Working Group on Environmental Accounts Present situation and way forward for water accounts (point 6.1 of the agenda) Eurostat – Unit E2 Arturo de la Fuente arturo.de-la-fuente@ec.europa.eu Working Group on Environmental Accounts Luxembourg, 9-10 March 2015

Background: water statistics Eurostat, DG ENV and EEA have their own water data collections Each having different focus/approach Eurostat, ENV and EEA have different positioning with strengths and weaknesses (domain of expertise, network of partners in Member States, etc.) Existing Eurostat water statistics have incomplete datasets limiting their use Dissatisfaction led to a review of Eurostat water statistics, launched in 2013 Goals: Simplify and refocus work Streamline with data collections by other partners (DG ENV, EEA) Keep elements needed for indicators and water accounting

Background: water accounts In parallel, the European Strategy for Environmental Accounts 2014- 2018 calls to develop water accounts As compared to water statistics, water accounts allow a more systematic approach for analysing water data and have close links to the SNA and its concept of stocks/flows A task force was developed a manual for physical flow water accounts. It later developed Data Structure Definitions to accomodate both statistics and accounts SEEA water accounts are in line with statistical work already developed in the ESS (European environmental accounts)

Background: water statistics & accounts Is it possible to have a joint reporting vehicle covering the needs of both water statistics and water accounts? Which water accounts best complement water data by other European water producers?

SEEA-based water accounts Strengths: Internal consistency (physical / monetary, stocks / flows, etc.) They integrate or are consistent with other SEEA accounts Can be part of an overarching system of accounts for natural resources Strength or drawback depending on point of view: Focus on the economic angle rather than the ecological perspective Drawbacks: Normally they are annual which masks seasonal effects Typically for national territories (no NUTS or RBD detailed) No environment-to-environment flows

Which water accounts to develop? Asset accs Flow accs Quality accs Ecosystem accs Volume Substances Physical Monetary

Which water accounts to develop? Proposal: High priority Flows accounts (volumes): physical and monetary Medium priority Asset accounts: physical Low priority Emission accounts

Ideas for a proposal Compared to the PWFA manual, simplify as much as possible without losing essential information Map Joint Questionnaire Inland Water into a PSUT Time resolution and periodicity: annual Granularity: Product and industry categories (as in document pp 7-8) Spatial aggregation: national level plus some river basin information RBD for some countries only? (depending on pre-defined indicator thresholds, e.g. WEI+) Extend RBD detail for some tables only?

Legal basis Legal basis for a core part of the questionnaire and voluntary basis for the rest of the data collection The legal basis would be a new module on water accounts in Regulation 691/2011 Why legal basis? Experience shows that voluntary data collections do not achieve completeness Conclusion of the review of water statistics Water accounts identified as development area in the ESEA 2014 Why now? ESEA 2014 does not call for a legal module in 2014-2018. However: Development of new legal modules will be long Starting it now, adoption could be expected in 2020, i.e. beyond the timeline of ESEA 2014-2018

Next steps Discussion being held with European partners Discussions being held in WG Environmental Accounts (March) and WG water statistics (April) Technical proposal must be developed with input from those discussions Progress will be reported to DIMESA in June Once a technical proposal is finalised and endorsed by the WGs, a voluntary data collection could be set up Eurostat grants for implementation

Questions for the WG How to base ESS water accounts on an effective division of tasks with other European producers of water data? Do you support the priorities & scope for water accounts as outlined in doc. section 4? What is the best solution to report essential information at river-basin level in a feasible way? Do you support to have legal basis for a core part of the water accounts (new Reg. 691/2011 module)?