COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks
Date: 2015-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: environmental risk prevention, flood, industrial pollution, over-exploitation of resources, pollution from agricultural sources, prevention of pollution, water consumption, water pollution, water protection













EUR-Lex - 52015DC0120 - EN











|



52015DC0120

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks /* COM/2015/0120 final */









1.                      
Introduction
The implementation of the
2000 Water Framework Directive (WFD)[1] relies on Member
States taking a range of cost-effective measures in a transparent and
participatory way. Member States must summarise these measures (included in
their ‘programmes of measures’ or PoMs) in their river basin management plans
(RBMPs), which are updated every six years. In 2012, the Commission published
its assessment of the RBMPs available at that time.[2]
Effective water
management, as required by the WFD, helps Member States prepare for extreme
weather events which, due to climate change, are becoming more frequent and
cause tremendous damages.[3] To complement the WFD, the Floods Directive (FD) was adopted in
2007 and requires Member States to assess and map flood risks and hazards and
to manage them by putting in place flood risk management plans (FRMPs).[4]
Both directives have
reached a crucial point in their implementation. This Communication presents an
evaluation of progress made so far, keeping in mind that that the two
directives are linked and that their implementation should be coordinated. The
evaluation is based on the first reports on specific actions taken by Member
States to implement the measures summarised in their RBMPs. It builds on the
Commission’s assessment of the RBMPs[5] available in 2012
and meets the requirements under Article 18.4 of the WFD, which requires the
Commission to publish in 2015 an interim report on the Member States’
implementation of their PoMs.
The Commission’s
assessment of Member States’ PoMs and its evaluation of their preliminary flood
risk assessments is the basis for the recommendations laid out at the end of
this document. They are presented here in view of the second RBMPs and first
FRMPs to be adopted by Member States by the end of 2015 and currently subject
to public consultations.
Seven Commission Staff
Working Documents accompany this Communication. Two include a more detailed
assessment of progress made in implementing the WFD and the FD to date[6].
The other five include assessments of the RBMPs of Belgium, Greece, Spain,
Portugal and Croatia[7], which had not been adopted yet in 2012.
2.                      
Seizing the opportunities of EU water policy
The WFD and other
water-related directives,[8] have contributed to improving water protection in the EU. In
general, Europeans can safely drink tap water and swim in thousands of coastal
areas, rivers and lakes across the EU. Pollution from urban, industrial and
agricultural sources is subject to regulation.
The 2012 ‘fitness check’
of EU freshwater policy[9] has confirmed that the current water policy framework addresses the
challenges faced by European freshwaters. However, we still have a long way to
go before the quality of all EU waters is good enough, due to decades of
previous degradation and persisting ineffective management: the 2012 Commission
‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s Water Resources’[10] found that about
half of EU surface waters are unlikely to reach a good ecological status in
2015. Moreover, gaps in monitoring the chemical status of surface waters were
so significant that in 2012 the status of over 40 % of water bodies was
unknown and it was impossible to establish a baseline. The picture seems to be
more positive for groundwater, but problems in some basins are still severe.[11] 
As stated in its response to the
first European Citizens’ Initiative on the human right to water,[12]
the Commission will reinforce implementation of its water legislation, building
on the commitments presented in the 7th Environment Action Programme
and the Water Blueprint. The Blueprint proposed a wide range of implementation
tools which have been taken up in the 2013-15 work programme for the WFD’s
common implementation strategy.[13] In addition, since
2012 the Commission has strengthened its dialogue with Member States and has
held extensive bilateral meetings with them to discuss its assessment of their
RBMPs and to agree on specific actions to improve implementation.
The common
implementation strategy and bilateral processes have
helped Member States by clarifying the WFD’s requirements, creating new
implementation tools, and proposing solutions based on previous experience. If
Member States successfully integrate and implement these in the 2015 RBMP
update, further enforcement action should not be required.[14] The Commission will, however, continue to
pursue infringement cases in priority areas,[15]
where the above means prove ineffective in improving implementation.
EU water policy has also
made it possible for the EU to develop a dynamic, world-leading water sector
that includes 9000 active SMEs[16] and provides almost 500 000 full-time equivalent jobs.[17]
It is therefore much more than a response to an
environmental imperative: it is a building block for the EU to spark green and
blue growth and become more resource efficient. For instance, water management
technologies are at the heart of eco-innovation and the Commission has launched
the European innovation partnership (EIP) on water in 2012[18] to facilitate the development of innovative
solutions, which have the potential to contribute to sustainable economic
recovery while adapting to climate change.
3.                      
The Commission’s assessment of the WFD
‘programmes of measures’ (PoMs)
The PoMs consist of
compulsory basic measures, including some taken under a number of directives
that pre-date the WFD and other WFD specific, such as
controls on water abstraction, discharges, diffuse pollution or the physical
alteration of water bodies. In addition, Member States
are required to take supplementary measures if needed to achieve the
environmental objectives.
Figure
1. Simplified illustration of a process to identify and fill in the gap between
business as usual and the 2015 objective of good water status.
The Commission’s
assessment shows that many Member States have planned their measures based on
‘what is in place and/or in the pipeline already’ and ‘what is feasible’,
without considering the current status of water bodies and the pressures
identified in the RBMPs as preventing the achievement of ‘good status’. Instead
of designing the most appropriate and cost-effective measures to ensure that
their water achieves ‘good status’, thus tackling the persisting performance
gap, many Member States have often only estimated how far existing measures
will contribute to the achievement of the WFD’s environmental objectives. This
causes exemptions to be applied too widely and without appropriate
justification. In most cases, when exemptions are applied and the achievement
of ‘good status’ is postponed, it is not clear whether measures are taken to progress
towards the objective, as required by the directive.
The WFD’s environmental
objectives are quantified and linked to a clear timetable. The approach taken
by many Member States – of ‘moving in the right direction’ based (largely) on
business-as-usual scenarios – is clearly not sufficient to achieve the
environmental objectives for most water bodies.
3.1.                
             Water pollution caused by agriculture,
industry and households
Reducing pollution to meet
the objectives of the WFD requires that several other directives and
regulations are correctly implemented first. This includes the Urban Waste
Water Treatment Directive, the Nitrates Directive, the Directive on Sustainable
Use of Pesticides, and the Industrial Emissions Directive, which play a key
role in tackling point source and diffuse pollution and should therefore be
taken into account in RBMPs and PoMs.    
In the agricultural
sector, the last report on the Nitrates Directive[19] points to a slight
improvement in groundwater nitrate pollution while stressing the need for further action to reduce and prevent pollution.  This is
confirmed by the analysis of PoMs reported by the Member States. Despite the fact that 63 % of river
basin districts reported that implementation of the Nitrates Directive is not
enough to tackle diffuse pollution to the level needed to secure WFD
objectives, necessary measures have not been added to
address the remaining shortcomings. Diffuse pollution significantly affects[20]
90 % of river basin districts, 50 % of surface water bodies and 33 %
of groundwater bodies across the EU. The agricultural sector is the primary
source of diffuse pollution. In spite of some progress in relation to declining
mineral fertilisers' consumption[21], there are still
many gaps in the basic measures put in place by Member States to address agricultural pressures,
including a lack of measures to control phosphate and nitrates emissions
outside nitrate vulnerable zones established under the Nitrates Directive.
Supplementary measures reported in agriculture are largely voluntary, including
advice schemes and agri-environment measures of the
Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) such as farm
extensification and organic agriculture.
As concerns households,
implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive has been challenging,
mainly because of the financial and planning aspects related to major
infrastructure investment in sewerage systems and treatment facilities.
Implementation is advanced in the EU-15[22], with several
Member States close to full compliance. For most of the EU-13, however, the
transitional periods negotiated in the accession treaties are coming to an end
and most countries are still far away from full compliance, in spite of
significant work carried out in the past decade. The main challenges for the EU-15
relate to maintaining and renewing sewerage collection and treatment systems,
while the newer Member States need to continue their work on setting up the
minimum required infrastructure. Furthermore, sewer overflows[23]
remain one of the main pollution sources in urban areas, requiring significant
investment in the coming years across the EU. In order to increase compliance
rates, Member States were asked to submit detailed implementation programmes in
2014, including investment planning for infrastructure. The Commission is
currently analysing these.
Pollution caused by industrial activities can be particularly significant for
certain pollutants and water bodies. The Industrial Emissions Directive
provides for the main ways of tackling this, notably through the requirement
for operators of industrial installations to apply the ‘best available
techniques’ to ensure a high level of protection of the environment as a whole
(i.e. water, air and land quality). The national authorities responsible ensure
that emission limit values in industrial emissions permits are in line with
‘best available techniques’ and take into account relevant water objectives.
