Water Accounts at the EEA

Jean-Louis WeberSpecial Adviser on Economic Environnemental Accounting

European Environment Agencyjean-louis.weber@eea.europa.eu

International Resource Panel ‘Water Footprint and Accounting’ Writing Workshop4-6 April 2011

European Environment Agency (EEA) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)Copenhagen, Denmark

International Resource Panel ‘Water Footprint and Accounting’ Writing Workshop4-6 April 2011

European Environment Agency (EEA) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)Copenhagen, Denmark

Water accounts at the EEA

• Support to EEA reporting activities on water use and state • Integration of the European information system on water (WISE,

ECRINS)• Support to the implementation of the European Water Framework

Directive/ WFD• Implementation of the UN-SEEA Water in Europe (altogether with

Eurostat)• Development of ecosystem capital accounts in relation to the SEEA

revision and in response to policy demands for natural resource and macro-economic instruments (GDP and Beyond, Resource Efficiency Strategy...)

Support the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive

Water Framework Directive key aims:

• expanding the scope of water protection to all waters, surface waters and groundwater• achieving "good status" for all waters by a set deadline • water management based on river basins• "combined approach" of emission limit values and quality standards• getting the prices right • getting the citizen involved more closely• streamlining legislation

With a single system of water management: River basin management

DGENV requests water accounts to support WFD reporting

Resource efficiency = sparing materials & energy (technology,

consumption patterns)

Resource efficiency = ecological management

of land, soil & water, ecosystem capital

maintenance

Macro-economics: GDP growth and the need to account for natural resource use & ecosystem capital degradation

4.7 Mio km3 12.5 Mio km3Use of accessible

freshwater resource (today 54%)

Beyond GDP 2008 “Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi” report 2009

TEEB 2008-2010 WAVES/ WB Partnership 2011-2015

SEEA2003 / rev. 2012-13

UN manual for environmental-economic accounting: SEEA2003Enlargement of the System of National Accounts

Natural resources EcosystemsEconomic

assets (SNA) Non-economic

assets

Openingstocks

Opening stocks Opening State

SNAtransactions

and otherflows

Changes instocks

Changesin stocks

Economicactivities,

naturalprocesses,

etc.

Changesin state

Closing stocks Closing stocks

Closing state

Described in SNA

RM HASSAN - UN The System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (UN 2003) - RANESA Workshop June 12-16, 2005 Maputo

Part 1

The SNA satellite accounts for the

environment

expenditure, taxes, hybrid accounts, physical flows,

sub-soil, energy, water, land,economic assets depletion

Part 2

Ecosystem capital accounts

Ecosystem stocks and quality, ecosystem services, benefits and maintenance

costs…

Revision SEEA2012/13

Negative feedbacks of ecosystem degradation on production and wellbeing

Impacts on ecosystem capacity of delivering services/benefits

Ecosystem Services and Water in the draft Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES)

Theme Class GroupTerrestrial plant and animal foodstuffs

Freshwater plant and animal foodstuffs

Marine plant and animal foodstuffs

Potable water

Biotic materials

Abiotic materials

Renewable biofuels

Renewable abiotic energy sources

Bioremediation

Dilution and sequestration

Air flow regulation

Water flow regulation

Mass flow regulation

Atmospheric regulation

Water quality regulation

Pedogenesis and soil quality regulation

Lifecycle maintenance & habitat protection

Pest and disease control

Gene pool protection

Aesthetic, Heritage

Religious and spiritual

Recreation and community activities

Information & knowledge

Symbolic

Intellectual and Experiential

Provisioning

Regulation and Maintenance

Cultural

Nutrition

Materials

Energy

Regulation of wastes

Flow regulation

Regulation of physical environment

Regulation of biotic environment

Source, CICES proposal, Roy Haines-Young and Marion Potschin, eds, EEA, 2010

GDP

Healthy ecosystem

Ecosystem capital Ecosystem capital EconomyEconomy

Simplified ecosystem capital accounting circuitSimplified ecosystem capital accounting circuit

ES economic benefits (€)

ES economic benefits (€)

Sustainable use

Non-sustainable useNon-sustainable use

ES economic ES economic benefits (€)benefits (€)

ES economic ES economic benefits (€)benefits (€)

Ecosystem degraded

by over-use

GDP & Adjustments:

Real Net National IncomeFinal Consumption at Full Price

Non-paid costs still needed to remediate ecosystem

degradation (€)

ES economic benefits (€)

ES economic benefits (€)

Natural resources,

ecosystem services ()

Natural resources,

ecosystem services ()

Simplified ecosystem capital accounts

• Physical accounts firstly, followed by valuation of restoration costs and benefits supported by main ecosystem services

• All ecosystems: land/sea/atmosphere, and for land: urban, agriculture, forest, other natural land, inland water, and soil.

• Focus on ecosystem degradation and sustainable services• Feasible NOW – keep it simple• Don’t miss important issues: need a good checklist• 6 indexes for 1 diagnosis:

– 1-Land // 2-Biomass // 3-Water // 4-Biodiversity // 5-Dependency from external inputs // 6-Disease prevalence

– Multi-criteria diagnosis (instead of mere additions) and quantification: the “ecosystem distress syndrome” approach combined with basic balances

“fast tract implementation of ecosystem capital accounts” in Europe

Jean-Louis Weber, CBD Conférence, Libreville, 16 Septembre 2010 Jean-Louis Weber, CBD Conférence, Libreville, 16 Septembre 2010

Importance of accounting by relevant functional units to measure impacts (e.g. catchments)

The total water resource of the country 10 lakes distributed over 2 catchments. The western catchment with 2 lakes is close to a scarcity threshold while water resource is abundant in the eastern catchment (8 lakes).

Scenario 1: 1 lake is lost in the east

Scenario 2: 1 lake is lost in the west.

x

x

Resource loss of 1 lake in the eastern catchment

(a) Aggregated national loss (without catchments): (10-9)% = 10%

(b) National average of loss by catchments: (2-2)% + (9-8)%

2= 5.5%

Resource loss of 1 lake in the western catchment

(a) Aggregated national loss (without catchments): (10-9)% = 10%

(b) National aggregation of loss by catchments: (2-1)% + (9-9)%

2= 25%

West East

Need relevant time frame for monitoring impactson ecosystems: e.g. water resource/demand

Mean annual resource is in both cases > mean annual demand

No water shortage in case 1, important seasonal stress in case 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 3 6 9 12

Ressource

Demande

Moy. Ressource

Moy. Demande

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 3 6 9 12

Ressource

Demande

Moy. Ressource

Moy. Demande

1 2

Ex. FR, mid-1990,s, fast track computation river quality from maps

(Source: Crouzet, Le Gall and Germain, IFEN)

Quality matters as much as QuantityMany other countries have similar quality maps

Many other countries have similar quality maps

Actual and virtual water trade between European river basins +Europe in the Global Ecosystem

Actual & virtual water embedded into trade vs. water footprint impact (virtual water from non-sustainable origin)

Source: José Manuel Naredo Pérez (Coordinador) et. al., El agua virtual y la huella hidrológica en la Comunidad de Madrid” © Canal de Isabel II - 2009

Evolution of the hydrological footprint per capita of the Community of Madrid (m3 per inhabitant per year)

Need for thematic integration of water accounts with land, bio-carbon & biodiversity

• Much of the increased NPP in semi-arid Spain is due to new irrigations (water taken from aquifers or directly from rivers …) and land development

• More NPP brings functional simplification of the ecosystem; • Such causal relations should be reflected in the “biodiversity account” (but the species responses

are usually delayed due to nature’s buffering capacity) (from Emil D. Ivanov, EEA-ETC LUSI) need for integrated monitoring and ecosystem accounting

Example from southern Spain: NPP increase in dry region and water stress

Definition, mapping & classification of ecosystem capital units used for ecosystem capital accounting (Socio-Ecological Landscape Units - SELU), starting from river basins1- river basins and 2- relief

Courtesy Emil D. Ivanov, Oscar Gomez, 2011Courtesy Emil D. Ivanov, Oscar Gomez, 2011

Definition, mapping & classification of socio-ecological landscape units (SELU)3- dominant landscape types (urban, intensive agriculture, mosaics, grassland, forests, other natural types and no-dominance)

Courtesy Emil D. Ivanov, Alex Oulton, 2011Courtesy Emil D. Ivanov, Alex Oulton, 2011

Application: NECB (net ecosystem carbon balance)here mean NECB value by SELUs within river basins boundaries

Emil D. Ivanov, Jean-Louis Weber, 2011Emil D. Ivanov, Jean-Louis Weber, 2011

Fast track implementation of ecosystem capital accounts: simplified basic water balance Precipitation *- Spontaneous Real EvapoTranspiration **+ Net infiltration to soil/subsoil ***+ Inflows from upstream runoff+ Returns of used water & irrigation µ

= Available water resource- Use of water by activities & households µ

- Evapotranspiration by activities= River basin runoff

Sources:

* Meteo

** Modelling from meteo data, land cover & NDVI

*** Hydrogeological modellingµ Estimation from land cover & socio-economic statisticsBold Ital: accounting balances

Precipitation

Evapotranspiration

Use

Runoff

Meteo data

Meteo dataPrecipitation

181

1008

1037

Spontaneous Real Evapo-Transpiration

984

934137

Fast calculation for 3 Guadiana River sub-basins

Available water resource

46

82

124

AgricultureConsumption by irrigation

21

33

30

PopulationWater use / population

2

3

4

2346

90

Estimated runoff

Source: EEA, Corine land cover, ECRINS – Estimations from various sources by Oscar Gomez Prieto & Jean-Louis Weber

Water quantity & quality data exist at the Global scale

Source: Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity, CJ Vörösmarty et al. Nature 467, 555-561 (2010) doi:10.1038/nature09440

Source: Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity, CJ Vörösmarty et al. Nature 467, 555-561 (2010) doi:10.1038/nature09440

Meteo data

Other EO data

FAO water statistics

Water Footprint database

+ ….

