. 
There is lack of guidelines or criteria for
water reuse taking into account regional
characteristics. The absence of an EU regulatory
framework presents a significant barrier as standards commonly
agreed terminology are the basis for the success of
water reuse projects. The lack of standards has caused administrations to take
a rather conservative approach and has led to mistrust and misunderstandings
regarding users who do not have of trust, credibility and confidence,
especially in the agricultural sector. In some
countries the governing standards put unnecessary limits on the use of the
treated waste water or led to illegal uses.
Lack of financing is considered the single
most significant barrier to wider use of reclaimed wastewater. 
Reclaimed water is not the only source
available for groundwater recharge, also water excess due to floods or wet
periods are available to be naturally (ponds) or artificially (wells) injected.
When treated wastewater (expensive tertiary treatment is needed) is used for
groundwater recharging there is a need to have strict controls to ensure that
no pollution problems to the groundwater bodies appear.
Financing sources
Lack of financial incentives and of
sufficient information on the available techniques, best practices and the
benefits of using treated waste water or harvested rain water put limits to the
use of these alternative water sources. 
Important barrier to the implementation of alternative
water sources are the high costs associated with them. When current water
supply is provided from cheap local sources (groundwater or surface water),
water produced by desalination or ground water recharge are likely to be more
costly. In these cases it is not financially obvious to introduce these water
supply options, especially if the current water prices do not reflect all the
economic costs, nor the environmental and resource costs. Costs per m³ water
produced may be very different for similar technologies or supply options in
the different Member States that implies that the barriers for implementation
vary country by country.
Lack of implementation and coordination
There is a need of a high quality
monitoring system and quality assurance for consumer's acceptance (concerns
especially water reuse, water recharge and rain water harvesting).
Desalination can be a replacement for
potable water supply purposes, although its supply regime is rigid and
inflexible, and so is best suited for supplying a fixed amount of water
(according to its design specifications). There are, particular environmental
and economic concerns about the high energy requirements of the desalination
process, meaning that mitigation measures are needed to either improve
efficiency or incorporate the use of renewable energy resources. In addition,
there are also concerns about the impact on the environment of disposing brine
– meaning that adequate mitigation measures have to be incorporated to deal
with brine disposal. These concerns are an opportunity to develop new
technologies, that more efficient, with less environmental impact. 
There are problems to find available land
for construction of big desalination plants.
Knowledge base
In the context of river basin planning,
water reuse options tend to be excluded or forgotten as stakeholders are not
well informed about the link between water supply and wastewater treatment. As
such, research results from feasibility studies on water use have not been
taken up in practice, especially in areas where water supply and wastewater are
managed by different companies or agencies.
Interbasin water transfer proposals needs
thorough evaluation to determine if they are justified considering all
associated impacts. There are uncertainties concerning water availability in
the future (how much water will be available to be transferred).
Investments in artificial water storage and
the creation of new resources should be based on economic analysis. They
usually bore high investment, maintenance and operation costs, long investment
procedures and significant potential impacts on the environment that have to be
taken into consideration. They should be considered as an
option when other options to improve water efficiency, including the
application of economic instruments have been implemented. 
2.2.4.     Degree
of implementation as reflected by the RBMPs
The development or upgrade of reservoirs or
other water regulation works is included in about 30% of the RBMPs, development
or upgrade of water transfer schemes in 23%. Measures to foster aquifer
recharge are included in 33% of the plans.
The development or upgrade of desalination
plants (in about 1% of the plans) and the establishment of water rights markets
or schemes to facilitate water reallocation (in about 2% of the plans) are the
least considered. 
There is little quantitative information on
the waste water reuse. While at EU level water re-use amounts to less than 1%
of the countries' total water abstraction, in Cyprus and Malta  the treated
wastewater reuse rate of their effluents is high (respectively 100% and 60%)
(TYPSA 2012). This currently under-exploited measure has a high potential.
Nevertheless treated waste water reuse and rainwater harvesting are not
identified as main measures in the RBMPs. According to the preliminary analysis
of RBMPs there were no measures related to WWR and RWH included in almost 50%
of the assessed RBMPs
2.2.5.     Key
EU policy instruments that would unlock / guide the implementation
EU Policy instruments related to use of
economic instruments
Economic incentives could help in
''unlocking'' the measures. This supposes the proper implementation of the WFD
economic principles of polluter-pays principle, the principle of cost recovery,
including environmental and resource costs. Alternative water supply is more
costly than conventional sources, especially if water prices do not cover all
costs. It may be difficult to introduce the measures without economic
incentives such as temporarily applied subsidies.
While choosing the best water supply option
economic analysis taking into account full cost recovery of water services,
including financial, environmental and resource costs should be the base to
take economically and environmentally sound decision.
EU Policy instruments related to
governance and integration
To strengthen the “quantitative dimension”
of the WFD implementation by establishment of systematic water balance
assessment/water accounts at sub-catchment level and the dynamic modelling of
water resources for the preparation of next RBMP. This will provide information
on where and how water efficiency can be improved and which alternative water
supply sources should be developed in a cost-effective way 
Water reuse:
The key recommendation of the Mediterranean
Component of the EU Water Initiative (MED EUWI) Wastewater Reuse Working Group
is to develop a commonly agreed European and Mediterranean guidance framework
for treated wastewater reuse planning, water quality recommendations, and
applications.  
Awareness raising campaigns and advisory
services could improve the public and user awareness and acceptance of the
water reuse. Improve implementation of cost recovery and provision of economic
incentives to promote and make water reuse cost effective.
Other sources:
The application of desalination and
artificial recharge could be facilitated by improving the political and public
acceptance. Prior to starting such type of new investment an awareness raising
campaign and extensive consultation with the stakeholders and public should be
carried out. This should be combined with a high quality monitoring system for
ensuring their safe use and improving consumers' acceptance. 
Since desalination facilities might have
significant negative impact on the environment the inclusion of these
facilities under the scope of the IED (2010/75/EU) and EIA (85/337/EEC)
Directives should be considered
EU Policy instruments related to funding
Implementation of alternative water supply
measures requires high investment costs, so potentially they can enter to the
scope of EU funds financing. As they can trigger substantial economic,
environment and social impacts, there should be introduced strict assessment
procedures to allow their implementation and financing, only while efficiency
measures are fully addressed and can't resolve water shortage problems.
EU Policy instruments related to
knowledge base
Further research and innovation activities:
–                        
to get cost efficient and more environmental
friendly techniques and technologies available for desalination technologies.
–                        
to develop available techniques, best practices
and the benefits of using treated waste water or harvested rain water.
–                        
to adapt water markets
2.3.        Water
efficiency measures
2.3.1.     Description
In water stressed/potentially stressed
areas, water efficiency measures are required to improve the efficiency
of irrigation systems and urban water distribution networks, where large
amounts of water continue to be wasted through leakages. Water efficiency
measures are also required in buildings, where building design or inefficient
water use appliances do not promote water savings. In general terms water
efficiency measures are measures that aim to eliminate the waste or the
unnecessary consumption of water to obtain the same or improved socio-economic
benefit with reduced water consumption. These measures should be given priority
in water policy and should be supported by economic instruments that provide
incentives for improved water efficiency. Within this category following types
of measures can be identified: 
Water efficiency measures in agriculture
with specific options: 
Technological and management measures 
–                        
Storage losses (on-farm dams & reservoirs)
i.e. loss of stored water from surface water reservoirs through evaporation. Evaporation
rates are affected by latitude of the water body (solar energy input), air and
water temperatures, air pressure, wind velocity over the water surface and
turbulence in the water. Efficiency measures concerns the use of covers and
shades, monolayers or wind breaks on farm dams to reduce evaporation;
–                        
Non-productive transpiration i.e. transpiration
of unwanted vegetation (such as weeds). Efficiency actions concerns tillage and
chemical weed control;
–                        
Reducing productive transpiration i.e.
transpiration of cultivated crops. Efficiency actions concerns deficit irrigation and partial root-zone drying;
–                        
Evaporation losses. Efficiency actions concerns shift
from surface and sprinkler irrigation to drip irrigation, shift from large rain
guns / sprinklers to micro-sprinklers, proper timing of spraying;
–                        
Wet soil evaporation losses. Efficiency actions
concerns mulching, localised irrigation, sub-surface drip irrigation, zero
tillage;
–                        
Drainage losses. Efficiency actions concerns improved
water application uniformity, irrigation scheduling, soil water holding
capacity
Water
regulation and allocation
Water regulation aims to organise water use
among the users, by sensitising them to the scarcity of the resource. For
example, farmers of Vila Cova (Portugal) are following rules, which include
dates of start and end of the irrigation period, losses in canals, travel time
of water, user sequence, and night turns (BIO 2012)..
Using water rights or permits to abstract
water allows for abstraction of certain amount of water (e.g. as is the case in
 France or in the UK). It requires metering to be in place to monitor how much
the farmer has abstracted compared to its allocated right. However, such
monitoring requires compliance checks and may increase illegal abstractions to
abstract sufficient water for the crops
Water
auditing and benchmarking
Water audits include measurement tools that
can help agricultural facility owners know their water footprint, learn where
water is being wasted and tackle unrecorded water abstraction at the farm
level. Benchmarking can help them identify which efficiency improvements will
be most cost-effective, e.g. by comparing on-farm water use with industry norms
and reasonable needs.
Consumer/
market pressure
Market and consumers are in an equilibrium
of offer and demand, which varies slightly according to cultures and
mentalities, level of life but also to fashions and information. Water
footprinting and water use measures, as for carbon footprint, could be
calculated and displayed to consumers.
Dissemination
of best practice, training and awareness-raising
Benchmarking of on-farm water use has shown
very different patterns of water use efficiency within same farm typologies. A
range of knowledge transfer and outreach approaches have been used to disseminate
and share best practice, including the use of demonstration farms, open-days,
technical workshops, media productions, and information literature.
Agricultural
water productivity/crop selection
With driving parameters such as the type of
crop, growth stage of the crop and climate, the water consumption of crop can
be predicted by month from the sowing date. The influence of crop type is
important on both the daily and seasonal crop water needs.
Water pricing
and trading
Water-pricing aim should be: to provide
adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently, to recover
costs invested in water supply systems and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs, to design an economic tool to raise the productivity of water use, by
allocating the resource to the use that generates the highest economic value
(e.g. high-productivity crops with low water demand), while at the same time
establishing the use of water saving technologies, to promote efficient and
careful use of water and to help securing water availability.
Water
efficiency in buildings and households' appliances 
Water efficiency measures concerning
households include: water metering, water pricing and other economic
incentives, green buildings, households' appliance efficiency measures, and
awareness raising & education.
Water metering in buildings provides
information to the user in terms of how much water their household consumes.
The consumer is then likely to become more engaged in monitoring its water use,
leading to more efficient water use, but also more active involvement in the
identification of leaks
Water metering is reported to be also
strongly linked to water pricing. It enables introduction of volumetric
charges. Similar to water pricing in other sectors its aim is to provide
adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently, to recover
costs invested in water supply systems and operation and maintenance (O&M).
Environmental performance of the building
sector concerns initiatives about green buildings, which aim to label a
building according to certain certification criteria. Concerning water savings
performance water metering, water efficient appliance, rain water harvesting
and water reuse are taken into account. 
Appliance efficiency measures in households
concern different technologies in household devices, which can reach the same
or similar effect with lower consumption of water.
Awareness-raising and educational campaigns
should be sent through different communication channels, target different types
of public, with differing interests, motivations, and approaches to policy
issues: general public, potential users, children, environmental groups,
regulators and/or regulating agencies, home owners associations, educational
institutions, political leaders, business/academic/community leaders, etc., and
finally to highlight different aspects: improving consumption habits and
disseminating best practices, explaining the benefits of water-efficient
products/retrofits or of water reuse/recycling, improving leak detection,
informing about green building schemes, etc.
Water
efficiency in energy sector and industry
Efficiency measures in energy and industry
sectors are very similar to measures designed for households. They concern
economic instruments, including water pricing and water metering, incentivising
reduction of the use of water from one side and from another side they concern
technological improvements and innovation in the production process driving to
obtain the same production results with smaller amount of water used.
Leakage reduction in water distribution
networks (urban and for irrigation purposes), describe. Differentiate urban and
irrigation?
Significant leakage in water infrastructure
in some parts of the EU causes significant waste of water which is problematic
in areas which are water stressed, or at risk of becoming water stressed.  As
much as 50% of water abstracted is lost in distribution but with significant
differences between Member States. While best practices
on how to technically reduce water losses in distribution networks are well
known and readily available, best practices on how to value water resources, in
order to assess the costs and benefits to society from investing in leakage
reduction, are not readily available (ERM et al., 2012).
Conveyance efficiency is generally a great
concern for irrigation districts that supply a group of farmers. There are
significant differences in conveyance efficiency depending on the type of
irrigation network. For instance, in Greece, average conveyance efficiencies
are estimated at 70% for earthen channels, 85% for lined channels and 95% for
pipes. At EU level, potential water savings can represent up to 25% of the
water used for irrigation. There are following actions designed to reduce
leakage in water distribution networks: canal lining, replacing open canals
with low pressure piping systems,             channel automation, water
measuring devices, and system maintenance (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012).
2.3.2.     Impacts
2.3.2.1.  Water
saving potential and cost effectiveness
2.3.2.1.  agriculture
Water savings can be achieved by improving
the irrigation infrastructure and technologies (ACTeon et al., 2012):
Potential water savings from improving
conveyance (distribution network) efficiency, such as open channels and furrows,
can range from 10% to 25%. For example, in Spain it was estimated that
potential water savings from improvements in the water transportation for
irrigation purposes can reach the level of 20% and in France up to 300 million m3 per year with an estimated cost of 15 million Euros. 
EEA (2009) reported typical efficiencies of
around 55 % for furrow irrigation; 75 % for sprinklers and 90 % for drip
systems. In the PACA region in France, modernisation plans of irrigated systems
by converting gravity irrigation networks to pressurized systems have helped
saving around 300 million m3 per year (Ecologic et al., 2007)
Additional water savings can be
accomplished by improvements in the application efficiency. For example, at a
global level a shift from surface irrigation surface to sprinkler or drip
irrigation can lead to 15% or 30% savings of water use respectively. For
example, in Southern Europe drip irrigation can save up to 60% water compared
to the traditional surface irrigation. In France the cost from shifting from
furrow irrigation to sprinkler, pivot and drip irrigation can range from
140Euros/ha to 5142 Euros/ha compared to furrow irrigation. 
The adoption of contingency plan in Spain
for irrigation improvement such as the implementation of new technology,
automatic management of irrigation systems, efficiency enhancement measures to
reduce water demand and abstractions required for the agriculture can lead up
to 1162 hm3 of water savings, whereas its overall cost is estimated to be at
the level of 2 344 Million Euros. 
Significant potential water savings can
also be obtained by the change of crop patterns and the use of more drought-
resistant crops, up to 50% in France and changes in irrigation practices and
awareness-raising and training, up to 34% in Turkey. For instance, in France
the reduction in the production of high water consuming crops like maize and
the switch from high water demanding crops to low water demanding crops to
reduce the vulnerability to drought cases, can potentially lead to significant
water savings
The implementation of new technologies for
the re-use of sewage effluent such as sand filtration or reverse osmosis led to
significant water savings up to 10% and 12% in Portugal and Italy respectively,
whereas the overall investments ranged from 48 to 84 Euros/m3 and 151 to 191
Euros/m3, respectively. 
2.3.2.2.  Industry 
Concerning industry (ACTeon et al., 2012) large
amounts of water are used by pulp and paper, manufacturing, chemicals, textile,
food, leather industry and transport. There is following evidence of water
saving potential and cost effectiveness in industry:
From all industrial sectors in UK water savings range from 15% to 90% and are mainly driven by implementing water
metering, recycling and the re-use of wash water. 
Significant water savings (80%) in the
transport industry occurred in Hungary thanks to the installation of a new water-saving
wastewater treatment facility for wastewater resulting from the washing of
vehicles. The initial investment cost was at the level of 80 000 US $, whereas the estimated period for recovery of the investments was 1.3 years. 
Significant water savings (90%) in the
leather industry occurred in Spain thanks to the installation of a new
water-saving recycling wastewater technology. 
Regarding the pulp and paper industry,
several water saving measures such as the increased efficiency at the water
purification plant in Sweden and aero-cooling towers in France, resulted in water savings which ranged from 15% to 62% respectively. In France, the investment cost for the installation of aero-cooling towers for the recycling
part of the water combined with specific monitoring of flows and conductivity
for optimizing water use in each step of the production process was at the
level of 5 Million Euros. The investment is expected to lead to a reduction in
water abstraction costs of 6 Euros/ton of paper, whereas the estimated period
for recovery of the investment was 2 years. 
With respect to the manufacturing industry,
water savings ranged from 12.5% to 90% and were mainly driven by improvements
in the monitor of flow rinse lines and implemented water saving measures in
offices and washrooms in the UK electronics and furniture sector (12.5% and 45%
respectively). 
Significant water savings in French metal
surfacing and car industry (90% and 35% respectively) were attributed to the
implementation of rainwater harvesting measures. 
In the UK textile sector the installation
of a hot water boiler for more efficient warm water scouring, a
computer-controlled management system to perform routine metering and analysis
of electricity, gas, water and effluent and additional measures to reduce the
pollution load from effluents led to significant reduction in water and energy
consumption, whereas the cost savings were estimated to be more than 1 Million
£. 
With respect to the food industry,
significant water saving measures such as the re-use of wastewater in the dairy
sector in the Netherlands, the repair of leakages and the installation of a new
defroster in the fishing industry in UK, resulted in water savings of 67% and
58% respectively. 
The adoption of the above measures will
eventually result in significant savings in water bills, however, information
on costs and benefits remains inadequate, maybe due to confidentially aspects
which are of great importance for the industry sector. 
2.3.2.3.  Energy 
Thermoelectric generation plants (ACTeon et
al., 2012) produce almost 80% of the total electricity production therefore
being the largest water consumer among other production activities like
hydropower, nuclear, wind and solar plants. Traditional cooling techniques of
thermal power plants are totally water intensive as they require large amount
of water from ocean, sea and rivers. 
The implementation of advanced cooling
technology such as dry cooling, evaporative cooling and hybrid cooling can
reduce the dependence of power plants from natural water resources and
therefore, can lead to reductions in water use and consumption. An economic
analysis regarding the different costs of cooling systems showed that dry
cooling systems can become profitable and thus can be justified economically if
the cost of water is expensive and/or the cost of power is cheap. 
Other water savings measures that can be
applied in the thermoelectric generation is the use of recycling of cooling
water. For example, in Latvia the introduction of this cooling system led to a
substantial reduction in water consumption, from 30 Million m3 per year to 3.1
Million m3 per year. Similar projects are in progress in thermoelectric power
plants in other countries such as in Poland, Ukraine and Hungary. 
Improvements in energy efficiency of new
thermoelectric plants like natural gas combined-cycle plants, can reduce both
the amount of water abstracted and water consumption per MWh and hence can
result in water savings up to 60%. Energy savings in the mining and preparation
of coal for use in thermoelectric generation can also reduce the water used and
therefore increase the availability of freshwater resources, while the
production of electricity from other resources that require little water such
as solar and wind should be further promoted. 
Concerning the hydropower sector the use of
water to produce electricity interrupts the river continuum. This is caused by
the construction of dams that reduce the water flow of a river and create
artificial lakes, and therefore increasing the surface area and evaporation. An
increase in evaporation combined with changes in climate conditions such as
temperature and precipitation can change the timing and magnitude of the river
flows. As a result, the ability of hydropower plants to use water resources
will be affected and thus, the production of electricity. Increasing the
efficiency of utilization of dam reservoirs for instance by reducing water
losses can lead to water savings and thus, can be promoted, whereas the
refurbishment and upgrade of existing hydropower plants needs to take into
account the impact on water resources and the function of ecosystems.
2.3.2.4.  public
water supply and use 
Water efficiency measures (ACTeon et al.,
2012) are in general less costly than alternative measures that involve the
creation of new resources or artificial storage however most still require
investment costs.
Appliances
Significant potential savings in different
household technologies can reach the level of 50%. Up to 25% savings can be
achieved by improving the technological performance of household devices. For
example, in UK water saving devices and more efficient household appliances for
toilet flush and shower can potentially lead up to 55% and 44% savings
respectively, whereas for bath, taps and washing machines can reach up to 26%,
15% and 33%, respectively. In Germany, the overall expected savings from the
water devices can potentially be at the level of 25%, while in Europe it has been estimated that the expected water savings from the use of efficient dish
washer machines can be up to 40%. In Denmark, a campaign targeting unnecessary
consumption and habits alone was estimated to allow a reduction in water
consumption by up to 15%. Yet, some experiences show that awareness raising
campaigns sometimes failed in reducing water use, although they may have raised
awareness of a certain share of population. It is assumed that 3% of water will
be saved at EU level with stand-alone awareness-raising and education campaigns
(ACTeon et al., 2012).
The level of water savings from the implementation of water
efficiency at the product level are summarised in the Table below.
Table. Water savings potential of water using products (Bio
Intelligence et al., 2012).
 Water Using Product || Water savings 
 Low flush toilets || ·                         Use of 3 to 4.5,L/flush instead of 6 to 12L/flush; ·                         Water saving of 30 to 170 L/property per day ·                         In Australia, 22% of water savings from efficient toilets and urinal compared to conventional ones (in the WELS context). 
 Water-saving showerhead || ·                         Use of 6 to 7L/min instead of about 25 (6L/min instead of 16 in the UK) ·                         Water saving of 25.2 L/property/per day ·                         Water saving of 8% compared to total household water consumption. 
 AAA rated dishwasher   || ·                         Water saving of 5 000L/yr water saving of 0.2% compared to total household water consumption 
 AAA rated front-loading washing machine || ·                         Water saving of 90L compared to conventional top loaders, i.e. about 16 000L per family per yr. ·                         Water saving from 0.9% compared to total household water consumption. By 2021 in Australia, 34% of water savings from efficient washing machines compared to conventional ones (in the WELS context 
 Faucet aerator || ·                         Water savings between 12 and 65L/day at home; reduced flow up to 50% in municipalities ·                         Water saving of 7 to 11.6% compared to total household water consumption. 
A study on the benefits of the European
Ecolabel – which sets specifications for certain water using appliance –
estimated the following potential water savings based on potential sales data: 
i) For washing machines, savings were
forecast to be approximately 396 312 300 litres per year (based on 5% uptake),
1,585,249,200 litres/year (based on 20% uptake) and 3,963,122,900 litres per
year (based on 50% uptake) (ACTeon et al., 2012); 
ii) For dishwaters, savings were forecast
to be approximately 20,185,400 litres/year (based on 5% uptake), 80,741,800
litres/year (based on 20% uptake) and 201,854,400 litres/year (based on 50%
uptake) (ACTeon et al., 2012).
Based
on the technical expertise from a real estate association, the costs of the
installation of efficient WuPs and renovation at building level for the
residential sector have been assessed: 
Replace 4 to 5 taps or shower heads: 50 to
200 €
 Replace toilet flushes or toilet
equipment: 200 to 2.000 €
 Install a low pressure water system: 500
à 1.000 €
 Replace 1 or 2 WUP in furnished rented
homes: 350 to 1.500 €
 Replace bathtubs (with shower, or smaller
bathtubs): 1.500 to 5.000 €
 Install water efficient cooling system:
800 à 3.500 €
 Install grey water treatment &
distribution system: 10.000 to 30.000 €
 Install rainwater collector &
distribution system: 5.000 to 15.000 €
 Install water heater (close to the tap)
to prevent cold water waste (cost not evaluated)
 Replace or repair water pipes to prevent
leakages in plumbing system 10.000 to 30.000 €.
Table source: (Bio
Intelligence et al., 2012).
The payback period depends mainly on the
investments costs and water tariffs which differ from place to place. For
example An Australian study mentions a payback time of about 7 years through
savings in the water bill, based on a cost of 500€ per household  for the
installation of a combination of water-efficient appliances, including a AAA
showerhead, a drip irrigation system for the garden, flow restrictors and 
water-efficient front loading washing machines. Calculations
for water saving (changing toilet, shower fitting and adjusting behavior) a
normal detached villa in Sweden (2 adults, 2 children) show that 45 m3
could be saved per year, which results in 675 SEK (77€) for the water (based on
15 SEK/m3 (1.7€/m3)) plus about the same amount for
heating of the water, thus in total 1,200 SEK/year (136€/year). The investment
cost to obtain these savings would be ca 2,000 SEK (226€), highlighting a
payback time of less than 2 years (Bio Intelligence et
al., 2012).
In Germany the replacement of existing showerheads, toilets and taps
with more water-efficient ones to achieve 30% water reduction would cost €400
per flat owner, i.e. more than €10 billion for Germany as a whole. Water
savings and costs of implementation will vary greatly depending on the level of
use, the specific water savings measures, the plumbing arrangements and the
architectural finishes, etc. The UK Waterwise programme shows a wide variation
in the cost of retrofitting per property, which ranges from €46 to €270 per
property. This might make the replacement of water-using products by more
efficient ones a costly effort for the tenants. The cost efficiency of the
measure depends on the associated savings and the payback time (Bio
Intelligence et al., 2012). 
Once efficient water using products are introduced, after the
initial investment cost, the water consumption and consequently the water costs
would be reduced. For example, while investment costs will incur (currently
simple water saving showerheads cost about £35 (€42), see section on capital
costs), in the UK, changing a showerhead and toilet, could result in annual
savings of 67 m3 water, that is £225 (€270) for a household with a
standard occupancy of 2.4 persons. Adding to the costs of the water saved,
savings in the energy costs will also apply. In the Waterwise programme, the
cost of energy saved in the trials range from €1.5 to 50.3/property/year (Bio
Intelligence et al., 2012). 
Buildings
Implementing labelling or minimum requirements will incur costs
while building or refurbishment, and for the certifier to verify compliance,
but also to set up the scheme against which the building is audited (i.e.
determining the standards and thresholds). In case of mandatory labelling and
minimum requirements, the constructors will bear compliance costs. A water
audit for a 10-floor office building in the USA costs around $5,000 (around
€3,560). Green Star and LEED cost between €4,000 for buildings smaller than
2,000 m2 and €24,000 for 50,000 m2 and more (BIO 2009). 
In terms of return on investment, costs premiums for obtaining a
LEED certification in silver or platinum levels are respectively around 2 and
6.5% of the life-cycle costs (LCC) (i.e. costs over the whole lifetime of the
buildings, including construction, use, refurbishment and end-of-life). The net
value of the related savings over 20 years - with a discount rate of 5% - is
over 3 times larger than the minimum initial cost of 2% of the LCC. Setting
minimum requirements comparable to a silver LEED certification would then be in
compliance with adopting a lowest life-cycle cost approach (as promoted in the
Ecodesign Directive). 
Besides, utility charges, which are usually among the most costly
expenses for buildings, are considered lower than usual in green buildings. A
study finds overall operating costs to be lower by 8-9% for green buildings
compared to conventional ones (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012).
In case of mandatory labelling and minimum
requirements, the constructors will bear compliance costs. A water audit for a
10-floor office building in the USA would cost around 5 000$ (around 3 560€)
according to an American consultancy. Green Star and LEED cost between 4 000 €
for buildings smaller than 2 000 m2 and 24 000 € for 50 000 m2
and more. Green building may include costs not only for
the certification itself but also for planning and construction. The extra cost
includes more time for architects and engineers to plan the construction. The
cost will decrease over time (as is the trend at present). Studies by USGBC
show that LEED-certified buildings cost from 0.66% to 6.8% more in planning and
construction, depending on certification level aimed for (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012)..
The potential water savings depend on the
type of buildings within which water using products are installed. For
non-residential buildings, in the USA, water savings are greater for offices
and schools than for restaurants (about 40% greater), and much lower for
laundries, hospitals and healthcare facilities (for each, about 6% of the water
savings from both offices and schools), since offices, schools and restaurants
are high water users. Residential buildings are likely to integrate more water
using products, as showers or washing machines are less often found in
non-residential buildings (apart from hotels) (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012). 
The capital costs of metering are likely to
be borne by the owners of buildings. The price of an
average meter device ranges from 35€ to 350€, depending on its properties in
terms of maximum flow capacity and accuracy of output data. Since more than one
metering device is often needed in a household or dwelling (for instance, a hot
water and a cold water one), this may be costly for the owner/inhabitant. In
many MS, buying two 100€ meters would actually more than double the annual
water bill (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012). 
In the UK, water metering is estimated to
be able to achieve average water saving of 10-15% per household (35-52 L/d
assuming 147.8 per capita consumption and a 2.36 occupancy rate). A study
undertaken in Spain shows that 10% of water savings can be gained with
metering via a better localisation of water leakage in the building, leaving
the possibility for the landlord as well as for the tenant to directly address
the problem. 10% of the residential buildings water consumption in Spanish
cities represents 9,760 hm3/year. These results seem to be
consistent with what has been observed in Austin (Texas) where sub-metered
apartments use 15.3% less water than multi-family buildings in 2008 (Bio
Intelligence et al., 2012).
Leakage
Public water supply efficiency measures
concerns leakage reduction in water distribution networks, whereas public water
use efficiency measures concerns efficiency measures in buildings and water
appliances. For both these types of measures including households, public
sector and small businesses, water savings potential for different measures
usually range from 20% to 50%. 
The leakage reduction program can
potentially result in the reduction of water losses from 29% to 20% in England and Wales and by 52% in Italy (ACTeon et al., 2012). The cost of reduction of loses in
distribution networks rises while network efficiency goes up. Therefore it is
economically valuable to increase efficiency of water
distribution network to the point of achievement of its Sustainable Economic
Level of Leakage (SELL) where environmental, social and resource costs are
fairly included. Because physical, financial, legal, institutional, regulatory
and socio-economic context is different for each water utility, operating in
its specific water body(s) and basin, within its national policy and
legislative framework, there is no common level of SELL, which should be
determined case by case (ERM et al., 2012).
2.3.2.5.  Economic
impacts
Appliances
Changing product requirements can result in costs both for buying
the device and for its installation (e.g. by a plumber). Building owners and/or
users will variously pay for the installation of fixed fixtures (taps, toilets)
and other types of devices (showerheads, washing machines, dishwashers) and
bear those capital costs. 
Costs will also be incurred to manufacturers who have to develop
more efficient products, leading to increased innovation. In case of mandatory
labelling and minimum requirements, compliance costs will also arise.
Depending on the policy instrument used, the costs will be
different. Indeed, through voluntary and mandatory labelling schemes, the
customers decide whether to introduce products in their buildings, deciding
whether it is cost-effective for them or not. In the case of minimum
requirements, the costs will be imposed to customers, but on the long-term,
through the competition occurring between constructors, the costs – initially
higher for efficient WuPs than for traditional ones - are expected to decrease
over time.
Awareness-raising campaigns will incur costs. They will help the
customers decide whether the products are cost-efficient for them, but are not
expected to raise customers’ costs. Financial incentives will have an important
impact on financial return on investment, and will thus highly impact the
decisions by customers to introduce products or not, but are also costly. 
