1. Maximising water reuse in the EU Framework contract ENV. D
Maximising water reuse in the EU Framework contract ENV.D.I/FRA/2012/0014 Presentation of study’s progress to the CIS Working Group on ‘Programmes of Measures’ 13 October 2014

2. Contents Policy objectives Policy options
Impacts of policy options – preliminary findings
Key environmental impacts
Key economic impacts
Key social impacts
Comparison of options
Questions for discussion
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

3. Future EU action should meet 3 key objectives
Inadequate water pricing
Insufficient abstraction controls on freshwater
Reuse not seen as a component of integrated water management
Unclear regulatory framework (in some MS)
Stakeholders unaware of the range of benefits
Technical barriers and scientific uncertainties
Too stringent standards in some MS
OPTIMISE
Achieve a higher uptake of appropriate water reuse solutions, where it proves cost effective, as a way to address water scarcity
Lack of assurance on safety and public acceptance issues (in some MS)
ENSURE SAFETY
Ensure the safety of water reuse practices
Fear of potential internal trade barriers for food products
AVOID TRADE ISSUES
Avoid potential trade barriers on food products
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

4. Four policy options have been investigated
Option 0: No policy change
Option 1: Information, communication and knowledge enhancement measures
Awareness raising actions, production and dissemination of information
Good practice reference document on water reuse
Promotion of forthcoming ISO/CEN water reuse standards by the EU
EU guidelines on how to foster water reuse through economic instruments
EU guidelines on the implementation of the WFD and UWWTD
Option 2: Option 1 + Amendments to existing legislation (possible targets at river basin scale)
Water stressed MS to assess the contribution water reuse can make under different water stress scenarios and, if this contribution is significant, have agreed targets for reuse of reclaimed water as part of their RBMPs
Option 3: Option 2 + New legislative provisions (common EU standards)
Contents of risk management plans
List of acceptable uses and possible use restrictions
Indicative quality criteria and wastewater treatment requirements
Key aspects of permitting procedure
Monitoring requirements
Roles and responsibilities
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

5. Key environmental impacts
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

6. Environmental impacts Option 0: No policy change
Increased uptake of water reuse would be mostly driven by Spain:
700 Mm3/year expected by 2018 without further policy intervention, vs approx. 500 Mm3/year today
According to AQUAREC (2006), by 2025:
Potential for wastewater reuse in the EU ~ 3,222 Mm3/y
Increases expected in IT and BG and, to a lesser extent, in DE, FR, PT and EL
According to national stakeholders: increased rates projected by AQUAREC model may be difficult to achieve in IT, FR and EL
Increased uptake of water reuse is likely to lead to:
Reduction in freshwater abstraction rates overall → Increased freshwater availability
Improvement of freshwater quality with regard to nutrients and salt intrusion issues in particular
Potential reduction of environmental base flows in some EU regions
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

7. Environmental impacts Option 1: Information, communication and knowledge enhancement measures
Overall, an increased uptake of water reuse due to:
Better awareness of the stakeholders concerning the benefits of water reuse
Better awareness of good practices
Implementation of incentivising economic instruments
Etc.
→ Would enhance environmental impacts identified in the baseline
Better management of reclaimed water quality issues due to:
Promotion of forthcoming ISO standards
Development of a good practice reference document
Impacts will differ significantly across MS, e.g.:
ES: Would reinforce the impact of similar measures already planned
FR, IT and EL: May not solve the main barrier to reuse in these MS
PT, CY, MT: Would support the success of national programmes on reuse
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

8. Environmental impacts Option 2: Option 1 + Amendments to existing legislation (possible targets at river basin scale)
Overall, a further increase of reused water volumes, especially in EU river basins where water reuse can significantly contribute to addressing water stress in a cost-effective way
Impacts will differ significantly across MS, e.g.:
ES: Unlikely to have a significant effect in comparison to Option 1, but will give more political weight to enforcement of existing policy measures to achieve national and regional reuse targets
PT: May reinforce the impacts of existing policy measures for promoting water reuse, including a possible new water reuse target (following failure to achieve the 2013 target)
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