Meteo data

Other EO data

FAO water statistics

Water Footprint database

+ ….

Economics: example of full cost accounting in response to WFD

Environmental Cost of the WFD = CAR1 + CAR2 + CAR3Cost of the “effective measures” for meeting the objetive of the WFD considered in

the Programe of Measures of River Basin Management Plan

Cost of measures formitigating impacts of uses over the water bodies

CAR1

Cost of measures of ecosystem restoration

CAR2

Cost of measures for resource procurement

CAR3

recovery

DA1

DA3

DA2

PHYSICAL ACCOUNTS MONETARY ACCOUNTS

Degradation ofwater quality

Impacts on water use

Impacts onecosystems

Physico-chemical objectives

Biological & hydro-morphological objectives

Joan

Esc

riù W

ater

Age

ncy

of C

atal

unya

Courtesy Joan Escriu

Water Economics and Ecosystem Accounts at the EEA:Template for collating WFD economic data for the water account fast-track pilot project (1)

Value(specify unit(s))

Surface waterGroundwaterTransitional waterCoastal waterSurface waterGroundwaterTransitional waterCoastal waterAgricultureHouseholdsIndustryTotalAgricultureHouseholdsIndustryTotal

River basinCountry

Benefits Benefits for reaching good water statusBenefits for reaching objectives proposed

Main sources of uncertainty Comments

Ecological status of water bodies (in % of total water bodies of the river basin)

Current status of water bodies (specify date)

Expected status of water bodies (after implementation of the proposed PoM)

Costs of measures

Costs of measures for reaching good water status

Cost of measures proposed in the first PoM

Main issues Name of variable SectorAssessment

method applied

Information sources

mobilised

Source: Water Economics and Ecosystem Accounts, Elements from the final study report dealing with the fast-track initiative – Pierre Stroesser et al. for EEA, Framework contract No. EEA/IEA/09/002 , 2010

Value(specify unit(s))

HouseholdsAgricultureIndustryTotalHouseholdsAgricultureIndustryTotalHouseholdsAgricultureIndustryTotalHouseholdsAgricultureIndustryTotal

River basinCountry

Economic instuments

Total revenues from user’s fees

Total abstraction taxes and charges

Total pollution taxes and charges

Other financial payments from users

Environmental & resource costs

Existing environmental & resource costs (prior to any improvement)Remaining environmental & resource costs (once the PoM is implemented)

Main sources of uncertainty CommentsMain issues Name of variable Sector

Assessment method applied

Information sources

mobilised

Source: Water Economics and Ecosystem Accounts, Elements from the final study report dealing with the fast-track initiative – Pierre Stroesser et al. for EEA, Framework contract No. EEA/IEA/09/002 , 2010

Water Economics and Ecosystem Accounts at the EEA:Template for collating WFD economic data for the water account fast-track pilot project (1)

Water Accounts, Ecosystem Services & Human Wellbeing: Example of integrated water accounting by Artois-Picardie Basin Agency - France

• 20 000 Km2

• 4,7 Millions inhabitants

• GDP: 98 billions € • GPD/inhabitant: 21 107 €

• GPD/inh France: 25 978 €• Unemployment rate: 12,7%

• France: 9,9 %• 96% of drinkable water come from groundwater

Courtesy Arnaud Courtecuisse, Agence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie, France, 2006

Risk of not meeting WFD quality objectives by 2015

Courtesy Arnaud Courtecuisse, Agence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie, France, 2006

Water bill / mean available Income: social discrepancies

Comparison with unemployment 2004

• the commonly used value of annual consumption of 120 m3 per household hides important differences of mean consumption per region

• mean available income per municipality hides also various situations (and the real part of the population facing major difficulties to pay water bills)

• several groups of municipalities with ratio>3% (2-3% is a guidance value – see OCDE, EU, Académie de l’eau)

• these groups of municipalities combine high water price and low mean available income (and sometimes household’s expenses to buy bottled water are equivalent to the annual water bill)

Courtesy Arnaud Courtecuisse, Agence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie, France, 2006

Thank you!