Administrative costs will be associated with the establishment of
certification schemes or labels and/or the determination of performance
thresholds. Public authorities have to face additional costs, on top of the
related administrative burden, to control the good enforcement of the labels
and building certification schemes and ensure the compliance with potential
minimum requirements. Those costs will be higher in case of minimum
requirements, than for mandatory labelling, and lower for voluntary labelling
(which still involves some control). Any launch of financial incentives will
come from public budgets, which will lead to costs, and will need to be
administratively monitored in order to check proper implementation. Financial
incentives will promote water-efficient products, buildings and certain
harvesting and reuse systems, thus balancing the relative prices by promoting
environmentally-friendly goods.
Tax abatements can be used at national level to promote the purchase
of water-efficient products. Financial incentives have been tested in the UK, with the Enhanced Capital Allowances (ECA) scheme. The scheme is managed by Defra and
enables businesses to claim 100% first year capital allowances (i.e. tax
relief) on investments in technologies and products that encourage sustainable
water use. Businesses are then able to deduct the whole cost of their
investment from their taxable profits of the period during which they make the
investment. The objective is to encourage businesses to invest in
water-efficient technologies and provide key information to accompany them in
their decision process. Indeed, the water-efficient technologies that are
supported by the ECA scheme are listed to inform businesses of which efficient
fixtures are targeted. 
Buildings
Decrease water use will contribute to
reducing global energy and financial costs, through reducing the need for
pumping, heating and treating water. Hot water use is identified as a key issue
from the building sector as it directly relates to the energy consumption of
building. Heating water represents around 22% of household energy use in the UK (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012). 
In most cases water efficiency measures, in
order to be effectively implemented must be accompanied by training, monitoring
and other support actions, which can create considerable additional cost.
Implementing labelling or minimum requirements will incur costs while building
or refurbishing the building to meet the standards, and for the certifier to
verify compliance, but also to set up the scheme against which the building is
audited (i.e. determining the standards and thresholds). 
Costs will be incurred by setting up a certification scheme. A
large-scale rollout allows for certification schemes to capture economies of
scale. However, a one-size-fits-all scheme will not be suitable because
different types of commercial and institutional buildings have technologies and
operating systems that are specific to their activities. This results in the
need to adapt the certification systems and therefore additional costs. Several
certification initiatives offer building schemes specific to the building
usage, e.g. LEED for home (with 15 water credits to be awarded), LEED for new
construction (10 water credits), LEED for commercial interiors (11 water
credits), LEED for schools (11 water credits), BREEAM New Construction, BREEAM
refurbishment, etc). Therefore, a certification programme at EU level would require
the development of several parallel schemes that each covers particular types
of buildings. The setting up of the different schemes would incur higher costs
than a single scheme, but as all schemes would be based on a common broad
scheme it would still be less costly than fully developing a scheme for each
different types of buildings.
A survey on the UK financial and business services sector showed
that tenants would be willing to pay 10% more rent if the building was designed
and constructed to increase water efficiency. That is consistent with the fact
that green buildings may contribute to economic benefits for the owner with
increased occupancy rates (+8%), higher rents (+6%) and higher commercial
building values (+35%). The EU FP7 project SuperBuildings indicate that value
of a building increases to up to 10% if assessed as green.  For the moment no
evidence of increased rents were identified in real cases. According to real
estate stakeholders, this information remains questionable and does not reflect
the actual market (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012). 
Administrative costs will be associated with the determination of
performance thresholds. Public authorities have to face additional costs, on
top of the related administrative burden, to control the good enforcement of
the labels and building certification schemes and ensure the compliance with
potential minimum requirements. Those costs will be higher in the case of
minimum requirements, than for mandatory performance ratings, and lower for voluntary
performance ratings (which still involves some control). Any launch of
financial incentives will come from public budgets, which will lead to costs,
and will need to be administratively monitored in order to check proper
implementation. Financial incentives will promote water-efficient products,
buildings and certain harvesting and reuse systems, thus balancing the relative
prices by promoting environmentally-friendly goods.
The implementation of product labels and
minimum requirements will increase innovation in products, to provide customers
with more efficient products. It will also bring employment to green building
businesses, through the development of the standard and advice to be given to
companies to improve their ratings/meet the standards. However, it will require
the education and training of skilled workers 
With the assumption that about 25% of the
EU population would introduce meters, around 7 billion Euros are foreseen based
on the information in the UK (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012).
Leakage
Higher costs for water distribution resulting from significant
leakage may be met by the utility, but these costs may be passed on. Depending
on the financing model, customers may have to meet all of these costs via water
bills or public authorities may meet these costs.
Apart from the economic impact on utilities, leakage has other
economic costs. Major leaks can cause local flood damage (e.g. with costs to
business, insurance companies, etc.) and repairs to these leaks can cause
significant disruption to road users. The leaks can undermine the ground into
which the water percolates, thus resulting, for example, in costs for road
repairs.
Leakage reduction may require the spending of public money (where
utilities are public or public spending is otherwise justified) or spending by
the private sector (where utilities are in the private sector). The options do
not prescribe any level of spending (by defining a level of leakage reduction).
However, a robust determination of the economic justification for leakage
reduction (e.g. based on the Sustainable Economic Level of Leakage) through the
guidance/tool option can justify the allocation of financing (whether from
public budgets or from consumer pricing) and it ensure that spending delivers
the most appropriate level of spending reduction compared to other alternatives
for water efficiency or development of new water supply options. This option,
therefore, provides the basis for increased efficiency of spending.
The funding option would provide financial support from EU funds to
reduce these impacts where spending is otherwise difficult or not available.
Therefore, the option would reduce negative economic impacts of leaks. The
exact nature of the economic impacts will depend upon the extent of Regional
Fund spending and the particular circumstances of the locations where those
investments are made. Funding through Cohesion Policy would deliver economic
benefits from leakage reduction only in the Member States eligible for such
funding. It is, therefore, not possible to set these out in detail.
The increased availability of financial support from the Regional
Funds has the potential for more efficient and effective spending. The timing
of infrastructure spending can be an important factor in determining its
efficiency and effectiveness. Delays, for example, can result in spending on
short-term emergency repairs or smaller projects which are less cost-effective.
Therefore, increased availability of funds can improve the economic efficiency
of the spending of utilities, provided the finance is correctly prioritised and
targeted. 
The option clearly has an impact on the EU budget. However, it does
not impact on the level of that budget, but rather the priorities to which that
budget is applied. 
It is not possible to provide a cost for an individual project.
These costs would depend on the size and complexity of the distribution network
to be repaired, the nature of the system (e.g. depth of pipes), methods of
repair (e.g. complete replacement, lining existing pipes, etc.), labour costs
and other factors. Furthermore, specific costs would also reflect whether the
leakage reduction project was part of a wider project on water distribution.
The increased availability of finance (from private sources, EIB, etc.)
has the potential for more efficient and effective spending. The timing of
infrastructure spending can be an important factor in determining its
efficiency and effectiveness. Delays, for example, can result in spending on
short-term emergency repairs or smaller projects which are less cost-effective.
Therefore, increased availability of funds can improve the economic efficiency
of the spending of utilities, provided the finance is correctly prioritised and
targeted. 
Impacts concerning all efficiency measures:
Encouraging the development of
water-efficient technologies and products stimulates the market and increases
the competitiveness of European industries which is a positive economic impact.
Tangible jobs can be directly traced and have been estimated (e.g. 60000 in DE)
(ACTeon et al., 2012).
Efficiency targets will likely increase the
investment into research and innovation in water saving technology and
application, and will likely increase cooperation between research/academy and
the industry and private sector. To maintain the incentive for innovation, the
efficiency criteria will have to be periodically revised; in order to prevent
that superseded standards act as a barrier for further performance improvement
Administrative burden will depend on how
water efficiency targets are implemented. If water efficiency targets are
specified for individual appliances or technologies, then control is limited to
controls at the level of the industries producing relevant equipments. Defining
water efficiency targets at the level of individual river basins is expected to
lead to larger administrative burden.
Administrative costs will be associated
with the set-up of certification schemes or labels and/or the determination of
performance thresholds. Public authorities have to face additional costs, on
top of the related administrative burden (e.g. red tape), to control the good
enforcement of the labels and building certification schemes and ensure the
compliance with potential minimum requirements,
The inefficient management of water
resources results in reduced water availability which, in areas of water
scarcity and drought, has a direct negative impact upon EU citizens and
economic sectors such as agriculture, tourism, industry, energy and transport.
This may in turn affect competitiveness and the internal market. Climate change
will exacerbate these negative impacts in the future with more frequent and
severe droughts expected across Europe and neighbouring countries
Reductions in per capita potable water
demand could result in a change in the average wastewater content that is
received at treatment plants, with increased biological oxygen demand (BOD),
Suspended Solids (SS) and ammonia levels. Indeed, due to lower flow, more
concentrating effects would be observed in the effluent to be treated. Such
changes might have an effect on the performance of treatment processes.
The cost of appliances and production
techniques in compliance with the efficiency targets may increase initially,
and thus, potentially large investments will be needed (especially in
agriculture). Depending on the level at which water efficiency standards are
set, significant costs might apply even in river basins with moderate water
deficit and where water efficiency lower than proposed standards and BAT would
be sufficient. Thus, over-costs might apply in river basins with medium to
moderate water imbalance.
Specific regions or sectors: The regions
impacted by the “water efficiency” policy area will depend on the sectors
implementing BAT in water efficiency. For example, regions with a higher share
of water abstraction for industry as compared to other sectors will benefit
more from increased uptake of BAT water efficiency if BAT water efficiency is
the target of the sector-specific agreements or regulation. If all sectors and
efficiency components are targeted at the same time, impacts will follow the
relative importance of water abstractors in individual river basins. 
2.3.2.6.  Social
Impacts
Appliances
The implementation of product labels and minimum requirements will
increase innovation in products, to provide customers with more efficient
products. The impact on businesses will depend upon their ability to address
these requirements, with innovators expanding and others that cannot react contracting.
Trade opportunities may expand some companies. All these impacts would affect
employment – positively or negatively. The strength of the impact would be
greater for a mandatory option than a voluntary one. Overall, EU manufacturers
may react more quickly to new standards than importers, but this cannot be
guaranteed. Overall, the number of manufactured products is not predicted to
change and, therefore, although there would be both job creation and job loss,
the net social impact is likely to be marginal in the private sector.
Furthermore, public administration would be needed to ensure the
good application of the certification schemes and of any accompanying financial
schemes, possibly increasing public jobs. Synergies with administrations
controlling energy-using products may be fostered.
Improved efficiency of appliances would be expected to provide
benefits to households in terms of reduced water bills. This would be
particularly important in low income households. The impact would depend on the
correct use of metering, the relative pricing of water, etc. Furthermore, where
low income groups are in rented accommodation, use of water efficient
appliances may be dependent on landlords.
Where water efficient appliances are used these can help reduce the
impact of water scarcity through more efficient use of water overall. In such
cases, the necessity to reduce certain types of water use during droughts may
be reduced, thus providing additional social benefits. Health impacts from
these options are not expected.
Overall, households might see their water
bills reduced. A case study in France found that water saving measures can
reduce household water bills by 240€/year. In some cases, water efficient
appliances will deliver direct benefits to households as a result of reduced
water bill and related reduced electricity bill (because of more limited use of
energy for heating water – see below). Additionally, an increase in water
efficient products resulting from mandatory efficiency requirements (the new
legislation approach) are likely to create more competition within the market
and provide more choice to the consumer compared to voluntary approaches (Bio
Intelligence et al., 2012).
Buildings
Building standards would apply to new buildings and to some retrofit
buildings. The acceptance of the standards would be largely not one for
consumers, but (if voluntary) for construction companies). As with appliances,
the ability to accommodate the new standards within construction companies will
vary and this would affect their viability. However, the options would not
affect the overall levels of construction and, therefore, the overall
employment rates.
Low-income households tend to be hit hardest by rising water bills,
as they proportionately pay more than twice as much for water usage in the home
compared to high-income households. More water efficient buildings should,
therefore, result in lower water bills, which would disproportionately favour
lower income households (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012).
The use of smart-metering could gender issues related to the use of
(and related access to) personal data. Water utilities would have to have clear
customer policies and controlled procedure to ensure that any abusive
exploitation of such data is banned. 
In the longer term an increase in
demand-side savings will mean that less water has to be treated and can lead to
reduced consumption and costs for consumers. In the absence of defined carbon
reduction targets, which can inform on the regulation, some water utilities had
their meter installation programmes cut back by the Water Services Regulation
Authority in England and Wales (OFWAT) within the framework of the 2009 Price
Review. In the face of rising energy prices, water metering alone could reduce
customers’ water and energy bills by between £40 and £160 per year (Bio
Intelligence et al., 2012).
Public acceptance of water saving
initiatives highly varies between types of housing. In the UK, the Waterwise
programme shows uptake rates between 6% and 22% in general housing whereas
social housing (i.e. dedicated to lower-class population) show significantly
higher uptake rates (between 45% and 60%). Yet, once involved in a
water-efficiency project, 65% and 78% of customers from respectively general
and social housing save water. The uptake of water-efficient devices has been
shown to depend on the credibility of the body offering the retrofit and the
communication about the new water saving equipment. The high uptake rates noted
in social housing areas has mostly been due to the involvement of a housing
association in the facilitation, planning and execution of water efficiency
retrofitting projects. A 2001 UK assessment of the effectiveness of promotional
campaigns on water-use behaviour highlighted the difficulty to engage the public,
especially when it does not consider the amount of water as a priority issue
due to the absence of noticeable shortages (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012). 
The use of water-efficient schemes can also be perceived as a
compromise on the comfort of use and therefore not be well-accepted by the
consumers. That could be partly explained by the use of innovative water using
products that did not comply with a multi-criteria performance assessment.
Water-efficient showerheads could therefore be associated with customers’
dissatisfaction due to pressure issue or to the need to increase the water
temperature. As highlighted by the Ecodesign Directive for energy-related
products, the promoted products should not have a direct impact on the consumer
behaviour.
Leakage
Loss of water and costs of emergency repairs can result in increased
costs to consumers. Higher utility costs disproportionately affect those social
groups on lower incomes. Where costs are met from the public budget, these
costs either have to be met through general taxation (usually local taxes), the
distribution of which to social groups varies, or through a diversion of
spending from other areas of public expenditure, which could impact on other
areas of social welfare. It is important to note that leakage reduction
programmes also result in expenditure, but such spending is planned and the
impacts can be managed.
Leaks also cause disruption, such as to road users, as this can have
negative social impacts, such as for commuters. Local flooding can damage
property, causing distress to those affected.
Where leakage allows for bacterial contamination of drinking water
supplies this can cause illness to those affected consumers.
For the general public, high leakage levels in water distribution
networks are often viewed as examples of waste and inefficiency by utilities
(public or private), in particular if consumers are asked to restrict water
uses during times of drought or long-term water scarcity. Failure to address
leakage can, therefore, be viewed as a governance failure. Addressing leakage, i.e. achieving the required efficiency, can be
achieved when the distribution is achieving its SELL - where environmental,
social and resource costs are fairly included in the calculation of SELL.
The options addressing leakage in distribution systems can each
contribute to addressing these social impacts. The social impacts of the option
to provide a robust tool to calculate SELL would depend on the level of those
current impacts, the degree to which the tool is used and funding available to
apply the results of the tool for changes to distribution systems. The option
itself does not result in direct social impacts, in that it is the development
of a methodology understanding the extent of water leakage. The option does not
mandate any particular actions on tackling leakage or on how this should be
funded. However, where utilities have insufficient tools to understand the
extent of water leakage, then the option can provide a firmer basis for more
efficient and cost-effective decision making for investments in water
distribution infrastructure. With more efficient and cost-effective decision
making, the following social benefits may arise:
·                        
Robust methodologies to help decision making
which are transparent will assist in improved public acceptability of the
decisions of utilities.
·                        
A clearer, robust determination of the economic
justification for leakage reduction (e.g. based on the Sustainable Economic
Level of Leakage) can help acceptability of pricing consequences for consumers.
·                        
More efficient (targeted) use of available funds
will ensure that disruption from leakage and leakage repairs is minimized.
Of course, where lack of an adequate methodology to understand the
extent of leakages and the economic justification for different levels of
investment, investments may not be made and consumers will not be asked to pay
for them, which has larger consequences for those in lower income categories.
However, in this case communities will still suffer from the negative social
impacts of leakage.
For the funding option, the impact would depend again on the level
of those current impacts and the size and distribution of the funds available.
Funding through Cohesion Policy would deliver social benefits from leakage
reduction only in the Member States eligible for such funding. It is,
therefore, not possible to set these out in detail. However, the degree to
which social impacts are affected by individual project choice could be
included in the decision making for project selection through both Regional
Funds and EIB loans.
Agriculture:
This could particularly affect young and
small farmers. Historical production patterns and crop types may also be lost
as a result of reduced irrigation, thus potentially impacting cultural
heritage. Preventing the construction of water supply projects in disadvantaged
areas could also reduce job creation and the demand for labour. Local projects
carried out under Cohesion Policy have often led to local employment and led to
an increase in qualifications of local works and companies to carry out such
projects in the future (ACTeon et al., 2012).
Low income groups (be it households or
farmers) might face difficulties in investing in the most expensive water
saving technologies and devices, requiring potentially dedicated “financing
support”.
Impacts concerning all measures
Costs of efficient measures will be
translated in better ecosystems overall (supposing that reductions in water
abstraction are allocated for environmental needs) that will benefit all
sectors, thus leading to an overall net-benefit for society in the mid-long
term, that will likely compensate the short term costs. The likely net economic
benefit also increases political acceptability of water efficient measures that
may just result in water use restrictions.  Water tariffs might change because
of new water saving technologies and efforts. However, increase in water
tariffs is expected to be limited and compensated by reduction in water
abstraction or water demand (depending on the point at which water saving takes
place – water supply companies or individual households).
Increase awareness will lead to positive
social impacts through the creation of new jobs for water experts and better
access to education.
2.3.2.7.  Environmental
impacts
Appliances
Through the adoption of voluntary or mandatory appliance standards,
options are aimed at saving water, and/or reducing the pressure on water
bodies. The level of impact would depend on the degree of uptake, which would
be likely to be greater under a regulatory approach and the impact would also
depend on the level of local water scarcity.
Water saved may be used by ecosystems and help reach the WFD good
status as well as increase availability for other water users.
Water savings lead to potential reductions in the abstraction of
water for water supplies, thus reducing drought and scarcity impacts, in
particular with knock-on benefits for biodiversity. Reduced water use also
results in reduced energy consumption for the movement of water and for its
treated, with consequent reductions in GHG emissions and, depending on the
energy source, air pollution emissions. However, these impacts are small
compared to other policy initiatives in this area. Reductions would be directly
proportional to the percentage of water saved 
Thus, saving
one cubic meter of water in Spain or the United Kingdom in the household sector
is expected to deliver energy savings that are double the additional energy
requirements of producing one additional cubic meter of freshwater through
desalination. For Malta, the value is even three times as high. As for
agriculture, potential energy savings per cubic meter are marginal in all three
case studies.
A Study from Australia indicates that the
use of water appliances with a rating 1 point higher for water and ½ point
higher for energy can amount to annual savings of 80,000 tonnes of CO2 and 22ML
of water. Using less water or water more efficient will also increase the
resilience of urban areas and companies against climate change (ACTeon et al.,
2012). 
An assessment of the water consumption of
household appliances indicates that setting water efficient standards for these
appliances could result in a potential 20% reduction in water heater use, or
.59% of total EU primary energy supply. Introducing mandatory water saving
measures would therefore correspond to yearly CO2 savings of approximately 2.89
MtCO2eq if these water appliances are replaced with more efficient ones (ACTeon
et al., 2012). The measure is also an adaptation measure towards climate change.
According to the Waterwise programme:
0.747 tCO2eq is saved per ML of water saved (when distinction
between hot or cold)
8 tCO2eq are saved per ML of hot water saved
44,000 kWh of energy is saved per ML of hot water saved
Buildings
Through the adoption of voluntary or mandatory building standards,
options are aimed at saving water, and/or reducing the pressure on water
bodies. The level of impact would depend on the degree of uptake, which would
be likely to be greater under a regulatory approach and the impact would also
depend on the level of local water scarcity.
Water is currently addressed in several national green building
(voluntary) certification programmes. Within the HQE programme in France, the reduction of water use can vary from 5 to 45%. By 2010, 535 buildings or
operations (part of a building) had been certified. Since 2008, the aim is to
have 20% of its new constructions certified HQE or HPE. The number of
certifications in the UK from the BREEAM programme increased from about 500 in
2004 to about 3,000 in 2009 for commercial buildings. BREEAM has also rated
more than 100,000 residential buildingsError! Bookmark not
defined.. Based on these numbers, Bio estimated that each year 500
commercial buildings and 15,000 residential buildings are rated in the UK. Extrapolated to the EU-27, that would represent a 1% uptake per year in commercial
buildings, and a 0.05% uptake per year in residential buildings (Bio Intelligence
et al., 2012).
Mandatory rating would be expected to increase the awareness of the
public more easily than for voluntary labelling. However, information campaigns
may be required to ensure that the public understands the meaning of the
scheme. Additionally, negative publicity has decreased public trust in the
scheme, resulting in reduced benefits from the scheme than expected.
Minimum requirements would be implemented for new and to be
renovated buildings, targeting only a small part of the buildings in the EU,
but reducing the water used compared to constructing buildings that are lower
performers. In addition, while the improvement may seem low since it targets a
low number of buildings, it will increase in time with more buildings being
built or refurbished, bringing higher benefits in the longer-term.
The impact these options could have on water use is highlighted in
the table below (including also the potential savings with an accompanying
information campaign and/or financing programme).
 Building Level Policies || Residential building : 25% savings || Non-residential building: 40% savings || Total Water Savings (%)* 
 New || TBR || Existing || New || TBR || Existing 
 Voluntary Rating/auditing || Alone || Building Uptake (%) || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 0.17 
 Savings (%) || 0.05 || 0.05 || 0.05 || 0.5 || 0.5 || 0.5 
 + info c. || Building Uptake (%) || 0.4 || 0.4 || 0.4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 0.34 
 Savings (%) || 0.1 || 0.1 || 0.1 || 1 || 1 || 1 
 + info c. + fin. inc. || Building Uptake (%) || 0.6 || 0.6 || 0.6 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 0.51 
 Savings (%) || 0.15 || 0.15 || 0.15 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 1.5 
 Mandatory Rating/auditing || Alone || Building Uptake (%) || 5 || 5 || 2 || 5 || 5 || 2 || 0.52 
 Savings (%) || 1.25 || 1.25 || 0.5 || 1.25 || 1.25 || 0.5 
 + info c. || Building Uptake (%) || 10 || 10 || 4 || 10 || 10 || 4 || 1.04 
 Savings (%) || 2.5 || 2.5 || 1 || 2.5 || 2.5 || 1 
 + info c. + fin. inc. || Building Uptake (%) || 20 || 20 || 8 || 20 || 20 || 8 || 2.08 
 Savings (%) || 5 || 5 || 2 || 5 || 5 || 2 
 Minimum requirements || Alone || Building Uptake (%) || 100 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 100 || 10 || 1.5 
 Savings (%) || 10 || 10 || 1.25 || 10 || 10 || 2.5 
 + info c. || Building Uptake (%) || 100 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 100 || 10 || 1.5 
 Savings (%) || 10 || 10 || 1.25 || 10 || 10 || 2.5 
 + info c. + fin. inc. || Building Uptake (%) || 100 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 100 || 10 || 1.5 
 Savings (%) || 10 || 10 || 1.25 || 10 || 10 || 2.5 
Options would enable to ensure side energy savings and make
potential synergies with energy performance schemes. In 2008, a General
Services Administration survey revealed that the LEED-certified office
buildings performed 29% better on energy use than the national and regional
averages from a Commercial Buildings Energy consumption Survey (Bio
Intelligence et al., 2012). Buildings would also gain energy and carbon through
the water savings, but also would require modifications in existing buildings
that would result in energy and carbon costs; for new buildings some carbon
costs could be incurred, but are expected to be counterbalanced during the
lifecycle of the building. The energy and carbon saved would be linked both to
the water saved and the need to introduce new products and systems. 
Agriculture
Water abstraction for irrigation can
negatively impact the physical and chemical characteristics, including the
biodiversity, of the water bodies (IEEP, 2000). For example, if irrigation
abstraction of groundwater exceeds the natural recharge rate of the aquifer,
water tables can be lowered as well as impact the interchange between groundwater
and surface water. This is especially the case in summers, where precipitation
does not recharge surface water and groundwater (ACTeon et al., 2012). 
There is also a like to water quality
problems, as reduced flow can lead to reduced dilution of pollutants such as
nutrients coming from agriculture fertilization. Preventing new water supply
and irrigation schemes to be constructed in water scarce areas should help to
prevent these problems. Salinization of water and soils as a result of
irrigation is also a major issue, for example in Greece, Spain and Portugal. This is especially a problem in Greece where 25% of existing irrigation land
experience salinization (ACTeon et al., 2012)
Impacts concerning all measures
Water saved may be used by ecosystems and help reach the WFD good
status as well as increase availability for other water users.
The greatest environmental benefits from
implementation of water efficiency measures will clearly be on water resources.
Water abstraction from surface or groundwater can reduce the quantity of water
if it is not regulated well and if a water balance is not maintained. 
Reducing water use will positively impact
various aspects of the environment. In terms of climate, reduced water
abstraction and pumping of water will result in less energy use, leading to
less CO2 emissions. For example approximately 5.8% of total electricity demand
in Spain is due to the water sector. Irrigated agriculture is one of the
Spanish water sectors that show the largest growth in energy requirements.
Investigations in the US found that if 1% of American households retrofitted
their houses with water-efficient fixtures the country would save 100 Million
kWh of electricity to year and reduce GHG emission by 75,000 tons. Following
table presents energy consumption related to water use in each point of the water
cycle (ACTeon et al., 2012).
 Component of the water cycle || Description || Energy consumption (kWh/m3) 
 Source || Groundwater abstraction (100m well depth) || 0.407 
 Surface water abstraction || 0.045 
 Desalination seawater (pumping included) || 6.833 
 Desalination brackish water (pumping included) || 3.083 
 Rainwater harvesting || 0 
 Water reuse (treatment and distribution) || 0.212 
 Water treatment || Groundwater || 0.031 
 Surface water || 0.370 
 Transport – Supply || Distribution public water net || 0.289 
 Use || Agriculture – Irrigation || 0.111 
 Household - Hot water || 24.271 
 Household - Average (share of hot water = 35%) || 8.495 
 Wastewater || Treatment || 0.340 
 Transport || 0.289 
The figure below present estimate of energy saving, comparing it to
the additional energy requirement from producing one cubic meter of desalted
water (Ecologic, 2008). 
Moving to full water metering across England and Wales could potentially reduce annual emissions by 1.1 to 1.6 million tCO2eq/yr
from current levels. Moreover, achieving full household water metering could
deliver a significant emission reduction, equivalent to 27-40% of the Carbon
Reduction Commitment (CRC) target (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012)
Efficiency measures will lead to
significant amount of water saved/conserved in some river basins. The effect on
the groundwater and drinking water quality and availability will then be very
positive. However, depending on the levels at which BAT and water efficiency
standards are set, water efficiency gains might not be sufficient for achieving
water balance in river basins with severe water deficit today. For example, in
some river basins in France, reduction in agricultural water demand by 80% are
required to re-establish E-Flows, a reduction that cannot be achieved by any
water efficiency improvement in irrigation systems (ACTeon et al., 2012). 
Land use: Indirect impacts on land use are
possible given that measures to enhance water us efficiency in agriculture can
lead to changes other pressures in water scarce basins (e.g. as a result of
shifts in farm practices), thus impacting the overall environment. It is
unclear, however, whether such changes would be beneficial or negative. This
will clearly depend on the natural context and the types of farming systems
targeted by water saving measures.
2.3.3.      Barriers for implementation
Market failures, regulatory and policy
support
Similarly to artificial
water storage or the creation of new resources measures barriers to the
implementation of these measures are as following:
There is the lack of the application of
best practices in integrated water management by water managers at a national or basin level to produce RMBPs that are coherent and cost
effective. 
In general at a national or basin level the
institutional or administrative structures are not in place. It causes problems
in the development and implementation of an integrated water resource
management plan for the administration, management, protection and sustainable
development of the raw water resources at a basin and water body level. 
The existing RMBPs hardly apply the
principles of: polluter pays, cost recovery, cost-effectiveness and
disproportionate costs. It means that they do not meet society’s overall water
objectives for quality and quantity i.e. a RBMP that is harmonized with
socio-economic development objectives resulting in water bodies that will
achieve good ecological status. 
There is the lack of coherence between the
RBMPs and other sectorial plans resulting in inability of basin mangers to
fully evaluate the costs and benefits between measures in order to select the
most cost effective ones for society. 
There is a general lack of clear
institutional roles between water resource managers (responsible for quantity
and quality) and competent authorities for environment whose focus is on water
quality and the environment. The efficient and cost
effective management of water resources requires the management and
implementation of measures that are for the common and cost effective good of
multiple users and are not solely linked to one user or user group. This
requires an institutional framework with the capacity to administrate,
evaluate, select and manage the implementation of common water resource. 
Lack of full cost recovery of water
services, including financial, environmental and resource costs makes difficult
to take economically and environmentally sound decisions on implementation of
water efficiency measures. 
In addition to the above barriers:
There are concerns about efficiency of
water pricing, especially in agriculture sector, because of low elasticity of
demand. At present, limited data are available on the
relationship between increases in water prices and variations of consumption
levels; available figures, however, suggest that higher water prices are
actually effective in regulating (reducing) domestic consumption (EEA, 2009). It
is important to stress, however, that current water prices vary significant
across EU Member States, as shown in the graph below: 
Water prices across EU member states (2008) (Polymedia, 2012).
This means that significant increase in
water tariffs or the application of new (or higher) abstraction charges would
be expected in countries with domestic prices still below EU average and
without full recovery of O&M and investment costs (e.g. most of Mediterranean
countries).
It represents below table:
Price elasticities of residential water demand across Europe (Polymedia, 2012).
 Region || Price elasticity of residential water demand 
 North and West || ·                         0.187 
 East || ·                         0.271 
 South || ·                         0.402 
It is a commonly held view
that increasing irrigation water prices will lead to a reduction in the volume
of water used in agriculture, and that underpricing is the major cause of
waste. In this sector, water savings can be achieved through various farmer
responses, such as for example improving irrigation efficiency, reducing the
irrigated area or modifying agricultural practices. Agriculture is a crucial
sector for the implementation of water pricing policies because irrigation
water prices are normally much lower than water prices applied to the domestic
and industrial sector, as shown in the figure below:
Prices of water in chosen Member States by sector (industrial prices
concern prices paid to water provider)[17]:
In France, in Adour-Garonne River Basin District current pricing policies seem to have a
rather limited impact on water savings, as a decrease in the irrigated area has
not resulted in a decreased demand for water. Water allocation policies, in
contrast, proved to directly affect farmers when water use is restricted;
In Cyprus a combination of water policy, allocation policy and technical measures was adopted
to face water scarcity situations. Technical measures, however, proved to have
a greater impact than pricing policies (Arcadis et al., 2012).