9. Environmental impacts Option 3: Option 2 + New legislative provisions (common EU standards)
Will mainly influence freshwater quality aspects and, to a lesser extent, on freshwater quantities
Standards would reinforce the positive impacts of information/communication measures and of potential water reuse targets
Environmental impacts likely to be more significant in MS
having encountered difficulties in the implementation of their own standards (FR, IT and EL)
for which absence of a clear legislative framework is seen as a major obstacle to water reuse (e.g. UK)
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

10. Key economic impacts
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

11. Economic impacts (1/2)
+: Potential positive impact / -: Potential negative impact
: Potential increase of the indicator / : Potential decrease of the indicator
Key impact indicators
Key actors affected
Likely effects of the policy options at the EU level, within the next 10 years 
Option 0 (baseline)
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Contribution of water reuse to reducing implementation costs of WFD (existing provisions of PoM)
Public authorities + ++
+++
++++
Implementation costs of policy measures included in the proposed options
None  

Costs for developing and operating water reuse projects / Price of reclaimed water
Project developers/operators and users of reclaimed water (public and private actors)
Impact depends very much on the specificities of each project and on the local/national context. No overall trend can be identified.
Contribution of water reuse to avoided costs of water scarcity and droughts
All
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

12. Economic impacts (2/2)
+: Potential positive impact / -: Potential negative impact
: Potential increase of the indicator / : Potential decrease of the indicator
Key impact indicators
Key actors affected
Likely effects of the policy options at the EU level, within the next 10 years 
Option 0 (baseline)
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Internal market
EU farmers and food sector
No change +
+++
Contribution of water reuse to agricultural sector’s economy
EU farmers ++
++++
Contribution of water reuse to tourism sector’s economy
EU tourism sector
Contribution of water reuse to water industry’s competitiveness
EU water industry
Contribution of water reuse to EU industry’s competitiveness
EU enterprises (other than water sector)
+/-
Innovation potential
EU enterprises
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

13. Key social impacts
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

14. Enterprises in agricultural, tourism and water industry sectors
Social impacts
+: Potential positive impact / -: Potential negative impact
: Potential increase of the indicator / : Potential decrease of the indicator
Key impact indicators
Key actors affected
Likely effects of the policy options at the EU level, within the next 10 years
Option 0 (baseline)
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Prevention of public and occupational health risks associated with water reuse
Civil society + ++
+++
Contribution of water reuse to creating/maintaining jobs
Enterprises in agricultural, tourism and water industry sectors
++++
Public acceptance of water reuse
+/-
Governance and participation
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

15. Comparison of options
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

16. Policy options have been compared based on their effectiveness, efficiency and coherence
Comparison criteria
Policy options*
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Effectiveness in relation to the policy objectives
Objective 1: Optimising the reuse of reclaimed water in the EU
Moderate
Moderate to high
Objective 2: Ensuring the safety of reuse practices
High
Objective 3: Avoiding potential internal trade barriers
Low
Efficiency in achieving the policy objectives
Coherence with overarching EU objectives, strategies and priorities
*Option 1: Information, communication and knowledge enhancement measures
Option 2 = Option 1 + Amendments to existing legislation (targets)
Option 3 = Option 2 + New legislative provisions (EU standards)
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

17. Questions for discussion
Are there other key types of impacts that should be analysed?
Do agree with the relative magnitude of impacts for the different options?
Do you have further information to help quantify the magnitude of the impacts (e.g. if similar measures are planned/implemented in your country)?
What would be the effects of the policy options in your country? Do you agree with our preliminary analysis?
Do you agree with the conclusions from the comparison of policy options?
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 13/10/2014

