COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum requirements for water reuse
Date: 2018-05-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: environmental protection, irrigation, public health, use of water, wastewater, water consumption, water requirements, water resources, water supply, water treatment

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 28.5.2018 SWD(2018) 250 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council  on minimum requirements for water reuse {COM(2018) 337 final} - {SEC(2018) 249 final} - {SWD(2018) 249 final}  
 
 
Impact assessment on a proposal for a legal instrument on minimum requirements for water reuse 

A. Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed? Maximum 11 lines 
Today, one third of the EU territory suffers from water stress all year round, and water scarcity is a concern for 
many EU Member States. According to climate change projections, the problem will  increase across the EU in 
the next decades. Reduced availability negatively impacts upon EU citizens and economic sectors (agriculture, 
tourism, industry, energy and transport). This may affect competitiveness and the Internal Market. As part of an 
integrated  water  management  approach  that  includes  water  savings  and  water  efficiency  measures,  treated 
water from urban waste water treatment plants provides a reliable alternative water supply for various purposes 
such  as  agricultural  irrigation  or  aquifer  recharge.  Water  reuse  in  the  EU  today  is  far  below  its  significant 
potential  even  though  it  has  a  lower  environmental  impact  than  water  transfers  or  desalination  and  can  yield 
environmental, economic and social benefits. The initiative thus seeks to address the overall problem of a too 
limited application of water reuse in order to contribute significantly to alleviating water scarcity in the 
EU.  The  need  for  EU  action  has  been  acknowledged  in  the  Blueprint  (2012)  and  taken  up  in  the  Circular 
Economy Action Plan (2015) and Commission Work Programme. 

What is this initiative expected to achieve? Maximum 8 lines 
The general objective is to contribute to alleviating water scarcity across the EU, in the context of adaptation to 
climate  change,  notably  by  increasing  the  uptake  of  water  reuse  for  agricultural  irrigation  wherever  this  is 
relevant  and  cost-effective  while  ensuring  the  maintenance  of  a  high  level  of  public  health  and  environmental 
protection. More specifically, establishing an enabling framework through a common approach to water reuse in 
agricultural  irrigation  across  the  EU  can  facilitate  a  more  efficient  management  of  scarce  water  resources. 
Setting common minimum requirements is expected to achieve a high level of protection for consumers, workers 
and  any  other  exposed  public  as  well  as  for  the  environment,  in  particular  water  resources  and  dependent 
ecosystems and soils; more indirectly, it is expected to positively impact on public perception.  
What is the value added of action at the EU level? Maximum 7 lines  
EU  Member  States  share  60%  of  EU  river  basins,  making  action  at  EU  level  necessary  to  address  water 
management and pollution. For water reuse, if Member States act alone, the technical barriers and associated 
costs are  unnecessarily  high,  including  for  technology  providers which are  EU-scale  companies.  EU  action  for 
agricultural irrigation is also justified to prevent different national requirements from negatively affecting the level 
playing  field,  causing  obstacles  to  the  internal  market  for  agricultural  products  irrigated  with  reclaimed  water. 
This  need  for  EU  action  was  confirmed  by  the  extensive  public  and  stakeholder  consultations.  For  aquifer 
recharge, EU regulatory action is not found proportionate, due to a strong local dimension. 

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred 
choice or not? Why? Maximum 14 lines  
To address the problem and meet the objectives, the following policy options for agricultural irrigation have been 
considered: (1) a legal instrument ensuring safety of agricultural products with a "one-size-fits-all" approach and 
protection  of  local  public  health  and  of  the  environment,  (2)  a  legal  instrument  ensuring  safety  of  agricultural 
products with a "fit-for-purpose" approach and protection of local public health and of the environment and (3) a 
Guidance  document  on  safety  of  agricultural  products  and  protection  of  local  public  health  and  of  the 
environment.  The  analysis  and  comparison  of  options  concludes  that  the  preferred  option  for  agricultural 
irrigation  is  (2)  as  it  is  able  to  provide  a  higher  volume  of  treated  waste  water  at  lower  cost  than  the  other 
options, thereby ensuring the best result in achieving the overall objective.  
For the choice of legal instrument, the possibilities of a Directive or a Regulation are discussed and both options 
are considered suitable, each with certain advantages and disadvantages. While a Regulation would cater better 
to the enabling nature of the initiative, a Directive may allow for easier flexibility in terms of setting more stringent 
national requirements (while at the same time imposing a transposition burden on all Member States, including 
those where water reuse is not relevant at the present moment). 

Who supports which option? Maximum 7 lines  
The  general  concept  of  water  reuse  is  broadly  supported  by  all  stakeholders  and  the  public.  For  agricultural 
irrigation,  in  particular  Member  States  already  practicing  water  reuse  strongly  support  an  EU  legal  instrument. 
Other Member States are broadly supportive as long as water reuse is not made obligatory. The farming sector 
is also supportive provided flexibility for local conditions and cost efficiency are guaranteed. Private companies 
are the most positive across stakeholders and also see the economic potential. NGOs are generally supportive.  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines  
For agricultural irrigation, an EU legal instrument with a "fit-for-purpose" approach and risk management would 

 
                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
entail  environmental,  economic  and  social  benefits.  In  the  context  of  an  integrated  approach  to  water 
management and climate change adaptation, farmers could benefit from a more secure water supply, including 
during times of droughts when other irrigation sources may not be available. It would in particular contribute to 
alleviating  water  stress  through  an  increased  uptake  of  water  reuse  at  affordable  prices  which  could  reach  a 
magnitude of about 6.6 billion m3 per year as compared to the baseline of 1.7 billion m3. In addition, it would 
create a level playing field for investors and provide certainty for the distribution of the relevant products in the 
internal market, thereby also contributing to increased public confidence in water reuse for irrigation. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines  
For  agricultural  irrigation,  an  EU  legal  instrument  with  a  "fit-for-purpose"  approach  is  expected  to  require 
investments  to  treat  the  available  volumes  of  water  of  EUR  38  /(m3/day)  while  under  a  "one-size-fits-all" 
approach  these  rise  to  EUR  271  /(m3/day).  An  investment  of  less  than  EUR  700  million  would  allow  treating 
more than 6,6 billion m3 yearly below the same cost threshold under the "fit-for-purpose" approach compared to 
an  investment  of  about  EUR  600  million  for  only  about  800  million  m3  yearly  under  the  "one-size-fits-all" 
approach, in both cases with a total cost of reclaimed water below EUR 0.5 /m3.  

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? Maximum 8 lines 
The initiative is expected to have an impact on both technology providers and farming businesses, both of which 
include  SMEs.  It  will  create  new  opportunities  for  water-reuse  oriented  SMEs  such  as  job  creation  and 
deployment  of  innovative  solutions  in  water  reuse  technologies,  innovative  monitoring  systems  and  analytical 
techniques  to  comply  with  new  requirements.  Agricultural  businesses,  including  SMEs,  which  are  the  largest 
consumer  of  freshwater  in  Member  States,  would  benefit  from  secure  access  to  water  resources.  Capital 
investments  to  set  up  irrigation  infrastructure  may  be  an  important  cost.  Microenterprises,  small  and  medium 
sized farmers would not be impacted disproportionately. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? Maximum 4 lines 
The  additional  administrative  burden  will  be  minimal.  Existing  reporting  streams  under  the  Water  Framework 
Directive and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive will mostly be used, only limited additional monitoring and 
reporting  requirements  will  be  developed.  Member  States  will  need  to  set  up  the  necessary  permitting 
procedures. Monitoring requirements on the quality of reclaimed water will be assumed by operators. 

Will there be other significant impacts? Max 6 lines  
The  initiative  will  contribute  to  the  transition  to  a  Circular  Economy  and  the  implementation  of  Sustainable 
Development  Goal  n°  6  on  Clean  Water  and  Sanitation.  In  addition,  it  will  complement  the  ongoing 
modernisation and simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy.  

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed? Maximum 4 lines  
The  draft  legal  instrument  will  include  a  Committee  procedure  to  adapt  the  annexes  (minimum  requirements 
and  key  risk  management  tasks)  to  scientific  progress  as  needed.  It  will  also  include  a  general  review  clause 
(after 6 years).