Although this does happen to some extent, the PoMs show that it is not done
systematically or if it is done, it is not reported.[24]
Most Member States have
begun work on their inventories of emissions of priority substances, as
required by the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) Directive. They are using
this work and their analyses of pressures and impacts to identify sources of
pollution. The proportion of water bodies identified as being affected by point
or diffuse sources varies significantly between Member States. For the
inventory, most Member States are not yet quantifying diffuse emissions
originating from a variety of sources. The number of pollutants identified by
Member States as being of national concern[25] also varies
significantly. Consequently, most of the measures identified by Member States
in relation to chemical pollution are too general, with unquantified outcomes,
rather than substance- or source-specific.
3.2.                
Using too much water: over-abstraction
The abstraction of water
beyond the renewing capacity of nature puts major pressure on EU surface and
groundwater, especially due to irrigation in Mediterranean and Black Sea
countries, but also because of urbanisation and other economic activities in
different parts of the EU. Excessive abstraction significantly affects 10 %
of surface water bodies and 20 % of groundwater bodies. Where there is
already over-abstraction in river basins subject to intense water use, the WFD
requires Member States to put in place measures that restore the long-term
sustainability of abstraction such as revision of permits or better
enforcement. However, the first PoMs showed that this problem is inadequately
addressed, as exemptions have been used extensively in the affected water
bodies, often without proper justification.
The first RBMPs also
showed that most Member States have not addressed the water needs of nature,
which they are required to do if the WFD environmental objectives are to be
achieved. They often considered only the minimum flows to be maintained in
summer periods, without taking into account the different factors[26]
that are critical for ecosystems to thrive and to deliver their full benefits.
This means that the measures implemented do not guarantee the achievement of
‘good status’ in many water bodies affected by significant abstractions or flow
regulation (e.g. for irrigation, hydropower, drinking water supply,
navigation). At the same time, however, Member States have actively supported
the development of a common understanding of ecological flows and how to better
consider them when implementing the WFD. This has resulted in a guidance
document that Member States should start implementing in 2015.[27]
The WFD’s common implementation strategy has also made it possible to share
good practices in using water balances that include environmental needs to
ensure that allocation of water is sustainable,[28] and in using remote
sensing technology to support inspections and follow up illegal abstractions.[29] 
3.3.                
Changing the flow and
physical shape of water bodies
Changes to the flow and
physical shape (the ‘hydromorphology’) of water bodies are among the main
factors preventing the achievement of good water status but, in general, the
first PoMs propose insufficient actions to counter this. The changes are most
often due to the development of grey infrastructure, such as land drainage
channels, dams for irrigation or hydropower, impoundments to facilitate
navigation, embankments or dykes for flood protection, etc. Some measures to
redress this have been defined in almost all RBMPs, but they are often very
general, there is no prioritisation and measures bear no clear link with the existing
pressures or expected effects. Moreover, some Member States have not developed
water status assessment methods that are sensitive to hydromorphological
changes, and this limits their ability to tackle the issue effectively.
4.                      
The link with the Floods Directive (FD)
It is widely recognised
that large parts of Europe will be confronted with an increase
in the occurrence and frequency of flood events due to climate change. In 2007,
the FD created a pan-European framework that can
support Member States in identifying, evaluating and addressing flood risk.
As is generally the case
in risk management, the FD is implemented in iterative cycles. At the end of
each six-year cycle, flood risk management plans (FRMPs) are prepared. The
first set of plans is due by the end of 2015 and should be coordinated with the
RBMPs[30] under
the WFD in order to exploit synergies between the instruments. Natural water
retention measures[31] are an
example of measures that can contribute simultaneously to the achievement of
objectives under the WFD and the FD by strengthening and preserving the natural
retention and storage capacity of aquifers, soils and ecosystems. Measures such
as the reconnection of the floodplain to the river,
re-meandering, and the restoration of wetlands can reduce or delay the arrival of flood peaks downstream while improving water quality and availability, preserving habitats
and increasing resilience to climate change.
The first steps in the
risk management process established by the FD was the preparation of
preliminary flood risk assessments by the end of 2011 and the identification of
areas of potential significant flood risks, which enabled Member States to
focus implementation on areas where this risk is significant. Preliminary
assessments were largely based on available information about past significant
floods and on forecasts of potential significant future floods.
Most Member States have
developed new preliminary flood risk assessments while others have relied on
existing assessments or on a mix of new and existing ones. Fluvial is by far
the most common reported source of flooding in the EU, followed by pluvial and
sea water. The most commonly reported consequences are economic, followed by
those for human health.[32] Criteria for defining significant floods and methods for
quantifying impacts are diverse; and in some cases not thoroughly detailed. 
Only one third of Member
States explicitly considered long-term developments (climate and socio-economic
changes) in their assessment of flood risk. This is surprising as flood losses in Europe have increased substantially in recent decades,
primarily due to socio-economic factors such as increasing wealth located in
flood-prone areas, and due to a changing climate.
The second step in the
FD’s risk management process was the production of flood hazard maps and flood
risk maps for the areas identified as areas of potential significant flood
risks by the end of 2013. The Commission is currently assessing the information
reported by Member States.[33]
In spite of the
above-mentioned gaps, for the first time all Member
States are concurrently taking action, under the same framework, to prevent or
reduce social, economic and environmental damage from flood risk. In addition, the FD has served as a strong incentive for them to
focus on prevention and awareness, in addition to protection.[34]
The flood hazard maps and flood risk maps should now direct decision makers and
authorities towards measures aimed at reducing flood risks in an effective and
sustainable way for water and society. 
5.                      
How to do it: investment opportunities and
pricing water to reduce inefficiency
The need for better
implementation and increased integration of water policy objectives into other
policy areas, including funding policies such as the CAP and the European
structural and investment funds, is acknowledged. The results of the 2007-13
financing period show that Member States’ have not exploited to the full extent
EU funding possibilities to support objectives under the WFD[35]
notwithstanding some good examples[36]. For instance,
Article 38 of the former Rural Development Regulation[37], which could be
relied upon to finance measures resulting from the WFD, has hardly been used.[38]
Funds available to construct urban wastewater treatment plants have in some
cases not been absorbed or
their allocation delayed, partly due to lack of appropriate planning. The
Commission required Member States in 2014 to submit implementation programmes,
including detailed investment planning, under art 17 of the Urban Waste Water
Treatment Directive  and will closely monitor their implementation. More
generally, the PoMs do not always seize EU funding opportunities to contribute
to the objectives of the RBMPs.
The PoMs also confirm that
incentives to use water efficiently and transparent water pricing are not
applied across all Member States and all water-using sectors, partly due to the
lack of metering. In order to implement incentive pricing, consumptive uses
should by default be subject to volumetric charges based on real use. This requires
widespread metering, in particular for agriculture in basins where irrigation
is the main water user. Despite some Member States’ significant progress in
adapting water pricing policies to WFD requirements, measures to ensure the
recovery of environmental and resource costs are limited. The lack of cost
recovery, including for environmental, resource and infrastructure costs, only
adds to the bill to be paid by the next generations in those areas which will
face dramatic water scarcity and failing water infrastructure.
To foster the correct
implementation of water pricing, the Common Provisions Regulation[39]
established ex-ante conditionalities for accessing Rural Development and
Cohesion policy funds. In this context, the Commission is carrying out an
assessment of Member States’ water pricing and cost recovery policies and
requires action plans where deficiencies are detected. As recognised in a
recent ruling by the EU Court of Justice,[40] cost recovery — by
pricing or other means — potentially applies to a wide range of water services
which have an impact on water. When a Member State chooses not to apply cost
recovery to a specific water use activity, it needs to clearly explain what
other measures are in place to ensure that WFD objectives are achieved.
6.                      
Conclusions and recommendations
The following conclusions
and recommendations set the scene for how PoMs can: 

 reconcile environmental and economic objectives
     by relying on measures that offer clean water in sufficient quantities for
     nature, people, and industry; 
 ensure the long term sustainability and economic
     viability of EU agriculture and aquaculture; 
 support energy production, sustainable transport
     and tourism development, thereby contributing to a genuinely green growth
     of the EU economy.

The need for a solid
basis for PoMs
Member States need to step
up their efforts to base their PoMs on a sound assessment of pressures and
impacts on the aquatic ecosystem and on a reliable assessment of water status.
Otherwise, if the basis assessment of pressures is flawed, the entire RBMPs
will be ill-founded and there is a risk that Member States will not carry out
their work where it is most needed and in a cost-effective way.
