sustainable water use in europe - unknown - lallana et al

8/3/2019 Sustainable Water Use in Europe - Unknown - Lallana Et Al

1/94

No 19Environmental issue report

Sustainable water use in EuropePart 2: Demand management

Authors:C. Lallana, W. Krinner and T. Estrela, CEDEX

S. Nixon, Water Research CentreJ. Leonard, J. M. Berland, IOW

ETC/IW Leader: T. J. Lack

EEA Project Manager: N. Thyssen


2/94

Cover design: Brandenborg a/sLayout: Brandenborg a/s

Legal not ice

Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on behalf ofthe Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in thisreport.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. Itcan be accessed through the Europa server (http:/ /europa.eu.int).

EEA, Copenhagen, 2001

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in

Printed on recycled and chlorine-free bleached paper.

ISBN

European Environment AgencyKongens Nytorv 6DK-1050 Copenhagen KTel: (45) 33 36 71 00Fax: (45) 33 36 71 99E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.eea.eu.int


3/94

Preface

Agency in June 1998 andEnvironment in theEuropean Union at the turn of the centurypublished in June 1999.

The report aims to inform and provideinformation for policy- and decision-makersat the national and European levels. It willalso be of interest to NGOs, educationalestablishments and interested members ofthe public.

The report is concerned mainly with

measures which aim to achieve increases inthe efficiency of use of water over themedium to long term. A distinction is madebetween urban, industrial and agriculturaluses since these vary considerably and waterdemand management programmes need tobe designed specifically for each sector. Inaddition to sectoral differences, there areconsiderable differences between and withincountries depending on socioeconomic,geographical and climatological factors.

The management of water demand is an

important issue in Europe and a number ofpolicies and mechanisms are being used orare being formulated to ensure sustainableuse of water. It is intended that this report

will act as a source of comparative data tosupport the assessment of policies in placeand a source of information for thosedeveloping new policies.

This is the second report from theEuropean Environment Agency onsustainable water use in Europe and focuseson how the demand side of watermanagement is being approached acrossEurope. It has been produced by theEuropean Topic Centre on Inland Waterson behalf of the European Environment

Agency. The project was led by the Centrede Estudios y Experimentacin de ObrasPblicas (CEDEX, Spain), with theassistance of the Water Research Centre

(United Kingdom), the International Officefor Water (IOW) and the Agences de lEau(France) and the Institute of Hydrology(United Kingdom).

Information has been obtained fromavailable sources such as reports frominternational organisations (e.g. Eurostat,FAO), and national sources such as state ofthe environment reports. Extensive use wasmade of the EIONET network of contactsdeveloped by the European Environment

Agency. The focus is primarily on the

countries of western Europe, but the PhareTopic Link on Inland Waters (led by VitukiConsult Rt. in Hungary) also contributeddata and information on central and eastEuropean countries.

This report is also a source document forEuropes Environment: The Second Assessmentpublished by the European Environment


4/94

4 Sustainable water use in Europe


5/94

5

Contents

Preface .............................................................................................................................. 5

Executive summary ........................................................................................................... 7

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 10

2. General considerations............................................................................................... 11

2.1. Definitions ........................................................................................................... 11

2.2. Demand-side management in other economic sectors ........................................ 11

2.3. Reasons and instruments for demand management ............................................. 13

2.3.1. Instruments and motivating factors............................................................ 13

2.3.2. Economic viability ...................................................................................... 13

2.3.3. Organisational framework.......................................................................... 14

2.4. Water management: a public or a private matter? ............................................... 15

2.5. The influence of EU policies................................................................................. 16

2.6. Methodology applied .......................................................................................... 16

3. Technological approaches .......................................................................................... 18

3.1. Water-saving devices ........................................................................................... 18

3.1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 18

3.1.2. Main findings Water-saving devices in households .................................. 20

3.2. Water metering ................................................................................................... 20

3.2.1. Main findings Urban sector ..................................................................... 21

3.3. Leakage reduction in distribut ion networks.......................................................... 21

3.3.1. Main findings Technological approaches ................................................. 24

3.4. New technologies: changing processes ............................................................... 25

3.4.1. Industry ..................................................................................................... 25

3.4.2. Agriculture................................................................................................. 26

3.4.3. Main findings ............................................................................................. 29

4. Economic approaches................................................................................................. 30

4.1. Water charges ..................................................................................................... 30


6/94


4.2. Urban sector ........................................................................................................ 37

4.2.1. Effects of tariff structure............................................................................. 37

4.2.2. Price elasticity ............................................................................................ 38

4.2.3. Socially acceptable tariffs........................................................................... 38

4.3. Industry ............................................................................................................... 39