18. 01 40 88 70 42 lvanlong@bio.deloitte.fr
Your contacts
Lise Van Long
Senior Manager
Shailendra Mudgal
Partner
Deloitte fait référence à un ou plusieurs cabinets membres de Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, société de droit anglais (« private company limited by guarantee »), et à son réseau de cabinets membres constitués en entités indépendantes et juridiquement distinctes. Pour en savoir plus sur la structure légale de Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited et de ses cabinets membres, consulter
Deloitte fournit des services professionnels dans les domaines de l’audit, de la fiscalité, du consulting et du financial advisory à ses clients des secteurs public et privé, quel que soit leur domaine d’activité. Fort d’un réseau de firmes membres dans plus de 150 pays, Deloitte allie des compétences de niveau international à un service de grande qualité afin d’aider ses clients à répondre à leurs enjeux les plus complexes. Nos professionnels sont animés par un même objectif, faire de Deloitte la référence en matière d’excellence de service.
En France, Deloitte mobilise un ensemble de compétences diversifiées pour répondre aux enjeux de ses clients, de toutes tailles et de tous secteurs – des grandes entreprises multinationales aux microentreprises locales, en passant par les entreprises moyennes. Fort de l’expertise de ses collaborateurs et associés, Deloitte en France est un acteur de référence en audit et risk services, consulting, financial advisory, juridique & fiscal et expertise comptable, dans le cadre d’une offre pluridisciplinaire et de principes d’action en phase avec les exigences de notre environnement.
© 2013 Bio by Deloitte. Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited 18

19. Scope Our study focuses on:
Reuse of urban wastewater that is treated after collection and has been subject to secondary treatment (at least)
Reuse of industrial wastewater for external purposes
For various types of applications, e.g.:
agricultural uses
urban uses
industrial uses
environmental uses
recreational uses
drinking water production
Not covered by this study: reuse of rainwater or greywater
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 25/03/2014

20. What is the problem? Most recent data from Eurostat: 2025
ES (2008): 525 Mm3
CY (2009): 11 Mm3
BG (2009): 6 Mm3
ES (2009): 4 Mm3
MT (2009): 1 Mm3
2025
Potential for wastewater reuse ~ 3,222 Mm3/y by 2025 (probably a low end estimate)
In 2006 ~ 964 Mm3/y were reused accounting for only 2.4% of the total volume of treated effluents produced
Annual EU freshwater withdrawals: 237,660 Mm3/y in 2011
Water reuse potential estimated for 2025 would represent ~ 1.4% of this
Source: AQUAREC project, 2006
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 25/03/2014

21. Trends in some key MS SPAIN ITALY: FRANCE:
Legally-binding standards adopted in 2007 have played a crucial role in promoting and improving water reuse practices (Source: World Water, 2011).
A National Water Reuse Plan has been adopted. Target of 1,200 Mm3/y reclaimed water by 2018.
ITALY:
In several regions, legally-binding standards going beyond the national ones (adopted in 2003) have been imposed, and this has limited the attractiveness of water reuse projects.
Main issues reported:
Limit values relatively restrictive and costly to reach
Refurbishment of WWTPs is expensive
Proves difficult to meet the continuously changing requirements of industrial end users
Little flexibility with regard to the choice of treatment technologies
FRANCE:
Very few new projects since 2006, when work started on the development on new standards. Main barriers reported: quite restrictive national standards (2010) and uncertainties related to their constant evolution (revision foreseen).
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 25/03/2014

22. What are the main barriers to water reuse?
Potential for water reuse in the EU is largely under-exploited, in spite of numerous benefits
Inadequate water pricing
Insufficient abstraction controls on freshwater
Reuse not seen as a component of integrated water management
Business uncertainty issues
Fear of potential internal trade barriers for food products
Lack of assurance on safety and public acceptance issues
(in some MS)
Unclear regulatory framework
Stakeholders unaware of the range of benefits
Too stringent standards in some MS
Technical barriers and scientific uncertainties
Poor implementation of WFD (cost recovery, integration, programme of measures, permits, etc.)
Too vague reuse provisions in UWWTD
Study on maximising water reuse in the EU – Presentation at CIS WG PoM – 25/03/2014