Monitoring should be
maintained and/or improved. In particular, the monitoring of water status
should be improved for surface water, especially as concerns priority
substances. The remaining shortcomings in the methods to assess the ecological
status of water should be urgently addressed in several Member States. The
development of methods sensitive to hydrological and physical alterations of
water bodies is particularly important, and some Member States have done this
already. The resulting increased knowledge base should ensure that measures are
better targeted to achieve WFD objectives.
Gap analysis: what
needs to be done to achieve the objectives?
In order to correctly
design PoMs, Member States need to identify the most cost-effective combination
of measures that are needed to fill in the gap between water’s current status
and ‘good status’. This gap analysis is necessary to understand what needs to
be done to achieve the objectives, how much time it will take and how much it
will cost to whom. In addition, properly justifying exemptions due to technical
unfeasibility or disproportionate costs is possible only based on this
analysis. Moreover, even if exemptions are justified, Member States need to
ensure that measures progress as far as possible towards the objectives.
Adapting water use to
the WFD environmental objectives and enforcing the changes
Existing permits, e.g. for
water abstraction (including water rights), discharge, hydropower, etc., should
be reviewed and, if necessary, updated with a view to ensure their
compatibility with WFD objectives. Some Member States are already doing this,
and the others should follow.
After permits are
reviewed, Member States must ensure that they are respected. This may include
inspections based on a non-compliance risk approach and ensuring adequate
enforcement capacity.
Tackling pollution
Member States need to
strengthen their basic measures to tackle diffuse pollution caused by
agriculture. Despite the fact that there is still a long way to go to achieving
‘good status’ and that the pre-WFD measures are not sufficient in many river
basin districts, many Member States rely only on voluntary measures. While
these can effectively close a fraction of the remaining gap, significant
improvement can only be achieved through the compulsory basic measures.
Member States should
tackle the sources of pollution by fully implementing WFD measures and
water-related legislation, especially the Nitrates Directive, Industrial
Emissions Directive and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. This is much
preferable to using end-of-pipe treatment, for instance to ensure the high
quality of drinking water while avoiding high treatment costs and protecting
the environment. Member States are encouraged to continue extending the
establishment of safeguard zones to protect areas used for the abstraction of
drinking water, in particular as regards surface waters. Moreover, they need to
ensure that their measures target the sources and chemicals that cause water
bodies to fail to achieve ‘good status’.
Tackling quantitative
aspects, including the link to quality
The Commission’s
assessment of the PoMs shows the need to better address the link between
quality and quantity in assessing pressures on the aquatic ecosystems and to
put in place measures that target abstractions and flow regulations.
Water scarcity and
droughts are an increasing problem in many areas of Europe, at least
seasonally, due to climate change. Quantitative problems are progressively
affecting more river basin districts across the EU and Member States need to
take preventive measures to avoid moving into unsustainable levels of
abstraction. Where abstraction levels are already excessive, Member States
should take appropriate measures to restore water use to sustainable levels.
This is particularly important for groundwater, especially in cases where it is
connected to important water-dependent ecosystems, often protected areas, such
as wetlands. Any exemptions must be properly justified in the RBMPs, based on
the conditions set out in the WFD.
Tackling flow and
physical changes to water bodies
Despite the fact that one
third of the EU’s water bodies are significantly affected by flow
(hydrological) regulations and physical (morphological) alterations, many
Member States’ PoMs do not set out clear sets of measures that would address
this situation.
Member States should apply
ecological flows in accordance with the recently adopted CIS guidance and
implement the measures that will protect and/or restore these flows for both
existing and new uses. This requires that Member States develop monitoring and
assessment methods to identify situations where hydrological alterations are
likely to prevent the achievement of good ecological status. However, the most
significant changes can already be identified and addressed with available
tools and measures, and reducing the impact of abstractions and flow
regulations should be prioritised in the next PoMs.
For many water bodies,
physical changes are linked to flow alterations, so ecological flows might not
be sufficient and may need to be coupled with restoration measures if the WFD
objectives are to be achieved.
