6.Needs for integrated policy responses

Key messages

• Only eight Member States reported Drought Management Plans (DMPs) as accompanying documents to all or part of their 2^nd

• A key factor contributing to the effectiveness of water directives in progressing towards their objectives are the (binding) cross-references to the WFD’s objectives in other EU policies. However, despite the 20 years of existence of the WFD, few integrated governance frameworks have effectively been implemented.

• Improvements in efficiency should be more transparently documented to promote cross-fertilization and transfer of technology and knowledge. A first instance of this would be to extract lessons from the decoupling trend observed in the manufacturing sector.

• Given the significance of abstraction pressures on European water resources, sectoral policy interventions must not only work in synergy with water policies but also actively support them.

• In those areas where the problems cannot be solved in a sustainable way at their own (local to regional) scale by current water-demand measures, systemic changes are called for (EEA, 2019j; IPBES, 2019).

• Major technological innovations that will contribute to improved drought risk management are expected in the field of earth observation, mobile data collection and data integration.

• Nature- based solutions can contribute to drought risk management by their integrative and stakeholder-driven approach and can thus provide a link towards nexus approaches and systemic change.

6.1.        Synergy of policy initiatives at EU level for resilience to water stress

Mainstreaming water management considerations into other environmental and sectoral policies and finding synergies across them are key to enabling sustainable water management and reducing society’s exposure and vulnerability to water stress. The recent WFD fitness check has highlighted that one of the factors contributing to the effectiveness of water directives in progressing towards their objectives were the (binding) cross-references to the WFD’s objectives in other EU policies (EC, 2019f). However, despite the 20 years of existence of the WFD, few integrated governance frameworks have effectively been implemented (EC, 2019f). Until recently, sectoral policies at EU level have even contributed to increasing pressures on water resources, for instance when promoting agricultural development, industrial growth or development of hydropower without sufficient environmental safeguards (Rouillard et al., 2018; Carvalho et al., 2019; Kampa et al., 2020).

Under the 6^th and 7^th Environmental Action Plan 2014-2020, greater attention was given to align sectoral policy objectives with environmental targets. To tackle threats from water stress, the focus has been on promoting efficient use of water in economic activities. The Resource Efficiency Roadmap 2011, the recent Communication on a New Circular Economy 2020, and many of the initiatives funded under the European Innovation Partnership on Water as well as the Horizon 2020 research programme include technological innovations for increased water efficiency in production systems, as well as waste minimization and recycling strategies. This effectively opened a channel for a more active involvement of the industrial sector in EU environmental research and innovation activities and strengthened Corporate Social Responsibility and Extended Producer Responsibility schemes.

As shown in Chapter 4, manufacturing is the sector where decoupling is the most prominent, and this is reflected in all EU regions. To ensure the continuity of this trend and its replication in other economic activities, it is crucial to learn from these developments. Specifically, in the case of the industrial sector, sharing data on investments in water saving technologies would be fundamental both from the water and the resource efficiency policy perspectives. Improvements in efficiency stemming from implementations at the company-level should be more transparently documented to promote technology/knowledge transfer and cross-fertilization. This requires an adequate reporting architecture that centralizes the knowledge while protecting the strategic interests of private enterprises. Any progress made here could open pathways to increase transparency in other sectors like agriculture, mining and quarrying and establish a benchmark for concrete, integrated action towards systemic change.

One example of this integrated thinking, in a circular economy perspective, is the recent adoption of the Water Reuse Regulation which aims to increase the scale of urban wastewater reuse in agriculture. The EU Regulation sets out to harmonise minimum water quality requirements for safe reuse and groundwater recharge. Currently, very few countries reuse wastewater, except some notable exceptions such as Cyprus which reuses up to 90% of its wastewater (BIO by Deloitte, 2015). Most other references of this practice in the EU remain limited to small-scale experimental projects or local initiatives, which are focused on water reuse for irrigation and managed aquifer recharge. In principle, the total volumes of water that can be reused for irrigation are significant, and may help reduce water stress by up to around 10% in regions where irrigation is an important activity (JRC, 2017). Water reuse also lowers the need of fertilization, because reclaimed water can have a rich nutrient content. The treatment and energy costs for water reuse are rather low, when compared to the costs for infrastructure to bridge the distance from the urban wastewater treatment plants to the irrigated land. The variability of these costs affects the final costs and the attractiveness of reclaimed water to farmers (JRC, 2017). Where water is scarce, the benefit of reuse is to alleviate pressure from agricultural abstraction in surface water and groundwater bodies and from pollution from wastewater discharges. However, to effectively reduce abstraction pressure, reuse will need to act as a substitute for existing abstraction, and not as an additional source of supply for irrigation water (Drewes et al., 2017).  The notion of “getting the economics right” discussed in the context of the Circular Economy Action Plan is fundamental and it is also a shared principle for water policy. Here the example of incentivizing water reuse through pricing policy in Cyprus is again worth a mention. The Mediterranean country is practicing water reuse both for tree cultivations and vegetables and it follows an incentivised water pricing policy to make reclaimed water more appealing to farmers.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, gaps remain in setting pricing strategies that effectively lead to an efficient use of water. The recent evaluation of the 2^nd RBMPs reports that a number of Member States have upgraded their water pricing policies, notably by fulfilling the ex-ante conditionality for water under the Common Provisions Regulation for the European Structural and Investment Funds for the period 2014-2020. Furthermore, increased funding and investments are still necessary to meet the objectives of the WFD (EC, 2019b). Here, the wider exploitation of EU funds should finally be activated and used to leverage private investment employing the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance. This complementary source of the much-needed funding could be used to promote more ambitious planning and implement measures that help correct imbalances in cost bearing, effectively levelling the playing field for different water users (including the environment). However, any future investments must take stock of past experiences.

