1.1

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

1.2

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

1.3

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

1.4

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

1.5

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

1.6

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

1.7

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

1.8

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

1.9

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

1.10

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

1.11

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

1.12

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

1.13

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

1.14

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

1.15

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

1.16

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

1.17

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

1.18

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

2.1

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

2.2

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

2.3

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

2.4

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

2.5

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

2.6

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

2.7

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

2.8

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

2.9

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

2.10

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

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

3.1

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

3.2

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

3.3

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

3.4

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

3.5

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

4.1

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

4.2

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

4.3

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

4.4

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

4.5

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

4.6

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

4.7

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

4.8

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

4.9

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

4.10

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

4.11

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

4.12

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

4.13

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

4.14

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

4.15

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

4.16

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

4.17

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

4.18

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

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

For

112

Against

129

Abstentions

12