Abstract:The governance dimensions of water reuse scheme development and operation, such as policies and regulatory frameworks, and public involvement and stakeholder collaboration, can serve to both facilitate and constrain wider adoption of water reuse practices. This paper explores the significance and underlying structure of the key governance challenges facing the water reuse sector in Europe. It presents empirical evidence from interviews and focus group sessions conducted at four water reuse schemes: an indirect potable reuse scheme at Torreele (Belgium), the urban reuse of treated municipal wastewater at the London Olympic Park (United Kingdom) and at Sabadell (Spain), and the reuse of agro-industrial effluent for irrigation at Capitanata (Italy). The findings underscore the importance of clarity in policy arrangements around water reuse, as well as of the financial competitiveness of reuse projects compared to alternative water supply options. Operators of water reuse schemes expressed a preference for water quality standards, which focus on appropriateness for use rather than over-emphasise the waters' origin so that unnecessary treatment and costs can be avoided. Positive public support was widely acknowledged as an important factor in the success or failure of water reuse schemes. We conclude that constructive institutional relationships underpin many of the challenges faced by reuse scheme operators and that greater emphasis should be given to building confidence and gaining trust in water service providers through early identification of how governance regimes shape the viability of new schemes.

No abstract

No abstract

Poor connection between data on emerging issues and credible policy decisions continues to challenge governments, and is only likely to grow as demands on time and resources increase. Here we summarise recent efforts to integrate horizon scanning and risk prioritisation approaches to better connect emerging issues to the political discourse on environmental and food-related issues. Our categorisation of insights including potential future risks and opportunities to inform policy discussions has emerged from a structured three-year programme of horizon scanning for a UK pan-governmental futures partnership led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Our efforts to integrate horizon scanning and risk prioritisation, utilising a qualitative weight of evidence framework, has created a systematic process for identifying all signals of potential future change with significant impact for the strategic mission and underlying values of policy actors. Our approach encourages an exploration of factors out of the control of organisations, recognising that resilience depends on the flexibility of management strategies and the preparedness to deal with a variety of unexpected outcomes. We discuss how this approach addresses key cultural and evaluative challenges that policy actors have had in embedding horizon scanning in evidence-based policy processes, and suggest further developments to build confidence in the use of horizon scanning for strategic planning.

The precautionary principle was formulated to provide a basis for political action to protect the environment from potentially severe or irreversible harm in circumstances of scientific uncertainty that prevent a full risk or cost-benefit analysis. It underpins environmental law in the European Union and has been extended to include public health and consumer safety. The aim of this study was to examine how the precautionary principle has been interpreted and subsequently applied in practice, whether these applications were consistent, and whether they followed the guidance from the Commission. A review of the literature was used to develop a framework for analysis, based on three attributes: severity of potential harm, standard of evidence (or degree of uncertainty), and nature of the regulatory action. This was used to examine 15 pieces of legislation or judicial decisions. The decision whether or not to apply the precautionary principle appears to be poorly defined, with ambiguities inherent in determining what level of uncertainty and significance of hazard justifies invoking it. The cases reviewed suggest that the Commission's guidance was not followed consistently in forming legislation, although judicial decisions tended to be more consistent and to follow the guidance by requiring plausible evidence of potential hazard in order to invoke precaution.