The recently published European Environment Agency (EEA) report, "Europe's State of Water 2024: The Need for Improved Water Resilience," provides a comprehensive assessment of the condition of European water bodies. The findings, particularly for surface waters, are concerning: only 38% of Europe’s surface waters are in good or high ecological status, and 30% have achieved good chemical status. Additionally, the report notes that “these figures have hardly changed since 2015.” 

Note – when the report was published in October, 19 EU Member States plus Norway had electronically reported to EEA. Now 3 more Member States (Cyprus, Greece and Ireland) have reported and the updated EU statistics are that 38% surface waters are in good or high ecological status and 30% are in good chemical status.

1. What are the main sources of pressure on European water bodies and what factors can explain the lack of substantial improvement?

Major pressures affecting Europe’s surface waters are diffuse atmospheric pollution and changes to the physical features and natural flow (such as dams) which affect the plants and animals able to live in the waterbody. Agriculture is the major pressure affecting both surface and ground waters, for instance through diffuse pollution and abstraction.

It takes time for measures to be identified, planned and implemented, with issues such as financing, land availability and development of technical measures.  Then it can take time for ecosystems to adapt to the changed conditions. Even where these changes have been made, the Water Framework Directive works on a “one out, all out” basis, so if just one parameter is failed, then the water body cannot achieve good status. 

In the case of chemical status, some substances are very persistent and once released to the environment will be there for a long time. Widespread pollution by mercury and brominated flame retardants affects about half of Europe’s surface waters. Meanwhile, the list of chemical substances is being extended and updated to reflect improved scientific knowledge, which adds further challenge to the objective of reaching good status.

2.  The report states that “attempting to manage harmful chemicals once they reach the environment is not a sustainable approach.” Can you explain why this is the case, and what measures should be prioritised instead?

Prevention of pollution, so that pollutants are controlled at source, gives the best chance to limit the spread of pollution. Once a substance is released, it can be very difficult if not impossible to remediate. Some countries report failures of all surface waters owing to mercury and/or brominated flame retardants – it simply isn’t possible to clean those up.

Over the longer term, we should move to not using toxic and persistent substances if they can be released into the environment. But for now we have to manage those we already have, and limit the extent to which those can be spread. This means eliminating or reducing the use of the most harmful chemicals wherever possible. Where they must be used, or already in products, we need to prevent their release to air, water and soil.

3. The report highlights growing pressures on water quantity due to a combination of climate change and over-abstraction, and argues that "a stronger knowledge base on water is needed to enable more equitable and sustainable allocation of water between competing uses." (one of the key recommendations of our own report, Resilience in Action.) What steps are needed to address these gaps?

The existing policy framework for water management is an important pillar for managing climate risks. When fully implemented, it delivers key components of water resilience for the environment and human health. However, there are gaps in current policy implementation and climate change is worsening existing pressures. Other economic sectors are increasingly being forced to recognise their critical dependency on water, e.g. energy, agriculture and inland navigation.

Climate change is disrupting weather patterns and further increasing pressures on our water resources and ecosystems. Europe's water management practices are poorly adapted to handling such rapid and large-scale change, compromising water security. There are competing demands between and among sectors, with different policies often addressing different angles, for example, hydropower generation and restoring river connectivity. Balancing demands from across different sectors clearly requires strong and integrated planning across different scales of governance. 

Sectoral policies can have significant roles in addressing both the demand and supply of water, thereby supporting a transition towards a water-resilient society.

4. The report emphasises the importance of nature restoration and large-scale nature-based solutions (NbS) to tackle multiple challenges. What are the main obstacles to mainstreaming NbS? 

Nature-based solutions (NbS) have the potential to provide multiple benefits for nature and society, for instance by mitigating risks from water scarcity, droughts and floods, while also increasing resilience. They also have applications in water management, for instance in wastewater treatment for improving effluent quality.  They can lower adaptation costs and provide alternatives to, or complement, grey infrastructure. To achieve this, there needs to be better joined-up action and promotion of innovation in sectors and policies that can become more water-smart, such as energy, agriculture and industry.

NbS are often cost-effective and help manage risks in a more variable or extreme climate. Especially in urban areas, they provide green spaces which improve living conditions and bring value to local communities. Careful planning is necessary, as the effectiveness of NbS is context-specific and must be adapted to the local situation. This means that a 'one solution that fits all' does not exist.

NbS can be challenging to implement, requiring long term planning and resourcing. The broad range of potential benefits, which can include habitat improvement, green space and improved mental health, meant that multiple stakeholders may be involved. This can complicate implementation, especially where those stakeholders may be unfamiliar with NbS and their role in mitigation of extreme events.

5. Our members, publicly-owned water operators, are increasingly involved in planning and implementing initiatives related to ecosystem restoration and resource protection. How do you see the role of water operators in strengthening Europe’s water resilience?

Water operators are experts in local water management. They need to plan for future water resources and meet local demand. With this expert knowledge, they are well-placed to work with other stakeholders and planners to manage resources into the future. They need to work with others in the catchment to develop sustainable water resources, and work out how water can be locally managed in an equitable way. This may include, for example, working with industry to reduce demand and pollution, with farmers and landowners to reduce pollution, store more water and carbon upstream and improve biodiversity, with communes/local councils to mitigate the impacts of intense rain and droughts. While some stakeholders have only their local experience to draw on, water operators can look to experience from across the European sector to inform the local situation. This can help water resilience at the local, and eventually up to the European level.