 Furthermore, increased funding and investments are still necessary to meet the objectives of the WFD (EC, 2019b). Here, the wider exploitation of EU funds may leverage private investment employing the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance. This complementary source of the much-needed finance could be used to promote more ambitious planning and implement measures that help correct imbalances in financing, effectively levelling the playing field for different water users (including the environment). However, any future investments must take stock of past experiences.

The integration of water into agricultural and rural development policies illustrates the difficulty to achieve fully synergistic policy interventions. Under the current Common Agricultural Policy (2014-2020), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development recognised efficient water use a key strategic objective for European agriculture, and Member States could actively support investments to tackle water stress issues on agriculture through their Rural Development Plans. Most RDPs planning measures on agriculture water use did so by supporting investments in irrigation water use efficiency in agriculture. However, few had set out ambitious water saving targets and encourage uptake of more drought-resistant crops. Instead, RDPs tended to support investments in irrigated areas, as a way to reduce the vulnerability of agriculture to water stress, while attaching few safeguards to prevent increasing abstraction pressure on scarce resources (see Box 6.1).

Box 6.1 Managing the rebound effect and Javons paradox in water stress situations

Increasing the efficiency of production is a main goal of European policies, with the overall goal to decouple economic growth from resource use. However, improvements in the efficiency of resource use do not always translate into net savings because producers and consumers adapt their behaviour (Paul et al., 2019). The rebound effect refers to the situation where efficiency gains do not result in associated reduction in resource use. In some cases, the same chain of events results in higher net resource consumption, known as the Jevons’ paradox.

The rebound effect can occur when the efficiency improvements affect consumer’s positive perception of the final product, leading to less restrain in its consumption or in the consumption of other products. It can also occur when efficiency improvements affect economic performance by reducing production costs. This may lead to increased production, reduction in product prices, or when cost saving is used to expand production elsewhere. Psycho-social and economic rebound effects lead to increased demand (Paul et al., 2019).

The rebound effect is well documented on the consumption of a number of resources, such as energy use. In water management, substantial evidence exists in irrigation water use, where the adoption of more water efficient devices is not necessarily accompanied with a reduction in water abstraction (Ward and Pulido-Velazquez, 2008; Dumont et al., 2013; Gómez and Pérez-Blanco, 2014; Berbel et al., 2018). Instead, the saved water is redirected to other beneficial economic uses, for instance higher value but more water consuming crops or an expansion of irrigated land.

The rebound effect can be particularly damaging for groundwater and connected surface water bodies. This is because inefficient irrigation practices have sometimes raised groundwater levels. Investments in irrigation efficiency may lead to a reduction in field water losses, reduced infiltration and percolation and reduced groundwater recharge.

Investments in water efficiency programs should therefore be accompanied by a careful consideration of water balances at farm, aquifer and basin level, including consideration of surface-groundwater exchanges (EC, 2015d). Clear limits to resource use should be established at hydrologically-relevant spatial scale. Policies promoting more efficient use of natural resources should also have a realistic assessment of the possible savings, and the producer and consumer impact of the policy.

Given the significance of agricultural abstraction pressures on European water bodies, it is essential that future agricultural policy interventions do not only work in synergy with water policies but also actively support them. The main funding scheme under the CAP, i.e. the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, is an income support scheme, which has largely contributed to an intensification of agricultural practices in Europe, including of irrigation water use (EEA, 2020 – upcoming EEA W&A report). Recent reforms have reduced negative incentives from CAP payments, although there is still limited support to transition to more sustainable and resilient forms of farming, such as agro-ecology and organic farming (EEA, 2020 – upcoming EEA W&A report). The new CAP programming cycle for 2021-2030 provides fresh opportunity to integrate more ambitious environmental safeguards that acknowledge local water resource limitations and scarcity situations.

Once these safeguards are introduced, it will be important to overcome the known limitations in terms of institutional and technical capacities for monitoring and enforcement. The needs of WFD implementation have provided motivation to water authorities to push water suppliers to improve data collection, organisation and reporting. For example, water utilities and irrigation cooperatives have accelerated the installation of water meters or improved their maintenance and repair (Buchanan et al., 2019). However, opportunities remain. For instance, reported data and statistics frequently lack the necessary accuracy, because of the issue of over-abstraction (including incidents of unauthorised and unregistered abstraction). The challenge is more serious in the agricultural sector and, particularly, in southern Europe (Buchanan et al., 2019). Digitalisation has already become a common denominator for all sectors, but the exploration and validation of its potential applications is at different stages in each of them (e.g. energy being a frontrunner, water following slowly). This should be seen as an opportunity to use the experience of sectors that are well ahead to leapfrog towards meaningful and effective exploitation of digital solutions. For water policy implementation, digital applications could facilitate data collection and information sharing while reducing the administrative burden associated to reporting. Digital water is also seen as an enabler of circular economy models (e.g. turning wastewater treatment plants into “Blue Resource Centres”) and could carry potential to increase participation and mutual learning to identify new and innovative ways to overcome the societal challenges of our era.

The slow transition in agriculture towards sustainable water use is not only linked to the costs and complexities of modifying farm systems, but also in reforming whole production and consumption systems (EC, 2020h). Transformation of agricultural systems to tackle water scarcity issues and become more resilient to droughts requires a transition in supply chains and consumer demand in order to induce the right market signals on farmers (EEA, 2017c). The new Farm-to-Fork Strategy illustrates how the Green Deal aims to support such integrated and systemic thinking and promote more sustainable food systems. Emphasis is given not only on providing the right incentives to producers, but also by leveraging sustainable investments from food system actors (such as cooperatives and supermarkets), reducing waste along the food chain, and changing consumption patterns towards sustainable diets in order to reduce total demand on natural resources, including water (EEA, 2020 – upcoming EEA W&A report).

Such systemic thinking to reduce Europe’s vulnerability to water stress still has to permeate policies of other economic sectors, although some safeguards already exist. For instance, energy security and climate mitigation targets are major EU policy areas which drive substantial levels of investments notably towards renewable energy. However, some renewable sources of energy can increase scarcity issues and vulnerability to droughts, for instance the large-scale adoption of biofuels or hydropower impacting the hydrology and hydromorphological dynamics of surface water bodies (Vanham et al., 2019). The Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable resources recognizes this when it calls for using sustainability criteria when cultivating crops for biofuels. In such cases, Member States will need to ensure that energy policies do not encourage the expansion of irrigation for the production of bioenergy where basins and aquifers are already overexploited. Currently, no Member States place such safeguard. With the renewed and expanded commitments on climate neutrality and 80 % of electricity production from renewable sources by 2050, this gains additional relevance. The classification system for “green” and “sustainable” economic activities of the Sustainable Finance Taxonomy should function as an additional layer of protection.

When developing their RBMPs under the WFD, authorities must pay particular attention to wetlands, which are often protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives. These two Directives have commonly been used to reinforce the case to reduce abstraction pressures in surface and groundwater leading to the degradation of wetlands and groundwater-dependent ecosystems.

Here, while the use of non-conventional water resources (regenerated wastewater and desalinated water) could provide viable alternatives, careful consideration of other environmental pressures associated with their production is required. This is specifically relevant for desalinated water. Currently, the highest share of the installed desalination capacity in Europe lies in the Mediterranean (Hidalgo González et al., 2019). Under serious water stress conditions, desalination is becoming a more affordable and reliable option than other solutions for water supply. The relevant costs have fallen as low as 0.30-0.60 €/m³. However, desalination is associated with significant environmental problems such as brine disposal, energy use and CO₂ emissions.

Several EU initiatives support more or less indirectly the use of nature-based solutions to enhance Europe’s vulnerability to water stress and risk of droughts. The multifunctional role of forests in regulating water flows in rural and urban catchments and in increasing resilience to climate change is recognized by the EU Forestry Strategy (to be updated in 2021). Wetlands and forests for instance form an important part of the EU Strategy on Green Infrastructure, which aims to build a coherent and resilient network of ecological corridors across Europe. The recent Biodiversity Strategy 2030 sets out to legally protect a minimum of 30% of the EU land area, and to promote widespread restoration. The Strategy emphasises in particular the importance of restoring environmental flows in rivers, notably through a review of abstraction permits. Further, the still elusive, yet expectable co-benefits of green infrastructure and nature-based solutions pursued in the mentioned policies represent a node for economic activities like tourism, recreation, sustainable agriculture and urban water services. This is especially relevant as an opportunity to address water abstraction, resulting in multiple pressures on freshwater ecosystems.

The EU Adaptation Strategy 2013, to be updated soon, recognises the importance of integrated solutions to tackle water stress, by scaling up environmental mainstreaming in sectoral policies and climate-proofing investments, and by improving the protection and restoration of European ecosystems. However, recent assessments indicate that synergies between water stress policies and climate change adaptation strategies are not fully exploited at Member State and river basin levels (Buchanan et al., 2019).  Furthermore, Member States not yet facing water stress are not yet taking sufficient action to address future threat under climate change (Buchanan et al., 2019).  As the onset of climate change continues, the intersect between adaptation, water and agriculture will gain relevance. On the basis of the expected changes in growing seasons and suitable crops across different European regions, economic integration and coordinated economic planning will be crucial to ensure the resilience of the EU economy. Knowledge and technology transfer would also be fundamental, and digitalisation could play a facilitating role. Here once more, the lessons learned from the energy sector in setting up the Just Transition Mechanism could prove useful in keeping up with the pace of environmental change.