4.4. Agriculture ........................................................................................................... 39

4.4.1. Pricing structures for irrigation ................................................................... 41

4.5. Price elasticity and irrigation ................................................................................ 42

4.6. Main findings ....................................................................................................... 43

5. User education and information ................................................................................. 46

6. Water reuse ................................................................................................................ 47

6.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 47

6.2. Standards and guidelines for treated wastewater reuse ....................................... 49

6.3. Benefits and issues relating to treated wastewater reuse ..................................... 52

6.4. Main findings ....................................................................................................... 52

7. Integrated water management approaches .............................................................. 54

7.1. Background ......................................................................................................... 54

7.2. Main finding ........................................................................................................ 54

8. The way forward ......................................................................................................... 55

9. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 56

10. References .................................................................................................................. 61

Appendix Case studies .................................................................................................. 67


7/94

7

Executive summary

This report seeks to identify the key aspectsand factors of water demand managementas they relate to the different economicsectors. The information is largely gainedfrom case studies which are summarised inthe Appendix to the main report.

Most of the water used in households is fortoilet flushing (33%) and bathing andshowering (2032%). The lowestpercentage of domestic use is for drinkingand cooking (3%). The use of water-saving

devices, such as reduced volume toiletflushes, in households can achieve savings ofaround 50%. The overall savings of water

would depend on the proportion ofhousehold water demand in total urbandemand and on how widespread was the useof such devices. However, at present, theiruse is not very widespread perhaps becauseof the lack of information on them and/orbecause of their relatively high price.

The impact of introducing metering onwater use is difficult to separate from other

factors, in particular the water chargesapplied. However, the immediate savingsfrom the introduction of revenue-neutralmetering are estimated to be about 1025%of consumption. The introduction ofmetering is usually accompanied by arevised charging system and regulations onleakage. Generally, water meters have beenused to determine water used, but, in someareas (Denmark), meter readings will beused to calculate a pollution tax, on thebasis that the amount of water used

indicates the discharge to the sewagetreatment plant.

Losses in water distribution networks canreach high percentages of the volumeintroduced. Thus leakage reductionthrough preventive maintenance andnetwork renewal is one of the mainelements of any efficient water managementpolicy. Leakage figures from differentcountries indicate the different states of thenetworks and also the different componentsof leakage included in the calculations (e.g.

Albania up to 75%, Croatia 3060%, CzechRepublic 2030%, France 30%, and Spain2434%).

The European Environment Agency (EEA)and its European Topic Centre on Inland

Waters (ETC/IW) are undertaking anassessment of the sustainable use of water inEurope. This report describes the secondpart of that assessment and looks at, inparticular, the demand-side management of

water across Europe. There are manypressures on water resources includingthose arising from agriculture, industry,urban areas, households and tourism. Thesedriving forces on the need for water are

intimately linked with national andinternational social and economic policies.Additional driving forces arise from naturalvariability in water availability (rainfall) andchanges in Europes climate. Recent historyhas demonstrated that extreme hydrologicalevents such as floods and drought can createadditional stress on water supplies essentialfor human and ecosystem health. Theprudent and efficient use of water is thus animportant issue in Europe and a number ofpolicies and mechanisms are being used orare being formulated to ensure sustainable

use of water in the long term. Informationfor this report has largely been collectedfrom western Europe, though someinformation has also been obtained fromsome east European countries.

In the past, efforts to satisfy increasingdemand have often been expendedprincipally on increasing the supply ofresources, which were available abundantlyand at relatively low cost. However, therelationship between water abstraction and

water availability has turned into a majorstress factor in the exploitation of waterresources in Europe. Therefore, it is logicalthat the investigation of sustainable wateruse is concentrating increasingly on thepossibilities of influencing water demand ina way which is favourable for the waterenvironment. The present report continuesthe work undertaken by the EEA under itsstudy Sustainable water use in Europe Part 1: Sectoral use of water (EEA, 1999).Part 3 of the work on sustainable water useinvestigates the importance and significanceof extreme hydrological events such asdroughts and floods.

Executive summary


8/94


Tracing and repairing leakage can be veryexpensive. Increasing water production tofeed leaks may prove cheaper in somesystems. The consequence is that some localauthorities may decide not to trace leakage,despite low efficiency ratios, but continue

their wasteful use of water.

The substitution of water (reduction involume) in industrial processes can give riseto immediate savings particularly if thecontrol of the process conditions isimproved at the same time as a reduction of

water consumption by about 50% isachieved. Processes in closed circuits canalso reduce water use by about 90%.