Considering pricing
policies as an important instrument to reduce water consumption in agriculture,
provided that these policies are implemented in conditions where water is on
demand and farmers can actually adjust consumption as a response to changing
prices or, in other words, when two fundamental pre-requisites are met 
As flat rates are quite common in the EU,
some water gains can already be achieved by introducing binomial rates,
including a fixed component covering the ‘fixed costs’ of the system and a
variable component based on actual consumption: it was shown, for example, that
in the Guadalquivir basin those districts with binomial tariffs consume, on
average, 10-20% less than district with flat rate pricing, regardless of the
level of the flat rate (Rodriguez-Diaz, 2004, in EEA, 2009); another study
observed that volumetric rates led to a 25-35% decrease in water use as
compared to a flat rate (ACTeon et al., 2012).
In the Duero region in Spain, where limited crop types are available, it was found that price increases can have
an impact on water demand only if farmers’ income decreases by 25% to 40% (ACTeon
et al., 2012).
In general the principle of full cost
recovery is not implemented across the EC. Generally either resource costs or
asset renewals costs are not adequately included or neither are included in
user tariffs. If resource costs and asset renewals costs are not recovered in
user tariffs it is unlikely that a water service provider will achieve optimum
levels of leakage reductions for its water distribution network. Water Service
Providers aim for full cost recovery where this means recovering the resource
costs, operations costs and asset renewals costs from consumers, where the
‘resource cost’ is included in the Water Service Providers’ internal costs and
is not treated as an external cost item that is passed directly on to consumers
like a tax as if it were external to the Water Service Providers operational
influence. Entire Elimination of leakage is an
unrealistic goal because of the costs involved, but optimising leakage
reduction is a crucial part of water demand management. Leakage reduction goals
should be based on Sustainable Level of Leakage (ERM et al., 2012).
Despite a number of activities launched at
the EU level, and fully acknowledging the indirect impacts on water use
achieved by Ecodesign label of energy related products, no labeling or
certification scheme is directly related to water. In addition, attempts to
initiate a water scarcity related scheme in the framework of the European Alliance
on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) have not been further pursued. 
Experiences with Water Footprinting,
have been limited, and this is mainly due to issues still concerning the
clarity, transparency and reliability of such indicator. Certification and
labeling schemes appear to be a more appropriate approach to promote
sustainable water management than Water Footprinting.
There is a need in increasing advice and
scheduling for farmers (actually it is organised only on regional scales).
Advice and scheduling shown to deliver good results, as it answers farmers
demand, and many RBMP identify advice as an important means to show ways to
improve water performance of farmers, and to ensure that the efficient
techniques introduced are used to their full potential. 
There is low public awareness of importance
of water saving and its influence on the environment and climate changes. There
is also low public knowledge of water saving devices in buildings.
There is lack of unified water saving
standards/ norms for water appliances in buildings and in agriculture.
Financing sources
Several initiatives have been taken to
incorporate financing to water savings in EU policies (e.g. Regional and
Cohesion Funds, CAP and legal proposals for direct payments). Moreover, the
European Investment Bank adopted a new lending policy for the water sector. All
three funds have taken steps to enhance effective water management. However,
with respect to regional and cohesion funds it is still unclear whether
objectives have been met.
There are major research efforts which have
been promoted and financed at the European level. However, except of the
project "Evaluation of effectiveness of
economic instruments in integrated water policy" water scarcity was
not the object of articulated research project, but it was rather tackled,
together with other issues, by different projects within the 6th and
7th Framework Programme and European Territorial Cooperation
programs. It is not clear, at this stage, whether this apparent fragmentation has
led to coherent, integrated and exhaustive results, nor whether the necessary
linkages among projects were established and provided input to the policy
needs.
With the exception of the CAP, it s unclear
that efforts undertaken at EU level for improving conditions for EU and
national funds to ensure the financing of water savings measures are translated
into action at Member State level. This is highlighted by the lack of response
for using regional, cohesion and EIB funds for MS WS&D programmes and actions.
An Australian study stated that the most
frequently mentioned barrier to install efficient appliances in households was
financial. According to an economic newspaper from Germany, the replacement of
existing showerheads, toilets and faucets with more water-efficient ones to
achieve 30% water reduction would cost 400€ per flat owner, i.e. more than 10
billion Euros for the whole of Germany (Bio Intelligence et al., 2012).
Lack of implementation and coordination
Many initiatives were
taken at the EU level aimed at improving land use planning, especially in the
context of the set of legal proposals designed to make the CAP post 2013 a more
effective policy; other sectors of intervention include biofuels and climate
change adaptation (White Paper). Progress has been made to better incorporate
water quantity issues into the CAP, although this progress is uncertain to
continue considering the current proposal for the CAP. Concerning biofuels, the
objective has technically been achieved, but more effort could be made to
incorporate water management issues into biofuel development.
In 2008 MS were commended to develop a
water tariff policy by 2010, in line with the requirements of the EU WFD. Very
limited initiatives have however been taken by MS in this field. Despite
efforts taken at EU level, water pricing is slowly being implemented in MS. It
seems that neither the objectives of full implementation of the WFD in terms of
water cost recovery or the implementation of the ‘users pay’ principle have
been reached so far.
Knowledge base
The common barrier for all types of
measures is a general lack of knowledge of water balances, water accounts,
efficiency measures and supporting economic instruments.
There is no consistent methodology for
calculating the Sustainable Level of Leakage in water distribution networks
promoting the implementation of the operational objectives and economic
principles of the WFD.
Specific barriers to
water efficiency measures in agriculture include (BIO,
2012): 
 Sub-measure: || Barrier (s) 
 ·                         the improvement of irrigation systems || Generally applied only to high value crops 
 ·                         the application of deficit irrigation (Can reduce up to 15% of water use, can improve water productivity between 5% and 36%) || Generally applicable only to certain types of crops; requires training and developed monitoring systems; can decrees yield up to 28%; costs depend on the type of deficit irrigation system applied. 
 ·                         reduction of evaporation during storage (Can reduce evaporation losses by up to 80%) || High investment costs; methods are not sufficiently developed and field tested and more research is required. 
 ·                         decreasing soil evaporation (Can reduce water use by 4% - 9%) || Further research needed on polymer use 
 ·                         Irrigation scheduling (Can reduce water use by 9% - 20%) || Requires a high level of knowledge among farmers about local crops, soils, weather and hydrological flows to be efficient. High costs: costs of tensiometers (450 to 1 800 EUR, used for 6-10 years), 380 EUR per year for climatic data. Irrigation scheduling could be used in every river basin. 
 ·                         Water table management || Limited geographical use; requires important drainage system and monitoring (costs) 
 ·                         Changing planting dates || Very limited applicability (requires very specific conditions); requires a high level of knowledge amongst farmers 
2.3.4.     Degree
of implementation as reflected by the RBMPs
In 82% of the RBMPs assessed there are
measures such as: ecological reconstruction; use of best available techniques
in industry, trade and agriculture to save water; improve knowledge on future
water demands and needs or to put in coherence the authorizations of
abstractions with the needs of the aquatic environment.
A similar percentage of RBMPs (up to 72%)
include the reduction of losses in urban distribution networks, as a proposed
measure.
According to RBMPs assessment volumetric
pricing is in place only for 63% of water uses and water metering is in place
for 53% of water uses. Lack of metering and volumetric pricing concerns mainly
agriculture but also households and industry. Future modification of the water
pricing system to foster a more efficient use of water (in 58% of the RBMPs),
the improvement of the efficiency of water agricultural uses (in 58% of the
RBMPs), measures to enhance water metering (in 54% of the RBMPs), binding
measures related to performance of buildings (37 %) or measures to increase
treated water reuse (53%) are reported in the RBMPs.). Restrictions to new
water-demanding developments (urban, irrigation) are planned in 24-29% of the
assessed RBMPs. 
Regarding water metering: the coverage of
metering is lower in agriculture than in households and industry, although
there are large differences between countries. Water metering for permitted
abstractions in agriculture is at least obliged in Belgium (Flanders), Bulgaria, Czech Republic (above a certain threshold), Denmark, Estonia, France, Malta (groundwater),  Lithuania, Romania and Spain. It is of note that the list may not be
exhaustive, as some other EU Member States also apply volumetric charges which
necessitates some type of water metering.
RBMPs in general are not coordinated with
physical/socio-economic plans for water quantity management in order to fully
incorporate sustainable water balances and apply the principle of cost recovery
in order to promote water resource efficiency.
2.3.5.     Key
EU policy instruments that would unlock / guide the implementation
EU Policy instruments related to use of
economic instruments
Economic incentives could help in
''unlocking'' the measures. This supposes that proper implementation of the WFD
economic principles of: the polluter-pays principle, the principle of cost
recovery. 
EU Policy instruments related to
governance and integration
Strengthening the “quantitative dimension”
of the WFD implementation (be it in monitoring, assessments, definition of
targets or selection of measures), which currently focuses on water quality
issues and does not adequately address quantity issues. This supposes that
‘Quantity Management is clearly introduced into the RBMP aiming to ensure that
the water balance between supply and demand in all water bodies in a basin is
both statically and dynamically in balance. This will require the establishment
of systematic water balance assessment/water accounts at sub-catchment level
and the dynamic modelling of water resources for the preparation of next RBMP.
This will provide information on where and how water efficiency can be improved
in a cost-effective way. 
In relation to water distribution networks
it is not recommended that targets for water efficiency
are set at EU level as physical, financial, legal,
institutional, regulatory and socio-economic context is different for each
water utility, operating in its specific water body(s) and basin, within its
national policy and legislative framework
Awareness raising campaigns and advisory services:
·                        
to improve the public and user awareness and
acceptance of the water reuse,
·                        
importance of water saving and its influence on
the environment and climate changes,
·                        
improve knowledge of water
saving devices in buildings
EU Policy instruments related to funding
Structural and Cohesion Funds provide
support to least developed regions among which are often facing significant
water scarcity. It is imperative to ensure the consistency of actions financed
from the CSF Funds with RBMP. One of the "priorities" of rural
development policy would explicitly include improving the EU farm sector's
water-efficiency. As in the current programming period, support for technical
infrastructure investments (including irrigation facilities) would be
maintained. 
In parallel, specific efforts (financial as
well) will be required to assess and then monitor water use efficiency in new
projects and developments. 
EU Policy instruments related to
knowledge base
Application of well-defined efficiency
targets for different water use sectors and components of the hydrological
cycle (e.g. targets for conveyance efficiency in irrigation systems, for water
use efficiency in buildings, etc.).
Specific research and benchmarking (within
sectors) is required on BAT water efficiency for all types of measures.
Research on maximum and optimal water efficiency will be performed at different
scales (Europe, MS, river basins, sectors or sub-sectors) for different types
of context. This will help supporting the definition of target(s) and possible
BAT water efficiency standards.
Development of a harmonised method for
determining the Sustainable level of water leakage at EU level and engage Member States and the water industry in a process to integrate it into their water
management and share best practices on leakage reduction.
Building a robust monitoring &
evaluation systems for WS&D, strengthening the quantitative dimension of
the WFD
Strengthening the knowledge base on water
balances, water accounts, efficiency measures and economic instruments
Increase support for advice and scheduling
for farmers to ensure that the efficient techniques introduced are used to
their full potential. 
3.            Annex
3: Stakeholder and public consultations
3.1.        Stakeholder and public consultation for the policy
reviews supporting the Blueprint
Stakeholder and public consultation took
place in different contexts:
3.1.1.     Assessment River Basin
Management Plans
Bilateral dialogues took place with Member
States in the context of the assessment of the Plans.
Targeted stakeholder workshops (hydro
morphology, cost-benefits analysis,) took place in the context of the Study on
Pressures & Measures.
3.1.2.     Review
Water Scarcity & Droughts policy
A stakeholder consultation took place in
the context of a discussion on options for water savings in buildings from 16
November 2011 until 8 February 2012. The consultation received 465
contributions from 24 Member States.
The figure below shows the summary of the
results concerning the perceived usefulness of different EU measures to
increase the water efficiency of buildings. An average rank has been used to
display the results.
Conclusions:
·                        
- The high score for region-specific measures
shows that respondents recognise the differences in water availability across
the continent and perhaps emphasises the notion that citizens in water rich
regions should not be subject to the same use restrictions as those living in
areas of scarcity. 
·                        
- The measure to introduce metering across the
EU scores highly, presumably as most of the respondents already have meters in
their homes and see no harm in this being standard practice for all European
citizens.
·                        
- Respondents from Germany and Austria rank each measure lower than their European counterparts. This could be due to the
current water efficiency standards already in place within these countries.
·                        
- On the whole, EU guidance, awareness raising
and metering scored higher than the stricter measures such as a binding EU law
and pricing policy.
Further consultation was embedded into the
consultation on the Blueprint policy options.
3.1.3.     Fitness
Check
Given the wide range of issues that could
arise in undertaking the Fitness Check, the Commission recognised the
importance of ensuring active consultation with stakeholders throughout and
that a range of mechanisms to obtain stakeholder views were needed. Therefore,
a number of different consultation processes were undertaken, including
web-based consultations, meetings and interviews and two workshops. 
The scoping study included three web-based
consultations during 2011. The first targeted National Authorities relevant for
the high-level management and implementation of EU water policy. The second
targeted representatives of river basin management authorities. The third
targeted other categories of stakeholders such as
experts from the industry, NGOs, international organisations and academia. In
total 61 institutions from 26 Member States and from non-EU countries responded
to the surveys.
In late 2011 a second web-based public
consultation was held, which concluded on 28  February 2012. This sought views from as wide a range of interested
institutions and individuals as possible, focusing on different aspects of the
Fitness Check: the relevance, coherence, efficiency and
effectiveness of EU freshwater policy. Questions considered different aspects of these four themes for the
policies included in the Fitness Check as well as interactions with other EU
water law, other environmental policy and other EU policies. In total 113 responses were received from
22 countries.
Main conclusions drawn from the
consultation are:
·                        
Improvement of Europe´s waters: For a very large majority (almost 88%) of respondents, the range
of EU Directives adopted since the 1970s has brought significant improvements
to the quality of Europe’s surface and ground waters.
·                        
Quality of policy framework: Overall, respondents considered that the
existing policy framework is good, comprehensive and adequate to tackle the
majority of the challenges facing water management. Obstacles are: inconsistent
implementation of certain measures, poor monitoring and lack of controls. The
existing legislation has been most beneficial in relation to the protection of
ecosystems and biodiversity, protection of human health and for the protection
of river basins as a whole. However, concerning pollution from industrial
activities, it was stated by several respondents that EU policy promotes end of
pipe treatment rather than source control. The main gap identified by respondents
in the existing policy is in relation to water efficiency. New challenges to
address include water scarcity, innovation and climate change. 
·                        
Success on addressing challenges facing water
management: Respondents considered that the Water
Framework Directive is mainly successful to very successful in meeting the
challenges facing water management. For the Groundwater Directive, most
respondents considered it to be average to successful; however, lack of
concrete controls may be a limitation. There were diverse views related to the
Environmental Quality Standards Directive with comments on the list being too
short, or delays in reviewing the list too long. The Urban Waste Water
Treatment Directive and Floods Directive were largely considered to be successful
to very successful. The Communication on water scarcity and droughts was
considered by the majority to have limited, average or some success in
addressing the challenges, being successful in increasing awareness among
stakeholders. A number of respondents commented that the objectives in EU
policy concerning water quality need to be revisited and adapted to modern
challenges, but a significant amount of comments stressed that determining
success or not for some instruments was too early as they are still being
implemented.
·                        
Gaps in EU policy framework: The respondents were evenly divided in their views on whether the
EU policy framework has gaps in its coverage. MS stated that instead of new
regulation, the European Commission should provide more guidelines and further
support to implementation. The development of a common analytical tool was
called for in order to improve the quality of reporting and monitoring. Most
significant gaps were considered to be: Insufficient consideration of local
issues, water reuse not being sufficiently addressed, lack of a common
regulatory framework at EU level limits, does not address water use rights,
their duration, revision etcetc., lack of obligations relating to water
efficiency in buildings, lack of sufficient consideration of water quantity in
River Basin Management Plans and gap in funding for infrastructure and cost
recovery.
·                        
Climate adaptation: consensus that in addressing climate challenges, the main necessity
is the flexibility to act at the level where the pressures are the greatest and
to balance water availability with changing pressures. There is a gap in
integrating climate change adaption through the existing policies as water
legislation was written before climate change issues had begun to be included in
policies. The Floods Directive is perceived to be the best adapted to climate
change, while the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive does not take into
account carbon implications. As the Communication on Water Scarcity and
Droughts and the White Paper on climate adaptation are non-binding documents
even if they do address climate change, this is seen as a drawback by some. A
uniform, one-size-fits-all approach was widely criticised, in particular in
relation to floods, droughts and water scarcity.
·                        
Balance between obligations set out at EU
level and MS: For a large majority of respondents,
the balance between obligations set out at EU level and Member State action within the current water policy framework is correct. Furthermore, for many
respondents, even though flexibility is desirable, some intervention at EU
level is necessary to prevent Member States favouring local economic issues
over environmental ones. It was noted that MS still need clear guidance at EU
level to ensure compliance. But flexibility brings difficulty to compare Member
States' compliance. Divergent answers were given on the current level of
subsidiarity.
·                        
Coherence within policies covered: Majority considered that there were either limited
inconsistencies or no inconsistencies and, if yes, it may be due to the
different timings when the different instruments were written. Big concern on
details such as duplication of reporting and monitoring efforts, raising costs
due to the multiplication of tasks. Incoherence in reporting cycles was commented
by a number of respondents. The respondents from the energy producing sector
called for a better prioritisation of the objectives.
·                        
Coherence with other EU law: Overall, the majority of respondents reported that these legislative
instruments were at least partially coherent with the remainder of EU water
legislation. There is a missing link between the Drinking Water Directive and
the protection of drinking water through water safety plans. Concerning the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the main inconsistency was in relation to
the determination of good status.
·                        
Coherence with other EU environmental
policies: The hydropower industry stated that there
are difficulties to accommodate the renewable obligations under EU law and the
requirement of EU water legislation, which can hinder hydropower development.
The lack of integration with energy policy was more generally commented upon.
Concerning chemicals, respondents stressed that more integration is needed in
relation to chemicals and pharmaceutical products. Some respondents suggested a
unified priority substance regime. Regarding biodiversity policy, respondents
noted that there are different definitions and concepts within the Birds and
Habitats Directives and the WFD. The EIA and SEA are seen as a heavy burden. 
·                        
Coherence with other sectoral policies: In nearly all the comments made by respondents, agricultural policy
or energy policy were identified as the main obstacles to a successful water
policy. Several areas of agriculture supported by the CAP are very detrimental
to the environment. Problems identified are: unmonitored subsidised
abstraction, no application of polluter pays principle in the agriculture
sector. Some respondents also noted the impact of hydropower on water bodies
and their hydro morphology.
·                        
Common Implementation Strategy: A large majority of the respondents (77.2 per cent) agreed that the
CIS fully or partially addressed the right issues, and the guidance produced
was considered partially helpful by more than half of respondents. However,
further clarity through the CIS is needed to enhance implementation and
guidance documents would have been more useful if they had been made available
earlier in the implementation. The one-size-fits-all approach is unsuitable and
a better involvement of experts would be desirable.
·                        
Administrative coordination: The respondents agreed by a very slight majority that effective
co-ordination of administrations exists between national and river basin
authorities and among river basin authorities in river basins across national
frontiers. 61% considered that improvement for coordination between water
management authorities and stakeholders is needed. Cross-border cooperation has
improved as a consequence of the Water Framework Directive, and several respondents
(e.g. industry) noted that the process can be improved further in the coming
decade without amendments to EU legislation.
·                        
Planning: For all the Directives, more than 40 per cent of the respondents
considered the planning obligations to be fully clear and achievable. The
Directives allow sufficient flexibility for Member States to develop plans
which suit local circumstances and policy objectives. However, some stated
(river basin authority, industry) that it is more questionable whether the obligations
are achievable. Also the planning process for the WFD was considered to be hard
to fulfil and the requirements and exceptions of Article
4 are too complex and not clear. What is perceived as problematic is
the fact that planning obligations for the Nitrates Directive and Urban Waste
Water Treatment Directive are not synchronised. For the Floods Directive,
comments highlighted room for improvement in terms of guidance. The analysis of
the measures proposed in the River Basin Management Plans should focus on
whether the plans helped to solve problems at their source (e.g. the control of
pollution at source), sustainability and cost-optimisation of measures, etc.
·                        
Public participation: A majority of respondents considered the requirements in EU
Directives are a sufficient legal basis for public participation in water
management. However, approximately one fifth of the respondents considered that
the process of public consultation has not effectively provided for a
possibility to influence water management, and that public participation in
water management is not sufficient in their river basin/country. Regarding
whether current guidance is sufficient to promote active participation, there
was significant variation in the responses. Comments included that public
information deadlines are too short for the large and complex set of documents
to be reviewed, and that sometimes the documents are difficult for stakeholders
to access and understand.
·                        
Monitoring obligations: The majority of the respondents considered the monitoring
obligations in the Water Framework Directive, Groundwater Directive, Directive
on environmental quality standards and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive as
addressing the right issues. Regarding the Directive on environmental quality
standards, comments included that costs of monitoring (especially concerning
the persistent pollutants) are very high. Some of the obligations for the Nitrates Directive were not considered to be
coherent with each other
·                        
Reporting obligations: a majority considered that the reporting obligations fully or
partially add value. It was noted that the reporting adds value if correctly
analysed; one main concern is, however, the streamlining of the reporting
obligations across  EU legislation. Several respondents stated that the
principle of “one out all out” in the Water Framework Directive, by which the
poorest individual result drives the overall determination of status, needs to
be reconsidered. Streamlining the reporting between the Water Framework
Directive and the Nitrates Directive would also be welcomed. Some respondents
considered that transparency could be improved.
·                        
Measures and obligations: The majority of respondents considered the obligations under the
Water Framework Directive, Groundwater Directive, and Floods Directive to be
sufficient. One third considered the obligations under the Nitrates Directive
are insufficient to obtain its objectives, and nearly 29 per cent considered
the obligations of the Directive on environmental quality standards too excessive.
Regarding the WFD, a high cost for achieving the goals was emphasised
by several respondents (industry, national administrative bodies), especially
in densely populated and industrialised Member States and it was noted
that the objectives were too ambitious to be implemented in the time provided.
·                        
Costs and administrative burdens: For all Directives, except the Floods and Nitrates Directives, the
number of respondents considering the costs to be higher than the benefits was
greater than those who considered the costs to be lower than the benefits.
·                        
Implementing EU water law: The issues most commonly considered by respondents to be challenging
were: insufficient finance; a lack of integration of water policy objectives in
other policy areas; and poor coordination with other authorities (spatial
planning, agriculture, economic planning, etcetc.). The aspects which seem to
be least challenging were:  a lack of legal status of River Basin Management
Plans; insufficient ability to control water demands; objectives of EU water
policy not properly formulated; too many bodies involved in water decision
making; and poor coordination between river basin and national bodies. 
·                        
Way forward: Industry
respondents, national administrative bodies and a river basin authority
suggested that the Water Framework Directive should be given much more time to
deliver its present goals before considering additional water related
instruments. Several respondents suggested that the European Commission should
take the opportunity of the CAP reform to better integrate water-related
issues. Regarding development of new or improved guidance, industry respondents
commented that water reclamation and reuse could benefit from EU guidance to
encourage suppliers and users to apply water reclamation and reuse techniques.
Guidance under the Water Framework Directive should also specify better
harmonized measures to be implemented at local level. The European Commission
could take a stronger focus on coordination between different stakeholders. More or better targeted EU funding could be achieved through:
–              
Assessment and revision of (EU and Member State) funding for agriculture, transport, energy with regard to ecological values,
environmental provisions and needs.
–              
Targeting the maintenance of infrastructure in
order to achieve greater performance rates. Increasing funding for innovation
in the water sector.
–              
Targeted EU funding for cross-sectoral measures,
e.g. renewable energy plants and water conservation.
Meetings and interviews were held with a range
of stakeholders and officials. Throughout the work on the Fitness Check
approximately 50 meetings or interviews were held with Commission officials and
a range of EU-level stakeholders. Within the scoping study, interviews were
also held with relevant authority officials, sectoral interests and NGOs for
five river basins: Scheldt, Danube,
Guadiana, Po and Severn. 
Two workshops were held. The first, on 10
May 2011, explored the preliminary conclusions reached in the scoping study.
There were more than 80 participants, including stakeholders from national administrations, NGOs and
sectoral federations. The feedback from participants was taken into account in
finalising the scoping study.
A second workshop was
held on 9-10 February 2012. There were about 45 participants invited from the Strategic Coordination Group of the Common Implementation Strategy
of the WFD, including Member State officials, business associations, NGOs, etc.
This workshop was structured to maximise participative discussion to obtain views
on all of the key issues relevant to the Fitness Check.
Meetings with relevant stakeholders were
organised:
·                        
EUREAU on  2 February 2012
·                        
WWF/EEB on  23 January 2012
·                        
EUWMA on 26 January 2012
3.1.4.     Modelling
of scenarios, measures and objectives
Stakeholder meetings were organised in Brussels by JRC and ENV to discuss and obtain feedback on the approach and the first
results with a focus on socio-economic assessment and prioritization of measures.
Meetings took place in December 2011 (overall concept), March 2012 (application
in pilot basins). A meeting took place September 2012 to discuss the draft
results.
3.2.        Public
Consultation on policy options
A public consultation on the
Blueprint policy options was launched for 12 weeks, from 16 March 2012 until 8
June 2012. In total, 221 responses were received from 24 Member States as well as Iceland, Norway and Switzerland and two non-European countries (Member States
accounted for over 95% of responses). Almost 25% of respondents were from
industry, with a similar share answering ‘other’. Member State officials accounted for 20% of
responses (counting both national administrative bodies and river basin /water
management authorities), and NGOs, 19%.
3.2.1.     Horizontal
options
Several horizontal options for information,
guidance and best practices received support from a majority of
respondents.  
For the issue of water balances and
targets, 50% of respondents were in favour of the development of CIS guidance
on water accounting, e-flows and target-setting (Options 9a1 and 9a2). A strong
majority of respondents – 71% – support enhancing drought management planning
through the next cycle of river basin management plans. 
A majority of respondents, 59%, supported
CIS guidance on the recovery of costs (option 11a), including environmental and
resource costs and ecosystem service benefits. 
In the area of knowledge base, a
majority of respondents (57%) are in favour of using remote sensing to address
illegal abstraction (option 2a). A strong majority (69%) supported improved
data and information sharing through the Water Information System for Europe. 
Support is more limited, however, for the
development of a fully interoperable, SEIS-based shared water knowledge system:
while 45% were in favour, 38% answered ‘Do not know’ on this option (option
11.2).
For global aspects, about 60% of
respondents are in favour or raising consumers’ awareness of the water
footprints of products (option 3a). 
The use of regulation for the
horizontal packages did not receive strong support, except in the area of
knowledge base. 
About 50% of respondents were opposed to
the adoption of technical annexes to the WFD on water accounting, e-flows and
water efficiency targets. In addition, 59% of respondents were opposed to
legislative action for drought management – specifically, the establishment of
a directive requiring drought management plans. A similar share, 58%, opposed
an amendment to the Water Framework Directive for a mandatory methodology on
the recovery of costs. Mandatory labelling of water-intensive products, on the
other hands, was opposed by 48% of respondents and supported by only 28%. 
In the area of knowledge base,
however, 55% of respondents were in favour of enhanced reporting requirements
and statistical obligations, including the harmonisation of the reporting
timetables for the Urban Waste Water Treatment, Nitrates and Water Framework
Directives (option 11.1). 
3.2.2.     Options
unlocking specific measures
Measures aimed at protecting ecosystems and
natural water retentions measures
Consultation respondents strongly supported
the use of information, guidance and best practices to support such
measures: 58% of the respondents (128 out of 221) supported the definition and
provision of an EU framework for green infrastructure, supporting natural water
retention measures (cf. option 3.1). 
In addition, 62% of the respondents (138 of
221) supported the preparation of guidance for farmers on the effective
application of measures for water quality and quantity objectives (option 4b).
Very few no answers – only 8% of the total – were given (though almost 30% of
respondents indicated ‘do not know’ for this question).
The consultation did not ask about regulatory
options or conditionality specifically for this area. (In other areas,
however, a majority of respondents for the most part did not support regulatory
options, though conditionality via the CAP, for example on water metering, did
receive support from a majority.) 
Artificial water storage or supply
The questionnaire did not include questions
on this area of possible options. 
Water efficiency measures
This area covers several issues, including
water efficiency in appliances and buildings, the reduction of leakage in water
infrastructure and economic instruments for water efficiency. 
Responses varied concerning measures to
promote water efficiency through information, guidance and best practices.
Voluntary labelling of water-using appliances (option 5.1a) was supported by
the largest share, 43% of respondents (almost 30% indicated ‘do not know’ for
this question, and a similar share was seen in other answers for this area). 
For voluntary performance ratings for
buildings (option 5.2a), only 29% of respondents were in favour, while over 40%
were against. 
Regarding leakage in water infrastructure,
the largest share of respondents – 44% – were in favour of developing a
harmonised method under the CIS for determining the level of water leakage
(option 6a). 
A majority of respondents (116 out of 221,
or 52%), however, were against the development of guidance and tools under the
CIS to support trading in water rights, and only about 25% supported this
(Option 8.2). 
The majority of respondents did not
generally support most types of regulation for water efficiency. For
example, 41% of respondents opposed mandatory labelling of water-using
appliances, while only 32% supported this (Option 5.1b1). Support was stronger
for minimum requirements under the Ecodesign Directive (Option 5.1b2): here,
39% were in favour and 29% against – and a further 32% responded ‘don’t know’.
In contrast, 45% of respondents were
opposed to a mandatory performance rating for buildings (Option 5.2b1). 
For minimum water performance requirements
for buildings (option 5.2b2), responses were evenly mixed, with almost equal
numbers (about 34%) responding yes and no. 
A possible directive on water efficiency
requirements in buildings (Option 5.2b3) received a high level of opposition,
with 49% of respondents indicating ‘No’.
An option to amend Art. 11 of the WFD to
require metering for water abstraction permits divided respondents (option 2b2),
with 43% in favour and 40% against. 
A separate option to amend the WFD and
require metering ‘where relevant’ received less support, and 45% opposed this
(Option 7.4). 
The opportunity to establish conditionality
for EU funding, and in particular to require metering on agricultural water
use, received stronger support. 
One-half of respondents supported
requirements such as a condition for EU funding of irrigation projects (option 2c)[18], and about 45% supported the proposal for CAP direct payments
(option 2b1). 
The option to include national water
pricing obligations for farmers under the CAP cross-compliance rules (Option
8.1), however, received a high share of ‘do not know’ responses, 44%. 
In terms of funding support to
promote leakage reduction, 47% of respondents were in favour of prioritising
actions through the Cohesion and Structural Funds in water stressed areas (and
only 30% opposed); 43% were in favour of loans from the European Investment
Bank for leakage reduction. 
Wastewater reuse
The consultation asked about two options
involving information, guidance and best practices. The first, on
developing guidance on certification schemes for water re-use, was supported by
40% of respondents (option 7a1). The second, on the use of CEN standards
(option 7a2), received slightly less support (about 38%): for this option,
however, almost a similar share replied ‘Do not know’. 
A proposal for regulatory action,
specifically for an EU Regulation establishing standards received slightly
higher support (option 7a2), with 42% responding ‘Yes’. 
A thorough analysis of the results of the
consultation will be published on the Europa website in the coming weeks.
3.3.        Stakeholder
Consultation on policy options
Discussions on the Blueprint policy options
took place during three Water Directors meetings, on 8-9 December 2011, through
an extraordinary meeting organised in Brussels on 29 March 2012 and a third one
in Copenhagen on 4-6 June. Presentation of the Blueprint and discussions on the
policy options took place during meetings of the Common Implementations
Strategy group on 11-12 May 2011, 8 November 2011, 7 March 2012 and 10-11 May
2012.
Under the banner “The Water Challenge –
Every Drop Counts”, Green Week 2012 was devoted to the discussion of water
related issues. The presentations covered all aspects of current water policy
aspects. 
Integrated in the Green Week, the 3rd
EU water Conference was organised on 24-25 May. The event served as a platform
for consultation and debate between a large number of different stakeholders, Member States and the European Commission on the Blueprint policy options. A total of 214
participants attended the conference representing around 71 organisations.  
The conference was divided in five
sessions: 
·      Session I covered key problems and challenges by considering the
status of Europe’s water and key tools which may be needed for the sustainable
management of water resources
·      Session II looked into ways of unlocking the most promising measures
·      Session III looked at economic incentives to achieve targets 
·      Session IV focused on governance and knowledge base as cross-cutting
conditions for sound decision making and effective implementation
·      Session V addressed the global aspects and issues related to
innovation.
The sessions included introductory
presentations on the session themes, moderated panel discussions with
panellists from Member States, stakeholders and River Basin District
authorities (in Sessions II, III and IV) and discussions with the audience. 
The main key messages/conclusions of the
different sessions within the presentations and/or panel discussions were the
following:
Session I – Status of Europe's water and
challenges for water policy
·                        
A growing world and urban population, and the
effects that climate change will have on the accessibility of water, water
scarcity and access to clean water have become key challenges. 
·                        
Innovation and scientific evidence are key
instruments for the development of effective and correct actions which should
be part of an integrated multidisciplinary approach.
·                        
Areas for improvement include: water saving
where more effort should be put into reducing leakages, water treatment which
should incorporate innovative solutions, water re-use where international
standards should be put in place and desalination where further understanding
of the costs and benefits and the environmental impacts associated is needed.
·                        
Global governance going beyond borders is
needed, with all actors at all levels being involved and where a better
integration of available information and datasets, as well as research and
structural funds should be achieved. Better cooperation between different
policy streams such as agriculture and the new CAP, and energy policy,  would
result in resolving current and future water challenges.
·                        
The 1st cycle of the WFD clearly shows success
stories (intercalibration exercise, enhancement of international cooperation,
public participation, increase of knowledge base, improvement of chemical water
quality) but also a long road ahead to meet the ambitious objectives of
European water policy (e.g. not all RBMPs have been submitted, low ambition of
the RBMPs, lack of concreteness and comparability, dressing up “business as
usual” as compliance with WFD).
Session II – Unlocking the most promising
measures
·                        
The measures to be considered in order to
improve water resource efficiency and sustainability should aim at giving
answers to different problems simultaneously in a coordinated way. These should
include voluntary and mandatory measures for the agriculture sector, increase
green infrastructure, land and wetland restoration, and should address
ecosystem services.
·                        
Reliable funding (public and private funding) is
key for implementing measures Market instruments and
private investments should be more strongly considered for a better
implementation of the current legislation. However, before such measures are
put in place there is a need for sound knowledge of water accounts and for
certain preconditions to be met.
·                        
More practical guidance is needed to improve
implementation at a regional level.
·                        
Water reuse may prove to be an effective measure
to address water scarcity and efficiency; however, further work is needed on
quality assurance, and setting standards in cooperation between different
sectors.
·                        
Regarding pharmaceutical substances in water,
stakeholders pointed to the need for further action and European regulation.
Besides discussions in the context of the EQS Directive, further steps may need
to be taken,: firstly, by implementing stringent legislative criteria, and/or
looking at ways to reduce pharmaceuticals at source (upstream) and working on
hotspot management (e.g. hospital discharges).
Session III – Economic incentives for a
more efficient water resources management 
·                        
There was general consensus on the need for
water pricing. However, agreement was reached on the fact that this should be
implemented alongside other policy tools and after several preconditions have
been met, such as: sound knowledge on e-flows, abstraction licenses, water
rights, stronger enforcement of water legislation and property rights,
establishment of mandatory metering and increased awareness raising campaigns.
·                        
Pricing should be considered involving all
relevant stakeholders.
·                        
There was a call for a complete application of
the polluter-pays principle which would result in covering remediation costs as
well as increasing competitiveness of more efficient water users.
·                        
Regarding the application of social water
tariffs, governments should ensure equality, transparency and access to water
for low income groups.
·                        
There is a need to impose conditions on the use
of EU funds (Rural Development, Cohesion Policy). The objectives of the WFD
should be included in cross-compliance requirements under the CAP objectives. 
·                        
The European Commission could consider the
elaboration of practical guidance for the interpretation of environmental and
resource costs needs.
Session IV – Governance system and
knowledge base
·                        
Since its adoption, the WFD has been the main
driver for water management in Europe improving, among other positive aspects,
governance and transboundary cooperation, increasing public participation and
knowledge.
·                        
The governance structure should focus on Member
States and take into account the hydrological complexity of the different MS.
·                        
The panel was of the opinion that no further
legislation was needed, but rather further support to implement existing
legislation by reducing the fragmentation between different governance levels
and environmental sectors, eliminating rigid concessions systems and by
ensuring stronger enforcement.
·                        
Cooperation between the water and agricultural
sector is where governance is most deficient, mainly due to the difficulty in
setting up a dialogue and because of the system of subsidies in the
agricultural sector. Political will is needed to push further cooperation
between the CAP and the WFD.
·                        
Within the WFD process, the knowledge base
should be improved. There is agreement on the need for better communication on
sound scientific results to decision makers via an improved Science Policy
Interface, as well as an increase in the sharing of success stories and results
of the assessments.
Session V – Innovation and Global aspects
·                        
The Innovation Partnership is an opportunity to find new solutions for the water challenges we face. It is also
a chance for EU water industry to become more
competitive and to translate ideas of the European water sector into marketable
solutions.
·                        
The scope and aims of the Innovation Partnership
will be further clarified together with industry and the public sector until
the end of 2012, when the strategic implementation plan of the partnership is
due.
·                        
The EUWI has been a successful instrument to put
water on the development agenda and stakeholders favour its continuation.
Strategic discussions are ongoing on how and whether to continue the EUWI with
emphasis on the means to have a significant impact on the water sector and to
gain support at the political level.
3.4.        Calendar
of main events
A number of meetings, workshops and public
consultations took place to enable a thorough discussion on the problem
description, objectives and policy options to be included in the Blueprint. The
most relevant milestones were:
·                        
8-9/11/2011 Strategic Co-ordination Group CCAB, Brussels (incl session on SPI) 
·                        
16-18/11/2011 Bonn2011 Conference: The water,
energy and food security nexus. The Solution for the Green Economy http://www.water-energy-food.org
·                        
8-9/1/2 Informal meeting of Water and Marine
Directors, Warsaw; 
·                        
7 December 2011- 28 February 2012: Public
consultation on Fitness Check
·                        
January 2012: Stakeholder meetings for the
Fitness Check
·                        
9-10 February 2012: 2nd Stakeholder meeting for
the Fitness Check
·                        
29 March 2012: meeting with Water Directors on
options
·                        
12-16 March 2012: 6th World Water Forum
(Marseille)
·                        
March-June 2012 - Public consultation on draft
objectives and policy options for the Blueprint.
·                        
21-25 May 2012: Green Week focusing on water and
3rd EU Water Conference (24-25 may)
·                        
4-5/6/2012 Informal meeting of Water and Marine
Directors of the European Union, Candidate and EFTA Countries (Copenhagen);
·                        
7/7/2012: CY presidency: Informal council
4.           Annex
4: Inter-service consultation
4.1.        Impact
Assessment Steering Group
The DGs consulted were: ENV, CLIMA, JRC,
SANCO, ECHO, ECFIN, AGRI, COMP, MARKT, TRADE, SJ, REGIO, INFSO, MARE, RTD,
ESTAT, EMPL, SG, MOVE, ENER, ELARG, TAXUD.
Prior to sending the IA to the IA Board, 6
Inter-service meetings took place:
·                        
1st ISG meeting: 4/4/2011: presentation
of the overall framework for the assessment and ongoing or planned studies.
·                        
2nd ISG meeting: 19/01/2012:
Discussion paper, state of play studies, presentation general outline of the
IA.
·                        
3rd ISG meeting: 15/02/2012:
Presentation of the draft findings of the Fitness Check, 
·                        
4th ISG meeting: 8/03/2012: Support
document for public consultation on policy options.
·                        
5th ISG meeting: 20/04/2012:
discussion of the outline of the IA
·                        
6th ISG meeting: 6/6/2012: 1st
version IA with draft results from support studies.
·                        
7th ISG meeting on 18/06/2012: 2nd
version of the IA for final comments prior to sending it to the IAB. 
·                        
8th and last meeting on 26/09/2012 during inter-service consultation.
4.2.        Impact
Assessment Board
The present section details how IAB
recommendations for improvements in its opinion (Ares(2012)889801 - 20/07/2012)
have been taken on board in the version 4.0 submitted to inter service
consultation.
(1) Strengthen the problem definition
and their drivers and reinforce the baseline scenario. 
The report should be more focussed in
presenting the problems, by clearly showing the relevant deficiencies of the
current water policy and by explaining its implementation gaps and unsolved
legal problems. 
The report
now focuses on the 12 concrete water management problems, for which there is a
need to act at EU level, based on the assessment of implementation of current
EU water policy.
On the basis of a comprehensive overall
problem presentation the report should clearly identify the concrete problems
to be addressed by the blueprint. This can be achieved by better presenting and
integrating the current 'level 1' and 'level 2' problems with the 12 specific
problems currently presented in annex 3.
Information
from annex 3 has been brought back to the main report, which provides a better
articulation between the problems linked with the state of EU water and the
problems linked with the management of water at EU level.
The refocused set of problems should
then be corroborated by concrete Member State data and examples, such as the
actual status of the water bodies.
For each
issue, information from the Fitness Check, assessment of River basin Management
Plans, review of Water Scarcity and Drough policy and supporting studies is
provided showing when relevant differences between Member States
Finally, the report should considerably
reinforce the presentation of the baseline scenario by integrating the
scattered analysis presented in annex 1 synthetically into the main text. In
doing so it should become clear how the different implementation gaps in the
Member States would evolve, in how far the discharge of pollutants is expected
to remain a problem in the long run and, for instance, how on-going activities
to improve the knowledge base will close information gaps. 
For each
problem, an assessment of the baseline is provided. However, as explained in
the report, the quality of the information provided by the member states in
their reporting does not allow so far a proper assessment of how the status of
EU waters is likely to evolve in the medium and long term. One of the objectives
of the Blueprint is to ensure this kind of assessment is possible on the basis
of the forthcoming management plans (2015) for the review of WFD by 2018.
Finally, the report should discuss the
legal basis for the elements of the toolkit that would require legislative
action.
The need to
act at EU level  is  specifically addressed in section 2.7. As we are not
making any legislative proposal, we understand the need for a legal base as an
explanation of why the Commission is empowered to put forward such proposals
and how they fulfil the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. 
(2) Establish clearer objectives and
better defíne the policy options.
On the basis of the revised problem
definition, the report should define "smarter" policy objectives,
clearly indicating what the 'Blueprint' is trying to achieve in practice. To
this end it should differentiate them in general, specific, and operational
objectives avoiding general expressions like e. g. "more efficient water
governance" which are difficult to translate into subsequent progress indicators
for monitoring and evaluation purposes.
In section
3.3 specific objectives have been reworked, making them "SMART". To
the extent this is relevant, the report includes a time line.
Finally, the report should better
explain the logic behind the identification of the different policy measures
and their possible combination into option packages/alternative sets of
measures. It should be clarified that they constitute a kind of toolkit where
the Member States can choose from based on necessity.
Chapter 5
provides an assessment, for each of the 12 problems, of the different options
(see below). This is the basis for the building of the selected package for action
at EU level which is assessed in chapter 6. The toolkit notion is reflected in
sections 4 and 6.
(3) Better assess and compare impacts.
The report should present a more
complete assessment of the impacts across the three pillars, providing a more
comprehensive qualitative assessment. This should include the quantification of
expected costs and benefits for Members States, where feasible. In doing so,
the report should better explain the assumptions underlying the analysis, for
instance by moving relevant analytical information from annex 4 to the main
text. The report should be clearer on expected Member State/regional impacts,
given their different specific problems and implementation gaps of water
related legislation. 
Chapter 6
provides an assessment, for the preferred package, of how the options are
effective in solving the problems and achieving the objectives, how they can
contribute to coherence and acceptability, and their expected environmental,
social and economic impacts. A more detailed analysis is provided in Annex 3.
However, this assessment has significant limitations as the proposed package is
a toolkit and costs and benefits depend very much on Member States choices for
the measures and support instruments to be implemented in the forthcoming river
basin management plans.
Moreover, the report should more
explicitly assess impacts on business/SMEs, for instance by detailing how they
would be affected due to stricter water pricing policies. This should include a
deeper analysis of the development of administrative burden, by indicating how
the Member States and enterprises (including farmers) would be affected by the
proposed measures and by analysing explicitly and quantifying any reduction
potential. 
This
assessment is provided when relevant in Annex 3.
Finally, the report should explicitly
compare, on the basis of a revised set of specific objectives, the different
policy option packages against a fully developed baseline scenario.
The way the
selected package is constructed is clarified in chapter 6: for each specific
objective the best solutions are identified, and the combination forms the
selected package. Synergies and possible trade-offs between elements of the
preferred package are analysed. The report then provides an assessment of the
selected package with reference to the baseline, using the same criteria used
in chapter 5 for the assessment of options under the 12 specific issues.
5.           Annex
5: Key studies/work carried out by external consultants 
DG Environment has launched a set of
contracts which cover large parts of the scope of the Blueprint Impact
Assessment and are summarised in this annex. Some studies are still not
finalised. Their outcome will be integrated into the final version of this
Impact Assessment.
 Contract title || Timing || Lead contractor || partners || Description 
 Contract to support WFD implementation (3 years) || July 2009- June 2012 || WRc (40%) || Aminsa, ARCADIS, BRGM, DHI, Ecologic, Ecosphere, Environmental Institute – SK, Eurokeys, Institut Molekularbiologie und Angewandte Ökologie, Intersus, International Office for Water, milieu, NERI, NIVA, P&F Consulting, The regional and Environmenatl Center for Central and eastern Europe, Sogreah, Soresma, Umweltbundesamt, VITUKI. || Terms of reference: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/pdf/calls2008/specifications_en08113.pdf The analysis of the RBMP should provide information on how MS have changed their water management since the adoption of the WFD, and how the WFD principles have been incorporated into the legal, administrative and implementation practice in MS. The screening assessment should be able to provide information on how MS are implementing the key technical elements of the WFD. In addition, the analysis of the RBMP should be able to provide a comparable picture of what MS are doing to tackle the main threats and challenges for water. Finally, the assessment will assess the level of commitment of the measures (e.g. legal obligation vs. voluntary, financial resources earmarked), allowing the comparison of the overall level of ambition of MS action. 
 PP Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major RBMP in the EU || Oct 11 – Oct 12 || WRc || ABP mer, Acteon, Anteagroup, Arcadis, Cenia, DHI, Ecologic, Ecosphere, Environmental institute, Fresh Thoughts Consulting, Intersus, Institut za vooe Republike Slovenie, Milieu, NERI, NIVA….., P/F consulting, The regional and Environmenatl Center for Central and eastern Europe, SIECOConsult, TYPSA, Umweltbundesamt, VITUKI. || Terms of Reference: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/pdf/calls2011/specifications_en_11028.pdf This specific study on pressures and measures complement the ongoing RBMPs assessment by taking a top-down approach on certain identified subjects that merit a deeper analysis. Information will be used from the RBMPs but also from other sources in order to broaden the scope of the analysis, on the following subjects: Governance and legal aspects, development and analysis of appropriate methodologies, integration of water policy into related sectors and the WFD programme of measures, economic aspects, innovation and technology. Ongoing. 
 Service contract for the development of tools and services for the water information system for Europe (WISE) || Dec 11 – Dec 12 || ATKINS Danmark ||   || Terms of reference: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/pdf/calls2011/specifications_en_11025.pdf Support for diffusion of Blueprint background information: maps, indicators, knowledge mapping, etc. 
 Support in preparation of the Impact assessment of the 2012 review of the Water Scarcity and Droughts. Water Scarcity & Droughts Policy in the EU - Gap Analysis || Dec10 - Feb 12 || ACTeon (22%) || Artesia (13%), FEEM (16%), Fresh-Thoughts (17%), IACO (16%), TYPSA (16%) || Terms of reference: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/pdf/calls2010/specifications_en_10049.pdf Concrete elements for the baseline scenario (degree of implementation of water efficiency measures) Information on the cost-effectiveness of the measures to assess the overall impact on water availability and demand. Contribution to Blueprint policy options, in particular EU support to measures, indicators & target setting, use of economic instruments, governance, knowledge base and innovation. Ongoing. 
 Resource and economic efficiency of water distribution networks in the EU - Pilot project on the economic loss due to high non-revenue-water amounts in cities (Leakages) || Dec10 - July 12 || ERM (100%) || none || 5-8 pilot studies in water-scarce parts of Europe have analysed and quantified the factors of relevance for leakages at a river basin level and determined the links between the leakages and the cost structures. Identification of best practices for reducing water-losses in the EU or other countries. Recommendations on policy options for water efficiency in distribution systems. Ongoing. 
 Assessment of options for EU action on water efficiency of buildings || Dec10 - March 12 || Bio IS (59%) || BRE (31%), ICLEI (10%) || Recommendation on policy options for water efficiency of buildings. Draft final report April 2012 http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/climwatadapt/library?l=/scarcity_droughts&vm=detailed&sb=Title 
 Assessment of the efficiency of the water foot printing approach and of the agricultural products and foodstuff labelling and certification schemes  || Completed || RPA Ltd (63.5%) || Cranfield University (36.5%) || Review of applications of the water footprint and foodstuff labelling and recommendation on how these can be applied in policy, labelling and certification schemes. Finalised report available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Executive%20Summary%2027%20Sept_2011%20-%20revised2.pdf 
 Assessment of the options for water saving in agriculture and the costs and benefits of the different options. || Dec10 - Dec 11 || Bio IS (73.5%) || Cranfield University (20.5%), RPA Ltd (6%) || Establishment of solid information on possibilities for water saving in agriculture. Clarification on existing data. Application of the findings to selected European pilot river basins. Finalised report available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/BIO_Water%20savings%20in%20agiculture_Final%20report.pdf 
 The role of water pricing and water allocation in agriculture in delivering sustainable water use in Europe. || Dec10 - Dec 12 || Arcadis (43%) || Ecologic (13%), Intersus (19%), Fresh Thoughts (15%), Typsa (10%) || Case studies on water pricing policies for the agricultural sector in selected river basins. Recommendation on best practices. Finalised report available at:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/agriculture_report.pdf 
 Costs, Benefits and climate proofing of natural water retention measures || Dec10 – Mar 12 || STELLA consulting (100%) ||   || Based on a typology of natural water retention measures, the study will provide estimates of their costs and benefits, and of their potential for increasing resilience to climate change; analyse the potential of EU policy and funding instruments to promote non-regret measures. Finalised report available at: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/climwatadapt/library?l=/nwrm/reports/final_report&vm=detailed&sb=Title 
 Support for the Fitness Check – phase 1 || Completed || Deloitte || IEEP || Finalised. Report available on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/pdf/safeguard_fitness_freshwater.pdf 
 Support for the Fitness Check – phase 2 - public consultation and 2nd stakeholder workshop Fitness Check || Oct 11 – Mar 12 || IEEP || Ecologic, Bio IS || Finalised report available at:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/fitness_en.htm 
 Climate Adaptation - modelling water scenarios and sectoral impacts (ClimWatAdapt) || Dec 09 – August 11 || CESR (27%) ||   || Finalised. Report available on http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/climate_adaptation/climwatadapt_report&vm=detailed&sb=Title 
 Contract to support the Impact Assessment of the Blueprint to safeguard Europe;s Water Resources - Lot A: Scenarios and targets for the protection of water resources || Nov 11 – Sept 12 || JRC ||   || Terms of reference: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/pdf/calls2011/specifications_en_11015.pdf Development of a baseline scenario bringing together climate, land-use and socio-economic scenarios and looking at the implication for water resources availability and use under different policy scenarios. Development of an optimisation model linked with dynamic, spatially explicit water quality and quantity models allowing the selection of measures affecting water availability and water demand based on environmental and economic considerations Application to the whole European River Basins for a baseline scenario and a number of alternative policy and socio-economic scenarios. The aim of the assessment is to seek the maximization of net social benefits from the use of water by economic sectors including a range of components, such as welfare impacts for water users, valuation of key ecosystem services provision, valuation of external costs from degradation of ecological and chemical status and energy consumption triggered by water abstraction and return. Ongoing. 
 Contract to support the Impact Assessment of the Blueprint to safeguard Europe;s Water Resources - Lot B: Assessment Policy Options || Sept 11 – Oct 12 || IEEP || Acteon, Arcadis, EWP, Fresh Thoughts, Milieu || Terms of Reference: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/pdf/calls2011/specifications_en_11015.pdf Identification of policy problems and gaps, development a baseline scenario and definition of specific and operational objectives for policy making. Analysis of how policy measures and support actions at EU level interact with technical measures addressing water management issues over time as part of the baseline. Development of a range of policy options to take forward the measures.Identification of information gaps, together with work to gather data to fill these gaps. Stakeholder and public consultation.  Assessment of impacts and comparison of a selection of policy options. 
 Contract to support the Impact Assessment of the Blueprint to safeguard Europe;s Water Resources - Lot C: Communication and Consultation || Sept 11 – Mar 13 || Ecologic ||   || Terms of reference: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/pdf/calls2011/specifications_en_11015.pdf Organisation of the 3rd European Water Conference on 24-25 May 2011 and the final Blueprint conference in Cyprus. 
 Service Contract Water Accounts || 12/11 - || Pöyry || SCM, VITO || http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/pdf/calls2011/specifications_en_11036.pdf Production of European water resource balances (quantity, quality) within the SEEAW framework at the monthly resolution under the ECRINS reference system. These water balances will contribute to the comparative analyses of key aspects of river basin management in river basins across the EU affected by water scarcity, droughts or desertification. 
6.           Annex
6: References
ACTeon et al., 2012. Water Scarcity & Droughts Policy in the EU - Gap Analysis.
Report to the European Commission. Tender ENV.D.1/SER/2010/0049 (draft final)  
ADAS, 2009. “Evaluation of Cross
Compliance”. Report prepared for Defra Agricultural Change and Environment
Observatory, UK.
Agence de l’Eau Adour-Garonne (2011). Redevance
Irrigation Campagne 2009
Allen Consulting  Group .2006. Transaction
Costs of Water Markets and Environmental Policy Instruments: Final Report.
Melbourne, Productivity Commission.
Alpine Convention 2011: Situation Report on
Hydropower Generation in the Alps focusing on Small Hydropower, platform
―Water management in the Alps, 2011
http://www.alpconv.org/documents/Permanent_Secretariat/web/WG/2011_Situation_Report.pdf

Alterra et al., 2011. Recommendations for
establishing Action Programmes under Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the
protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural
source, Study for the European Commission (DG Environment).,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/studies.html 
Arcadis & Ingenieurbüro Floecksmühle.
(2011). Hydropower Generation in the context of the EU WFD. Study for European
Commission, Contract N° 070307/2010/574390,
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_conventio/hydropower_september

Arcadis et al, 2012. The role of water
pricing and water allocation in agriculture in delivering sustainable water use
in Europe – Study for  the European Commission (DG Environment), Project number
11589 – February 2012.
Barredo, J.L, 2009.  Normalised flood
losses in Europe: 1970–200, 
http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/9/97/2009/nhess-9-97-2009.pdf
Barthélémy, N. 2008. Les marchés de quotas dans la gestion
de l’eau: les exemples de l’Australie et de la Californie, CGDD, Collection «
Etudes et synthèses », Paris.
BIO Intelligence Service (2009). Water
Performance of Buildings, Study for European Commission, DG Environment,
contract nr: 070307/2008/520703/ETU/D2.
Bio Intelligence and Cranfield University, 2012 (forthcoming): Water Performance of Buildings, Study for the European
Commission, DG Environment, contract nr: 070307/2010/579579/SER/D1 .
BIO Intelligence Service, 2012. Water
saving potential in agriculture in Europe: findings from the existing studies
and application to case studies, tudy for European Commission, DG Environment,
contract nr: 070307/2010/579306/ETU/D1.
Bird Life International, 2009. “Through the
green smokescreen – How is CAP cross compliance delivering for biodiversity?” Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
Bjornlund H. 2003. Farmer participation in
markets for temporary and permanent water in southeastern Australia, Agricultural Water Management 63 (2003) 57-76.
Booz and Company, 2011. “Cost-Benefit
Analysis for GMES”. Report for the European Commission, Directorate-General for
Eterprise and Industry.
Broekx,
S., Smets, S., Liekens, Bulckaen, D. and Leo De Nocker, 2011. 'Designing a
long-term flood risk management plan for the Scheldt estuary using a risk-based
approach', Natural Hazards, 57:2, 245-266 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/e43138836415t02n/fulltext.pdf)
Calatrava, J. & Garrido, A. 2005. 'Spot
water markets and risk in water supply.' Agricultural Economics, 33:2, 131-43.
Calatrava, J. & Garrido, A. 2006. 
“Difficulties in Adopting Formal Water Trading Rules within Users’
Associations”. Journal of Economic Issues XL,(1), 27-44.
Calder, I., Hofer, T., Vermont, S. and
Warren, P., 2007. Towards a new understanding of forests and water.  http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1598e/a1598e02.htm
CEPS. (212). Briefing note ‘Which Economic
Model for a Water-Efficient Europe’, Centre for European Policy Studies
Ciscar et al, 2010.Physical and economic
consequences of climate change in Europe (JRC PESETA project),
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/01/27/1011612108.abstract
Connell, D.l, and R. Q. Grafton. 2011.
“Basin Futures: Water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin”. Camberra:  ANU E
Press . http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Basin+Futures+Water+reform+in+the+Murray-Darling+Basin/5461/upfront.xhtml
COWI (2011).The costs of not implementing
the environmental acquis. Study for the European Commission, DG Environment
COWI 2011 study on the investment needed to
rehabilitate water distribution networks (ENV.G.1/FRA/2006/0073, Sep 2011)
COWI et al. (2011). Impact assessment study
into possible options for revising Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for
minimum criteria for environmental inspections (RMCEI). Study for the European
Commission, DG Environment  ENV.G.1/FRA/2006/0073. June 2011.
Defra (2011). Water for Life. HM
Government, UK.
EA 2006- www.environment-agency.gov.uk "Do we need
large-scale water transfers for south east England?"
Easter, K. W., M.W., Rosegrant, and A.,
Dinar (eds). 1998. “Markets for water: potential and performance”. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
EBC (2011). European Benchmarking
Co-operation — Learning from international best practices, 2010 Water and
Wastewater Benchmark (www.waterbenchmark. org).
EC 2009: Directive 2009/28/EC on the
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/energy/renewable_energy/en0009_en.htm   [accessed
13 September 2010].
EC-JRC 2009: Final Report on the project
"Sustainable agriculture and Soil Conservation (SoCo)" http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdb_archive/eusoils_docs/other/EUR23820.pdf
EC COM(2011) 21 final. Communication from
the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy.
EC COM(2011) 244 final. Communication from
the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Our life insurance, our natural
capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020
EC COM(2011) 571 final. Communication from
the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Roadmap to a Resource Efficient
Europe
EC COM(2011) 876 final. Proposal for a
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives
2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water
policy. 
EC, 2011a. Communication from the
Commission the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Global Monitoring for
Environment and security (GMES) and its operations (from 2014
onwards).COM(2011) 831.
EC, 2011b. “Space Research – A European
Journey. Space Research projects under the 7th Framework Programme for
Research”. European Commission, Enterprise and Industry.
EC, 2012c. Preliminary Assessment River
Basin Management Plans (Background document 3rd EU Water Conference background
doc)
EC COM(2012) 216 final. Communication from
the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council  the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the European
Innovation Partnership on Water.
Ecologic Institute, 2008, Potential impacts of desalination development on energy
consumption, Study for European Commission, DG
Environment Study Contract nr: 07037/2007/486641/EUT/D2
Ecologic Institute and Environmental Change
Institute, Oxford University Centre for the Environment. (2011a): Assessment of
the potential of ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and
mitigation in Europe. Study for the European Commission, DG Environment,
Contract no. 070307/2010/580412/SER/B2, 
Ecologic Institute and GHK Consulting
(2011) Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure
projects. Study for the European Commission, DG Environment, Contract no.
070307/2010/577182/ETU/F.1
Ecologic Institute, 2006. “Water Framework
Directive meets Common Agricultural Policy – Opportunities for the Future.
Deliverable 14: WFD and Agriculture Linkages at the EU Level – Final Paper
about Co-operation and participation at the Interface of EU Agricultural and
Water Policies”. Sixth Framework Programme, Project Number
SSPE-CT-2005-006618-CAP-WFD.
Ecologic Institute. et al. (2007). EU Water
saving potential, study for DG Environment (Part 1 –Report). ENV.D.2/ETU/2007/0001r
ECORYS, 2012. The number of Jobs dependent
on the Environment and Resource Efficiency improvements. Final Report. Project
Number Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/jobs/pdf/jobs.pdf
[accessed 20/06/12]
EEA (2012). Towards efficient use of water
resources in Europe. EEA Report No 1/2012.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/towards-efficient-use-of-water
EEA, 2009. Water resources across Europe: confronting water scarcity and drought. EEA Report No. 2/2009. Available at EEA
website:   http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/water-resources-across-europe
[accessed 20/06/12]
EEA, 2010. The European environment – state
and outlook 2010 Synthesis. [online report] Available at EEA website:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer [accessed 20/06/12]
EEA, 2011. Hazardous substances in Europe's fresh and marine waters — An overview. Available at EEA website:  
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/hazardous-substances-in-europes-fresh[accessed
20/06/12]
EEA, 2012.  State of Water Report.  To be
published 
EIB (2008). The EIB’s Water Sector Lending
Policy. Strengthening the EIB’s Support for EU Policy Objectives in the Sector.
http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/water_sector_lending_policy_2008_en.pdf
EIB (2009). EIB Statement of Environmental
and Social Principles and Standards.
http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/eib_statement_esps_en.pdf
EIB (2012a) The EIB Group Operational Plan
2012-2014. http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/cop_2012_en.pdf
EIB (2012b). The European Investment Bank
in the water sector: financing water supply, sanitation and flood protection.
http://www.eib.org/attachments/thematic/water_2011_en.pdf
Ellison D., Futter M.N., and Bishop K., (2012).
On the forest cover–water yield debate: from demand- to supply-side thinking.
Global Change Biology.  18, p. 806–820.
ERM et al.,  (2012). Resource and economic
efficiency of water distribution networks in the EU. Interim Report to the
European Commission. March 2012.
EUREAU,  (2011a). Leakage reduction in
addressing water scarcity and drought. EUREAU Common Position Paper. European
Federation of National Associations of Water and Wastewater Services.
EUREAU (2011b), Working Group
Microbiological Quality, Eureau-Commission Position Paper on water re-use and
other alternative resources at home: rainwater harvesting and grey water
recycling for domestic purposes. July 2011
Eurelectric 2009: Key Statistics 2008.
Report from Eurelectric.
http://www2.eurelectric.org/content/Default.asp?PageID=618 [accessed 13
September 2010]  
European Commission (2006): Evaluation of
the Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe. Final Report. 
European Commission, 2011, “Commission
Staff Working Paper – Impact Assessment: Common Agricultural Policy towards
2020 – Annex 2E”. Brussels, 20.10.2011, SEC (2011) 1153 final/2.
European Commission, 2011. “Commission
Staff Working Paper – Impact Assessment: Common Agricultural Policy towards
2020 – Annex 2E”. Brussels, 20.10.2011, SEC(2011) 1153 final/2.
European Commission, 2012. Fitness Check
Report. To be published
European Commission. EU Environmental
Policy supporting jobs and growth [report]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/industry_employment/pdf/facts_and_figures.pdf
[accessed 20/06/12]
European Commission. Europe 2020 targets
[online reports and information]. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/targets/eu-targets/index_en.htm[accessed
20/06/12]
European Commission. Green Infrastructure
[online reports, studies, and information]. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm[accessed
20/06/12]
European Commission. Implementation of
Nitrates Directives [online reports, studies, and information].  Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/index_en.html[accessed
20/06/12]
European Commission. Implementation reports
on Urban Waste Water Directive. [online reports] Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/implementation/implementationreports_en.htm
[accessed 20/06/12]
European Environment Agency, 2012, water
prices, available at
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/water-prices 
Forest Research,          2010    .
Benefits of green infrastructure - Report to Defra and CLG http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/pdf/urgp_benefits_of_green_infrastructure_main_report.pdf/$FILE/urgp_benefits_of_green_infrastructure_main_report.pdf
Global Water Intelligence, 2011. “The truth
behind Italy’s illegal abstraction”. GWI Vol. 10, Issue 5.
http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/10/5/general/truth-behind-italys-illegal-abstraction.html
Grafton, R. Q., Libecap, G., McGlennon, S.,
Landry, C. & O’Brien, B. 2011. “An Integrated
Assessment of Water Markets: A Cross-Country Comparison”. Review of
Environmental Economics and Policy, 5:2, 219-39. 
Grundfos (2011). Demand Driven Distribution
helps reduce leakages and energy costs in Ploesti, Romania.
Grossman M. (2012). "Economic
Valuation of Wetland Ecosystem Services" Techische Univertat Berlin. Digitale Dissertation. Institut für Landschaftsarchitektur und
Umweltplanung. Fakultät VI Planen Bauen Umwelt URL:
http://opus.kobv.de/tuberlin 
Howe, Charles W. 2011. “The Efficient Water
Market of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy. District: Colorado, USA”. WP6 IBE EX-POST Case studies paper, EPI-Water project.
http://www.feem-project.net/epiwater/docs/d32-d6-1/CS22_Colorado.pdf
IEEP, 2007. “The possible impacts of Cross
Compliance on Farm Costs and Competitiveness – Deliverable 21”. The Cross
Compliance Network, Sixth Framework Programme, Project Number
SSPE-CT-2005-022727.
IEEP, 2011, Costing the Environmental needs
related to Rural Land Management, Study for the European Commission, DG
Environment,  ENV.F.1/ETU/2010/0019r, see (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/costing_env_needs.pdf)
IEEP et al (2012b), Green Infrastructure
Implementation and Efficiency Study for the European Commission, DG
Environment, ENV.B.2/SER/2010/0059, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/studies.htm#implementation
IEFE, IEEP, FFU and Adelphi consult.  2009
The links between the environment and competitiveness: Part 1 Water Policies
and Competitiveness Report to the European Commission Project
ENV.G.1/ETU/2007/0041.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/part1_report_comp.pdf
Iglesias, A., Garrote, L., Flores, F.,
Moneo, M. (2007) Challenges to manage the risk of water scarcity and climate
change in the Mediterranean. Water Resources Management, 21(5), 227-288
IMPEL (2011 and 2012). Terms of References
for IRI projects for Latvia, Croatia, Iceland and Lomardia.
IMPEL (2012). Support for the new IRI
scheme.
http://impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Support-for-the-new-IRI-scheme-Draft-Final-report.pdf
Jordbruks verket, 2011. “Environmental
Effects of Cross Compliance”. Report 2011:5eng.
Junta de Andalucía, Agencia Andaluza del Agua
(2007): Plan Especial de actuación en situaciones de alerta y eventual Sequía. Cuenca Atlántica Andaluza. 
Kravcik et al. 2007, Water for the Recovery
of the Climate - A New Water Paradigm,
http://www.waterparadigm.org/indexen.php?web=./home/homeen.html
Le Quesne et al, (2010) The Implementation
Challenge Taking stock of government policies to protect and restore
environmental flows, WWF
Maltby, E and Acreman, M.C (2011).
Ecosystem services of wetlands: pathfinder for a new paradigm. Hydrological
Sciences Journal. 56(8): 1341-1359
Martin, P., Williams, J., and Stone, C.
2008. Transaction costs and water reform: the devils hiding in the details.CRC
for Irrigation Futures Technical Report 08/08.
Mediterranean Component of the EU Water
Initiative (MED EUWI) Wastewater Reuse Working Group
Millán M., 2012. An example: reforestation.
In: Jaeger C.C, Hasslmann K., Leipold G,  Mangalagiu D. and Tabara J.D. ed.
2012, Reframing the problem of the climate change, from zero sum game to
win-win solutions. (pp 218-236). USA  & Canada:
Earthscan. Ch.11.
Ministerio de Medioambiente, (2007): Plan
Especial de actuación en situaciones de alerta y eventual Sequía. Cuenca
Hidrográfica del Norte. Anexo V: propuesta de estudio para la evaluación de los
efectos económicos de las sequias. Ministerio de Medioambiente, Confederación
Hidrográfica del Duero (2007): Plan Especial de actuación en situaciones de
alerta y eventual Sequía. Cuenca del Duero.
Morris J. and Camino, M, 2011, Economic
Assessment of Freshwater, Wetland, and Floodplain (FWF) Ecosystem Services, UK
NEA Economics Analysis Report
http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lVLEq%2BxAI%2BQ%3D&tabid=82
Moreno-Mateos D. , Comin, F.A. (2010):
Integration objectives and scales for planning and implementing wetland
restorations and creation in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental
Management 91: 2087-2095 
Nisbet, T.R., Thomas, H. (2006)          The
role of woodland in flood control: a landscape perspective  .
http://www.uf.a.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~kuraji/BR/iufro/IUFRO-5.pdf
Nitsch, H., and Osterburg, B., 2008. “Criteria for an efficient enforcement of standards in relation to
cross compliance”. Johann Hienrich von Thunen-Institut /
Institut of Rural Studies, Braunschweig, Germany. 12th
Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists – EAAE, 2008.
Northern Ireland Environment Agency, 2011.  ''Managing
stormwater a strategy for promoting the use of sustainable drainage Systems
(SuDS) within Northern Ireland 
OECD, 2010, Agricultural Water Pricing: EU
and Mexico, OECD 
OECD, 2010. “Sustainable management of
water resources in agriculture”. OECD.
OECD, 2010. Distributional impacts of the
cost of inaction regarding selected environmental challenges in OECD countries,
ref  ENV/EPOC/WNEP(2010)4
OECD, 2011 Economic instruments for water
management ENV/EPOC/WPBWE(2011)13
OECD, 2012. A Framework for Financing Water
Resources Management, OECD
OFWAT (2008). RPS Providing Best Practice
Guidance on the inclusions of Externalities in the ELL Calculation. OFWAT, London.
ONEMA, 2012 (forthcoming) 6. CIS-SPI draft
workshop report
Pokhrel et al. 2012, Model estimates of
sea-level change due to anthropogenic impacts on terrestrial water storage,
Nature Geoscience: 5:389–392 doi:10.1038/ngeo1476
Polymedia, 2012 - Review of literature on
the demand for fresh water by households and economic sectors across Europe. The draft note within Service Contract to support the IA of the Blueprint to
safeguard Europe's Waters - Lot A: Policy scenarios and indicative target
setting for protection of water resources at sectoral and river basin level.
Administrative arrangement nr: 070307/2011/606144/D1.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2006. “Main Report-
-Socio-Economic Benefit Analysis of GMES”. ESA Contract Number 18868/05.
Peer(2012). Press –Peer Research on Ecosystem
Services A spatial assessment of ecosystem services in Europe: The Phase II
Report (forthcoming) 
Puust, R., Kapelanb, Z., Savicb, D.A. and
Koppel, T. (2010). A review of methods for leakage management in pipe networks.
Urban Water Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, February 2010, 25–45.
Prokop, G. , Jobstmann H. , Schönbaue, A.      ,
2011  . Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its
effects in EU-27.          http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/sealing/Soil%20sealing%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf
Qureshi, M., Shi, T., Qureshi, S., Proctor,
W., and Kirby, M. 2009 “Removing barriers to facilitate efficient water markets
in the Murray Darling basin – A case study from Australia”. CISCO Working Paper
Series 2009-02
Rey, D., Calatrava, J., Garrido, A., 2011.
“Water markets in Australia, Chile and the U.S.A”. Work performed in fulfilmemt
of WorkPackage 2, Task 2.1, CAP & TRADE IWRM project. http://www.capandtrade.acteon-environment.eu/deliverables/documents/WP2.1_WatermarketsinAustralia%2CChileandtheUSA.pdf?attredirects=0
Ridier, A., Képhaliacos, Ch., and Carpy-Goulard, F., 2008. “Cross Compliance of CAP First Pillar Measures: a Transaction
Costs Assessment”. Unversity of Toulouse. EAAE 2008.
http://www.farmsubsidy.org/countries/ - Last visit: 21/05/2012
Riegels et al (2012) Comparison of two
water pricing policies in hydro-economic modelling Study, Geophysical Research
Abstracts Vol. 14, EGU2012-10541, 2012
River Basin Network (2012) forthcoming ….
Robinson, M et al. (2003)
Studies of the impact of forests on peak flows and baseflows: a European
perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 186: 85-97
STELLA , (2012) , forthcoming) study on
costs and benefits of  natural water retention measures 
TYPSA 2012. Various reports: Alternative
Water supply options in the EU, Wastewater Reuse in the EU, Environmental flows
in the EU. Studies for DG Environment, contribution to Expert Group on water
scarcity and droughts, 
Vito 2008 - Leakage reduction in water
distribution networks – Study for the European Commission
Vörösmarty et al. 2010, Global threats to
human water security and river biodiversity,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7315/full/nature09440.html
Wada et al. 2010 Global depletion of
groundwater resources,
http://tenaya.ucsd.edu/~tdas/data/review_iitkgp/2010GL044571.pdf
Water Information System for Europe (WISE). Available at: http://water.europa.eu/ 
WRc et al., 2012 (forthcoming) Pressures
and Measures, Study for the European Commission, DG Environment
WssTP (2011). Leakage Management. Strategic
vision and research needs.
WWF, 2006. Illegal water use in Spain – Causes, effects and solutions. Adena:WWF.
Young, M. 2012. “The role of the Unbundling
water rights in Australia’s Southern Connected Murray Darling Basin”. WP6 IBE
EX-POST Case studies paper, EPI-Water project. http://www.feem-project.net/epiwater/docs/d32-d6-1/CS23_Australia.pdf
Zachariadis T., 201."The Costs of
Residential Water Scarcity in Cyprus: Impact of Climate Change and Policy
Options. Economic Policy Paper No. 03-10, Economics Research Centre, University of Cyprus (2010). http://works.bepress.com/theodoros_zachariadis/16
[1]           See EC reports on UWWD http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/implementation/implementationreports_en.htm

[2]           see EC reports on ND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/index_en.html
[3]           See European Environment Agency's 2011 overview of
"Hazardous Substances in Europe's fresh and marine waters"
(http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/hazardous-substances-in-europes-fresh). 
[4]           See Commission Proposal for a Directive amending
the WFD and EQSD (COM(2011)876), proposing the addition of priority
(hazardous) substances to Annex X of the WFD. 
[5]           Blue circles denote increase in flood trend, red circles
denote decrease in flood trend), with trend magnitude expressed in standardized
units
[6]           See Annex VI of the Impact Assessment accompanying the
Proposal to amend Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority
substances in the field of water policy - SEC(2011)1547;
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-dangersub/pdf/sec_2011_1547.pdf
[7]           http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPM_Approved-HiRes_opt.pdf,
page 9 
[8]           See http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index_en.htm

[9]           http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm.
See also Impact Assessment of the Roadmap for moving to a competitive low
carbon economy in 2050, SEC(2011) 288 final
[10]          Annex A RBMP Assessment.
[11]          Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Cliamte
Change : "Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance
climate change adaptation - Summary for Policy makers", IPPC, 2012.
[12]          http://www.unep.org/geo/geo5.asp
[13]          See an executive summary of the project and the reports on
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/climate_adaptation/climwatadapt_report/
[14]             Schéhérazade et al., 2010 in IEEP, 2011
[15]             http://www.wise-rtd.info/en
[16]             Could also be natural low-cost treatment systems such
as stabilisation ponds, constructed wetlands, or other like trickling filter,
rotating biological contactor.
[17]             Source: Polymedia, 2012, OECD 2008, BIO 2012, Bio
Intelligence et al., 2012, examples of actual prices of
water providers
[18]          The option refers to both Rural
Development and Cohesion Policy, while the consultation question only refers
to  the CAP. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT
ASSESSMENT......................... 5
1........... Procedural Issues and
Consultation of Interested Parties.................................................. 7
1.1........ Organisation and timing................................................................................................... 7
1.2........ Consultation of the IAB.................................................................................................. 7
1.3........ Consultation and expertise.............................................................................................. 8
2........... Policy context, Problem
definition and Subsidiarity........................................................... 9
2.1........ Policy context................................................................................................................. 9
2.2........ Assessment framework: DPSIR
framework................................................................... 10
2.3........ The state of EU water resources,
drivers and pressures................................................. 12
2.3.1..... State of EU water resources......................................................................................... 12
2.3.2..... The causes of sub-optimal
management of water resources............................................ 14
2.4........ Problem definition for the
Blueprint................................................................................ 15
2.4.1..... Insufficient use of economic
instruments to address market failures................................. 15
2.4.2..... Lack of policy integration in
support to specific measures............................................... 17
2.4.3..... Ineffective water governance to
tackle coordination problems........................................ 18
2.4.4..... Knowledge
gaps:.......................................................................................................... 20
2.5........ How will the problems evolve?...................................................................................... 21
2.5.1..... Unsustainable trends in water
resources use and availability............................................ 21
2.5.2..... Use of economic instruments:........................................................................................ 23
2.5.3..... Policy
integration in support to specific measures........................................................... 23
2.5.4..... Governance.................................................................................................................. 24
2.5.5..... Knowledge base........................................................................................................... 25
2.6........ Who is affected and how?............................................................................................. 26
2.6.1..... Environmental impacts.................................................................................................. 26
2.6.2..... Economic sectors affected and
likely impacts of the baseline situation............................. 27
2.6.3..... Social impacts.............................................................................................................. 28
2.7........ The need to act at EU level:.......................................................................................... 29
3........... Objectives.................................................................................................................... 32
3.1........ Overarching objective – the link
with Europe 2020........................................................ 32
3.2........ General objectives – the link
with EU policies................................................................ 34
3.3........ Specific objectives for the
Blueprint............................................................................... 34
4........... Policy Options.............................................................................................................. 36
4.1........ Pricing.......................................................................................................................... 38
4.2........ Metering....................................................................................................................... 38
4.3........ Labelling globally traded goods..................................................................................... 39
4.4........ Natural water retention measures.................................................................................. 39
4.5........ Buildings and appliances............................................................................................... 39
4.6........ Water efficiency in distribution
systems.......................................................................... 39
4.7........ Water re-use................................................................................................................ 39
4.8........ Governance.................................................................................................................. 40
4.9........ Target setting................................................................................................................ 40
4.10...... Droughts...................................................................................................................... 40
4.11...... Costs and benefits........................................................................................................ 40
4.12...... Knowledge base........................................................................................................... 40
5........... Analysis of the impacts of the
options............................................................................ 41
5.1........ Pricing.......................................................................................................................... 41
5.2........ Metering....................................................................................................................... 41
5.3........ Labelling globally traded goods..................................................................................... 41
5.4........ Natural water retention measures.................................................................................. 42
5.5........ Buildings and appliances............................................................................................... 43
5.6........ Water efficiency in distribution
systems.......................................................................... 43
5.7........ Water re-use................................................................................................................ 44
5.8........ Governance.................................................................................................................. 45
5.9........ Target setting................................................................................................................ 45
5.10...... Droughts...................................................................................................................... 46
5.11...... Costs and benefits........................................................................................................ 46
5.12...... Knowledge base........................................................................................................... 47
6........... Identifying the Preferred
Options Package and its Impacts............................................. 48
6.1........ Proposed package........................................................................................................ 48
6.2........ Assessment of the effectiveness
of the proposed package.............................................. 52
6.2.1..... Objective 1: Increase the use of
economic instruments................................................... 52
6.2.2..... Objective 2: Foster integration of
water into sectoral policies......................................... 52
6.2.3..... Objective 3: Achieve a more
efficient water governance................................................. 53
6.2.4..... Objective 4: Improve knowledge and
tools.................................................................... 53
6.3........ Assessment of efficiency,
coherence and acceptability.................................................... 53
6.3.1..... Efficiency...................................................................................................................... 53
6.3.2..... Coherence.................................................................................................................... 53
6.3.3..... Acceptability................................................................................................................ 53
6.4........ Environmental, economic and
social impacts.................................................................. 54
6.4.1..... Impact on EU water resources:
examples from modelling results.................................... 54
6.4.2..... Other environmental impacts......................................................................................... 55
6.4.3..... Economic Impacts........................................................................................................ 55
6.4.4..... Social impacts.............................................................................................................. 56
7........... Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................................. 57
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's
Water Resources
Introduction
The EU has developed over several years a
comprehensive water policy where addressing the environmental impacts of major
water-using sectors has gradually complemented the policy addressing mainly
health concerns. Since 2000, with the adoption of the Water Framework Directive
(WFD), water policy has made another step-change taking an integrated approach
to water management, on the basis of the concept of 'river basin management'
aimed at achieving good status of all EU waters by 2015. The 2007 Floods
Directive (FD) provides further legislative building blocks in this integrated
approach.
However, as stressed by the EEA in the 2010
State of the Environment Report[1],
the achievement of EU water policy goals is still challenging due to a number
of old and emerging water management issues. The
Communication “A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources” (the 'Blueprint') is based
on an assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of the existing
legislation, the gaps related to the current EU policy framework and the
evolving vulnerability of the water environment, and identifies further actions
and tools that may be needed at Member States and EU level to address all the
challenges ahead.
The Impact Assessment (IA) of the Blueprint
brings together the output of the assessment of River Basin Management Plans
(RBMP), the review of the Water Scarcity and Droughts (WSD) policy, the review
of the vulnerability of water resources to climate change and other man made
pressures and the Fitness Check of EU freshwater policy,[2] by conducting several
cross-cutting strands of analysis, covering gaps and making the link with other
studies and research projects. It focuses on the identification of the key
challenges for water resources management and the identification and assessment
of a set of policy options for action at EU level. The IA pays specific
attention to subsidiarity aspects and to the articulation with the current
Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) of the Water Framework Directive.[3] 
Figure 1. The Blueprint architecture
The 1st section of this report
describes the organisation of the process leading to the elaboration of the
Blueprint and this supporting Impact Assessment. The 2nd section
provides a description of the problem, based on an analysis of the trends in
the sustainability of water resources management and the identification of the
need to act at EU level. The 3rd section describes the objectives
that sustain the identification (in the 4th section) of policy
options, which are further analysed and compared in the 5th and 6th
sections respectively. Finally the 7th section describes the process
to be set up for the further monitoring and evaluation of Blueprint’s proposals.
This main report is complemented by an
executive summary and annexes, available in separate documents. The annexes provides
more details on 1) Water resources baseline and scenarios, 2) Impacts and
barriers for the implementation of water resource management measures, 3) Stakeholder
and public consultations, 4) Inter-service group meetings, 5) Studies/work
carried out by external consultants and 6) References. This report is also complemented
by two external support studies[4]:
1.           Procedural Issues and Consultation of
Interested Parties
The Blueprint is included in the Commission
Work Programme 2012 under 2012/ENV/005.
1.1.        Organisation
and timing
Preparatory work for the Blueprint started
in April 2010, with the identification of key issues and preparatory action to
be included in the 2011 management plan. Open calls for tender were launched
during the first semester of 2011, for several support contracts (see Annex 5).
The core team for drafting IA & Communication was
in DG ENV.D1. Other DG ENV units as well as DG ESTAT, DG JRC and the EEA were
closely associated to the preparatory studies. No formal task force was set up.
An inter service group was created; the following services were involved: SG, ENV, AGRI, CLIMA, COMP, ECHO, ECFIN, ELARG, EMPL, ENER, ESTAT, INFSO,
JRC, MARE, MARKT, MOVE, REGIO, R&I, SANCO, SJ, TRADE and TAXUD. See more
details on inter-service meetings in Annex 5.
1.2.        Consultation
of the IAB
A
draft Impact Assessment report was discussed at the Impact Assessment Board on
18/07/2012. In its opinion of 20/07/2012, the IAB recommended, inter alia, 
(1)                   
To strengthen the problem definition by
presenting up-front a comprehensive overview of the implementation gaps, market
failures behind and legal problems of the current water policy framework, and
by subsequently identifying clearly the concrete problems to be addressed by
the Blueprint. On that basis the report should develop a fully integrated
baseline scenario showing the evolution of the problematic issues and discuss the legal
base for the elements of the toolkit that would require legislative action.
(2)                   
To express the objectives in more specific terms
and link them better to the refocused set of problems to provide greater
clarity on what the Blueprint in practice intends to achieve. The report should
also explain the available policy measures and the construction of the
options/alternative sets of measures in more detail.
(3)                   
To better assess the impacts of the options,
mainly with respect to Member State/regional effects, enterprises/SMEs, and the
development (reduction) of administrative costs.
These
comments have been fully taken on board in a new version submitted to inter
service consultation. Details are provided in Annex 4.
1.3.        Consultation
and expertise
The drafting of the IA relied on a wide external consultation process. The
stakeholder consultation took place since the early
stages in the IA process through the established Common
Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (CIS – WFD) that
brings together the Member States, the Commission, the Accession and EEA
Countries as well as stakeholders and NGOs. Support studies and draft results
have been discussed in the meetings of Water Directors, Strategic co-ordination
group and the different working and expert groups of the CIS-WFD.
A stakeholder conference (3rd EU
Water Conference) took place on 24-25 May 2012 to discuss draft policy options
and the results of many studies feeding into the Blueprint have been presented
during several sessions of DG ENV flagship environmental conference – Green
Week – which was devoted entirely to water issues (22-25 May 2012). The IA also
takes into account the outcome of bilateral meetings and position papers which
are described in Annex 3
In the Blueprint process, the Commission’s
minimum standards for consultation have all been met. Two
12-weeks public consultations took place: first, on the Fitness Check between
6/12/2011 and 27/2/2012 and second, the public consultation on policy options
between 16/3/2012 and 8/6/2012. The consultation on the policy options provided
the context of the Blueprint and explained the main problems facing Europe’s waters. The public were then asked for their views on a range of specific options
of different types to determine which, if any, were supported and by which type
of stakeholder. Overall, 221 public consultation responses were received and, in
the majority of cases, they were supportive of non-legislative approaches to EU
action to tackle water problems. This included support for guidance and tools in
relation to water balances, target setting and cost-recovery, as well as action
on improving information and reporting efficiency. Some legislative options also
received support, such as a possible new Regulation on water re-use standards.
On introducing additional conditionality into EU funding such as the CAP, there
were strongly divergent views, although in each case the majority supported
introducing further conditionality. There was also strong support for using
different EU funds to support water infrastructure needs. Detailed results are
presented in Annex 3 and reflected in sections 2 and 5.
External expertise was used: the Impact
Assessment builds on a large number of studies and
reports that provide a solid knowledge base. A detailed description of the
studies and other sources is provided in Annexes 5 and 6.
2.           Policy context, Problem definition and
Subsidiarity
2.1.        Policy context
The Water Framework Directive (WFD),
adopted in 2000, established a legal framework to achieve sustainable water
management in the EU. It built on 30 years of EU water policy. It has been a
front runner in integrated water management as it takes a holistic approach to
water management in the river basin and reflects this in binding regulatory
instrument. In particular, it provides for:
·      expanded water protection to all waters: inland surface and groundwater;
as well as coastal waters;
·      achievement of "good status" for all waters by 2015;
·      management of water at the hydrological scale of river basins;
·      ensuring that water prices provide adequate incentives for water
users to use water resources efficiently;
·      close involvement of citizens and stakeholders in water management;
·      streamlining of legislation by repealing a number of legislative
instruments.
In summary, the WFD introduces objectives
and tools which aim at creating a win-win situation between ecology and economy
at the appropriate geographical scale and therefore truly achieving a
sustainable and integrated water resource management. This means moving from a
“small water cycle” perspective to a “large water cycle” perspective, widening
the perspective of water as a raw material and introducing the concept of
ecosystem and ecosystem services.
Figure 2 - Small and Large Water Cycles -
Source: ONEMA
The policy cycle of the WFD is based on periods
of 6 years. Member States were required to deliver their first RBMPs by the end
of 2009 and shall review these plans every 6 years. The Programmes of Measures
(PoMs) developed under the plans have to be operational by the end of 2012. Therefore,
the 2nd cycle RBMPs need to be in place by the end of 2015. By 2019,
the WFD should be rewiewed and, if necessary, revised. 
2.2.        Assessment
framework: DPSIR framework
The architecture of
the Impact Assessment is based on an enhanced DPSIR (Drivers Pressures
Status Impacts and Responses) framework designed for the Blueprint:
Figure 3 – Enhanced DPSIR framework for the
Blueprint
The IA starts from environmental problem
linked to the state of water resources, with 3 main dimensions (ecological/chemical
status, water stress and vulnerability to extreme event), that should be solved
through targeted measures (responses) which are in many cases available
but not sufficiently implemented at River Basin level because of water
management problems falling within 4 categories:
–                       
Weak implementation of economic instruments
–                       
Lack of policy integration in support to
specific measures
–                       
Ineffective Governance 
–                       
Inefficient gathering and policy connection of
knowledge base
From the analysis of the state of the water
resources, 12 water management problems have emerged. They are used to
structure the problem definition of this impact assessment and the definition
of the set of policy options. 
2.3.        The
state of EU water resources, drivers and pressures 
2.3.1.     State
of EU water resources
The present section takes on board the key
messages from the State of Water Report[5],
which provides a detailed presentation of the challenges that Europe’s waters
are facing. The most relevant issues are presented below:
Figure 4 - Reported ecological status of surface water
bodies in 2009 – Source: EEA, 2012
The information reported in the first
(2009) River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) indicates that more than half of
the surface water bodies in Europe are in less than good ecological status[6] or potential[7],
and will need additional measures to those established under older (Nitrates,
Urban Waste Water) Directives to meet the WFD objectives.
Figure 5 - Water stress indicator[8] 2000 – source
JRC, 2012
Water stress
is spreading in Europe, affecting one third of the territory all year round. During
summer months water scarcity is more pronounced in Southern European basins but
is also becoming increasingly important in Northern basins, including UK and Germany. Even in areas where water stress indicators are well below the thresholds, water
saving is an issue, in particular for domestic consumption, due to the energy
consumption linked with water distribution, use and treatment.
The frequency and intensity of floods
and droughts and their environmental and economic damage appear to have
increased over the past thirty years. South-eastern Europe is increasingly
facing extended periods of droughts, and both Northern and Western Europe have
been affected in more recent years (EEA, 2012). Similarly, analyses of trends
of past flood events show that flood risks have increased in parts of Europe. (Barredo et al., 2008). This can be attributed mainly to anthropogenic pressures,
in particular land use changes and it is postulated by researchers that a cause
and effect relationship exists between different extreme events in different
parts of Europe (Millán Millán, 2012).
2.3.2.     The
causes of sub-optimal management of water resources
The current state of water resources and
trends over the last years is heavily influenced by various Pressures
(pollutant emissions, water use, physical restructuring), triggered by anthropogenic
and natural Drivers such as climate and demographic change;
socio-economic trends; industrial, agricultural and energy production; water
use by households, tourism and services' sectors. These are described in Annex
1. 
The impacts of pressures and drivers can be
managed through the implementation of policy Responses, i.e.
concrete measures with impact on the physical environment and support actions
(institutional framework, policies and legislations, allocation instruments,
knowledge base). The policy responses available to the challenges faced by the
water environment consist of water resource management measures[9] to improve ecosystem
protection, water efficiency and water availability (see DPSIR figure): 
·                        
Ecosystem protection and Natural Water
Retention Measures (NWRM) aim to safeguard and
enhance the water storage potential of soil and ecosystems. This includes
forestry measures, sustainable agriculture practices (that impact
evapotranspiration and enhance the preservation and restoration of soil
functions), sustainable drainage systems and measures that focus on increasing
the storage in catchment and alongside rivers (i.e. restoration of wetlands,
floodplains). These measures have direct impacts on hydrology, water retention,
and water purification, and at the same time deliver co-benefits, in particular
biodiversity protection, disaster prevention, climate change adaptation and
mitigation. In this respect, depending of the context where they are applied,
they can prove cheaper and/or more effective than traditional alternatives such
as dams or dykes.
·                        
Water efficiency
measures are often a sustainable and cost-effective method to deal with water
stress situations and they offer, for instance in building, a significant
energy saving potential associated with water savings. A great variety of actions have been undertaken by Member States to
promote water saving, but a substantial reduction of water consumption could
still be achieved by promoting water use efficiency in all sectorsand would be
necessary in the areas that are currently under water stress or prone to water
stress in the future. 
·                        
Together with the above mentioned NWRM, several
measures are able to increase water availability, such as water re-use
or desalination, as alternative to water transfers. They require a continue
enhancement of technologies in order to lower the use of energy and minimize
environmental impacts on the aquatic environment. This is, therefore, an area
for investment in innovation to ensure their cost-effectiveness of measures. 
The above measures, which cover the inextricably
linked water qualitative and quantitative aspects, are already in place in some
River Basins, but the assessment of the Programmes of Measures included in
River Basin Management Plans reveals that the uptake of the key measures is not
sufficient to achieve a sustainable situation. The assessment of the plans,
supporting studies and discussions with stakeholders have led to the
identification of the main barriers to the further implementation of the measures.
These barriers constitute the problems that the Blueprint wants to address.
2.4.        Problem
definition for the Blueprint
Water resources problems identified above (water
status, water stress, extreme events) and the subsequent analysis of drivers illustrate
the broad challenges faced by Europe’s waters. In line with the principle of
subsidiarity, the Blueprint should focus on problems and policy instruments
that are relevant for EU level water management, taking also into account the
evaluation performed in the context of the Fitness Check[10], the assessment of River Basin
Management Plans[11]
and the review of Water Scarcity and Droughts policy[12]. This is why, on the basis of
the analysis of the barriers to the implementation of key measures able to
solve the above mentioned water resources problems, we have identified four
categories of water management problems that are relevant at EU level and
that the Blueprint should address. These are the following:
2.4.1.     Insufficient
use of economic instruments to address market failures
EU policy, in particular WFD Art. 9 already
promotes the use of economic instruments in water management and effective use
of such instruments would provide the right price signal and the resources
needed for a further implementation of measures targetting water efficiency, ecosystem
protection, natural water retention or water availability.
·                         
However, as highlighted by the assessment of the
RBMPs, current pricing schemes in Europe often fail to combine the
objectives of efficiency (marginal social cost pricing), fairness
(polluter/user pays principle, removal of harmful subsidies) and do not allow a
sustainable degree of cost recovery for the financing of the measures.Therefore,
the above mentioned water efficiency or alternative supply measures do not, at
current pricing levels, represent an alternative to pumping from groundwater
aquifers or surface waters which are already under water stress. This is a
consequence, inter alia, of not including environmental and resource costs into
the price of abstracted water. Subsidies, especially at national/regional
level, e.g. in bioenergy and agriculture or for the constructions of dams or
reservoirs, may lead to excessive consumption or pollution of water resources,
as water users or polluters do not face the full cost of their activities. Reasons
for the constraints on understanding and implementing such instruments include
insufficient knowledge, barriers to acceptance, lack of
transparency in the calculation of cost recovery and subsidies, inappropriate structures of the instruments and lack of
pre-conditions for the use of these instruments (e.g. metering, see below). In
some cases, there are historical rights to water that
prevent a better allocation of resources. For 8 Member
States, an infringement procedure is open for the narrow definition of water
services (WFD Art. 2(38)) used for the application of the cost recovery
principle, covering only public water supply and waste water
collection/treatment. This limits very significantly the potential incentive to
water efficiency that would be given by a wider application of the cost
recovery principle, which includes environmental and resource costs, in
particular to self abstraction (pumping from groundwater aquifers and surface
waters). 
Figure 6 - Prices of water in chosen Member
States by sector (€/m3)[13]:
·                        
Water pricing needs a volumetric element in
order to provide an incentive to reduce consumption. This requires water use to
be determined either through metering or alternative monitoring techniques,
not only in households: According to RBMPs assessment, domestic volumetric
pricing is reported to be in place only in 63% of the basins, water metering in
53% of RBMPs. but more crucially in agriculture, where effective metering has
been found out in 10 Member States It is of note that the number may be higher,
as some other EU Member States also apply volumetric charges which necessitates
some type of water metering. Member States (ARCADIS et al, 2012).. Illegal
abstraction in some parts of the EU puts at risk ground water availability and
quality (as illegally abstracted water is often also discharged illegally after
use).
·                        
Information and communication instruments
usually improve the effectiveness of economic instruments. There are an
increasing number of initiatives globally aimed at estimating the footprint or
life-cycle impacts of products, or at developing certification standards for
application across commodity supply-chains[14].
This is relevant not only from the perspective of ensuring that consumption and
production processes in Europe do not actually simply transfer water
consumption and pollution problems to developing nations less prepared to deal
with these impacts, but also from a competitiveness perspective, when the
implementation of pricing policies affect the production of globally traded goods. 
2.4.2.     Lack
of policy integration in support to specific measures
Even if a proper implementation of economic
and communication instruments can help for a further uptake of measures that
can provide a cost-efficient response to water resource problems, there are
cases for which additional support from policy and funding instruments is
needed:
·                        
Ecosystem protection and natural water
retention measures (NWRM) are potentially very
effective measures that enable improvement of ecological status, improvement of
resource efficiency and reduction of water stress and improvement of the
resilience to extreme events. However, certain barriers
in terms of integrating measures targeting natural water retention, diffuse
pollution control, and ecosystem protection with other policies lead to low
degree of implementation. The co-financing potential for these measures appears
to be unexploited and there is lack of binding targets (both within policies
and funding instruments). Currently most of the investments financed by EU
funds in the 2007-2013 period or co-financed by European financial institutions
(European Investment Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development)
target large scale water infrastructure programmes rather than investment in
ecosystem protection or "green infrastructure[15]" projects, or water
efficiency projects in individual sectors (f.i. agriculture, housing). Due to the voluntary character of most of the natural water
retention measures a support through the 1st pillar of the CAP is not currently
an option. The 2nd pillar (EAFRD) offers more possibilities as it gives the
Member States the flexibility to choose the measures they want to support in
accordance with the European orientations, while agro-environmental measures
are appropriate for targeting water retention actions. The main limitation
remains that a national, regional or even private co-financing is expected,
which is unattractive for certain Member States/regions or even difficult to
attain for some actors (i.e. municipalities). Moreover, WTO requirements concerning compensation for the provision of environmental
services (loss of income and additional costs) make that it is not always
possible for public water authorities to use payment for ecosystem services (PES)
to support the full scale of costs involved[16]
in efficient water protection measures. On the contrary these requirements do
not apply to the private sector which enjoys more flexibility in the level of
support they can bring. Several success stories have been experienced for
instance by mineral water suppliers (e.g. Vittel in France), showing that PES
can be a very cost-effective and innovative financing tool.
·                        
There is a large potential for water savings in
domestic consumption, agriculture, industry and energy. Further implementation
of water efficiency measures, as well as of alternative water supply, is mostly
conditioned by the pricing level and structure, as mentioned above. However,
the assessment of the measures (see Annex 2) show that a lack of policy
integration persists in specific contexts:
–              
The design of building and water using
appliances does not sufficiently factor in water efficiency. Wastage could
be up to 15% of water consumption[17]
which is problematic in areas which are water stressed or at risk of becoming
water stressed. It also causes a waste of energy used to heat the water: most
water-savings measures in this sector are energy saving and could be further
embedded into energy efficiency regulations.
–              
There is a large
diversity of conveyance efficiency in potable water supply systems (from 52% to
92.7%[18]) accross catchments, although this should be only considered as
problematic if it decrease the net availability of water resources in the
catchment and if the cost of the resource justifies intervention (this leads to
the concept of Sustainable Economic Level of Leakage - SELL). The economic
efficiency of the network is relevant from an EU perspective due to the potential
contribution of EU funding to water infrastructure.
–              
The lack of common EU standards for water
re-use for agriculture and industrial uses limits a
potentially important alternative water source - especially for water stressed
areas where this option could be cheaper than desalinisation or transfers[19]. The
lack of common health/environmental standards threatens farmers using re-used
water to irrigate crops for export within the single market and prevents
industry from making long-term investment decisions. It also constitutes a barrier for innovation.
There are also barriers to the development
and implementation of innovative solutions related to inertia, lack of
awareness, business as usual, etc that need to be addressed in order to unlock
the potential and dissemination of successful solutions (e.g. natural water retention measures, water re-use, etc.). Innovations are not limited to technology and research, but also
include governance, management, land use planning, ICT, financial, legal,
administrative and other areas. This topic is however not further developed in
the context of this IA as it is fully covered under the European Innovation Partnership for Water[20].
2.4.3.     Ineffective
water governance to tackle coordination problems
In addition to the contribution of economic
instruments and the support to specific measures via policy integration, it is also
important to put in place an effective governance system to ensure the implementation
of those instruments and measures. In this respect, a number of obstacles have
been identified:
·                        
Governance of water and sectoral policies at Member State level is, in some cases, fragmented and limited by a lack of capacity
and resources to fully address water management objectives. In some cases,
there is lack of coordination in river basins shared between different
administrative entities within Member States, between Member States and with
third countries. 
·              
National and regional authorities are generally
in charge of developing the programme of measures and also implementing it. For
the CAP and EAFRD the implementation at national level is crucial and requires inter-sectoral
coordination which is a key element for an effective water- governance. This
is also important for the aquaculture plans under the reform of the Common
Fisheries Policy. Water management and spatial planning in particular need
better coordination[21]
but, due to subsidiarity, this can only be addressed at the national or regional
level, while EU policy instruments such as the SEA and EIA Directive can be
relied upon. The implementation of NWRM can lead to potential conflicts between
land users and different stakeholders. While the costs of these measures are
quantifiable at the local level, the benefits are often fully quantifiable at a
larger scale (even though there are local benefits). Coordination and
integration under the planning processes between different levels of
authorities (EU, national, regional, local) and a broad range of stakeholders
representing different sectors is required. This needs dynamic, flexible, well
integrated and efficient governance structures, which are not present in all
Member States. Coordination is also important for the long-term to
sustain implementation as many measures require a commitment to continuous
management and maintenance as well as collective action (See annex 2). 
·              
Moreover, authorities responsible for
development and implementation of policies and stakeholders do not sufficiently
integrate financial needs early on in the planning process in order to
get the necessary public and private sector commitment to the financing,
maintenance and operation of the measures.
·                        
Water balances
and adequate water allocation including the basic needs for nature i.e. the ecological
flows are poorly implemented at river basin level. This is both a water
quantity and quality problem since good water status cannot be achieved without
adequate water allocation. While EU water law sets a
number of objectives for water bodies, there is still a major gap in the
ability of (at least some) water managers to set clear targets and implement
them at river basin level. This is often due to lack of capacity and/or
awareness. For example, quantitative aspects are frequently considered but not
in combination with qualitative objectives or standards. This leads to
neglecting the ecological flow that is needed to ensure the viability of water
ecosystems and the provision of their ecosystem services on which many
activities depend (e.g. water purification and regulation). Capacity building
is required for introducing ecological flow requirements in the RBMPs and for their
climate proofing. There is a need for more standardised
methods and the development of a common understanding on the setting of ecological
flow at EU-level, based on Member States monitoring data.
·                        
Drought management is poorly integrated into overall river basin management in many
cases. The 2007 Communication on Water Scarcity and Droughts stated that the
WFD has “sufficient flexibility to develop specific Drought Management Plans
(DMP) in relevant river basins”. Moreover, droughts risks and pressures on the
aquatic environment should be addressed within RBMPs.However, the assessment of
the latter reveals that further efforts are required to
develop and implement a coherent set of actions to address drought at the river
basin scale within the planning process of the WFD[22]. Thus
there is a need to improve the preparedness of Member States to manage future
droughts, and protect economies and society from drought impacts, which are
expected to increase in frequency, intensity and geographical scope with
climate change.
2.4.4.     Knowledge gaps:
Economic instruments, policy integration
and governance cannot be effective without an adequate knowledge base enabling
the right decisions to be taken at all levels.
·                        
The most crucial knowledge gap evidenced by the
assessment of the plans and the studies supporting the Blueprint relates to the poor quality of the assessment of costs
and benefits of water related measures and plans
and programmes affecting water resources (or of lack of action), which are not
properly understood or quantified. In many cases river
basin authorities set objectives for water bodies while lacking the capacity to
link specific measures (e.g. on hydromorphology) to the expected effects on
water status and the related water uses. This also
prevents the further implementation of economic instruments for water resources
management, notably pricing schemes and payments for ecosystem services.
·                        
There is insufficient dissemination and
sharing of compatible data and other information between Member States,
European bodies and third countries leading to an incomplete understanding and
quantification of the problems Europe’s waters are facing and, potentially, to
incoherent water management choices. Data provision is not timely, there is a lack of interoperability of various information systems and
integration of different sources (EU and national Statistics, EEA reporting,
JRC modeling, information reported to international organisation such as WMO,
etc.). Access and availability of data at various
levels (from local to EU and global level) is the basis for policy making,
implementation and evaluation. From the RBMPs reported by the Member States and
from the building of water accounts or the EU hydro-economic model, it appears
that there are still considerable information gaps (on water balances,
ecological flows, large scale water transfers between river-basins, local water
storages in reservoirs, lakes and other storage facilities etc.) or when
information exists it is not necessarily in a comparable form or readily
available at the adequate decision level. For instance, without a certain level
of interoperability of information sources it is very difficult to operate
effective cross-border water management as data from different parts of the
same basin are not comparable. This is particularly important as 60% of EU
river basins are transboundary. There is also low
effectiveness in the current monitoring and reporting schemes: The Fitness Check has highlighted the administrative burden that
arises from the fact that the reporting cycles of the UWWTD and Nitrates
Directive are not synchronised with the WFD). New and
emerging knowledge needs must be addressed through research activities. 
2.5.        How
will the problems evolve?
For each of the four problem categories
above, this section tries to anticipate how the problems would evolve, in
particular whether they would get worse if no action is taken. This is done on
the basis of the assessment of the 121 river basin
management plans received by the Commission and other studies,
while taking into account current Commission policy proposals and projected changes
in the the drivers and pressures.. 
2.5.1.     Unsustainable
trends in water resources use and availability 
A lack of ambition has been found in many
RBMPs as regards achieving the environmental objectives of good ecological
status or potential as well as extensive reliance on exemptions. In general, the extensive use of exemptions
is not supported by transparent justification of the criteria applied,
indicating a degree of arbitrariness in their application. Where deadlines for
achieving the environmental objectives are extended beyond 2015, it is often
unclear by when the objectives will be reached.[23]
The policy responses currently in place are
not fundamentally reversings the trend in water scarcity in the medium time
horizon (2030). Without modification to the institutional and policy measures
already implemented or planned, water scarcity in 2030 is expected to increase.

Figure 7 – Evolution water exploitation
index including returns (WEI+), baseline 2006-2030[24]:
 Change in WEI-consumption between 2006 and 2030 || Water Exploitation Index (consumption) for 2030 
The frequency of heavy precipitation events
is likely to increase in many areas of the globe, including Europe; this can
cause flash flood and pluvial flood events. It is also very likely that mean
sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water
levels.[25]
Droughts are also projected to increase in frequency, duration and intensity.
At global level, the recent GEO-5 report[26] states that despite the
progress, there are concerns that the limit of sustainability of water
resources, both surface- and ground-water, has already been reached or
surpassed in many regions, that demand of water continues to increase and that
water-related stress on both people and biodiversity is escalating rapidly.
These trends (mapped e.g. in Vörösmarty et al. 2010) confirm the importance of
complementing the analysis of EU water resources with an assessment of the
impact of goods and services imported into the EU on global water resources,
taking into account local water management contexts.
The future water situation and developments
in the water sector have been examined in Europe until 2050 by the ClimWatAdapt
project[27]
in terms of vulnerability to water scarcity, droughts and floods. Future vulnerability to water scarcity will primarily depend on
socio-economic development, i.e. changes in water use are likely to have more
impact on water scarcity than changes in water availability resulting from
climate change. However, the analyses show that climate change could have a
major effect on extreme events, e.g. the occurrence of droughts and floods. Water
quality could deteriorate as a consequence of climate change, e.g. because in
cases where reduced runoff will lead to lower dilution rates or, on the other
hand, in cases where a much higher runoff will cause higher nutrient loads.
2.5.2.     Use
of economic instruments:
·                        
If no further actions are taken at EU level for
better enforcing the implementation of the WFD economic requirements, it is
expected that work on economic instruments will continue in some but not all
Member States: 49% of RBMPs include modification of the water pricing
system to foster a more efficient use of water. However, a coordinated better
implementation of WFD-economic tools and a “level playing field” regarding
economic incentives cannot be expected as there are different views on how
economic aspects should be further developed in the context of the WFD. Some
Member States will focus on better addressing environmental and resource costs,
others will extend their efforts to make payments for ecosystem services
workable. Others may do nothing. The impact of the economic crisis[28] on the public funding of
infrastructure and further removal of environmentally harmful subsidies is
unclear. The latter is a priority in the context of the European Semester.
·                        
40% of the RBMPs include measures to enhance
water metering which is a pre-condition for incentive water pricing. The EU has a number of public financial instruments that can be used
to improve water efficiency and plays a role in poorer regions to develop the
necessary water infrastructures, including water supply and accompanying
measures such as metering. The European Commission presented its proposals for
cohesion policy 2014-2020 in October 2011. However, the use of regional and Structural
and Cohesion Funds to support metering will depend strongly on the regional
plans developed by national or regional authorities. 
·                        
Regarding labelling of products or supply
chains, there are global or European-wide initiatives such as the forthcoming
ISO standard 14046 expanding the scope of the water footprint to life cycle
analysis, the European Water Stewardship (EWS[29])
part of the global Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS), etc. These initiatives
may contribute to awareness raising for sustainable water management but their
success will largely depend on whether they will be implemented on a large
scale e.g. thanks to regulatory requirements or to awareness campaigns. It is also
unclear whether the EU Water Initiative (EUWI) support for improved water resource
management in third countries is going to continue.
2.5.3.     Policy integration in support to specific measures
Trends in CAP and Cohesion policy show that
there is potential for further policy integration and coherence that can emerge
from the implementation of the EU multi-annual financial framework. However,
there is a high level of uncertainty on what will actually happen at national
and river basin level, and very scarce information can be extracted from RBMP
on this topic.
Structural and Cohesion Funds will be available for water resource protection measures, in
particular waste-water treatment or recycling plants. They can also further support
actions for green infrastructure projects (natural water retention measures),
as they relate to other investment priorities (low-carbon strategies for urban
areas, adaptation to climate change, biodiversity, urban environment
improvement). The degree of which these measures will be supported is highly
dependent on the investment priorities included in the Member States'
operational programs and on the selection of investments that is made to
support these priorities. It also depends on the outcome of the ongoing
discussions on the Commission proposals on Structural and Cohesion Funds..
The European Commission's proposals for a
reform of the CAP after 2013 include a number of measures with a direct
or indirect impact on water resources management, in particular:
·                        
The new greening component of the CAP legal
proposal for Pillar I could potentially support most of the agriculture related
measures but the degree to which the measures will be supported and their
effectiveness highly depends on what texts will be finally agreed and on their
implementing rules at European and national levels. 
·                        
Cross-compliance standards for maintaining soil
organic matter level and the protection of wetlands and carbon rich soils. Both
standards are aimed at climate change mitigation and adaptation but they should
also benefit water quality and water quantity. The proposal also foresees the inclusion
of elements of the Water Framework Directive and of the Directive on the
Sustainable Use of Pesticides into cross-compliance, once they are fully
implemented by the Member States and concrete rules relevant to farmers are
identified.
·                        
Rural development policy should continue to
offer a range of measures which will influence water quality, water quantity
and the hydro morphology. Particular conditions have been proposed regarding
support for investments in irrigation, including minimum efficiency thresholds.
·                        
Extension of the scope of the Farm Advisory
System to inter alia the protection of water
The priorities for the European Innovation
Partnerships for water and for agricultural productivity and sustainability will
be defined at the end of 2012 or beginning of 2013; action under these
instruments will provide additional support to unlock promising measures. 
2.5.4.     Governance
·                        
As the policy framework for water governance
is already in place, the question is how well Member States will meet current
obligations and how the framework is expected to evolve. Some improvement in
existing structures for water management and co-ordination of functions is
expected to occur as experience in implementing the WFD continues. It is
difficult to predict whether cases where transboundary co-operation is poor
will improve as the WFD continues to be implemented or whether there are
systemic barriers that are likely to remain. In considering the future status
of water governance in Europe, it is important to stress again the potential
impact of the current economic crisis. Public expenditure is being cut in many Member
States and public authorities are suffering from reduced budgets affecting
staff numbers, equipment investment, etc. The consequences are expected to last
several years and, for some of the hardest hit Member States, these impacts
could have long-term consequences. Therefore, efficiency in the administration
of water management is an important objective which will be given greater
emphasis. As a result, while it is reasonable to argue that previous
implementation of the WFD has been a learning experience for Member States
authorities (whether on individual actions, transboundary co-operation, etc.)
and future governance improvements might be expected, the economic crisis could
reduce the effectiveness of governance in some cases. Thus support for key
governance challenges through the Blueprint is even more important.
·                        
In the preparation of the Blueprint the
Commission has started a number of activities for the development of EU water
accounts at sub-catchment level, for the assessment of ecological flows
and for the building of a hydro-economic model that can support the assessment
of policy scenarios and the formulation of targets for water efficiency
and reduction of vulnerability. If these activities are not integrated under
the Common Implementation Strategy and synergies are not found with similar
initiatives at national or regional level, there is arisk of duplication and
ineffecctiveness.Moreover, if the current data gaps and inconsistencies are not
solved with additional action, these tools will not be useful.
·                        
Drought hazard
and related risks will continue to be substantial and may even be exacerbated
in many parts of Europe. A recent study[30]
using the WaterGap model concludes that, in the absence of further policy
action to improve drought management in the EU, an increasing number of
Spanish, French and Northern river basins in particular could become water
stressed over time. A growing number of Eastern European basins near the Black sea are also likely to face increased drought-related problems. Drought risk
management will therefore become ever more necessary but it is unlikely to
improve if Member States awareness is not raised, in particular with regard to
the shortcoming of their current RBMPs. 
2.5.5.     Knowledge
base
·                        
Regarding the analysis of costs and benefits,
despite the problems mentioned above, only very limited additional work is
indicated in some RBMPs on this issue for the next management cycle(s). Hence,
very limited progress is expected in the baseline situation, which calls for
action at EU level. For the latter, there are important on-going projects, such
as the building of the hydro-economic modelling by the JRC (see Annex 1), the
database of measures[31],
both developed in the context of the Blueprint, as well as other developed in
the current policy context, initiatives at a wider scale such as the mapping of
ecosystem services, that could contribute to some improvement in the knowledge
base, together with other initiatives at Member State level.
·                        
On-going activities (under the current CIS
framework) will contribute to improve dissemination of the knowledge
base, such as the further development of the Water Information System for
Europe (WISE) and the European Drought Observatory, which have already taken
some important steps in information sharing for water policy; and the on-going
activity to streamline monitoring and reporting
obligations under water, marine and biodiversity policies. However, the move
towards fully interoperable information systems is slow[32] and
reporting requirements can only be changed through legislative amendments. Within the ‘Global Monitoring for the Environment and Security’
(GMES) programme, some initiatives contributing to sustainable water management
are on-going which can help demonstrate the potential of GMES in supporting
sustainable water management and tackling current problems such as illegal
water abstraction. A fully-fledged GMES programme is expected to be in place in
the course of the next multi-annual financial framework, starting in 2014. Water
related research projectes under the current 7th Framework programme
and the new Horizon 2020 should contribute to improving the knowledge base and
the science-policy interface (SPI), providing the current SPI initiative in the
context of the CIS is maintained.
2.6.        Who
is affected and how?
This section describes how the main actors
would be affected by the continuation of a business as
usual situation for water management, both directly and through the
consequences on water status. 
2.6.1.     Environmental impacts. 
The environment as a whole is affected by
the state of waters. Indeed, there is a bidirectional relationship between the
status of water bodies and the health of ecosystems: The status of
surface water and groundwater bodies affects the state of aquatic and
terrestrial dependent ecosystems which greatly impacts their functions and
their capacity to provide ecosystem services. These water related
ecosystem services include water provisioning (for multiple uses), water flow
regulation (increase in infiltration and groundwater recharge), erosion
control, flood hazard reduction, water purification (leading to increased
availability of clean water). Similarly, the functioning of ecosystems affects
water resources, their status, and their vulnerability to climate change and
anthropogenic pressures.
Regarding coastal and marine environment,
nitrogen and phosphorus loads discharged from water bodies to European seas are
expected to increase by 2020 (cf FATE BAU scenario, JRC, 2012). Furthermore, saltwater intrusion has already become a problem in large parts of
the Mediterranean, due to groundwater over-abstraction for public water supply,
agricultural water demand, and tourism related abstractions (MedWSD, 2007). At
global level, between 25% and 40% of global sea level
rise can be attributed to groundwater depletion mainly to irrigate crops (Wada
et al. 2010, Pokhrel et al, 2012).
As for the problem of water scarcity, it
goes beyond the physical water gap: Abstracting, conveying, purifying, using
and further treating the water can have large impact on energy consumption and
GHG emissions:
Figure 8 – energy
consumption linked with water abstraction, use and treatment[33]
As regards wildlife habitat and biological
productivity, they may be degraded through the loss of wetlands, lakes and
riparian vegetation. 
Lower surface and groundwater levels due to
over-exploitation may endanger river dependent ecological and economic
functions, including surface water abstractions, dilution of effluents,
navigation and hydropower generation. 
Water quality problems such as pollution by
nutrient can be intensified by low water quantity. If water is abstracted at
too high a rate, there may not be enough water to dilute excess nutrients that
have leached into water bodies. Higher concentrations of nutrients and toxic substances
can negatively affect fish spawning and increase algae blooms. 
2.6.2.     Economic sectors affected and likely impacts of the baseline situation
A number of economic sectors are directly
dependant on availability of water at specific quality levels. 
·                        
Residential (Potable water)
·                        
Agriculture (irrigation and livestock) 
·                        
Aquaculture
·                        
Food production and other manufacturing
·                        
Energy production (cooling water for power
plants and hydropower)
·                        
Transport (navigation)
·                        
Commercial fishing
·                        
Recreation (bathing, boating, fishing etc.)
·                         
Tourisms (cultural, historical and aesthetic
values)
The current trends are leading to
substantial cross-sectoral externalities: the lack of proper internalisation of
costs (see section 2.4) mean that costs have to be unduely covered by domestic
concumers, SMEs or taxpayers. Pollution of surface and groundwater represent an
additional cost for the provision of drinking or irrigation water. Work is
still on-going at EU, national or OECD levels for a quantification of the efficiency losses throughout the economy through unavailability
of clean water, to provide a more accurate green growth rationale for freshwater
policies. 
Based on the projections of ClimWatAdapt,
Southern Europe and parts of Western Europe are likely to suffer from water scarcity
during summer, primarily caused by agricultural water use. In Western Europe,
the energy sector is extremely vulnerable to water scarcity and droughts
because of increased electricity production. Scarcity
costs have been calculated for domestic, industry and tourism in Cyprus (Zachariadis,
2009) and results show that the present value of total costs due to water
shortages in the period 2010-2030 may reach €200 million (2009 prices).
The quality of EU bathing waters has
improved significantly since 1990 — in 2010, (more than 90 %) of bathing areas
complied with mandatory values. 
Economic damage from floods in EU are
estimated at 6400 M€/year for the period 2006-2010. The
total additional damage from climate change scenarios ranges from 7700 to 15000
M€/year, more than doubling the
annual average damages over the 1961-1990 period. (PESETA project, JRC, 2009)
2.6.3.     Social
impacts
There is scarce evidence on distribution of
water pollution or extreme events impacts, but it appears that, overall,
impacts are concentrated in lower income countries and in regions with low
level of development, in particular rural areas. (see OECD[34], 2010) , as well as in small water supplies. This is due to a lower
rate of implementation of drinking water and waste water treatment regulations,
to weak enforcement or absence of land-use planning rules in flood-prone areas,
and lower access to water saving technologies and know-how. Access to safe drinking water and
sanitation must also be considered within a human rights framework[35]. 
2.7.        The
need to act at EU level: 
In the discussion of the four problem
categories described in sections 2.4 and 2.5, 12 specific water management
problems have emerged: 
Weak implementation of economic instruments
(1)                   
Weak implementation pricing policy
(2)                   
Low implementation of metering in some sectors
or countries
(3)                   
Need for labelling of globally traded goods
Lack of integration of water issues into other
policies
(4)                   
Land use measures
(5)                   
Buildings and appliances
(6)                   
Water infrastructures (leakages)
(7)                   
Water re-use
Governance
(8)                   
Need for more effective governance
(9)                   
Lack of water balances, eflows and targets.
(10)               
Weak drought management
Knowledge base
(11)               
Lack of a consistent methodology to calculate
costs and benefits
(12)               
Weak dissemination and sharing of compatible
data
These specific problems have been screened to
ascertain whether the Commission should put forward policy proposals taking
into account the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. 
First of all, it is essential to recall
that 60% of EU river basins are
international, shared by 2 up to 19 countries (Danube) and action taken by a
single or a few States is not sufficient, for instance in relation to
quantitative aspects of water management or cross border water pollution. Water management is also an issue for Enlargement and Neighbourhood
policies.
Figure 9 – transboundary river basins
In addition, for each the 12 specific
issues, there are concrete additional reasons to act at EU level, which are
explained here below:
Weak implementation of economic instruments
·                        
The basis for action on pricing is the
need to facilitate the implementation of the WFD, in particular Art 9.In order to be effective in cross-border basins and to prevent
negative effects on the
internal market, economic incentives to use water at its true cost for society
should be applied in a consistent fashion in the EU.Moreover, the
identification of environmentally harmful subsidies is an essential element of Europe
2020, and their reduction is part of the Resource Efficiency Roadmap.
·                        
For metering, the basis for action is the
same as for pricing, as metering is a necessary pre-condition for the proper
implementation of pricing policies in water stressed areas.
·                        
Regarding the labelling of globally
traded goods, the rational for action at EU level is based
on internal market consideration (need for consistent labelling), on the fact
that products with embedded water reach the EU through its trade policy and that
the EU promotes sound water management in third countries through its
Development Aid policyr.
Lack of integration of water issues into
other policies
·                        
Further support to Land use measures is
directly linked with EU policy instruments, in
particular CAP and Cohesion Policy. Moreover, due to
the transboundary nature of the large hydrological cycle (e.g. impacts of
deforestation or cropping patterns on precipitation regimes in other regions), the implementation of most land-use
management measures should also be assessed from an EU perspective.
·                        
On buildings and appliances the need for action at EU level is driven by internal market
consideration such as ensuring common standards for appliances put on the
single market and also by the link to the achievement of Energy and Climate
Policies objectives such as climate mitigation and energy efficiency. 
·                        
Regarding water infrastructures, supportive action at EU level is justified as it focuses on exploiting
the potential of EU funding
instruments as well as sharing best practices. 
·                        
The main barrier to expansion of water re-use
is the lack of common standards at EU level, in particular in agriculture. While guidelines for agricultural water re-use have been defined by
the World Health Organisation[36], and by different countries, such as the USA[37] and Australia, a uniform solution for Europe is lacking. Establishing standards
for the functional operation of the single market is an appropriate EU level
response, taking into account EU Health, Agriculture
and Energy policies
Governance
·                        
Effective governance is a necessary
precondition for implementation of EU law. However, EU water law only contains
general requirements – such as the appointment of river basin district
authorities – and does not prescribe institutional structures as this is left
to the member States.. Therefore, it is appropriate for EU level action to set
out ways to support the institutions responsible for water management –
enhancing their capacity and effectiveness. It is also appropriate to examine
whether EU water law is clear on the requirements for Member States
institutions and for the Commission. It is in these areas, therefore, that
options for consideration in the Blueprint need to be further developed.
·                        
In many EU Member States, there is a lack of a
consistent methodology for calculating water
balances, eflows and targets. Action at EU level is
triggered not only by the need to ensure consistency of water allocation
mechanisms in transboundary basins and a level playing field in the
implementation of the WFD, but also by the economies of scale and quality
improvements that can be achieved by common methodologies and datasets.
·                        
The extent and effectiveness of drought
management planning in some Member States is still below what is necessary
to meet theis challenge and protect economies and society from drought impacts.
In a transboundary river basin context this calls for action at EU level
Knowledge base
·                        
There is a lack of a consistent methodology to
calculate costs and benefits of the programmes of measures and of the
lack of action. This prevents a level playing field for implementation of the
Water Framework Directive, in particular Art 4.7 (justification for new water
bodies modifications) and 9 (pricing).
·                        
Finally, economies of scale in dissemination
and sharing of compatible data are expected in undertaking efforts at EU
level for capacity building, research, information and data gathering,
knowledge transfer and exchange of best practice. The streamlining of existing
EU reporting requirements, including on statistics, can only be done at EU
level.
3.           Objectives
3.1.        Overarching
objective – the link with Europe 2020
The Blueprint will present the policy
response to the challenges described in the previous sections with the
long-term aim to ensure availability of good quality water for sustainable
and equitable water use. 
This is fully in line with broader EU
objectives. Indeed, the importance for Europe to engage in the sustainable
management of water as a key resource is underlined in the Europe 2020 Resource
efficient Europe flagship initiative[38].
The Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe[39] highlights the
efficiency gains that can be made and the Blueprint
will be the water milestone on that Roadmap.The global economy and society
depend largely on water resources and ecosystem services, as illustrated by the
concept of the water-food-energy nexus:
Figure 10 - Water-food-energy nexus (source: Bonn2011 Nexus Conference)
Furthermore, protection of Europe's water resources contributes to all 3 dimensions of Europe 2020 strategy (Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth)[40]:
·                        
Developing efficient water management
necessarily goes hand in hand with fostering innovation and knowledge (smart
growth) in water-related fields, hence increasing EU competitiveness. Water
supply and management sectors already represent 32% of EU eco-industries value
added and EU companies hold more than 25 % of the world market share in water
management[41].
This competitive advantage can be strengthened by the objective of further
improving EU water status, as an incentives to develop innovative water
solutions. 
·                        
Likewise, working towards ensuring availability of good quality water for all
users also contributes to the sustainable growth of the EU, promoting a more
resource efficient, greener and more competitive economy. Indeed, efficient
water management not only generates economic benefits (in terms of productivity
gains for water-using companies and innovation potentials for water management
companies) but also contributes to decreasing health impacts and preserving
ecosystem services, hence saving costs for private and public entities. Measures aiming at water efficiency, re-use and natural water
retention (including green infrastructure) are cost-effective solutions
supporting green growth while strengthening the resilience of our economy to
natural hazards and climatic risks.
·                        
Finally, efficient water management can
participate actively to an inclusive growth, fostering a high-employment
economy while delivering economic, social and territorial cohesion. In terms of
employment, waste water treatment and water supply sectors represent between 22
and 34% of EU eco-industries employment[42]
(depending on the methodologies used)[43]
and have a growing-potential which is well spread among all EU regions. In
addition to employment effects, improving the status of EU waters goes hand in
hand with social inclusion purposes.Access for all users to good quality water
at a fair price (reflecting the amount consumed and the environmental impact)
would jointly deliver social, economic and environmental benefits. More informed consumption choices could help consumers choosing
products that are resource efficient. Eco-labelling, as well as pricing
policies and instruments, together with awareness campaigns can help trigger
large scale behavioural change, and also bring benefits to the economy and the
environment. 
3.2.        General objectives – the link with EU policies
To achieve the above mentioned overarching
objective, it is necessary to implement at EU level a balanced approach
focusing on:
·                        
Achieving Good Status in EU water bodies by 2015
as a rule, or by 2027 at the latest for specific water bodies covered by WFD
exemptions 
·                        
Reducing water stress taking into account the
need to maintain ecological flows at a level compatible with the achievement of
WFD objectives
·                        
Reducing vulnerability to climate change and
extreme events
For water stress and vulnerability, concrete targets have to be established at
RB level. Annex 1 provides an illustration at EU level of the kind of targets
that could be established.
The Blueprint offers synergies with other
EU policy goals, such as:
·                        
Building a resource efficient Europe in
accordance with the Resource Efficiency Roadmap.
·                        
The protection and restoration of EU
biodiversity and the water/water dependant ecosystem services it provides as
set out in the EU biodiversity
strategy to 2020[44].
·                        
Energy efficiency and climate change mitigation
objectives as in most cases, water efficiency leads to
lower energy consumption. Energy and climate constraints need to be fully taken
into account for the design of the programme of measures in the RBMPs to
address water stress, as there are trade-offs in the case of water supply (e.g.
desalination).
·                        
Climate change adaptation and disaster
prevention, through reducing vulnerability to extreme events related to water
(floods and droughts in particular). 
3.3.        Specific
objectives for the Blueprint
Four sets of specific objectives that mirror
the above discussed four problem categories and 12 specific water management
problems have been identified. They are:
(1)                   
Increasing the use of economic instruments
for a better allocation of resources and internalisation of external costs, through:
·              
Full compliance with WFD Art 9, ensuring pricing
levels and structure are set in a transparent way, providing incentives for the
reduction of pressures on water, contributing to the recovery of the costs of
the provision of water services and following the polluter-pays principle.
·              
Metering or monitoring of all significant water
uses (e.g. irrigation) properly integrated into the the 2nd round of RBMPs
·              
Increased use of clear communication and
labelling tools supporting the implementation of economic instruments,
providing information on the impacts of products and supply chains on water
resources at global level.
(2)                   
Fostering integration of water concerns into
sectoral policies, by providing specific support to water management measures:
·              
The specific objective of the blueprint under
this heading is to ensure a further uptake of natural water retention
measures, water efficiency in building and appliances, water
re-use and decrease in leakages in water supply infrastructure.
However, most of these are non-binding measures, and the likely level of uptake
is extremely variable accross river basins. Therefore, there is no quantitative
target, the concrete objective being that they are properly integrated into the
the 2nd round of RBMPs, with an analysis of their cost-effectiveness including
alternative long-term scenarios, including climate change.
(3)                   
Achieving a more efficient water governance
and effective working relationships between institutions, and fully integrate
water quality, quantity and hydromorphology concerns in water management. This implies that: 
·              
All stages of the production of the 2nd round of
RBMPs (revised analysis, drafting, consultation, final publication, etc.) are
accomplished within the required timetable, that water authorities have an
enforcement strategy/plan in place and that the instances of non-compliance are
measured, recorded and are seen to decline year on year, and that consistency
is achieved in all management plans of the same transboundary basin.
·              
Water balances and the quantification of e-flows
are available in all catchments within the next two years to assist in
developing the 2nd round of RBMPs, that should include water
allocation targets.
·              
Drought Management Plans are available for all
vulnerable basins and fully integrated the 2nd round of RBMPs and
sectoral planning tools.
(4)                   
Improving knowledge and tools available to
water managers, enabling effective decision making and reducing administrative
burden, by:
·              
Improving economic analysis and assessment of
costs and benefits of reference scenarios and of the programme of measures in
the 2nd round of RBMPs.
·              
Developing WISE to provide a full inter-operable
database and platform within the next two years to ensure rapid access to
and sharing of data, applicable for water management and made available in
practical ways for Member States authorities. Administrative burden from
inconsistent reporting should be removed.
4.           Policy Options
The policy options have been identified for
each of the 12
above-mentioned specific problems. A preliminary list of options was submitted
to public and stakeholder consultation, making clear that the presence of an
option on the list by no means implied that it was supported by the European
Commission at that stage. 
The problem description highlighted that
water resource management faces cumulative barriers that all need to be
addressed in order to get to grips with the water status issues. However, these
barriers are not the same in all basins and the concrete measures and support
instruments depend on the circumstances in the different basins.
In this context, the policy options to be
developed in the Blueprint aim at providing a "toolkit" for the
Member States, supporting the implementation of the most relevant measures. This
has an impact on the kind of assessment that can be provided in the present
report, as the costs and the benefits depend on the actual measures to be chosen
by the Member States, which cannot be assessed in the context of the current
Impact Assessment.
Against that background, the assessment of
the responses to the public and stakeholder consultation and a preliminary evaluation
resulted in 40 options or sub-options selected that can be classified under 4
approaches, reflecting a specific focus for action at EU level:
(a)                   
Focus of EU action is on capacity building for
local water managers, by producing more non-binding guidance, exchange
of best practices, peer review, etc. This is supported by a stronger knowledge
sharing platform.
(b)                   
Focus of EU action is on filling specific gaps
of current legislation, including WFD.
(c)                   
Focus of EU action is on further integrating the
protection of water resources into EU funding and policy instruments, through conditionality
mechanisms.
(d)                   
Focus of EU actions is on ensuring priority
for water resource protection measures in specific funds or financing
instruments.
Options are not necessarily mutually
exclusive and could often be combined or graduated over time. Based on the
comments received from the public consultation, from stakeholder in particular
at the 3rd EU Water Conference, from Member States at an ad-hoc
Water Directors meeting and from the IA Steering Group, the list of options to
be further considered in this Impact Assessment has been slightly reviewed, as
explained in IEEP et al, 2012.
The 40 options are presented below, in
correspondence with the specific objective they respond to and with the policy
approach in which they are embedded. 
   || Approaches 
 specific objective || a) Voluntary || b) Regulation || c) Conditionality || d) Priority in funding 
 1 pricing || Guidance for trading schemes || n/a || Inclusion in cross compliance CAP Pillar I || n/a 
 2metering || Use of GMES || Amendment WFD on Art 11 Amendment WFD on metering || Inclusion in cross compliance CAP Pillar I || n/a 
 3 labelling globally traded goods || Voluntary labelling || Mandatory labelling || n/a || n/a 
 4 NWRM || CIS Guidance || Amendment WFD || Under CSF implementing rules || Under CSF & EIB loans 
 5.1 Appliances/Water related products || Voluntary labelling || Mandatory labelling Inclusion in Ecodesign work programme[45] || n/a || n/a 
 5.2 Buildings || Voluntary rating || Mandatory rating Minimum requirements Directive || n/a || n/a 
 6 Leakages || Guidance || n/a || n/a || Under CSF & EIB loans 
 7 Water reuse || CIS Guidance CEN standard || Regulation || n/a || Under CSF & EIB loans 
 8 Governance || Peer review || Amendment WFD on legal status plans Amendment WFD on mediation role Amendment SEA Directive || n/a || n/a 
 9 Target setting || CIS guidance on water accounts & e-flows CIS guidance on target setting || Amendment WFD on water accounts & e-flows Amendment WFD on target setting || n/a || n/a 
 10 Droughts planning || Recommendation || Amendment WFD Droughts Directive || n/a || n/a 
 11 Costs and benefits || CIS Guidance || Amendment WFD || n/a || n/a 
 12 Knowledge dissemination || Further development WISE || Review reporting & statistic legal requirements || n/a || n/a 
A short description of each of the 40 options
and sub-options is provided below: 
4.1.        Pricing 
Two options were considered. The first
(option 1c) is to add national water pricing obligations for farmers as a
cross-compliance requirement under the CAP and the second (option 1b) is to
develop guidance and tools on the use of trading in water rights. Option 1c got
support in stakeholder consultation. However,this option does not fit with
cross compliance principles, which do not cover private contract clauses such
as correct payments by farmers of their water bills. Moreover this option would
raise important control problems since checks should cover also these private
contracts. However water metering as a measure under Article 11, which serve
also the purposes of water pricing provisions of the WFD (see 4.2), is
certainly a potential candidate for its inclusion in due course into cross
compliance since it addresses a legal requirements to respect abstraction
limits. Option 1c is therefore discarded and not further assessed in this
report.
4.2.        Metering
Metering is necessary for the volumetric
measurement of water use and is, therefore, necessary for an effective pricing
policy. The four options initially considered to promote metering are (option
2a) mapping all EU large irrigated areas via the GMES initiative and match
these areas with water abstraction permits to help Member States enforce them
and tackle illegal abstraction, (option 2b1) amending the WFD to make explicit
that Art. 11 includes mandatory metering, (option 2b2) amending the WFD to
require metering of significant individual water consumption in water scarce
areas and (option 2c) making CAP pillar 1 payments conditional upon the
installation of metering devices for individual users. Although extension of
cross-compliance was strongly supported in the stakeholder consultation, this
option cannot be taken forward at present as no new cross compliance
requirement can be introduced if it is not a pre-existing requirement from the
water framework directive, which by definition ecompasses all water-related
measures at farm level. In other words, amending the WFD to introduce metering
as an explicit requirement would be a pre-condition for a potential inclusion
of metering in cross-compliance in a future revision of the CAP.
4.3.        Labelling
globally traded goods
The options address the issue of embedded
water in products through either raising business and consumers' awareness of
the impact of products on water resources[46]
through voluntary labelling (option 3a) or requiring mandatory labelling of
most embedded water intensive products (option 3b).
4.4.        Natural
water retention measures
The options focus on stimulating the uptake
of natural water retention measures (NWRMs) as effective tools for delivering
water management objectives. Option 4a seeks to achieve this through guidance,
option 4b by mandatory application through a WFD amendment and option 4c by
including NWRMs as conditions for the spending of Funds under the Common Strategic
Framework and provision of funding through Cohesion Funds and/or EIB loans
(Option 4d). .
4.5.        Buildings
and appliances
Seven options are considered under this
problem. Three concern appliances: voluntary labelling of water efficiency
(option 51a), mandatory labelling (option 51b1) and setting minimum water
efficiency requirements using the Ecodesign Directive (option 51b2). For buildings:
voluntary performance rating (option 52a), mandatory performance rating (option
52b1), minimum performance requirements (option 52b2) and a directive on water
efficiency requirements in buildings (option 52b3).
4.6.        Water
efficiency in distribution systems
Leakage in water distribution systems is a
waste of water, an economic loss for the water industry (and consumers) and
wasteful for chemicals and energy. The options aim to assist Member States in
tackling this problem not by setting targets (which is not appropriate at EU
level), but by provision of a tool for assessing the sustainable economic level
of leakage (option 6a) and through provision of funding through Cohesion Funds
and/or EIB loans (Option 6d). 
4.7.        Water
re-use
The problem analysis highlighted that a
critical problem to address in the Blueprint is that there are no common
standards for waste water reuse. Taking account of the detailed problem
analysis and baseline, the following options were identified to be assessed
within the Impact Assessment: develop CIS guidance on certification schemes for
water re-use (Option 7a1), the Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) to adopt
standards water re-use (Option 7a2), an EU Regulation establishing standards
for water re-use (option 7b) and provision of funding through Cohesion Funds
and/or EIB loans (Option 7d). 
4.8.        Governance 
Governance problems cover a range of issues
and a number are addressed by options set out under other problems (e.g.
improving information and tools for water management). The options specific to
governance are not alternatives addressing a similar point, but are focused on
specific issues that were identified in the problem analysis. These are
developing a peer review process for Member State water management authorities (option
8a), amending the WFD to ensure that RBMPs are binding documents across Member
State institutions (option 8b1) and amending the WFD to enhance the mediation
role of the Commission in transboundary river basins (8b2) and amending the SEA
Directive to ensure major development plans for hydropower, navigation,
desalination, etc., are subject to SEA (8b3).
4.9.        Target
setting
To address the problems of water
accounting, identifying ecological flows and target setting, four options are
considered. Options 9a1 and 9b1 are to develop a model for water accounting
either at Member State level or at European level and support this with
guidance on its use, including establishing ecological flows. Option 9a1 is a
voluntary option, setting out the approach in guidance, while option 9b1
achieves this through amending the WFD. Options 9a2 and 9b2 support water
allocation and target setting in river basins, again either through a
voluntary/guidance approach (option 9a2) or by WFD amendment (option 9b2). It
is important to stress that options 9a2 and 9b2 can only be effectively taken
forward where there is good water accounting and, therefore, require that one
of options 9a1 and 9b1 have progressed.
4.10.      Droughts
Drought management requires a coherent
assessment of the causes and consequences of drought, including impacts and
contributions to and from specific sectors, ideally integrated into wider water
management planning. The WFD already encourages such activity and guidance has
been produced, yet to date drought management planning is poor in a number of
Member States. The options, therefore, do not include a guidance option (as
this is already in place), but seek to encourage or prescribe drought
management through a Recommendation (option 10a), a WFD amendment (option 10b1)
or a stand-alone drought management Directive (option 10b2).
4.11.      Costs
and benefits 
The two options seek to overcome the lack
of assessment of the costs and benefits of measures in WFD programmes of
measures, or the lack of assessment of not taking measures, through the
development of guidance (option 11a) on the assessment of costs and benefits or
by requiring a cost/benefit assessment of potential measures through a WFD
amendment (option 11b). 
4.12.      Knowledge
base
The options are to develop a fully
inter-operable, SEIS based, shared water knowledge system for which 2
sub-options have been identified: centralised (12a1) and decentralised (12a2)
systems, and (option 12b) to enhance minimum WFD reporting requirements and
statistical obligations e.g. through framework regulations on environmental
accounts and statistics and harmonising the reporting timetables of EU water
Directives.
5.           Analysis of the
impacts of
the options
This section presents the main elements of
the analysis of the options in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, acceptability
and - when relevant - environmental, economic and social impacts. A more
comprehensive analysis is presented in IEEP et al, 2012.
5.1.        Pricing 
Trading schemes promoted by Option 1a would
impose some administrative burdens on authorities supervising trading and those
undertaking it, while potentially delivering more equitable and economically
justified distribution of water allocation between users. The environmental
benefits that would result would need to be set within a system where
environmental targets (ecological flows – see problem 9) are respected.
However, these impacts are those of a trading system per se, while the option
is to develop guidance, which would be able to explore the respective costs and
benefits of different approaches and Member State administrative contexts and
identify cost-effective solutions. It is worth noting that the public
consultation found strong opposition to water rights trading, due to the fact
that the question was generic.
5.2.        Metering
Option 2a on GMES would enhance water
governance at the river basin and local level. New governance structure will be
needed. Investment costs are expected to be outweighed by benefits in terms of
effective water management. The approach is expected to be more effective and
efficient than ground-based inspections alone.
Options 2b1 and 2b2 (WFD amendments) both
aim to require that metering is expected to meet the requirements of the WFD
for significant water users in areas where there is water scarcity.
Installation of meters would impose costs either to users or utilities, that
would obviously affed the Member State and sectors where metering is not
implemented and where it represent a cost-effective solution. However, the options
are designed to ensure WFD implementation rather than an additional obligation
and, therefore, the wider environmental, social and economic impacts are those
of the WFD. The impacts would be both to help control illegal abstraction and
ensure national obligations for water payment are met, stimulating greater
water efficiency. The impacts on business would depend on national price
levels, as would the impacts on local water resources. The public consultation
found strong support for option 2a, opinions equally divided on option 2b, with
strong concerns on the generalisation of monitoring requirements echoed by
agricultural stakeholders.
5.3.        Labelling
globally traded goods
A voluntary option would enable the
development of critical thinking by consumers and businesses on embedded water
and so inform the choices they make. This can have knock-on benefits in other
areas of water use (and indeed other aspects of the environment). The issues
that would be raised by the option are equally applicable to products from
inside and outside the EU. However, the option simply raises awareness and does
not ensure delivery of any particular outcomes.
A mandatory labelling option would be
binding and uniform across the EU, thus providing a common reference framework
for consumers and businesses. It would stimulate similar critical thinking to a
voluntary awareness raising option, but this would only be achieved if a
labelling option was backed-up by an information campaign. Labelling would
impose costs on producers (inside and outside the EU). While the labelling
itself imposes some costs, the majority of costs would arise from determining
the water footprints which form the basis for the label classification and, in
particular, about relating water use to water stress (i.e. distinguishing where
water use is or is not an issue). This poses methodological challenges as well
as financial challenges.
The public consultation found very strong
support for the option to raise awareness of the water footprint of products,
but opposition for the option for mandatory labelling.
5.4.        Natural
water retention measures
A detailed assessment of environmental,
economic and social impacts of NWRM is presented in Annex 2. Moreover, the
costs and benefits will be highy dependant on the local conditions. The
comparison of options is therefore focused on their effectiveness, efficiency,
coherence and acceptability.
Option 4a would help to improve the
integration of water objectives into agriculture and nature conservation policy,
and positively increase the use of economic instruments by providing guidance
on payments for ecosystem services. It can be seen as a preparatory action for
options 4b or 4c, by improving knowledge and tools, spreading best practice and
promoting economic tools to support changes in land use management. Option 4c
would have a strongly positive impact on fostering the integration of water
into sectoral policies by requiring EU funds to more concretely take impacts on
water ecosystems into account in project design and implementation. 
In terms of efficiency, the ability of option
4a to encourage Member States to implement natural water retention measures requires
guidances to be ready to influence the 2nd planning period, which
may result difficult taking into account official CIS guidance takes around 2
years to develop. This could be solved ensuring the development of the guidance
includes a strong participation process and already influences the elaboration
of the plans. On the other hand, option 4b would more likely ensure the uptake
of NWRM in the RBMP compared to options 4a or 4c. However, the time horizon of
this measure is even more long-term, as a review of the WFD is not expected
before 2019. Its impacts, therefore, would not be realized until at least the 3rd
planning cycle commences. From this perspective, option 4c is efficient as it
would take into effect already in 2014, providing NWRM can be properly
reflected in the implementation of the CAP and regional policy.
Option 4d (funding) is not an alternative
to other options, but can accompanying this option or be taken forward
independently. Given public and private expenditure constraints, investment in natural
water retention and ecosystem restoration measures is constrained in some
regions. Indeed, finance could be targeted at those locations where co-benefits
are more evident and NWRM constitute a cost-effective alternative to infrastructure-based
flood protection or water storage measures. The effectiveness of this option
(and the resulting economic, social and environmental impacts) would be
directly proportional to the level of available investment.
5.5.        Buildings
and appliances
The effectiveness of the options for both
appliances and buildings depends on their ability to influence both
producers/constructors and consumers. Mandatory labelling (5.1bx and 5.2bx) could
be more effective than a voluntary approach (5.1a and 5.2a), but only if
consumer choices would be based on such labels. This is more likely to be the
case for an appliance than a building. Furthermore, appliances are traded
within the internal market where buildings are not, so that there is a stronger
case for minimum mandatory performance requirements of traded appliances than
for buildings – ensuring a level playing field. The environmental impacts of
all options are to deliver increased water efficiency (with knock-on energy
efficiency benefits) which benefits water resources in water scarce areas.
The costs to meet the appliance options
will arise for manufacturers to develop more efficient products. The actual
economic, environmental and social impacts are extremely context dependant.
Elements of assessment are provided in Annex 2. The public consultation found
that there was majority support for options for voluntary labelling of
appliances (5.1a) and for adopting minimum efficiency requirements using the Ecodesign
Directive (5.1.b2). A mandatory labelling scheme (5.1.b1) was not supported in
the consultation.
Implementing labelling or minimum efficiency
requirements will cause costs during building or refurbishment and for
the certifier to verify compliance, but also to set up the scheme against which
the building is audited. In the case of mandatory labelling and minimum
requirements, constructors would bear compliance costs. Improved water efficiency
does translate into potential increased house values and savings in water
bills, which can offset the costs of improved building design. Social impacts
potentially vary – such as benefits to lower income households, issues of data
protection with smart meters and health issues if water recycling systems are
not properly maintained. None of the building options received majority support
in the public consultation – all being opposed except for the option on minimum
performance ratings (5.2b1) for which opinion was equally divided.
5.6.        Water
efficiency in distribution systems
Addressing leakages to the appropriate
level brings a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits that are
detailed in Annex 2. The level of appropriate leakage control is addressed by
option 6a, which aims at a common method to determine the level of leakage
control that is economically justified (e.g. that is cheaper than alternative
new water sources). This option would not only provide the basis for delivering
the above benefits, it is focused on optimising the economic performance of
utilities. However, this option is voluntary, so application cannot be
guaranteed and, indeed, would be unlikely to be taken up at an early stage
where finance for investment is particularly constrained.
Option 6d (funding) is not an alternative
to option 6a, but can accompanying this option or be taken forward
independently. Given public and private expenditure constraints, investment in
improvements in water supply infrastructure is constrained in some regions.
Indeed, finance could be targeted at those locations where leakage reduction is
most justified, such as through using a tool developed under option 6a. Areas
eligible for Cohesion Funds and EIB loans can benefit from additional
investment support. The effectiveness of this option (and the resulting
economic, social and environmental impacts) would be directly proportional to
the level of available investment.
In conclusion, all of the options can be
progressed, supporting each other to support leakage reduction. All of the
options received support in the public consultation. However, they no not have
direct impact on leakage control in water stressed areas, but they constitute
important interventions that are appropriate at an EU level.
5.7.        Water
re-use
The options concerned with water re-use all
seek to stimulate the re-use of waste water in agriculture as a means of
providing an alternative water supply and so reduce the pressure on surface and
ground water sources and provide a stable supply to users in times of scarcity
and drought. The impacts of water re-use are, therefore, common to all of the
options and largely only differ to the extent that the options would be
effective at stimulating water re-use.
The primary economic benefits of water
re-use are to the agriculture sector and water industry sector. Water re-use ensures
to farmers and horticulturalists a more reliable water supply, less dependant
on precipitations, as it benefits from the priority given to drinking water in
periods of drought, leading to more certainty in economic investment.
Furthermore, farmers can benefit from nutrients contained in waste water, so
reducing their costs for the use of fertilisers. The water industry sector
benefits from alternative water treatment requirements, which can be less
stringent and, therefore, less costly than requirements for treatment for
discharge to surface waters.
The economic benefits translate into social
benefits. Security of the agricultural producers enables jobs to be secured,
providing benefits to local communities. Furthermore, it can enable traditional
agricultural production to continue in water stressed areas that would
otherwise be under threat from water scarcity and so maintain cultural
traditions. However, health concerns do arise from the re-use of water for
agricultural products. Therefore, the standards proposed to be adopted for
options 7a, 7b1 and 7b2 would all be required to meet the necessary health
standards. Furthermore, funding (option 7d) should only be provided to schemes
which guarantee health standards are to be complied with.
The environmental benefits are proportional
to the reduction in pressure on surface and ground waters from supply of
re-used water as an alternative to abstraction. Ecological flows are more
likely to be maintained, protecting aquatic ecosystems and, therefore, helping
to meet WFD requirements. Furthermore, diversion of waste water to agriculture
may result in less discharge of nutrients, etc., to surface waters.
The extent of these impacts is proportional
to the effectiveness of the options. The primary problem facing water re-use is
the lack of EU-level standards which could result in different standards across
the Member States, leading to barriers in the trade of agricultural products.
Voluntary standards (option 7a1) developed at EU level would provide a basis
for a common approach, but the option cannot prevent Member States adopting a
different approach and, therefore, cannot prevent barriers in the internal
market. CEN standards (option 7a2) might be more likely to be adopted by Member
States, but they suffer the same flaw as option 7a1. A Regulation (option 7b)
does not have this problem and would guarantee that internal market barriers
would not arise. The development of each of these options has similar costs,
although the direct applicability of a Regulation would have lower burdens on
Member States as it would not require transposition. The public consultation
and stakeholder views all show more support for a binding Regulation as the
effective means to overcome the problem compared to the other options. The
option would be fully coherent with other EU water law and policy.
Option 7d (funding) is not an alternative
to the other options, but can accompany any of the other options. Given public
and private expenditure constraints, investment in water treatment and
distribution for irrigation is constrained in some regions. Areas eligible for
Cohesion Funds and EIB loans can benefit from additional investment support. The
effectiveness of this option (and the resulting economic, social and
environmental impacts) would be directly proportional to the level of available
investment.
5.8.        Governance
Peer review (8a) has proved to be an
effective process in other areas of EU law. Sharing of experience between
colleagues allows for a problem-solving approach to be taken. The option is
entirely voluntary based on the needs of those authorities which wish to have a
peer review. Costs from other peer review process are small, impacting on both
the recipient authority and those from other Member States conducting the
review. However, results from other peer reviews are positive and this option
is likely to be effective. The public consultation showed support for this
option.
Option 8b1 aims at
ensuring that RBMPs are binding documents across Member State institutions. Member States already have an obligation to implement all
basic measures listed in WFD Art. 11.3 a) to l) and supplementary measures
under Art. 11.4, which include a number of legally binding and voluntary
measures. This obligation needs to be respected independently of the legal
nature of the RBMPs. A WFD amendment to make
the RBMPs binding could ensure better RBMP implementation in some cases.
However, a WFD amendment would take several years and the option would not,
therefore, be able to enhance WFD implementation in the short-term. 
Option 8b2 promotes the mediation role of
the Commission in disagreements in transboundary river basins. The opinion of
the Commission would not be binding – it is not an arbitration role. The
effectiveness of the option is not clear, as it would depend on individual
circumstances, although it is likely to be positive. 
Amending the SEA Directive (8b3) to address
plans for hydropower, navigation, new water supply infrastructure, is entirely
consistent with the approach of the Directive and would be effective in
allowing for an integration of the SEA analysis with the analysis, objectives
and measures within RBMPs. It would also stimulate institutional integration
between water management and land-use planning. SEA sets out impacts and
alternatives, but does not prescribe decisions. Therefore, outcomes cannot be
guaranteed. The public consultation found a little more support than opposition
for amending the SEA Directive.
5.9.        Target
setting
An EU level water accounting system is
being developed to allow for accounting at sub-catchment level. However, this
requires provision of data from Member States and these are not effectively
delivered in all cases. Guidance (option 9a1) is unlikely to be effective in
this regard. However, a WFD amendment (option 9b1)would not be developed until
the WFD review and, therefore, not come into force for several years. As a
result, the two options need not be viewed as alternatives. A voluntary
approach better supported by guidance from the Commission could be taken
forward and the regulatory option proceeded with if Member States fail to
supply data or otherwise support water accounting where it is needed.
Effective water allocation and target
setting is needed in water scarce river basins. This can ensure not only the
maintenance of ecological flows, but also an economically and socially
equitable distribution of water. Option 9a2 aims to support Member States authorities’
action in this area through guidance. There is some lack of information and
tools and the option would be effective where this is currently a barrier.
Furthermore, guidance is able to explore a wide range of different aspects of
target setting (different sectors, types/sizes of river basin, water rights
contexts, etc.), maximising its usefulness. It can also be taken forward
relatively quickly. A WFD amendment (option 9b2) would be binding and ensure
target setting respects ecological flows as part of Good Ecological Status.
However, it would take several years to enact. As with options 9a1 and 9b1, the
two options can be viewed together as a voluntary option, followed by a
regulatory option if target setting remains a significant problem in the EU.
The public consultation demonstrated support for a voluntary guidance approach,
but opposition to a regulatory one, emphasising the need for flexibility to
take account of different circumstances in the EU and for transparency in
application.
5.10.      Droughts
The options all seek to encourage drought
management planning of the same kind that is currently the subject of guidance.
The impacts of all options, if implemented, would be similar in providing
better drought management, but where the options differ is how likely they are
to be implemented and when, i.e. in their effectiveness.
A Recommendation is not a binding
instrument, but it can be viewed as a stronger message than current CIS
guidance. It can also stimulate more detailed reporting from Member States. It
is, therefore, more likely to stimulate change in drought management in some
cases. However, where there are barriers (institutional, financial, cultural,
etc.) to taking forward drought management, a Recommendation may not overcome
these and, therefore, be ineffective.
The other two options are binding and,
therefore, should stimulate significant changes in drought management
practices. Implementation failure can be pursued by the Commission. Depending
on how each is drafted, the options could cover similar issues and, therefore,
be similar in their impacts. However, a WFD amendment is only likely to be
taken forward during the WFD review and, therefore, would not influence drought
management for several years. A stand-alone Directive could be developed at an
earlier date. The public consultation was, overall, not supportive of a
regulatory option, but did support further action on drought management within
the next round of RBMPs. 
5.11.      Costs
and benefits 
The options both seek to ensure implementation
of the WFD and, therefore, the economic, social and environmental impacts are
those of the WFD and are not subject to separate assessment. The review of
RBMPs has shown the lack of ambition of Member States in developing measures
and in many cases a failure to show any analysis to support the lack of measures
or justification for exemptions. Moreover, the further implementation of
payments for ecosystem services (PES), which appears to be an effective and
innovative tool for water resource management, is hampered by the current lack
of quantification of benefits. Thus the options aim to overcome this and
deliver the benefits that would arise from implementing the WFD and ensure
transparency in decision making to all stakeholders.
As a means of ensuring that Member States
undertake a cost/benefit assessment, a WFD amendment would be more effective –
it would be binding where guidance is not. Furthermore, such an option would be
similar to a provision already contained in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
and so be coherent with other water law. However, a WFD amendment was not
supported in the public consultation. Furthermore, if an amendment were taken
forward in the WFD review, it would be too late to influence the 2nd
round of RBMPs.
Guidance on cost/benefit assessment can be
taken forward at an early stage and could influence the next round of RBMPs.
Furthermore, such guidance can explore different methods of assessment and
particular problems or issues with assessing particular types of measures,
economic sectors, etc., in a way that is not possible in writing law. It can
also facilitate exchange of experience between Member States and link to
options addressed in this IA (such as the peer review option under governance).
However, as noted above, guidance is not binding. This option was strongly
supported in the public consultation.
Therefore, both options are more or less
effective in different ways. Guidance is flexible and quicker to adopt, while a
WFD amendment is binding. Finally, although the two options are presented as
alternatives, they could be taken forward sequentially – guidance at an early
stage to help Member States, followed by a regulatory change if improvements in
assessment of measures is not forthcoming in the next round of RBMPs.
5.12.      Knowledge
base
The options all aim to improve the
knowledge base and tools and strategies to do so, specifically targeting
improved data management, data access, sharing, harmonization, interoperability
and seamless integration of data and services. A substantial share of the
effort is related to geographical or spatial data. 
Regarding effectiveness, all the options
contribute positively, but indirectly, to fostering integration of water into
sector policies by providing better information, in particular on water
quantity. The effects are expected to be strongest for option 12b, which
provides significant new data on an EU wide basis. 
More efficient governance would be achieved
by addressing the gaps in reporting. A decentralized shared water knowledge
system (12a2) is expected to be particularly effective as a consequence of the
better ownership and tailoring of the data and tools by local/regional policy
makers. Both options are expected to have a positive impact on efficiency. This
is expected to be strongest for option 12a1, as a shared centralised system
will provide comparable outputs without the need for extensive coordination. 
All of the options were strongly supported
in the public consultation, including the need for regulatory amendment (option
12b).
6.           Identifying the
Preferred
Options
Package and its Impacts
For each issue, on the assessment performed
in the previous section, it is possible to select the best option(s), the
combination of which will form the selected package to be considered for the
Blueprint Communication. This takes on board also the possible synergies and
trade-offs between options.
6.1.        Proposed
package
In order to further the implementation
of economic instruments, the following preferred options will be taken forward
in the Blueprint:
·                        
Water pricing is
a key instrument for efficient water management. While further action on
pricing itself is not needed beyond enforcing current legislation (Art 9 WFD),
there is a need to address water rights allocation. Water rights' trading is
one means to achieve this and the proposed option is to explore this measure in
more detail through the development of guidance on this issue which Member
States could use if they consider such a measure appropriate to their water
management circumstances.
·                        
On metering, there would be benefits to
clarifying metering obligations by WFD amendment. However, this option cannot
be progressed at this stage due to the fact an amendment of the WFD is only
considered for the 2019 legally required review. Therefore, it is appropriate
in the Blueprint to refer to the possibility for the Commission to foster
metering take up through the enforcement of article 9 of the WFD and through
the enhanced use of GMES mapping to support Member States in monitoring water
abstraction at catchment level.
·                        
Globally traded products contain embedded water and it is appropriate for the Blueprint to
seek to reduce the impact that such products have on water resources (inside
and outside the EU). A regulatory approach is not appropriate (not least due to
methodological limitations). Therefore, the preferred option is to support voluntary
labelling initiatives that help consumers and businesses understand the issue
of embedded water and its consequences and incentivise sustainable behaviours. 
In order to enhance integration of water
measures into other policies, the following preferred options will be taken
forward in the Blueprint:
·                        
Wider use of natural water retention measures
(NWRM) is critically important in delivering a wide range of water objectives
(with a number of additional benefits). Due to the above mentioned obstacles to
the revision of the WFD and the MFF at this stage, the preferred option is to
develop guidance on the assessment and application of NWRMs. This guidance can
fully explore different types of NWRMs for different water objectives in the
widely divergent water management contexts across the EU.
·                        
On buildings, the support study[47], including public
consultation, concluded that the appropriate EU level intervention on this
issue is for the Commission to develop guidance to support improved water
efficiency techniques and standards for different types of buildings,
appropriate to different water scarce catchment contexts. Other interventions
are not justified. Therefore, this guidance option could be taken up in the
Blueprint. On water using appliances, the study found that an EU level
intervention on the standards for water efficiency of appliances would be a simple
and effective approach also in view of internal market considerations. The
preferred option is to take this forward within the context of the Ecodesign
Directive which already provides the basis for establishing standards for the
environmental performance of products. The final list of the priority product
groups to be included in the Ecodesign Working Plan 2012-2014 is currently subject
to inter-service discussions.
·                        
With regard to the efficiency of water
distribution systems, there is a need to assess the sustainable economic
levels of leakage (SELL) as a pre-requisite for effective and efficient
spending on leakage control. This will be taken forward in the Blueprint by the
Commission working with Member States, the water industry and others to develop
guidance and a tool to assess SELL which utilities and others can use for more
effective decision making.
·                        
Regarding water re-use there is a need to
ensure the effective operation of the internal market to support investment and
use of re-used water. The assessment, including stakeholder consultation, found
that this can only be achieved through the development of new regulatory
standards at EU level. Therefore, the preferred option is for the Commission to
pursue appropriate health/environment protection standards for re-use of water
and, subsequently, to propose a new Regulation containing these subject to a
specifi impact assessment.
·                        
For the issues of NWRMs, water distribution
system efficiency and water re-use, there are major challenges for the
financing of new initiatives (or of maintenance). Therefore, a further
preferred option for the Blueprint is to ensure that EU funds (Cohesion, Rural
Development and EIB loans), where appropriate, prioritise (along with other
water and environmental objectives) spending in these areas consistently with the
objectives of EU water law and policy and with the respective programming
processes of the funds concerned.
In order to improve governance including
transboundary and quantitative water management, the following preferred
options will be considered for the Blueprint:
·                        
The need to improve the effectiveness of
water management bodies was highlighted above. Options to amend the WFD in
this regard are premature at this time. However, there are benefits and support
for the creation of a peer review process for water management bodies,
facilitating the sharing of experience and discussion of problems between
Member States. Therefore, this option can be taken forward in the Blueprint.
·                        
Effective water management (and in particular
implementation of the WFD) is impeded by lack of quantitative assessment of
water accounts and ecological flows and, furthermore, lack of target
setting for water uses based on such accounts and targets. Due to the current
data gaps and the diversity of the situations across basins, a regulatory approach
is not appropriate at this stage. Therefore, the preferred option is for the
Commission to continue in developing an EU-wide water accounting tool and
hydro-economic model with the support of Member States and to develop guidance
on the use of water accounts, on setting ecological flows and establishing
targets for water uses.
·                        
Regarding droughts, the preferred option
is to encourage Member States to better integrate drought risk management and
climate change aspects in their future RBMPs. This can be done by providing
feedback through the Commission assessment of the RBMPs since Member States are
already required to address drought risks under the WFD.
In order to support an improved knowledge
base for water management and policy making, the following preferred
options can be taken forward in the Blueprint:
·                        
The assessment of the costs and benefits of
measures (and inaction) in programmes of measures in a transparent way is
needed to ensure cost-effectiveness of action and the appropriate level of
ambition to deliver WFD benefits. As amending the WFD is not currently
appropriate, the preferred option is to develop guidance for Member States in
understanding the costs and benefits of measures and how these can be assessed
in order to improve the quality of RBMPs.
·                        
To support the development and dissemination
of knowledge, the IA has demonstrated the need for three options to be
taken forward. Harmonising reporting requirements in EU water law would reduce
administrative burdens and enhance the utility of the data. Therefore, an
appropriate legal amendment could be proposed. The Commission will also work
with Member States to develop a fully inter-operable information-sharing system
with a strong "centralised" EU-wide component to allow for more rapid
and useable data sharing. 
On the basis of the above assessment, it
appears clearly that for most of the issues, the most appropriate options are
under the "guidance" approach. The "regulation" approach is
selected only for 3 issues (appliances, water re-use and dissemination). The
option proposed under the approach "priority" is selected, while the
current policy context, in particular with respect to the implementation of WFD
and the Multi Annual Financial Framework, leads to postponing most of the
policy options under “regulation” and “conditionality” approaches to a later
stage.
It shall be stressed that the elements that
would entail legislative changes will not be proposed together with the
Blueprint but will be the subject of further analysis and would only be
proposed on the basis of an instrument-specific impact assessment.
The table below provides an overview of the
envisaged options package
   || Approaches 
 specific objective || a) Voluntary || b) Regulation || c) Conditionality || d) Priority in funding 
 1 pricing || Guidance for trading schemes || n/a || Inclusion in cross compliance CAP Pillar I || n/a 
 2metering || Use of GMES || Amendment WFD on Art 11 Amendment WFD on metering || Inclusion in cross compliance CAP Pillar I || n/a 
 3 labelling globally traded goods || Voluntary labelling || Mandatory labelling || n/a || n/a 
 4 NWRM || CIS Guidance || Amendment WFD || Under CSF implementing rules || Under CSF & EIB loans 
 5.1 Appliances/Water related products || Voluntary labelling || Mandatory labelling Inclusion in Ecodesign work programme[48] || n/a || n/a 
 5.2 Buildings || Voluntary rating || Mandatory rating Minimum requirements Directive || n/a || n/a 
 6 Leakages || Guidance || n/a || n/a || Under CSF & EIB loans 
 7 Water reuse || CIS Guidance CEN standard || Regulation || n/a || Under CSF & EIB loans 
 8 Governance || Peer review || Amendment WFD on legal status plans Amendment WFD on mediation role Amendment SEA Directive || n/a || n/a 
 9 Target setting || CIS guidance on water accounts & e-flows CIS guidance on target setting || Amendment WFD on water accounts & e-flows Amendment WFD on target setting || n/a || n/a 
 10 Droughts planning || Recommendation || Amendment WFD Droughts Directive || n/a || n/a 
 11 Costs and benefits || CIS Guidance || Amendment WFD || n/a || n/a 
 12 Knowledge dissemination || Further development WISE || Review reporting & statistic legal requirements || n/a || n/a 
The following sections provide an
assessment of the impacts of the proposed package, in terms of effectiveness,
efficiency, coherence, and environmental, economic and social impacts. As
mentioned above, the proposed package is a toolkit, therefore costs and
benefits depend very much on Member States choices for the measures and support
instruments to be implemented in the forthcoming river basin management plans.
6.2.        Assessment
of the effectiveness of the proposed package
6.2.1.     Objective
1: Increase the use of economic instruments 
The proposed guidance and tools would explore
the interaction with specific economic instruments and how to integrate these
in River Basin, Floods and Droughts Management Plans. They would provide
information to support increased use of economic instruments. However, the
proposed package is not binding and the further uptake of such instruments is
not guaranteed.
6.2.2.     Objective
2: Foster integration of water into sectoral policies
The package proposed promotes wider
integration of water into sectoral policies through guidelines, improved
planning and target setting tools that cover various aspects of sectoral
integration. The implementation would take relatively limited time (e.g. the
CIS process takes approx. 2 years). It will enable water management concerns to
be better taken into account in the project selection applicable for CAP and
Cohesion Policy funding. Thereby, the option fosters water saving/quality by
influencing behaviour in several sectors (e.g. agriculture, regional
development). 
However, there is no guarantee that
measures will be implemented, as implementation remains voluntary. Uptake is
expected to come mainly from Member States/River Basins. Suboptimal outcomes
may be expected in case of divergent or incompatible interpretations leading to
failure to achieve a common EU approach but in any event the option should
increase harmonisation beyond baseline.
A delay in the final adoption of or
fundamental changes to the Commission proposal for new Regulations on the CAP
and Cohesion & Structural Funds could be a barrier as the proposed package
would need to be taken forward as soon as possible.
6.2.3.     Objective
3: Achieve a more efficient water governance 
The guidance included in the proposed
package, e.g. on water trading and on water balances/targets, would address the
efficiency of governance in water resources planning leading to increased
transparency and more effective decision making. In particular, peer reviews would
specifically address efficiency issues and make recommendations for change. The
improved information platforms and information provision at EU level would
improve the efficiency of water governance at EU, national and river basin
level. However, the degree of increased efficiency will depend on uptake levels.
Unnecessary burdens from existing reporting
requirements in EU water law would be removed.
6.2.4.     Objective
4: Improve knowledge and tools 
The proposed package includes a wide range
of guidance and new tools to address the most pressing needs facing water
managers at different governance levels. Information on water balances and ecological
flows would close major knowledge gaps for water managers. Improved information
platforms and information provision at EU level would provide greater access to
more timely and interoperable data to deliver more effective water management
decisions and policy development at EU, national and river basin levels.
Moreover, the assessment of impact on water resources to be provided for
funding application (e.g. under RD or CF) would improve the knowledge base of
the potential applicants.
6.3.        Assessment
of efficiency, coherence and acceptability
6.3.1.     Efficiency
The proposed package improves efficiency of
EU water policy by filling the knowledge gaps, improving governance and
focusing reporting requirements to decrease admininstrative burden. It leaves
flexibility to tailor instruments to situations where cost-effectiveness is
high. 
6.3.2.     Coherence
The guidance included in the proposed
package would foster a uniform approach e.g. on ecological flow or target
setting and improve coherence in the implementation of water law by the Member
States. However uptake is voluntary. Improved information platforms can also aid
practical coherence of decision making. Amendments that could be proposed to
water law reporting requirements would overcome the existing coherence
problems. The proposed package would increase coherence between relevant EU policies
(in particular CAP, Structuraal & Cohesion Policy and Energy). 
6.3.3.     Acceptability
As shown by the results of the stakholder
consultation (Section 5 and Annex 3), the acceptability of the proposed package
is high for many measures, such as the tools and improved information systems
to support water management, the measure to reduce administrative burden and
the proposed regulation on water re-use. There is also strong support to the
provision of financial support from EU sources, although the focus should be on
measures delivering multiple benefits (climate change adaptation, energy
efficiency, biodiversity, etc.) to ensure support and avoid competition for
funding.
6.4.        Environmental,
economic and social impacts
In addition to the qualitative assessment
of the effectiveness of the policy options in the
proposed package against specific objectives performed above, it is important to
also consider the effectiveness of the proposed package against the general
objectives, namely status of EU waters, water stress and vulnerability to
extreme events. This should allow identifying direct and indirect economic,
social and environmental impacts of the preferred options package, althought as
mentioned above, a detailed assessment is not relevant at this stage.
The modelling work undertaken by the JRC
for the Blueprint (JRC, 2012), together with the assessment of individual
measures performed in Annex 2, provide elements for the assessment of the
economic, environmental and social impacts of the implementation at EU level of
the different categories of measures. This section of the impact assessment provides
examples of the main potential economic, social and environmental impacts
linked with the cost-effective implementation of the measures. The analysis
remains at a macro level, since the actual impacts will develop at the level of
each of the 110 EU river basins or even at sub-catchment level and therefore it
is not practicable to provide an exhaustive analysis.
6.4.1.     Impact
on EU water resources: examples from modelling results
Results of JRC modelling available in the
support study (JRC, 2012) provide indications of the overall effectiveness of groups
of measures in tackling the problems linked with the state of water resources: 
·                        
Although the scale of the assessment does not
allow providing estimates of the impact on the ecological status of water
bodies, the modelling of EU-wide application of the ecosystem protection and
natural water retention measures promoted by the proposed package (N-fixing
winter crops, optimum fertilisation application crop selection and buffer
strips) shows trends in pollutant emissions, restoration of key
hydromorphological features and ecological flows that contribute to a
substantial reduction of pressures on water resources and ecosystems. (e.g. -
55 % of N loads to European seas by 2020 compared with the baseline)
·                        
Results of optimisation modelling for scenarios
including water saving, natural water retention and alternative water supply
measures indicate that the Water Exploitation Index (WEI) can be improved by
several scenario combinations at a net economic benefit. As an example, the WEI
is reduced by 13% in the "France-Atlantic" region, in the most
cost-effective scenario including irrigation efficiency, water reuse, water
savings in households, desalination, leakage reduction and urban greening
measures, with positive side effects on flood prevention and ecological flows
·                        
Natural water retention measures are the subject
of various components of the proposed package including guidance at river basin
and land-user levels to encourage their take up. JRC modelling shows that they
contribute to a cost-effective reduction of flood and drought risk, although
for the former, "grey infrastructure" based approach are still needed
to tackle low probability – high damages scenarios.
For each basin or combination of basins
modelled, a different set of measures is effective depending on the climate,
flow-regime, land-use and socio-economic conditions. 
6.4.2.     Other
environmental impacts
The options on cost-recovery, payments for
ecosystem services, maintenance of ecological flow and NWRMs have a number of
additional positive environmental impacts which are directly related to the
achievement of good water status, including reduction of water stress. The most
relevant are:
·                        
A reduction of pollutant emissions with a
positive impact on the status of coastal and marine waters, decreasing
eutrophication.
·                        
Preservervation of biodiversity and of the
functioning of ecosystems. However, the assessment of measures at river basin
scale needs to take into account potential trade-offs between e.g. water
retention and biodiversity goals.
·                        
Positive impact on soil quality or resources in
the case of ecosystem protection and natural water retention, by increasing
soil moisture and decreasing soil pollution. 
·                        
Ecosystem protection and natural water retention
measures are associated to a decrease in nitrates applications and subsequent
ammonia emissions with a positive impact on air quality and greenhouse gases
emissions. 
The application of water efficiency
measures in agriculture and in domestic consumption will reduce (the risk of)
water stress. Water reuse will also contribute to this objective. However,
planning at river basin level will need to take into account potential negative
impacts (increase salinity, soil contamination with reused water, etc.).
In relation to climate and energy effects,
water efficiency measures (ecodesign, target setting) in domestic consumption
will trigger important energy savings. Natural water retention measures such as
forestation and soil management contribute to net carbon storage and CC
mitigation. Changes in agriculture practices for ecosystem protection and
natural water retention are often associated with a lower dependency on
external nutrients and lower treatment costs for drinking water, decreasing
life-cycle energy consumption. However, increased reuse of water and
desalination are energy intensive processes. At river basin level, the
assessment of the mix of measures should therefore take into account the energy
balance and resulting GHG emissions. 
6.4.3.     Economic
Impacts
The improvement of the state of water
resources will trigger substantial economic benefits in terms of more efficient
allocation of resources, reduction of cross-sectoral externalities (cost of de-pollution)
and provision of ecosystem services and reduction of damages from extreme
events. The implementation of the measures will however have distributive
impacts across sectors and regions.
·                        
Agriculture: Reliable irrigation water supply
decreases the risk of crop failure and consequently income losses. The JRC modelling
shows that most ecosystem protection measures do not entail losses in
production. However, water efficiency and alternative water supply cannot be
introduced without changes in water price structure and level. In general,
therefore, it is extremely difficult to assess the overall potential impact of
increasing water prices in agriculture at the broad EU level. In fact, these
impacts should be better assessed and analysed at river basin level so that all
relevant local and regional circumstances can be taken into account. It can be
however expected that water pricing policies are likely to have strong impact
on the agricultural sectors of Mediterranean countries. In order to avoid these
potentially negative effects and to deliver ecosystem services, payments for
ecosystem services delivered by agriculture and forestry could be considered as
a complement to incentive pricing. Installation of metering in all irrigated EU
land, on the basis of French experience, could cost around 243 M€. (See details
of the calculation in IEEP et al, 2012)
·                        
Some sectors like aquaculture, recreational
fishing, tourism, provision of drinking water, etc. benefit directly from the
improvement in the quality of surface, ground and coastal waters.
·                        
Industrial and domestic water consumption will
be less affected at EU level by changes in water prices, due to the current
level of prices. Water efficiency improvements are associated with energy
savings and would be cost-effective. There is no precise data on the percentage
of the households not subject to water metering in EU, but this is estimated at
11%. Full scale implementation of metering for the whole EU would cost 3080 M€,
and obviously there is a need for a proper assessment at river basin level of
the cost effectiveness of the measure. (See details of calculation in IEEP et
al, 2012)
·                        
Reduction of water stress level and maintaining ecological
flows contributes to decreasing the vulnerability of energy production (both
thermal and hydropower) and inland navigation, although there is a need for a
proper assessment of impacts in the context of river basin management plans
Re-use or efficiency standards included in
the proposed package can trigger technological developments and innovation
which can secure jobs in a certain sector. For alternative water supply and
water reuse the affected sector would be the water sector in particular those
companies developing water re-use technologies. There are some administrative
burden and implementation costs impacts, in particular for SMEs,
linked to the above mentioned standards, which are analysed in detail in IEEP
et al, 2012, although a full estimation will be performed, if and when detailed
rules are agreed, in the context of a further Impact Assessment.
6.4.4.     Social
impacts
Where agricultural activity is secured by
lower water stress (through improved efficiency, increased retention of
precipitations and reuse of water), employment benefits are an important social
impact. 
Technical advances for water efficiency,
water reuse and alternative water supply are important for employment in the
water industry while implementation of ecosystem protection and natural water
retention measures are labour intensive investments that can provide job
opportunities in rural areas.
The implementation of water pricing schemes
in all sectors according to WFD principles and the reduction of pollution at
the source triggered by ecosystem protection measures can lead to a lower
burden on domestic water consumers, in particular low-income households which
are currently charged for water treatment. There are concerns that an increase
in water price could negatively affect low-income population but pricing in
accordance to the WFD needs to take into account social considerations.
Health impacts are relevant in the context
of water reuse, and depend upon the conditions imposed on the treatment and
subsequent use of that water. In this context, the proposed water re-use
regulation is likely to achieve this health protection outcome than the
discarded voluntary instrument.
7.           Monitoring and Evaluation
The implementation and monitoring of the
Blueprint will use the Common Implementation
Strategy[49] (WFD-CIS) as platform. Implementation will
take place in two phases that
correspond to the two forthcoming periods of the CIS:
·                        
In the first phase (2013-2015), the objective will
be to influence the preparation of the next RBMPs, to be submitted by Member
States by end 2015, and to strengthen the knowledge base and tools that will
support the assessment of these plans and the review of the WFD. 
·                        
The second phase (2016-2018) will be dedicated
to the assessment of these plans and the preparation of the review of the WFD
A Blueprint Scoreboard will be developed to
monitor the implementation of the Blueprint proposal and evaluate progress. It
will be discussed every year within the Strategic Coordination Group and Water
Directors.
The CIS could develop the following working
areas, with a further involvement of water resource managers at local level and
of stakeholders:
·                        
Target setting and Planning, including
integration of the current workflows on ecological status, ecological flows and
quantitative management, water allocation mechanisms and targets, including
sectoral targets, to achieve water balance at river basin and water body level
to support integration of quantity and quality management in the WFD
implementation and address water efficiency in an integrated way.
·                        
Implementation of measures, including assessment
of the costs, effectiveness (ecological status, water
stress and vulnerability), impacts and implementation issues of the measures,
continuous feeding to a practical database of measures to be used at EU,
national and local levels.
·                        
Governance, including international transboundary
cooperation, planning, integration of all level (International, national,
regional, local, sectoral), EU policy instrument integration
·                        
Knowledge Base, focusing on the improvement and
accessibility for managers of monitoring, reporting, statistics, research, best
practices an integrated assessment tools, and the development of horizontal
guidance on assessment. 
An in-depth evaluation of the Blueprint process
will coincide with the review of WFD foreseen for 2019 at the latest. 
Annexes are presented in a separate
document
[1]               EEA 2010:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer 
[2]               The Fitness Check report, the assessment of the RBMPs
and the review of the WSD policy are subject to 3 separate reports to be
published at the same time as the Blueprint. 
[3]               The CIS is an informal process that brings together
Water Directors from all Member States and EEA countries as well as a wide range
of stakeholders to discuss and agree ways to improve the WFD implementation,
including by developing guidance documents.
[4]               JRC,
2012. Service contract to support the impact assessment of the Blueprint
to safeguard Europe’s waters - A multi-criteria optimisation of scenarios for
the protection of water resources in Europe and IEEP et al, 2012, Service
contract to support the impact assessment of the Blueprint to safeguard
Europe’s waters - Assessment of policy options for the Blueprint, Studies
for the European Commission, DG Environment,see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/index_en.htm

[5]               To be published by the EEA report together with the
Blueprint. Drafts are available at: http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-eionet-freshwater/library/public-section/2012-state-water-thematic-assessments/

[6]               The quality elements used to assess ecological status
are: 1) biological quality elements; 2) chemical and
physicochemical elements; and 3) hydromorphological quality elements.
The ecological status of a water body is determined by combining assessment results
for biological, chemical and physicochemical quality elements; the quality
element most severely affected by human activity determines the overall
ecological status. For Groundwater, the assessment is focused on the chemical
and quantitative status.
[7]               Where the benefits achieved by the physical
modification of surface water bodies (storage of drinking water, agriculture,
hydropower, navigation, flood protection) cannot be reasonably achieved by
other means that are a significantly better environmental option, Article 4.3
of the WFD allows Member States (MS) to designate the water bodies as Heavily
Modified Water Bodies (HMWB). This is subject to the condition that the
change necessary to bring back the water body to good ecological status would
have a significant adverse effect on a sustainable development activity. An
alternative objective to good ecological status is applied to these water
bodies, namely good ecological potential, which takes into account the
physical modification that is necessary for the use. 
[8]               The Water Exploitation Index is calculated by the JRC
along the lines of the CIS Expert Group Water Scarcity and Drought
recommendations as WEIcns = (abstraction – return flow) / (external inflow +
internal flow). The index is calculated for single entire years (from 1st
October until 1st October) for the entire simulation period, in this case 30
years, and then averaged. A monthly calculation would be technically possible
but requires detailed information and simulation of seasonal water storages,
which is a considerable effort in data acquisition, as is recognized by the
WSDEG.
[9]               Annex 2 provides a more detailed analysis for each
category of water resource management measure
[10]             add reference 
[11]             add reference
[12]             add reference
[13]             Various sources: Kuik 2012, OECD 2008, BIO Intelligence
Service 2011, most recent prices paid to water provider, excludes
self-abstraction.
[14]             RPA and Cranfield University (2011). Assessment of the
efficiency of the water foot printing approach and of the agricultural productions
and foodstuff labelling and certification schemes. Study for the European
Commission, DG Environment.
[15]             See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm
[16]             i.e. costs incurred for the scientific development of
the project and for buying land and implementing land use restrictions, as well
as frequently high opportunity costs
[17]             Bio IS, Study on water performance of buildings, Final Report to the Commission 2009
[18]             ERM et al., Resource and
Economic efficiency of Water Distribution Networks, Final Report to the
Commission 2012
[19]             The total volume of reused
water in Europe accounts for less than 3% of the treated effluent, but this
rate is 100% in Cyprus, 60% in Malta and 12% in Spain. It was estimated that
increasing water reuse for irrigation by 1% could have reduced the economic
impact of drought in the EU by € 1 billion in the next 20 years. Substantial
economic benefits from water reuse will also come from a more cost-efficient
treatment of water and avoided nutrient inputs. (TYPSA, 2012).
[20]             http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/innovationpartnership/index_en.htm
[21]             See EEA Technical report No
4/2012 "Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial
perspective", http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/territorial-cohesion-and-water-management
[22]             ref 2012 communication on WSD
[23]             See Annex A RBMP Assessment.
[24]             source JRC, 2012
[25]             Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel of
Cliamte Change : "Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to
advance climate change adaptation - Summary for Policy makers", IPPC,
2012.
[26]             http://www.unep.org/geo/geo5.asp
[27]             http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/adaptation/index_en.htm
[28]             Ref task 4b Pressures and Measures study
[29]             http://www.ewp.eu/activities/water-stewardship/
[30]             ACTeon et al. (2012). Water Scarcity & Droughts
Policy in the EU - Gap Analysis. Report to the European Commission. Tender
ENV.D.1/SER/2010/0049.
[31]             Ref Pressures & Measures study
[32]             The INSPIRE Directive, when fully implemented in 2019,
will enable data from one Member State to be seamlessly combined with data from
all other States.
[33]             Source:DG Environment based onEU water accounts,see
Annex 1 
[34]             ENV/EPOC/WNEP(2010)
[35]             In 2002, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights adopted its general comment No. 15 on the right to water,
defined as the right of everyone “to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically
accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.”
[36]             WHO (2006). Guidelines for the
Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater, vol.II Wastewater Use in
Agriculture. World Health Organization.
[37]             http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/dw/smallsystems/pubs/625r04108.pdf
[38]             Resource efficient Europe, COM(2011)21 final
[39]             Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe, COM(2011) 571
final
[40]             http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/targets/eu-targets/index_en.htm

[41]             http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/industry_employment/pdf/facts_and_figures.pdf
[42]             Which themselves employ around
3.4 million people, ie around 1.5% of all Europeans in employment, more than in
car manufacturing, chemicals or textiles
[43]             http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/jobs/pdf/jobs.pdf,
p.39
[44]             COM(2011)
244 final
[45]             The inclusion of water using devices is been discussed
in the context of the Ecodesign Directive Work Plan 2012-2014,.
[46]             Through water footprint, life cycle impact or other
methodologies
[47]             Bio
Intelligence and Cranfield University, 2012: Water Performance of Buildings,
Study for the European Commission, DG Environment http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/BIO_WaterPerformanceBuildings.pdf

[48]             The inclusion of water using devices is been discussed
in the context of the Ecodesign Directive Work Plan 2012-2014,.
[49]             http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm