Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources’ COM(2012) 673 final on the ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) River Basin Management Plans’ COM(2012) 670 final and on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Report on the Review of the European Water Scarcity and Droughts Policy’ COM(2012) 672 final
Date: 2013-07-10
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: drought, use of water, water consumption, water management in agriculture, water protection








C_2013327EN.01009301.xml










12.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 327/93





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources’
COM(2012) 673 final
on the ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) River Basin Management Plans’
COM(2012) 670 final
and on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Report on the Review of the European Water Scarcity and Droughts Policy’
COM(2012) 672 final
2013/C 327/16
Rapporteur: Georges CINGAL

Co-rapporteur: An LE NOUAIL MARLIÈRE

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

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

COM(2012) 673 final.
The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 June 2013.
At its 491st plenary session, held on 10 and 11 2013 (meeting of 10 July), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 128 votes to 101 with 17 abstentions.
1.   Conclusions and recommendations







1.1


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










1.2


The EESC therefore invites the Commission to acknowledge the need to:






—


democratise water management, i.e. to give consumers their rightful place in river basin management bodies,










—


set up a European water inspectorate to ensure that all regions are treated fairly,










—


take account of substances of concern (chemicals, nanoelements, etc.).














1.3


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










1.4


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










1.5


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










1.6


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










1.7


The EESC urges the Commission to use cohesion policy instruments (ERDF, ESF, European territorial cooperation, etc.) to encourage:






—


local authorities to develop tertiary treatment facilities at sewage works,










—


economic stakeholders to take a closer interest in their property's resilience to climate change, by promoting natural mechanisms (soil, vegetation, etc.) to protect water resources, for example using the carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio as a soil quality indicator,










—


the best initiatives (LIFE action plan, etc.).














1.8


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










1.9


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










1.10


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










1.11


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




2.   Background







2.1


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










2.2


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










2.3


On 14 November 2012, the Commission published the "Blueprint Package", comprising:






—


a communication on a blueprint to safeguard Europe's water resources,










—


a report on the review of the European water scarcity and droughts policy,










—


a report on the implementation of the WFD and the river basin management plans.














2.3.1


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










2.3.2


The Commission's proposals are based on a variety of studies, in particular the following European Environment Agency (EEA) publications:






—



Towards efficient use of water resources in Europe, Report No 1/2012, 68 pages,











—



European waters – assessment of status and pressures, Report No 8/2012, 96 pages,











—



European waters – current status and future challenges – a synthesis, 51 pages,











—



Water resources in Europe in the context of vulnerability, Report No 11/2012, 92 pages.















2.3.3


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










2.4


The Water Blueprint sets out a three-tier strategic approach, accompanied by actions in 25 stages:






—


improving implementation of current EU water policy by making full use of the opportunities provided by the current laws,










—


increasing the integration of water policy objectives into other relevant policy areas such as agriculture, fisheries, renewable energy, transport and the Cohesion and Structural Funds,










—


filling the gaps of the current framework, particularly in relation to the tools needed to increase water efficiency.














2.5


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










2.6


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




3.   General comments







3.1


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










3.2


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










3.2.1


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










3.3


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










3.4


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




4.   Specific comments







4.1


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










4.2


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










4.3


To this end, the EESC urges the European Commission to propose legislation establishing access to water and sanitation as a human right as set out by the United Nations, and to promote the provision of water and sanitation as vital public services for all. European law should require governments to provide the population with guaranteed sanitation and sufficient safe drinking water. The EESC recommends that:






—


the European institutions and the Member States should be required to ensure that all residents can exercise their right to water and sanitation,










—


water supply and management of water resources should not be subject solely to "internal market rules", and water services should be exempted from liberalisation and from the scope of the directive on concessions (10),










—


the EU should step up efforts to achieve universal access to water and sanitation within its territory.














4.4


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










4.5


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










4.6


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










4.7


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





Brussels, 10 July 2013.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Henri MALOSSE





(1)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73.

(2)  OJ C 229, 31.7.2012, p. 116-118.

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

(4)  OJ C 248, 25.8.2011, p. 43-48.

(5)  OJ C 229, 31.7.2012, p. 116-118.

(6)  OJ C 44, 15.2.2013, p. 147-152.

(7)  OJ C 168, 20.7.2007, p. 29-33.

(8)  OJ C 161, 6.6.2013, s. 77-81.

(9)  OJ C 44, 15.2.2013, p. 147-152.

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


APPENDIX I
to the Committee opinion
The following counter opinion, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, was rejected during the discussion:
Replace the entire text of the opinion with the following new text:
1.   Conclusions and recommendations







1.1


Water is essential for human life, nature and the economy. It is permanently renewed but it is also finite and cannot be made or replaced with other resources.










1.2


In recent decades, considerable success has been achieved in reducing the discharge of pollutants to Europe's waters, leading to water quality improvements. However, information indicates that more than half of the surface water bodies in Europe are in less than good ecological status or potential and will need additional measures to meet the WFD objective.










1.3


The Blueprint recognises that aquatic environments differ greatly across the EU and therefore it does not propose any "one size fits all" solutions, in line with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality.










1.4


The Committee highly appreciates the extent and quality of work done in the preparatory stage of the Water Blueprint. The document is based on a thorough assessment of experience with water issues from the River Basin Management Plans (RBMP), as well as on information from expert studies.










1.5


All four fundamental principles of environmental legislation have been employed appropriately in order to tackle the multitude of problems and support the humanitarian principle of access to safe drinking water and to basic sanitation services on a global scale.










1.6


The EESC highly appreciates the concept of river basins as the building blocks of the EU water policy, facilitating cooperation among Member States in solving key problems in the most efficient manner.










1.7


Though the EESC considers the Blueprint and all background documents exceptionally well done, it is necessary to pay even greater attention to implementation of the planned actions.










1.8


In the implementation of the existing regulatory measures (strand 1), attention should be paid to the reduction of diffuse sources of pollution. Implementation should be properly incentivised in line with the specific conditions in each river basin.










1.9


Employing the "polluter pays" principle requires appropriate measurements and monitoring to establish a solid basis for any additional actions. Nonetheless, such requirements should be proportional to the locality and the severity of the problems to be solved.










1.10


The Blueprint rightly requires the water accounts to be further developed with the Member States and the EEA. Such accounts will allow river basin managers to calculate how much water can be used, and how much should be set aside to maintain ecosystem functions (ecological flows).










1.11


Illegal abstraction is a serious problem in some water-stressed regions. Studies to test COPERNICUS/GMES data would allow Member States to identify illegal abstraction.










1.12


The Committee highlights the need to coordinate the water agenda with the CAP at this moment of exceptional opportunity when Parliament, the Council and the Commission are setting the agenda for the next seven years. This chance should not be missed.










1.13


Flood protection measures (very topical nowadays in Central Europe) would require coordinated financing, including from structural/cohesion funds. In addition, some of the measures planned (in response to earlier floods) have not been completed because of a variety of administrative hurdles.










1.14


The Committee has already expressed its appreciation of the Innovation Partnerships on Water and on Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability. It should be stressed that these initiatives have developed bottom-up.










1.15


Policy interventions outside the fresh water area can also play a role in strengthening the prevention of water pollution. For instance, legislation on the sustainable use of pesticides, on industrial emissions and pharmaceuticals as well as the REACH Regulation should be coordinated with the WFD.










1.16


Filling gaps in the existing framework rightly focuses on enhancing water use efficiency, including the crucial aspect of increasing the potential for water re-use. First of all, criteria for safe water re-use must be established in order to achieve the desired and expected results.










1.17


Finally, the Committee notes the important aspects of soil and forest management closely related to water issues.










1.18


The EESC warns that there will be obstacles to accomplishing the goals set in the Blueprint. All parties involved throughout the Blueprint process should be aware of the risks involved and, at their level of responsibility, they should do their best to remove as many of them as possible. Civil society should be closely involved in this demanding process by obtaining adequate information, exercising its powers in policy decisions and adapting its behaviour to the water challenges.




2.   Background information - the Commission documents







2.1


Water is essential for human life, nature and the economy. It is permanently renewed but it is also finite and cannot be made or replaced with other resources. Fresh water constitutes only about 2 % of the water on the planet and competing demands may lead to an estimated 40 % global water supply shortage by 2030.










2.2


The documents presented in the package consist of two important reports and a plan of the key actions needed:






—


Report on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) - River Basin Management Plans










—


Report on the Review of the European Water Scarcity and Droughts Policy










—


A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources














2.3


In addition, a multitude of studies is available, showing the multifaceted nature of water problems. As far as can be discerned from the documents submitted, the key issues have been addressed in the Water Blueprint.










2.4


In order to provide clarity and implementation support, 26 guidance documents on various aspects of implementation of the WFD have been developed within the framework of the WFD Common Implementation Strategy (CIS), in an open and participatory process involving a wide group of stakeholders.










2.5


The public consultation considered that the CIS had fully or partially addressed the right issues and that the guidance produced had been useful in the practical implementation of EU water policy. However, on some issues (e.g. cost-benefit analysis, objective setting) further clarity is needed and the usefulness of the guidance would have been greater had it been produced earlier in the implementation timetable.










2.6


The advance made by taking a holistic ecosystems approach to water objectives may still not be sufficient. In the future, it may be necessary to revisit the definition of good status in order to ensure that it is sufficiently ambitious to prevent further deterioration. Furthermore, the importance of protecting ecosystem services is now taken into account to a much greater extent.










2.7


The Fitness Check study has identified the most important problems to be addressed:






—



Water quality: The information reported in the first (2009) RBMP indicates that over half of all surface water bodies in Europe do not meet the criteria for good ecological status. In addition to the measures established under older (Nitrates, Urban Waste Water, Industrial Emissions) Directives, further action will be necessary to meet the WFD objectives.










—



Water scarcity is spreading in Europe. Large areas, particularly in the South of Europe, are affected by water scarcity, while competing uses are increasing demand across the continent. In a number of European regions, water scarcity presents an immediate and long-term threat to ecosystems and water supply for agriculture, industry and domestic users.










—



The frequency and intensity of floods and droughts and their environmental and economic damage appear to have increased over the past thirty years. This can be attributed both to climate change and other anthropogenic pressures (i.e. land use changes). Since 1998, floods in Europe have caused some 700 deaths, the displacement of about half a million people and an (insured) economic cost of at least EUR 25 billion.










—



Other significant pressures on EU waters derive from the discharge of pollutants, hydro-morphological alterations and water abstraction, which are mainly due to demographic growth, land use and economic activities.














2.8


In recent decades, considerable success has been achieved in reducing the discharge of pollutants to Europe's waters, leading to water quality improvements. However, information reported in the first RBMP indicates that more than half of the surface water bodies in Europe are in less than good ecological status or potential, and will need additional measures to meet the WFD objective. The pressures reported to affect most surface water bodies are pollution from diffuse sources causing nutrient enrichment and hydro morphological pressures altering habitats.










2.9


The Blueprint recognises that the aquatic environments differ greatly across the EU and therefore does not propose any "one size fits all" solutions, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. It emphasises key themes which include: improving land use, addressing water pollution, increasing water efficiency and resilience, and improving governance by those involved in managing water resources.










2.10


Numerous specific measures/programmes/actions are presented in the Blueprint to address the outstanding problems on various levels, and they are presented in three strands of work:






—


implementation










—


integration of water policy objectives into other EU policies










—


filling gaps in the existing framework.




The actions have been initiated already, and they are planned to be completed by 2016, except the long-term actions/programmes to be completed by 2021.




3.   General comments







3.1


The Committee highly appreciates the extent and quality of work done in the preparatory stage of the Blueprint. The document is based on a thorough assessment of experience with water issues from the RBMP, as well as on information from expert studies. In addition, it is good to note that water rights have always been an important part of the legal structure in European countries, so that there is long experience in this field.










3.2


All four fundamental principles of environmental legislation have been employed appropriately in order to tackle the multitude of problems and to support the principle of access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation services on a global scale.










3.3


The Blueprint not only formally accepts the great variability of natural conditions with regard to water throughout the EU, but puts forward practical actions focusing on the key specific problems in individual regions/river basins. The EESC highly appreciates the concept of river basins as the building blocks of the EU water policy, facilitating cooperation among Member States in solving the key problems in the most efficient manner.










3.4


The Committee also acknowledges the Fitness Check document, which is one of the first of its kind and provides a valuable assessment of water policy in its own right, as well as in the context of the entire body of legislation in related policy fields.










3.5


Though the EESC considers the Blueprint and all background documents exceptionally well done, it is necessary to pay even greater attention to the implementation of the planned actions. As always, in this case implementation will be difficult, and it must now become the number one priority. All possible political efforts, incentives and system/project management methods should be employed to ensure the ultimate success of this plan.




4.   Specific comments







4.1


In the implementation of the existing regulatory measures (strand 1), attention should be paid to reduction of diffuse sources of pollution by strengthening/reinforcing nitrate action programmes. The reasons for lagging behind should be thoroughly analysed and the required improvements should be properly incentivised in line with the specific conditions in particular river basins.










4.2


The "polluter pays" principle also applies in this case; nevertheless, such an obligation must be well defined and based on realistic assumptions/assessments of the water cycle. The polluter should be obliged to pay for the proven real pollution he is responsible for.










4.3


The efforts to further curb industrial point source pollution are based on the implementation of the Industrial Emissions Directive. The proportionality principle must apply together with the "polluter pays" principle, which is clearly identified in the case of point sources.










4.4


Employing the "polluter pays" principle requires appropriate measurements (volumes) and possibly monitoring (pollutants) to establish a solid basis for any additional actions. Such requirements should be proportionate to the locality and severity of problems to be solved.