The main water use within the agricultural

sector is for irrigation, with minor use bylivestock-farming and fish-farming. In theMediterranean countries, there are nationalpolicies to encourage the modernisation orsubstitution of traditional irrigationmethods. These include plans to increasethe size of properties to allow theintroduction of modern irrigationtechniques. The cost of modernisation ofexisting irrigation methods (gravity) intopressurised systems depends on severalfactors, but is often in excess of the resultanteconomic benefits. Thus, governments often

offer financial incentives or direct subsidiesto farmers for changing irrigationequipment.

The tariff structure has a high impact on thefinal water price and creates sectoral(industry, agriculture, urban) andgeographical (local, regional, national level)differences. Over recent years, thedevelopment of water policies in Europe hashad an important impact on water billcomposition. Information to users is

essential in any process of water tariffchanges (structure and price increases).

Price structures within the urban sector aregenerally fixed at municipal level and can

vary widely within a country. Thedifferences, in general, take into accountdifferent types of users (domestic, industry,agriculture) and tend to reflect differencesin cost structures. Experience has, however,shown that an increase in water pricesreduces water use.

Block tariffs, which include a connectioncharge independent of the water use, are

widespread: this is the case in Denmark,Finland, France, Greece, the Netherlands,

Norway, Spain and the UK. For a familyliving in a house using 200 m3 of water per

year, Germany has the highest water chargesin Europe (EUR 350.16), followed by theNetherlands (EUR 344.35) and Denmark(EUR 303.57). Italy (EUR 49.62) and

Norway (EUR 84.83) have the lowest.

The industrial sector faces two differentranges of prices depending on the watersource: direct abstraction or from public

water supply. Abstraction charges can takethe form of a nominal licence fee linked toan abstraction permit regime or they can

vary depending on the quantity used.Abstraction charges for industrial water usesare not in place in countries where water isdeemed to be abundant (e.g. Sweden). It is

usually cheaper for industrial users to investin water abstraction and treatment facilitiesthan to pay for supplied water, althoughinformation is often difficult to obtain.

In most countries, little information isavailable on tariff structures for industrialusers because companies tend to enter intospecial contracts with water suppliers (e.g.the Czech Republic, Finland, France andGermany). In other countries, such as theUK, standard charges are available to allcustomers in similar circumstances. In some

countries, subsidies can be available forindustrial users when they are willing toimprove their water abstraction or treatmentcapacities (e.g. Austria).

The main motive to implement waterconservation programmes in companiestends to be economic incentives, normallyin the form of abstraction charges and

wastewater fees. Other factors can belegislative requirements for cleanertechnologies, environmental image and

concern for the reliability of water supply.

The situation regarding water tariffs forirrigation is very different from other sectors.The main reason for this is the different roleirrigation plays in relation to the differenthydrological and climatic conditions acrossEurope. Irrigation tariffs can be extremelylow and there is significant pressure to resistany increase. The use of water for irrigationresponds moderately to water price levels,but is more influenced by other factors suchas climate variations, agricultural policies andproduct prices. The most common system forirrigation charges is based on the irrigatedsurface, followed by a combination of perunit area and volume used.


9/94

9

The general education of and provision ofinformation for water users are importantparts of initiatives encouraging morerational water use and changing habits. It is,however, difficult to quantify the effect of apublic educational campaign because it is

always part of a wider water-savingprogramme which includes other measures.

In agriculture, the aim of the educationprogrammes is to help farmers optimiseirrigation. This can be achieved throughtraining (on irrigation techniques), andthrough regular information on climaticconditions, irrigation volume advice fordifferent crops, and advice on when to

start/stop the irrigation period adjustingirrigation volumes according to rainfall andtype of soil.

In Mediterranean countries, the importanceof the direct reuse of wastewater is

increasing and there is a trend towardsconsidering treated wastewater as aneconomic good. The technical aspects ofreuse are generally in place, but there is alack of standards and national regulationsfor the reuse of water. Standards andguidelines are urgently needed. There isalso a need for economic incentives toestablish new programmes for uses of water

which do not require high quality.

Executive summary


10/94


1. Introduction

Increasing human demand for resourcessuch as water, energy and land for wastedisposal can be met either by expandingsupply or by managing demand. Waterdemand management seeks to ensure thatthe right balance of demand- and supply-side options is achieved (EEA, 1999e).

In the past, efforts to satisfy increasingdemand have often been expendedprincipally on increasing the supply ofresources, which were available abundantly

and at relatively low cost. However, therelationship between water abstraction andwater availability has turned into a major stressfactor in the exploitation of water resources inEurope. Therefore, it is logical that theinvestigation of sustainable water use isconcentrating increasingly on the possibilitiesof influencing water demand in a way which isfavourable for the water environment. Thepresent report continues the work undertakenby the EEA under its study Sustainable wateruse in Europe Part 1: Sectoral use of water(EEA, 1999). Part 3 of the work on sustainable

water use investigates the importance andsignificance of extreme hydrological eventssuch as droughts and floods.

Sustainability1 must seek to balance thewater available at any particular point intime and space with the demand for waterfor various uses, and the need for enough

water to safeguard human health and theaquatic ecosystem. Underpinning this, the

water available must be of sufficient qualityto satisfy the different users of water

including again safeguarding human andother life. Measures may be used to increaseavailability of water (e.g. construction ofreservoirs and leakage control) and/orcontrol and decrease the demand for water(e.g. charging for water and metering).

This report seeks to identify the key aspectsand factors of water demand managementas they relate to the different economicsectors. The information is largely gainedfrom a number of case studies which aresummarised in the Appendix to the mainreport.

In Europe, there is wide recognition thatthere is a need for strategies for thesustainable use of water resources. Forexample, the European Commission has putforward a proposal for a key action onsustainable management and quality of waterin the fifth framework programme forresearch (started in 1999). The aim of thekey action is to produce the knowledge andtechnologies needed for the rationalmanagement of water resources for domesticneeds and those of industry and agriculture

(European Commission, 1998). Also, thepurpose of the proposed water frameworkdirective is to establish a framework which

will promote sustainable water use based ona long-term protection of available waterresources. The directive lists measures thatshould be applied to achieve this, includingthe recovery of costs for water services andcontrols over the abstraction of fresh surface

water and groundwater.

As part of the process of improvinginformation and knowledge at the European

level, the European Environment Agency(EEA) and its European Topic Centre onInland Waters (ETC/IW) are undertaking anassessment of the sustainable use of water inEurope. This report describes the second partof that assessment and looks at, in particular,the demand-side management of water acrossEurope. Information for this report has largelybeen collected from western Europe, thoughsome information has also been obtainedfrom some east European countries.

Reliable water supply and the protection ofaquatic resources through adequate watermanagement are essential to support allaspects of human life and dependentaquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The useof water across Europe is as varied as therespective countries, because of differentclimates, cultures, habits, economies andnatural conditions. Common to allEuropean countries is the need to satisfy the

water demand of households, industry andagriculture. Also common to many countriesis a limitation on water resources, both interms of quantity and quality.

1 The Brundtland definition of sustainable development: development which meets the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.


11/94

11

2. General considerations

General considerations

2.1. Definitions

The concept of water demand managementgenerally refers to initiatives, which have theobjective of satisfying existing needs for

water with a smaller amount of availableresources, normally through increasing theefficiency of water use. Water demandmanagement can be considered a part of

water conservation policies, which tend tobe a more general concept, describinginitiatives with the aim of protecting the

aquatic environment and making a morerational use of water resources.

The term water demand management canbe defined in many different ways. In thisreport, demand management refers to theimplementation of policies or measures

which serve to control or influence theamount of water used (UKWIR/EA, 1996).

2.2. Demand-side management inother economic sectors

In other sectors, such as the energyindustries (electricity, gas, oil), customer-side management has a long history and isoften referred to as demand-sidemanagement.

This may involve efficiency standards,product labelling, energy service centresproviding advice for users, financing ofR&D for energy-saving technologies,subsidies for energy-efficient products, andpublic awareness, education and training.

Financial instruments include regulatoryprice controls (which act as incentives ordisincentives for energy utilities to adoptdemand reduction policies) and priceincentives for customers (payment related toconsumption and also, in some cases, tolevel of demand).

Useful experience has been gathered in theenergy sector, for example, regarding thedilemma that the successful implementationof a demand management programmethrough a supply company may have anegative impact on the companys economicresult through the reduction of sales andturnover. It is, therefore, obvious that

adequate mechanisms have to be foreseento compensate for this effect.

When a public sector utility company isoperating at its maximum capacity, it may bereasonable to look for ways to reducedemand instead of undergoing substantialcosts and operational difficulties caused bythe construction of a new plant. Forexample, more than 60 electricitycompanies in the United States, whichsupply approximately half the countrys

population, already have programmes whichpromote the sale of energy-saving systems(Cairncross, 1993, quoted in LpezCamacho, 1996). To be really effective, theseprogrammes have to find a way to subsidisethose companies which are able to reducethe demand for their product. