How does EU policy address quantitative water management issues?

Concerns about quantitative water management were not strongly enshrined into the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC at the time it was adopted. After severe drought events across the EU in 2003 and 2004, this topic emerged on the agenda of the Water Directors and the EC Commission released on 18 July 2007 a Communication “Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union” COM(2007) 414. This paper presented a list of policy options (water pricing, risks management plans, fostering water efficient technologies, alternative water supply, knowledge basis, allocation of EU funding, etc.). Annual follow-up reports were produced by the EC Commission on the basis on its own research and information from the Member States (more)

At that time, a important distinction was introduced between 2 concepts having quite similar effects: water scarcity and drought:

• Water scarcity describes a situation originating from a long-term imbalance between the water resources replenishment and demand
• Drought describes a situation originating from a considerable reduction in rainfall over a significant period of time and with a substantial spatial extent.

The table below summarizes some key differences

	Water Scarcity	Drought
Duration	recurrent / permanent	Temporary
Predictability	Mid and long term	Statistical
Causes	Man-made (overuse)	Natural (weather)
Response	Alternative supply Demand reduction	Risks management

In line with the 2007 communication, an expert group on water scarcity and drought was established within the WFD Common implementation Strategy. It produced in 2007 a technical report on drought management plans, which has been used, when appropriate, to complement the WFD river basin management plans. The expert group also pointed out the need for EU indicators for water scarcity and droughts, risk maps and early warning systems. Over the period 2010-12, activities have focused on:

• Designing indicators for water scarcity and for droughts in Europe and testing them in pilot river basin.
• Exchange information on water scarcity and drought issues in the first river basin management plans.
• Contribute to the development of the European Drought Observatory (more) as a tool for assessing, monitoring and forecasting droughts on a continental level in Europe.
• Liaison with FP7 research projects (i.e. XEROCHORE)

The 2007 Communication planned a review of the EU policy on water scarcity and droughts in 2012. This has been integrated in the 2012 EU blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water together with the Commission’s report on the WFD River Basin management Plans and the strategy on climate change adaptation in the water sector. As it specifically concerns the water scarcity and drought issues, the focus is on the policy gap analysis which is aimed at reviewing existing EU policies and assessing the benefits of new instruments. The gap might be of different nature: conceptual (i.e. lack of understanding), information, policy or implementation. The outcomes will be unveiled in November 2012 at the Conference that the Cyprus Presidency of the EU Council is organizing.

In line of recent EEA report “towards efficient use of water resources in Europe” and the draft gap analysis of WS&D strategy (as represented at the 3^rd European water Conference), here are the main options currently under discussion:

• Agriculture and integration of WFD River Basin Management Plans into the cross compliance schemes
• Environmental flows as a minimum flow to maintain in river in order to protect ecosystems.
• Water accounts but it is quite unlikely that the EU would go for any water rights allocation scheme as it exist in Australia
• Promotion of water reuse but it is unclear whether there will be any EU standards on recycled standards. This will depend on the purposed use and will probably be decided at national or regional levels.
• Efficiency targets for water distribution networks and for buildings (toilet flushing, showerheads)
• Research and development of model tools

The above forms a complex web of interactions as illustrated by the chart below. In order to make it work, a lot of efforts are still needed in order to fully implement the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC and its daughter Directive 2006/118/EC  on groundwater

In the meantime, model projections have brought up further evidences on the importance of this water scarcity for Europe due to resources overuse and climate change impacts. At present, 26 rivers basins across Europe are estimated to be water scarce during the whole year and 43 during summer time only. In a business-as-usual- scenario, 47 rivers basins across Europe will be water scarce by 2030 and 63 during summer time only. At that stage, the impact will affect the whole European territory.

Water pollution by hazardous chemicals

Directive 76/464/EEC was adopted in 1976 to regulate the discharge of hazardous chemicals into the aquatic environment. These substances were defined as

• Toxic to living organisms
• Persistent (meaning not quickly degradable)
• Liable to bioaccumulation

From the origin, a distinction was made between substances whose discharges must be phased out (list 1) and those whose discharge must be reduced (list 2). . At that time Member States were given the possible to chose for an approach based on emission limit values applicable to the discharged water or a approach based on quality objectives applicable the recipient waters. Despite of all these good intentions, little progress were made: on the 132 substances that were identified as being of concerns, only 17 substances were regulated as list 1 substances under the framework set by Directive 76/464/EEC (more).

In fact, the regulation of hazardous substances to the aquatic environment has proved to be very complex as several issues are strongly interactions:

• Classification of the hazardous substances
• Emissions control (point sources: best available techniques and diffuse sources: best environmental practices)
• Environmental quality standards -EQS
• Monitoring (water, sediments, biota)
• Measurement (i.e. analytic methods)

The adoption of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC  (WFD) has engaged a slow transition to a new management framework. List I substances are now named priority hazardous substances and List II substances priority substances. The WFD has made mandatory to implement a combined approach between emission limit values and quality and quality objectives. A comprehensive monitoring network has been developed and is coordinated within transnational basin (this is often the case across Europe). The “Quality Analysis / Quality Control” are ruled by the Commission Directive 2009/90/EC. Additional prescriptions were put forwards by WFD daughter Directive 2008/105/EC on EQS:

• EGS for 33 priority substances and 8 other pollutants;
• The mixing zones concept (i.e. zones adjacent to discharge points where EQS might be exceeded)
• the inventory by Member States of zones of emissions, discharges and losses or priority substances

For the sake of consistency, emission controls aspects were finally integrated into other sectoral Directives:

• Directive 96/61/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control – IPPC (now part of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions
• REACH Regulation EC 1907/2006 on chemicals and their safe use whose data bases are in hands of the European Chemical agency – ECHA.
• Specific pieces of legislation on pesticides and biocides

While intensive works on emission inventory is going on in the WFD Common Implementation Strategy, the EC Commission released on 31 January 2012 a communication COM(2011) 876 that updated the lists of priority substances for the third time since the WFD adoption. It proposes to bring on the list 15 additional priority substances (6 of them designated as priority hazardous substances). It should be noted that 2 of these substances are pharmaceuticals. This happens for the first time. The EC Commission is also proposed a watch list which would organize the monitoring of substances that are not yet listed. This would feed the upcoming risk assessment with appropriate data. .

Here are a few points of attentions for the future:

• Is the position of water utilities comfortable? Is there a conflict between drinking water and waste water services? What’s the impact on sewage sludge disposal ?
• Do the prescriptions for PS emission control (REACH, IED) fit the job? Will they deliver on time for the completion of WFD objectives
• How to deal with ubiquitous pollutants (pollutants that were phased out but are stii present in the aquatic environment because of high persistence) ?
• How to deal with hazardous substances which are not classified?
• Risks assessment and mitigation measures  (i.e. nanos, pharmaceutical)

Water services in Finland: what is it seen as the key challenges 30 years ahead

According to the Eurostat water statistics (link), Finland’s situation is very comfortable: water resources per capita is the highest in EU 27 and connection rates to public water infrastructure are well above the EU average (> 90% for drinking water and > 80% doe waste water), which is excellent considering the sparsely distribution of population

E-water, the electronic journal edited by the European Water Association has published an excellent article on the challenges of Finnish water and wastewater services in the next 20-30 years (link). It resulted from a survey performed at the end of 2008 on the basis of a questionnaire drafted by a panel of for experts representing the utilities, consultants; academics and authorities. Here are the 20 highest priorities

N°	Challenges	Ranking (max:5)
1	Aging infrastructures	4.6
2	Vulnerability & risk assessment	4.4
3	Human resources & know-how	4.2
4	Research	4.0
5	Education & training	4.0
6	Water quality	4.0
7	Technical performance	3.8
8	Utilization of sludge	3.8
9	Efficient wastewater treatment	3.7
10	Tacit knowledge transfer	3.6
11	Transparency & openness of decision-making	3.6
12	Management of social and political relations	3.5
13	Customer satisfaction	3.5
14	Leadership & operation at utilities	3.5
15	Economic efficiency	3.3
16	Energy related issue	3.3
17	Adequacy of water resources	3.2
18	Decentralized water treatment in rural areas	3.2
19	Image of the water sector	3.2
20	Access to services	3.1

• Aging infrastructure: This  is a matter of concern for the underground piping system (150.000 km length in Finland). Plastic pipes, which became intensively used after World War II, have a life span between 30 -40 years (thus around 2.5 of the network should be replaced every year). Situation varies according to the policy of local authorities but generally speaking, there has been a lack of renovation and the backlog has significantly growth. Since previously used materials (casts iron, asbestos-cement, ductile iron) have longer time span, renovation needs may pop up at the same time.