6.2.        Water resources management in international river basins

In international river basins, cooperation is usually sealed with formal international agreements, and frequently with the establishment of an international coordinating body. In such river basins, the EU Member States are required to prepare national RBMPs, covering their own territory but streamlined with the other RBMPs from the same river basin. Alternatively, they may develop shared international RBMPs (iRBMPs), where they should also involve non-EU countries that share the same river basin with them. This is practiced less frequently, though. In Europe, there are nine cases of international river basins with active international agreements, established international coordinating bodies and international RBMPs in place: Danube, Elbe, Ems, Meuse, Odra, Rhine, Sava, Scheldt, Teno/Tana. In other international river basins, a shared international RBMP or an international coordinating body can be missing. The cases where no international agreement has been signed are rare (EC, 2019g).

A review (EC, 2019g) of the above cases reveals that water stress is not highlighted as a significant issue requiring international cooperation in most of these cases. Thus, the issues of over-abstraction, water scarcity and droughts do not receive primary focus. The focus of international cooperation is placed commonly on water quality issues, hydromorphology or floods. Nevertheless, the following features have been identified related to the assessment and management of water stress under future climate change conditions:

• Danube: ICPDR Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change developed in 2012 and updated in 2018, providing guidance on the definition of adaptation measures, such as restoring water retention areas and addressing water scarcity and droughts risks.
• Elbe: climate change outlooks considered for the economic analysis of water use in the long-term.
• Ems: assessment of future climate change impacts; climate proofing of measures considering their sensitivity to climate change impacts under different scenarios.
• Meuse: joint status assessment of transboundary groundwater bodies; ongoing work for a joint report on water scarcity that will support the development of an updated framework for managing low-flow events (for the current framework see Case 6.1); ongoing work programme to increase information exchange on national and international activities related to climate change assessment and adaptation.
•  Rhine: ICPR Strategy for Adapting to Climate Change developed in 2015, considering climate change impacts, discharge regime of the river, prolonged periods of low-flows and frequency of flood events under different scenarios; definition of basic principles of selecting adaptation measures.
• Scheldt: initial exploratory Climate Memorandum signed, including droughts aspects, such as a discussion on possible restrictions to water abstraction.

 Box 6.2 Dealing with low flows during droughts in the Meuse river basin

The Meuse International River Basin District (iRBD) covers parts of the territories of France, Luxemburg, Belgium (Wallonia, Flanders), Germany and The Netherlands. The iRBD covers an area of almost 35,000 km², with close to 9 million inhabitants. The length of the river is 905 km.

The Meuse is a typical example of a rain-fed river. High river discharges generally occur in winter and spring, lowest discharges usually in autumn. Flow variations can be sudden because of the geometry and geology of the basin which favour a quick reaction to intensive precipitation events. During extreme droughts the discharge can become so low that in certain stretches the river can be crossed on foot.

Urbanisation, industrialization, agriculture and navigation affect the status of the waters of the iRBD Meuse. The Meuse is the source of drinking water for almost 7 million people (a.o. in Brussels, Antwerp and Rotterdam). Navigation is of particular interest in the area, both in Flanders and in the Netherlands. Over the past two centuries an intricate network of shipping canals was developed, which for its water supply depends entirely on the Meuse.

The estimated water exploitation index (WEI+)  of the Meuse is ca 30 % on average. This makes the iRBD stand out as one of the more water stressed in western Europe (Map 5.2).

in 1995, after long negotiations, the issue of the distribution of the available water during low flows resulted in the Meuse discharge convention between Belgium (Flanders) and the Netherlands. The guiding principle of the Meuse discharge convention is to secure an equal use of water for economic purposes of both countries and to accept joint responsibility for the stretch of the Meuse where it marks the international border. In this stretch, low discharges can be harmful to the valuable ecology.

Simultaneously, in 1995, France, Wallonia, the Brussels Capital region, Flanders and the Netherlands reached agreement on a wider, multilateral convention on the protection of the Meuse. This convention was succeeded in 2002 by the International Meuse Commission (IMC) upon the signature of the Meuse Convention (Treaty of Ghent; now including Germany and Luxemburg). The purpose of the Convention is to achieve sustainable and integrated water management of the Meuse international river basin district.

The Maas discharge convention stipulates that both Flanders and the Netherlands take measures to limit their water use during water shortages. In the Netherlands this mainly involves pumping back water to the upstream stretches at the ship locks. Also the passing of ships at locks is performed in a ‘water-economical’ manner, using water saving devices. If this is not sufficient, the water allowance of other water user sectors are cut back, according to the prioritization described in the national priority sequence. Flanders limits its water use by the installation of pumps at the ship locks. A considerable part of the water intended for Flanders is used for these ship locks. When one of the parties at some point finds it difficult to meet the conditions of the treaty, it is jointly examined whether that party may temporarily use more water. The associated costs will be settled afterwards (Bastings et al., 2011)..

Lessons learned from the Maas discharge treaty (Bastings et al., 2011; Mostert, 1999).  Mostert (undated)):

• Conventions are a matter of mutual trust. In the Meuse it took a long time to overcome historic disputes between Belgium and the Netherlands and build such trust;
• Linking different issues can result in a package deal that is attractive to all parties. In the case of the Meuse, breakthroughs were reached after linking water quantity in the Meuse with seaport accessibility in the Scheldt;
• To arrive at an attractive package deal, a cross-sectoral approach is often instrumental.

The 2018 drought again demonstrated the vulnerability of the Meuse basin for water shortages. Even though no major disasters or major water supply interruptions occurred, the economic and ecological damage was significant. The Dutch evaluation of the 2018 drought includes specific actions to reinforce the dialogue with Germany and France on the topics of drought and low flows (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, 2019).     

The consideration of climate change and the cooperation for climate change adaptation (CCA) at international level has also strengthened in Europe over the last decade (Ramieri et al., 2018). The EU Climate Adaptation Strategy launched in 2013 included references to cross-border issues. Furthermore, the evaluation conducted by the European Commission in 2018 showed that the strategy promoted several cross-border actions on climate risks between Member States[1]. Transnational strategies or action plans on CCA have been developed in many regions[2], including the Mediterranean, the Danube, the Alps and the Baltic. Existing international conventions (e.g. OSPAR, Barcelona Convention) have catalyzed the transnational dialogue and cooperation also on CCA issues. Moreover, web-based adaptation platforms, knowledge centers and networks have been activated, and transnational CCA-related projects are being implemented. However, CCA-related projects are more focused on knowledge creation and dissemination, awareness-raising, capacity-building, networking and cross-country exchange, and less focused on actual implementation of joint measures. Interreg programmes have provided significant support to transnational cooperation on CCA (Figure 6.1) (Ramieri et al., 2018).

Figure 6.1 Available funds for Interreg programmes related to Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Management (DRR) in different regions of Europe.

Source: (Ramieri et al., 2018)

6.3.        Towards water-energy-land-food-ecosystems nexus management

Societies around the world have always been aware that water, energy, land and food resources show interdependencies, while they also interact with natural ecosystems. Policy and research have addressed this idea already since late 1940s and 1960s (Wichelns, 2017). The Dublin International Conference on Water and the Environment and the Rio UN Summit on Environment and Development, which were held in 1992, contributed to the development of the principles that characterize the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) paradigm. The Global Water Partnership initiative summarized IWRM with the following definition in 2000 (Global Water Partnership, 2000): “A process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.”

Therefore, the IWRM specifically addresses three pillars, i.e. environmental sustainability, economic efficiency and social justice, which are also used to describe our understanding of sustainable management. Furthermore, it makes specific reference to “water, land and related resources”, as well as to the need to protect and conserve “vital ecosystems”.

Nevertheless, research and policy have often developed in so-called “working silos” over the past decades, as a result of scientific specialization and administrational mandate. This has resulted in separated and often conflicting sectorial goals, strategies and policies, as well as fragmented actions overall (Leck et al., 2015). Furthermore, while research has also addressed the interactions between different resources, the relevant studies have mostly focused on the interactions between water and another resource (e.g. water-energy or water-food), thus missing a more holistic and systemic perspective (Endo et al., 2017).

The water-energy-land-food nexus is a holistic conceptual framework, which underlines the need for integrated and systemic thinking, as well as for cross-sectorial and multi-scale actions for the protection and management of resources systems (Figure 6.2). While it carries the legacy of the IWRM paradigm, it also considers the experiences gained from its implementation, and it modifies and expands it. Furthermore, adopting the WELF nexus approach in the analysis of environmental systems leads to the acknowledgement that the nature of water, energy, land and food systems is interdependent. This facilitates the identification of synergies and trade-offs between these resources, i.e. additional benefits from simultaneous management of both resources or necessary sacrifices to one resource to gain the benefits from the other resource (Psomas et al., 2018; Ringler et al., 2013).

Figure 6.2            Proposed set-up for understanding the Water-Energy-Land-Food nexus

Source: (Ringler et al., 2013)

Box 6.3 Water-energy-land-food nexus (WELF nexus)

The nexus concept was first introduced in 2011, when the World Economic Forum published a relevant report on the water-food-energy-climate nexus (Waughray, 2011) and the German Federal Government organised the Bonn 2011 international conference on “The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus - Solutions for the Green Economy” (Martin-Nagle et al., 2012). The links to biodiversity, ecosystems and their services were also highlighted in subsequent research publications (Karabulut et al., 2016). Thus, the core of the WELF nexus is often expanded to include further considerations, such as interactions with climate and ecosystems, and to address not only resources themselves, but also the management objectives for the resources (e.g. water, energy and food security concerns). The WELF nexus has also been studied in the context of transboundary river basin management in the Mekong river (Keskinen et al., 2015) and the Upper Blue Nile (Allam and Eltahir, 2019).

The overall concept of the WELF nexus formed the underlying basis for the establishment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the United Nations in 2015. These global goals highlight the need for systemic approaches for meeting their targets, including those goals related to resource management (Weitz et al., 2014).

While the discussion on nexus has been widely theoretical or related to assessment studies, the operationalisation of nexus in real-life applications has been limited in Europe and worldwide (Bizikova et al., 2013; Leck et al., 2015). The recently formed Nexus Cluster is developing a list of relevant projects around the globe, including research projects funded by the EU (e.g. Sim4Nexus):

 https://www.nexuscluster.eu/Projects.aspx.

6.4.        Application of Ecosystem Services and Nature Based Solutions

The added value of Ecosystem Service (ESS) approaches

Looking at water stress from an Ecosystem Services perspective brings a strong focus on combinations of economic benefits for water-using sectors with environmental and social values. This broadened scope is required to solve the problems that were caused by more traditional practices. As IPBES  states (IPBES, 2019): ‘Economic incentives have generally favoured expanding economic activity, and often environmental harm, over conservation or restoration. Incorporating the consideration of the multiple values of ecosystem functions and of nature’s contributions to people into economic incentives has, in the economy, been shown to permit better ecological, economic and social outcomes.’

Application of Ecosystem Services in water stress management

There are two ecosystem services that come to the fore in the context of water stress management: 1) provision of water and 2) temporary storage of water in aquifers, rivers and lakes during the wet season for use in dry spells. In addition, water bodies have an attenuating effect on temperature fluctuations during heat waves, especially in urban areas (a regulating service, connected to climate regulation as a prominent ecosystem service (JRC, 2020c).

Temporary water storage in aquifers and lakes helps to maintain, in parallel, the base flow in rivers during dry spells, thus providing the necessary conditions for water-dependent ecosystems. Non-sustainable water abstraction and land use changes causing quick discharge of water during rainfall events and a decrease in surface water storage and groundwater recharge, have led to a decrease of both ecosystem services (Section 3.3). This decrease is in some cases exacerbated by water quality problems, such as eutrophication and algae blooms in surface waters that become stagnant, saltwater intrusion in coastal areas, or reaching arsene-contaminated water in overexploited aquifers.

The benefits of restoring the ecosystem services to their natural level extend well beyond the interests of the economic sectors and stakeholders which have caused the deterioration. The case for an ecosystem approach can thus only be made if the affected stakeholders are known and involved in the assessment. Over the past years much research has aimed at mapping ecosystem services and quantifying their economic impacts for a wide range of water-dependent sectors. Examples that deal specifically with water stress, however, are scarce. The recent MAES assessment (JRC, 2020c) does not include ecosystem services specifically connected to water stress, but it illustrates how the degradation of ecosystems hampers their provisioning services (which also relate to water, both in quantity and quality). It thus provides a framework for future analysis of water stress.

A few examples from other sources include:

• The KIP INCA project on natural capital accounting, is preparing, by the time of writing this report, several outputs: Accounts on ecosystem extent and ecosystem condition, Accounts on ecosystem services, Valuation of natural capital & ESS. Water abstraction is one of the provisioning services that is analyzed in the project (EC, 2020e). A question to be answered is: what is the value of ecosystems in reducing or preventing water stress (in analogy to the value of ecosystems in flood control, which is estimated at €16 billion for the EU27+UK in 2012 (Petersen, 2019).

• The Blue2 project mapped the size and impacts of four environmental pressures and assessed a selection of related measures. One of the pressures considered is water abstraction. For the comparison and appreciation of different model outcomes for the measures considered, a step-wise approach is developed, based on estimations of the value of ESS by willingness-to-pay (WTP)-approaches. Some data are available in literature on the WTP for a step of improvement or deterioration of the ecological status. Apart from the uncertainties and discussions that stick to WTP-approaches, a methodological difficulty that remains to be solved is to connect a step up or down in ecological status to one of the available drought indicators (e.g. WEI+ or Q10).

• On a similar note, the DESSIN FP7 project has aimed at establishing the link between WFD status and ecosystem State (in the DPSIR frame). The focus on beneficiaries allows for a clearer identification of co-benefits and the incorporation of economic values, both relevant for the integrated management of the water resource (WW Water Centre, 2014).

The above examples provide a quick glance at the state-of-play with regards to the application of the ecosystem services concept to water stress problems. There are many initiatives evolving and good progress is being made. Knowledge gaps to be bridged include connecting ecological status to drought or stress indicators and valuation of the appreciation of environmental quality.

Design and application of nature-based solutions (NBS)

The 2012 Blueprint (EC, 2012) mentioned wetland restoration, floodplain restoration and groundwater recharge as promising nature-based multi-functional storage and regulation elements. Until now, there are only few well-documented cases of NBS which have been designed specifically to address the issues of water stress.

There is a wide range of small-scale on-farm measures which increase, as main or additional impact, the infiltration of rainfall into the soil and/or the storage of groundwater. Some examples: increasing surface water levels with weirs and dams, creation of natural water retention areas, measures to increase the carbon content of the soils (increasing the water retention capacity), measures to reduce runoff (e.g. contour ploughing), measures to reduce nutrients and pesticide loads (green strips, contour ploughing). The impacts of such measures are often local and limited in time, so for impact at catchment level a broad application is required. Co-benefits may be found in flood management, in nature areas, or in the value of an area for recreation. Calculation models to support the implementation of such measures need to be able to make clever combinations of the small scale of the implementation and the wider area that is impacted, assuming that the measures are widely applied. Two JRC reports (JRC, 2012a, 2012b), which were prepared in support of the 2012 Blueprint, offer examples of such an approach.

Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) is one of the options to improve aquifer conditions and raise groundwater levels. MAR is the intentional recharge of water to suitable aquifers for subsequent recovery or to achieve environmental benefits; the managed process assures adequate protection of human health and the environment. MAR can also reduce the occurrence and degree of flooding. Various methods are used to recharge aquifers, including bank infiltration, infiltration in boreholes and wells, in-channel interception and run-off harvesting. Some of these methods are more nature-based than others, e.g. infiltration via wells may be considered a less natural approach. MAR is already widely practiced across the world. The most common incentives are to increase the buffer capacity for seasonal droughts, manage saline intrusion and to create a strategic reserve for emergency situations. Benefits may extend to ecology and in specific cases to protection of wooden pilings or manage land subsidence. The suitability of the subsoil in Europe for aquifer recharge (not taking actual demand into account) was estimated using the PCRGLOB-WB model (Figure 6.5).

Map  6.1 Suitability of EU’s subsoil for aquifer recharge

Source: XX?

NBS can be cost-effective for meeting the Sustainable Development Goals in cities (IPBES, 2019). An example: the H2020 Naturvation project⁽[3]⁾ assesses what nature-based solutions can achieve in cities, examines how innovation is taking place, and works with communities and stakeholders to develop the knowledge and tools required to realize the potential of nature-based solutions for meeting urban sustainability goals.

The Horizon2020-funded NAIAD project⁽[4]⁾, which aims at endorsing the upscaling of the implementation of NBS, emphasizes the insurance value of NBS as a means to set up convincing business cases. The insurance sector is a natural partner for this approach, both as insurance provider and as institutional investor. The project highlights the role of the funding, financing and procurement phases of NBS implementation projects. The proposed approach relies on collaborative modelling approaches, because only collaboratively built consensus can cover the diversity of affected and benefiting stakeholders and reach confidence in bringing all relevant benefits together in a complete business case (Altamirano et al., 2020). One of the project’s case studies deals with water stress, albeit in qualitative terms only: the Medina del Campo aquifer in central Spain.

Current implementation challenges for NBS include the necessary upscaling of measures: challenges in financing, in quantifying the benefits, in securing the acceptance of the benefits. Furthermore there are knowledge gaps in understanding and securing social equity and in the impacts of climate.

6.5.        The role of EU innovation policy in the reduction of water stress

The Lisbon Strategy, which was adopted by the European Council in 2000, laid down the foundations for a comprehensive and multi-dimensional approach for innovation policy in the EU for the period 2000-2010. Building on that legacy, the Europe 2020 strategy “for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth” was launched by the European Commission in 2010, covering the period 2010-2020 (EC, 2010a). Furthermore, the European Commission designed the so-called “Innovation Principle”. This contributes to cross-checking that the agenda-setting, legislation and implementation of EU policies remains open to innovation potential, and a favourable regulatory framework is created to help innovation flourish (EC, 2019d). By the end of the Europe 2020 life-cycle, the European Commission ensured its commitment to remain a front-runner in promoting climate action and sustainable development worldwide, as set out in the reflection paper “Sustainable Europe 2030” (EC, 2019h) and manifested in the “European Green Deal” (EC, 2019j), which are also underpinned by the updated “EU Digital Strategy” (EC, 2020g).

Over the last programming period the European Commission has supported numerous research, development, innovation or demonstration projects on climate change adaptation, environmental protection and resource efficiency through LIFE⁽[5]⁾(EC, 2018b) and Horizon 2020 instruments ⁽[6]^,[7]), with Horizon 2020 also incorporating under the same umbrella past EU funding instruments. Moreover, innovation in Europe was also supported by Cohesion policy funds and loans made available by the European Investment Bank Group (European Parliament, 2020).

The European Commission has also supported the creation and operation of various initiatives and partnerships which foster innovation in Europe, including innovation in the area of water and environment: Innovation Partnerships (e.g. EIP-Water, EIP-Agriculture), Joint Programming Initiatives (e.g. JPI Water, JPI Climate, JPI FACCE, JPI Oceans), Joint Technology Initiatives, European Technology Platforms (e.g. WaterEurope; former WssTP). Furthermore, European research organisations on water have teamed up creating thematic fora (e.g. EurAqua).

In the field of water, the European research and innovation is currently focusing on a wide range of topics. The aspects which are most relevant to the topics of water quantity and water stress are:

• Better monitoring of the earth, its climate and of the water uses (e.g. satellite technology, remote sensing, unmanned aerial vehicles, citizen observations and information crowdsourcing, digitalisation of the water sector).
• Better data management and analysis (e.g. Internet of Things, Big Data science, machine learning, Geographical Information Systems, advanced Information and Communication Technologies, integrated data visualisation and decision support platforms).
• Better socio-environmental modelling and forecasting (e.g. near-real-time modelling and forecasting of natural phenomena including hydrological and drought forecasting, agent-based modelling of coupled socio-environmental systems, elicitation of social attitudes through serious gaming).
• Better technologies for increasing technical water efficiency (e.g. leakage detection and control in water networks, precision agriculture technologies, industrial symbiosis).
• Better tools for raising awareness and controlling water consumption (e.g. mobile applications promoting awareness and behavioural change against water consumption, schemes on water footprinting of processes and products).
• Better technologies for enabling and promoting water supply from alternative water sources (e.g. more energy-efficient desalination and water reuse with minimisation of environmental risks, real-time monitoring of water quality parameters for safe water reuse).
• Better technologies for Managed Aquifer Recharge for urban settings.

The Annex contains detailed information on a selection of recent EU projects related to water stress management.

 Box 6.4  Berlin uses Augmented Reality to foster citizen engagement in urban groundwater management.

 Since 2000, Germany has registered nine of its ten warmest years on record. This is considered an unusual accumulation of record years of high temperatures (Helmholtz-Klima-Initiative, 2020). In 2019, the neighbour states of Berlin and Brandenburg were ranked the two warmest German Länder (Berlin.de, 2020). Further, according to scenarios informing its climate adaptation programme, the city of Berlin expects to have Mediterranean climate by year 2100; similar to that of modern day Toulouse (Reusswig et al., 2016). In this context, prospects of decreased precipitation and variations in seasonality are bringing water resource challenges into the agenda of the German capital, and with this, a need for increased citizen awareness of the origin and management of their water resources.

Managed aquifer recharge, using the natural underground for treatment and storage, is the main process Berlin uses for drinking water production. The efficiency of the process in this city is high, but the average drinking water consumer is unaware of it.

Since 2019, the Digital Water City project (Digital Water City, 2020) is set to a) raise public awareness of Berlin’s water resources; b) increase acceptance of policies promoting the sustainable use of urban water, and c) foster the public involvement in urban water management. To do so, the project is developing an Augmented Reality mobile application[8] providing its users with an immersive view into a “hidden part” of the water cycle. The app uses modelling of the city’s geology and hydrology to enable visualisation of groundwater resources. By making groundwater visible (Figure 6.3), the project partners intend to build the citizens’ trust in natural treatment techniques and promote the consumption of tap water over bottled alternatives. Incorporating the app into guided waterworks tours, public events and school initiatives, and installing QR codes at drinking water dispensers and well sites, the initiative aims to reach 20,000 citizens every year. The app is developed by a local SME in collaboration with the city’s water utility.

Figure 6.3  Digital Water City AR mobile application, prototype visualisations

Source: (Digital Water City, 2020)

6.6.        Outlook

The search for solutions for the increasing impacts of water stress can roughly take four directions, each with their preferred applications:

• Continued and intensified development of technologies for sectoral water demand measures and water savings, in domestic water use, agriculture, industry and electricity production. This can be considered a no-regret option. In the longer term it will become necessary in most parts of the EU, and in the short term it offers environmental gains.
• Intensified development of nexus approaches, capitalizing on synergies between economic sectors, and including nature-based solutions.
• Continued and intensified pursuit of additional means of water supply in areas with coastal tourism, high-value agricultural and horticultural areas near coasts, and urbanised areas. In this context, interbasin water transfers are considered a last resort because of their severe environmental impacts. Efforts must be aimed at keeping this measure restricted to the genuine necessities and where possible, combine them with nature-based solutions.
• Systemic change aimed at the root causes of overexploitation of natural resources, in a much broader transformation than in water management alone, following one of the conclusions of IPBES (IPBES, 2019): Goals for conserving and sustainably using nature and achieving sustainability cannot be met by current trajectories, and goals for 2030 and beyond may only be achieved through transformative changes (fundamental, system-wide reorganizations across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values) across economic, social, political and technological factors.

The most likely outcome seems to be a mixture of site- and case-specific combinations of the first three approaches, while the fourth option offers a fully alternative pathway – maybe first explored in areas where the current practices can no longer be continued. Whichever approach is chosen, it will be fully dependent on and must therefore be interconnected with economic and legal measures and measures to increase public awareness. What counts is the (public) awareness that continuation of current practices is no longer possible in the hotspot areas, and that there are areas that are likely to become additional hotspot areas in the coming decades.

A benefit of the gradual nature of the progress of water stress problems is that it leaves some time to develop new practices and exchange lessons-learned across the EU. Implementing water demand measures will buy some more time – provided lock-ins are avoided. Long-term planning may include such methods as adaptive planning and pathways to put short-term measures in a long-term perspective, to allow for a long-term view and to avoid as much as possible additional lock-ins.

[1] EC, 2018, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change (COM(2018) 738 final of 12 November 2018).

[2] North Sea, Northern Periphery and Arctic, Baltic Sea, Danube, Alpine Space and Mediterranean

[3] https://naturvation.eu/home

[4] http://naiad2020.eu/

[5] LIFE programme: https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/life

[6] Horizon 2020 programme: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/

[7] EC website on  Research and innovation for the European Green Deal: https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/european-green-deal_en

[8] For more information, please visit: https://www.digital-water.city/solution/augmented-reality-ar-mobile-application-for-groundwater-visualization/