This document discusses water investment needs and financing capacities in Europe. It finds that additional investments will be needed by 2030 to maintain water supply, sanitation, and flood protection infrastructure and comply with EU directives. Member states have varying abilities to finance these investments based on their economic conditions and past financing strategies. The document recommends examining alternative financing sources like water pricing, producer responsibility for products that affect water quality, and leveraging EU funds to help close the investment gaps identified in some member states.

1. Water Investments needs
& Financing Capacities
OECD and European Commission, Directorate General Environment

2. 2
Why this project?
General
•Get a solid basis
•Exchange of best
practices
•Support to
implementation
•Awareness raising
Specific
•Common approach
to investments
needs
•Comparison of
financing strategies
•Pro active dialogue
with some MS

3. 3
EU Context
• Refit of the Water Framework Directive
• Urban Waste Water Treatment
Evaluations
• Recast of the Drinking water Directive
• Water Re-use
Legislative
Initiatives
• New ex ante condition for waterRevised funding
• WFD and UWWTD remains challenging
in some MS
Implementation
Gaps

4. 4
• Assessment of investment needs
• Identifying possible sources of funding
• 28 country fiches
• Consultation of the Member States
• Comparison needs vs potential sources
• Identification of ten Member States “at risk”
• Country visits
• RO, BU, GR, PL (2018) LV, HR, LT, SP, SK (2019)
• Finalization & Publication by mid 2019
Main features

5. 5
Drivers for projected
investment needs
Water supply
• Urban
population
growth
• Compliance
with DWD
• Access
• Efficiency
Sanitation
• Urban
population
growth
• Compliance
with UWWTD
• Emerging issues
Flood protection
• Population,
asset and GDP
at risk of
flooding

6. 6
BAU + Compliance + Efficiency vs. Baseline
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%
Greece
Hungary
Germany
Slovenia
Czech Republic
France
Finland
Netherlands
Lithuania
Denmark
Estonia
United Kingdom
Belgium
Austria
Malta
Latvia
Sweden
Cyprus
Ireland
Poland
Portugal
Italy
Luxembourg
Spain
Slovakia
Croatia
Bulgaria
Romania
EUR
Source:OECDanalysisbasedonEuropean
CommissionandEurostatdata
Per annum additional
expenditures by 2030

7. 7
2011-15
annual
average0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Denmark
United Kingdom
Finland
Italy
Belgium
Germany
Portugal
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Austria
Poland
Czech Republic
Latvia
Romania
Greece
Spain
Malta
France
Estonia
Hungary
Slovenia
Netherlands
Cyprus
Luxembourg
Ireland
Croatia
Sweden
Public budget Revenues from water tariffs
Household expenditure data unavailable
Source:OECDanalysisbasedonEUROSTAT(Generalgovernmentexpenditureby
function,Finalconsumptionexpenditureonenvironmentalprotectionservicesby
institutionalsector,Finalconsumptionexpenditureofhouseholdsbyconsumption
purpose,MeanconsumptionexpenditurebydetailedCOICOPlevel).
Past financing strategies -
WSS

8. 8
Share of EU transfers in estimated total expenditures for WSS per country
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Sweden
United Kingdom
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Spain
Poland
Portugal
Malta
Slovenia
Croatia
Slovakia
Hungary
Greece
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Latvia
Romania
Estonia
2011-15
annual
average
Note:ItisassumedthatEUtransfersarealwayschannelled
throughdomesticbudgetsofeachmemberstatesandthatthey
are,thereforenotadditionaltogovernmentexpenditures.
Source:OECDanalysisbasedonEUROSTAT(forpastestimated
expenditures),EuropeanCommissionDirectorate-Generalfor
RegionalandUrbanPolicy(OpenDataPortalforEuropean
StructuralandInvestmentFunds).
Past financing strategies -
WSS

9. 9
Source: OECD analysis based on EUROSTAT (WSS-related public and household expenditures, GDP, population).
Financing capacities:
macroeconomic affordability

10. 1
0
Share of WSS expenditures in households’ disposable income
2011-15
annual
average
Note: Lack of household
expenditure data for
Croatia and Sweden.
Source: OECD analysis
based on EUROSTAT
(household expenditures
and income data)
Financing capacities: current
affordability of the water bill

11. We think we know but…
Renew rates
& age of the
infrastructure
Discount
rates
Cost
allocation
Costs
breakdown
Costs
Willingness
to pay vs
Damage
costs
Not
quantifiable
benefits
Benefits

12. • Benefit estimate based on WTP for recreation, water quality,
drinking water quality and others.
• WB study uses population, whereas COWI uses pollutant
removal
• WB study adjusts prices only for AT, whereas COWI applies an
individual price-level to each MS
Comparability of the studies - World Bank – Danube
12 08 November 2018 Workshop - Costs & Benefits
WB –Lo WB – Hi COWI
EUR million
AT 346 1,555 3,065
BG 287 828 219
CZ 422 1,267 410
HU 392 1,176 727
RO 793 2,283 470
SI 83 249 93
SK 217 653 189

13. Use the 3Ts to lever
additional sources of finance
New sources needed
Limited EU
funds
High level of
taxes
AffordabilityBasic
requirements
not yet met
New
emerging
needs
Conflicting
priorities

14.  Common in solid waste management
 Could cover new emerging issues such as
pharmaceuticals, micro plastics
 Challenges:
 Identify additional costs
 Allocate these costs to individual products
Producer responsibility

15. Next steps
Finalization
of the
evaluations
(mid 2019)
Finalization
of the
OECD study
(mid 2019)
Decision on
a possible
review (end
2019)
Impact
assessment
and
Commission
Proposal
(2020)
Co Decision
–
Parliament
and Council
(2022)

16. Better understanding of challenges
Targetted policy responses (including ODA)
• Are we measuring the things that matter?
• What level of ambition for water policies?
• Proxies (state of the assets and rate of renewal)
Distinctive issues
The value of replicating in
other regions