• Risk management: Water infrastructure is of critical importance and thus vulnerable to a range of crisis (climate change, security, etc.). It is thus important to get prepared and to set leaning loops. This approach is also strongly emphasized by the 3^rd edition of WHO guidelines on drinking water (link)

• Human resources: the article reported that 50% of the workforce was born before 1960, and 30% before 1970. Utilities will have to cope with massive retirement wave while, at the same time, it fails to attract young professionals because of the poor image of the sector. In this context knowledge management is an issue.

The water and energy nexus

There are a lot of investigations going on about potential energy savings and recovery options in the water chain. At first, the goal was to reduce both the carbon and the water footprints. It was a fact that, in the past, additional requirements on (waste) water quality have lead to increased energy consumption. Nowadays, this trend must be reversed because it is totally unsustainable and no more affordable.  City managers are becoming increasing aware of the existing synergies between water and energy utilities, especially if the city is equipped with a district heating system. This will entail a radical paradigm shift together with a lot of technological development.

In this context, Europe’s situation is quite specific as it is locked in using heavy-investment infrastructure with a long depreciation time and low energy efficiency. Ingenuity to adapt the existing assets (most of them being underground) is really the name of the game

This was the topic of the “resourceful water” seminar (more) that was organized on 6 September 2011 at the European Parliament by Dutch water associations, VeWIN and Unie van Waterschapen’ together with Eureau and the Water supply and sanitation Technology Platform. It presented interesting cases about Amsterdam, Hamburg and Copenhagen water works.

In the meantime, many cities across the world and in Europe have committed themselves to get their water works carbon neutral bye the next 15-20 years. This ambition calls for intensive collective intelligence efforts to manage the transition. Developing a set of targets and indicators will be a matter of great attention at the 6^th World Water Forum in Marseille in March 2012 (more).

In order to boost technology development and new management approach, the EC Commission is considering to set up a innovation partnership for the water sector (it would be one of the first). It would be divided into 3 work packages (each of them having 10 large-scale demonstration sites)  :

• Water and cities
• Water and rural areas
• Water and industry

There will be no additional funding earmarked for this partnership. The budget is likely to come from the EC Commission existing programs, Member States and industry. The EC Commission intends to organize  an official consultation in June 2012 and get it to be endorsed by the Council in October 2012 so that it will become operational early 2013.

Water: investing in natural capital

The United Nations Environment Programme – UNEP – presented at the World Water Week in Stockholm on 25 August 2011 a paper on the investment strategies for water as a part of its Green Economy Report.

The paper advocates the benefits of accelerating investment in order to increase the “water productivity”. This is seen as an important requisite not only to achieve the millennium development and bioversity conservation goals but also to enhance  food security and to meet the increasing needs from the energy and industry sectors. These challenges are clearly interconnected.

According to UNEP, with an annual investment of US$ 198 billion on average over the next forty years (around 0.16% of global GDP), the number of people living in a water-stressed region is 4 % less than under business-as-usual scenario by 2030 and up to 7 % less by 2050”.

Funding availability, however, is not the only matter of concern in this context; some other burning issues must also be addressed:

• How to reform the water governance in such way that natural resources will be replenished. Current trends are not sustainable and must be reversed. The concept of ecosystem services is certainly worth to explore.
• How to recover the capital and exploitation costs considering that affordability of water services is a real issue for many countries. Often, the general public is often not fully aware of these assets as they are mostly underground or not prominently sited.
• International trade arrangement and cross-subsidies between different economic sectors must be clarified and ended up when it generates over exploitation of the resources (i.e. agriculture).
• How to plan heavy water infrastructure on the long term considering the many uncertainties affecting the water sector (demographic growth, climate change, ecosystem degradation, etc).

Of course, progress towards a greener economy should supported by an appropriate accounting and resources allocation and system.

The role of regional and local authorities in promoting a sustainable water policy

On June 30, 2011, the Committee of the Regions – CoR – adopted an opinion paper on the role of regional and local authorities in promoting a sustainable water policy. This was done at the request of the Hungarian EU presidency and was supported by a survey finalized in March 2011 on the basis of 49 contributions received from CoR members and stakeholders. This paper addressed some key topics in line with the preparation of the 2012 blueprint:

• The water cycle as the focus of climate change adaptation policies
• A balance between water supply and demand that respects environmental needs and is in line with the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD)
• The management of extreme events, including using new kinds of measure
• The role of regional and local authorities as regards governance and strengthening international cooperation

In this context, the CoR tabled some original suggestions

• Setting out efficiency targets for each water dependent area of activity, to be defined at river-basin level by each Member State;
• Integrating the Commission’s Water Efficiency in Building initiative to be integrated with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, whilst leaving the possibility to target selectively geographical areas with water shortages;
• Adopting legislation to define uniform level of quality across the EU to ensure appropriate recovery and reuse of water resources for each different sector of activity, while taking account the different characteristics of the Member States;
• Setting targets for 2020 similar to those on energy consumption: a 20% increase in water-saving in all sectors; a 20% increase in the number of water courses being renaturalised (i.e. to reduce flood risk) and a 20% increase in the volume of water re-used and/or recycled in farming and industry. To this end, the CoR calls for direct involvement with the Covenant of Mayors.

This paper also highlights some specific concerns of local and regional authorities:

• Subsidiarity: This is a key principle of EU policy. Water management is based on multilevel governance. Local authorities have a key role to adjust local imbalances because they are well aware of local situation and can easily engage local communities in setting targets and improving management practices.
• Investment planning: In most of the cases, local authorities are responsible to organize the drinking water and waste water treatment services and to ensure adequate funding for the infrastructure. The reshape of the EU regional policy via the next financial perspective (2014-2020) is a matter of great attention in this context. It is still not clear on whether water services should be considered as a service of general interest or as a service of general economic interest. In the latter case, it would be then subjected to internal market and competition rules.
• Pricing policy: WFD article 10 requires costs from water services to be recovered and adequate contribution from other water uses (hydropower, inland navigation, etc. ) to be gathered by 2010. The CoR called for a clear water pricing policy taking into account differences in geography and climate together social and environmental aspects.

The future of EU water activities in the field of research and innovation

On 17-18 May 2011 in Brussels, the Water supply and sanitation Technology Platform – WssTP – organized a water stakeholders’ event to discuss how to boost the boost the competitiveness and innovation potential of the European water sector and how to integrate those considerations into the design of future water related programs (see the report).

Here are some key points that were on the table for that day:

• Coordination: under the current programming period (2007-2013), the EC Commission funds water-related activities via many programs that are managed by different DGs (Research, Environment, Research, Information Society, Regio, Enterprise). This certainly reflects the transversal character of water issues but there is a clear risk of duplication and fragmentation. How can this be better coordinated and what will be the role of the future European Innovation Partnership?

• Goal setting: there is a consensus on the need to improve water efficiency. This is both a qualitative and quantitative issue that needs to be understood within the water / energy / food nexus in order to resolve conflicts and foster potential synergies. In this context, the WssTP has already adopted 5 programs for eco-innovation:

- protect water bodies
- build a sustainable city for water
- design innovation processes for resources efficiency
- develop renewable energy from water
- use information technologies for better services

Key recommendations came out of this meeting: some are quite general (i.e. stronger integration of research results to speed up the innovation process) but some also were more specific to the water sector:

• Changing the mindset of the water sector: water services are infrastructures based. Investment requires a long-term vision and sound risk management. This does not favor the transfer of innovative solution to the market. It was proposed to develop a concept for large-scale demonstration site.

• Governance: water services are natural monopolies while water resources are common goods. Main driver is public action. Strong political will is needed to build up a common strategic framework on water that will translate the water efficiency goal into concrete measures. Let’s hope that the adoption of the 2012 blueprint to safeguard EU water will raise awareness and facilitate the acceptance of the changes to be introduced.