Using economic
instruments and incentives wisely
Member States should
adjust inadequate pricing of water resources, especially but not only in the
agricultural sector. This is still causing very significant environmental and
economic damage, for instance inefficient use of scarce water resources or
pollution requiring expensive treatment. This reduces their availability for a
range of economic activities thereby eroding the future growth opportunities of
several EU regions. Adequate WFD-compliant pricing based on metering and cost
recovery would lead to water use efficiency reducing unnecessary consumption,
favouring the choice of crops or farming systems that reduce production costs
and improve the economic balance of farms as well as raising funds to ensure
long-term sustainability of infrastructure investments and address wastage due
to leakage.[41]
Coordinating
implementation to reap multiple benefits
For PoMs to be successful,
cooperation is essential at various levels, and should rely on existing
structures that have shown their effectiveness. This applies firstly to river
basin districts, where administrative or national boundaries should not be an
obstacle to the choice of the most cost-effective measures. It also applies to
the implementers of different pieces of environmental legislation as, for
instance, the WFD PoMs are essential to delivering on some of the objectives of
the FD, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive or the EU Biodiversity Strategy
and Habitats Directive.
The harmonised timelines
for the management plans to be developed under the WFD and the FD are a great
opportunity to use the information available on status and pressures together
and to design PoMs that help achieve ‘good status’ while reducing flood risk.
These synergies need to be used to the fullest.
When choosing risk
management measures under the FD, Member States should consider the wide range
of long-term benefits of natural water retention measures. These should also be considered during the assessment of the better environmental options
required under Article 4.7 of the WFD for projects that physically change water
bodies.
Implementation of the FD
so far shows encouraging signs of progress. Considering the directive’s
framework approach, its ultimate success will depend on Member States’ ambition
and sound implementation of their 2015 plans in a measurable way.[42]
The methods used to identify
potential significant future floods and the quantification of potential future
impacts should be improved. Climate and socio-economic changes (e.g. urban
sprawl and soil sealing land use) should be factored more widely as they are
important elements of flood risk management.
The second cycle of RBMPs
also allows for synergies with the development of the first programme of
measures under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This directive and the
WFD are complementary and should be implemented hand-in-hand.
Seizing investment
opportunities
Member States should make
use of the many EU possibilities to financially support the implementation of
the PoMs. These include payments for the adoption of agricultural practices
beneficial for the climate and the environment under the Rural Development
Programmes, financing from the Cohesion policy funds under objectives related
to water and adaptation to climate change, LIFE integrated projects, Horizon
2020 support to innovation in the water sector as well as the deployment of innovative nature-based solutions to
address societal challenges related to water and flood risk management. The
Commission has extensively commented on the partnership agreements, Rural
Development and Operational Programmes proposed by the Member States to
maximise their contribution towards the achievement of WFD objectives, and more
generally their environmental benefits, but the actual use of the funds is the
responsibility of each Member State and Regions.
Similarly, Member States
should use the innovations developed under the European innovation partnerships
on water and on agricultural productivity and sustainability, and connect them
to the challenges of implementing the WFD.
Finally, Member States
could also seize the opportunities offered by the Commission proposed EU
Investment Plan[43], particularly to support the development of water infrastructure.
[1] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field
of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
[2] See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0670.
[3] Under the no-adaptation scenario (i.e. assuming continuation of the
current protection against river floods up to a current 100-year event), EU
damages from the combined effect of climate and socio-economic changes are
projected to rise from EUR 6.9 billion/year to EUR 20.4 billion/year by the
2020s, EUR 45.9 billion/year by the 2050s, and EUR 97.9 billion/year by the
2080s. See Rojas et al. (2013) Climate change and river floods in the European
Union: Socio-economic consequences and the costs and benefits of adaptation, Global
Environmental Change 23, 1737–1751 available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013001416#.
[4] Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks, OJ L 288,
6/11/2007.
[5] See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm#third.
[6] Report on the progress in implementation of the Water Framework
Directive Programmes of Measures; Report on the progress in implementation of
the Floods Directive.
[7] Reports on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive
River Basin Management Plans.
[8] Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and
deterioration, OJ L 372, 27/12/2006; Directive 2008/105/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field
of water policy, OJ L 348, 24/12/2008; Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12
December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources, OJ L 375, 31/12/1991; Council Directive
91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, OJ L 135,
30/05/1991; Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention
and control), OJ L 334, 17/12/2010; Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November
1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, OJ L 330,
5/12/1998; Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality, OJ L 64,
4/3/2006; Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of
marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), OJ L 164,
25/6/2008; Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the
sustainable use of pesticides, OJ L 309, 24/11/2009.
[9] SWD(2012) 393 final.
[10] COM(2012) 673 final.
[11] Given the different situations across European river basins, the EU
average (about 90 % of water bodies are expected
to reach good groundwater quantitative status and 77 % good groundwater
chemical status in 2015) hides significant regional problems. Moreover, the
figures should be interpreted cautiously due to the major gaps and weaknesses
in the groundwater status assessment methods used by some Member States.
[12] COM(2014) 177 final.
[13] The common implementation strategy (CIS) is a cooperative and open
process involving the Commission, Member States and stakeholders. It started in
2001 and aims to facilitate WFD implementation.
[14] The annex to the Report on the progress in implementation of the
Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measures includes specific
recommendations for actions to be carried out by Member States. These reflect
the Commission’s assessment and the results of the bilateral process.
[15] These include the enforcement of deadlines for adopting the RBMPs,
monitoring and assessment, diffuse pollution from agriculture, infrastructure
that is not WFD-compliant, etc. coordinated with the enforcement of the
Nitrates and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directives.
[16] COM(2012) 216 final.
[17] ‘Potential for stimulating sustainable growth in the water industry
sector in the EU and the marine sector — input to the European Semester’, Water
Industry Final REPORT, Acteon — to be published.
[18] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/innovationpartnership/about_en.htm.
[19] COM/2013/0683final.
[20] A water body affected by a significant pressure is at risk of not
achieving ‘good status’ with current measures.
[21]http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_mineral_fertiliser_consumption.
[22] Member States who joined the EU before 1 May 2004. The EU-13 joined
after that date.
[23] Both stormwater and combined (sewage + stormwater) sewer overflows.
[24] Measures to upgrade or improve industrial wastewater treatment
plants are reported as key types of measures in only 29 river basin districts
in eight Member States.
[25] These are either river basin specific
pollutants of surface waters or groundwater pollutants for which Member States
establish threshold values.
[26] E.g. flow magnitude, frequency, duration,
timing and the rate of change of flood events.
[27] See CIS guidance document on ecological flows (eflows) in the
implementation of the WFD, available at https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a.
[28] A CIS guidance document on water balances is expected in spring
2015.
[29] See study on Applying Earth observation to support the detection of
non-authorised water abstractions, available at https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/fe1bf504-5dc4-4e12-a466-37c3a8c3eab4.
[30] See CIS resource document on ‘Links between the Floods Directive
(FD 2007/60/EC) and Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000/60/EC)’ available at https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/b91b99c7-835f-48fe-b0f5-57740b973d4c.
[31] See CIS policy
document on NWRMs at https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/2457165b-3f12-4935-819a-c40324d22ad3.
[32] Roughly 9 out of 10 of the more than 8.000 areas
of potential significant flood risks reported by Member
States are associated with fluvial flooding and most report primarily potential
negative economic consequences.
[33] As of February 2015, 3 Member States have not reported flood hazard
and risk maps.
[34] The area of risk management is a new eligible area within the
2014-20 cohesion policy, so projects dealing with preventing and managing
weather-related risks and natural disasters can be co-financed.
[35] See the Court of Auditors’ Special Report 04/2014,
"Integration of EU water policy objectives with the CAP: partial
success", http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR14_04/SR14_04_EN.pdf.
[36] For instance non-productive investments ex
Article 41 of the Rural Development Regulation (1698/2005) used to improve
the condition of water courses’ banks (e.g. Flanders) and to restore wetlands
(e.g. Denmark).
[37] Council Regulation (EC) No
1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), OJ L 277,  21.10.2005.
[38] For the programming period 2007-2013, water
related measures under Article 38 of the Rural Development Regulation
1698/2005, were activated in 2010, when the PoMs under the WFD became
available. As regards measures under Article 30 of the Rural Development Regulation
1305/2013, the Rural Development Programmes for the period 2014-2020 are for
the large majority not yet approved and it remains to be seen whether water
measures will be included.
[39] Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European
Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional
Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European
Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.
[40] Ruling of 11 September 2014, case C-525/12 Commission v. Germany.
[41] See the Good Practice Document on Leakage at https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/bb786001-ed42-416d-836e-4835481ba508.
[42] The development of disaster loss data recording guidelines in EU
Member States is important for the measurement of
success: http://drr.jrc.ec.europa.eu/LossDataWorkshopOctober2014.
[43] http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/plan/index_en.htm.