4.5


Unfortunately, in many parts of Europe, a full picture of water flows is still not available. The Blueprint rightly requires the development of water accounts with Member States based on the work carried out with the EEA. Such accounts will allow river basin managers to calculate how much water can be used and how much should be set aside to maintain ecosystem function (ecological flows). The Committee strongly recommends that this action be accomplished as soon as possible.










4.6


In many parts of Europe over-abstraction for irrigation makes it impossible to achieve good water status. Illegal abstraction is a serious problem in some water-stressed regions. Studies to test COPERNICUS/GMES data would allow Member States to identify illegal abstraction, and such tasks should provide further justification for GMES as a project of EU-wide importance.










4.7


The Committee considers it important to develop a common methodology for cost-recovery, which allows for comparable results throughout the Union. It would ensure that all water users have adequate incentives to use water efficiently.










4.8


The EESC points to several examples of initiatives and approaches in water stressed areas presented at the public hearing on the subject held the Committee. In addition, a few studies on efficient use of water have been published under the concept of "more crop per drop." The findings of this work could be used for bridging the needs of agriculture and available water resources in water-stressed regions. Again, the proportionality principle should be applied in tackling such sensitive issues.










4.9


Strand 2, the integration of water policy objectives into other EU policies, also requires numerous actions listed in the Blueprint's action plan.










4.10


The Committee highlights the need to coordinate the water agenda with the CAP at this moment of exceptional opportunity when the Parliament, the Council and the Commission are setting the agenda for the next seven years. This chance should not be missed in the following areas:






—


Inclusion of WFD basic measures in cross-compliance










—


Greening of pillar 1, especially in ecological focus areas,










—


Designing rural development programmes to address water issues,










—


Funding in CAP pillar 2 for improved efficient irrigation systems (with environmental conditionality attached, e.g. metering),










—


Encouraging natural water retention measures – floodplains, wetlands or buffer strips along river banks – the key measures needed to restore ecosystem function. Funding under pillar 2, targeting areas of need is critical. The aim should also be to encourage actions under LIFE+, Horizon 2020, etc.














4.11


Flood protection measures (very topical nowadays in Central Europe) would require coordinated financing as well, perhaps from the Structural Funds. In addition, some of the measures planned (in response to earlier floods) have not been completed because of a variety of administrative hurdles. Such emergency issues would require appropriate emergency administrative treatment, too.










4.12


The Committee appreciates the Innovation Partnerships on Water and on Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability. It should be stressed that these initiatives have developed bottom-up in the Member States, with the Commission playing a coordination role. The chances of success are enhanced by this involvement of actors in their respective fields of activity.










4.13


Policy interventions outside the fresh water area may also play a role in the prevention of water pollution. For instance, legislation on the sustainable use of pesticides, and on industrial emissions, pharmaceuticals and the REACH Regulation must be compliant with the planned actions within the Blueprint.










4.14


Strand 3, filling the gaps in the existing framework, rightly focuses on enhancing water-use efficiency, including the crucial aspect of increasing the potential for water re-use. First of all, criteria for safe water re-use must be established in order to achieve the desired and expected results. Water could be re-used naturally in the same/similar facilities, but cascading reclaimed water from one user/facility for re-use by a different user/facility would require proper balancing of both the volumes and the quality needed.










4.15


For instance, closing water circuits totally, even within a single operation, is nearly impossible because of the ever increasing content of inorganic salts in those circuits. Thus, a safe balance must be established to allow processes to operate without disturbance.










4.16


Finally, the Committee draws attention to important aspects of soil and forest management closely related to water issues. As a result of the sometimes conflicting requirements of different policies, forest resources come under serious strain in performing their non-productive services, such as their role as primary natural retention reservoir of fresh water and carbon sink, and in relation to biodiversity conservation, etc. The life cycle analysis should show all aspects and also indicate balanced measures tailored to the roles of forests in the EU.










4.17


Water issues cannot be separated from soil. The Committee calls for appropriate attention to be paid to soil, although we recognise that the soil agenda is subject to subsidiarity. Common features should be addressed in greater detail in the further work on the Blueprint.










4.18


The EESC warns that accomplishing the goals set in the Blueprint will encounter obstacles in the following areas:






—


market failures (loss of revenues, distribution of costs and benefits)










—


lack of financing, harmful subsidies










—


regulation barriers










—


lack of coordination










—


lack of political will










—


integration of water policy objectives into other sectoral policies remains rhetoric.




All parties involved throughout the Blueprint process should be aware of the risks involved and, at their level of responsibility, do their best to remove as many of them as possible. Civil society should be closely involved in this demanding process by obtaining adequate information, exercising its powers in policy decisions and adapting its behaviour to the water challenges.





Result of the vote







For


112




Against


129




Abstentions


12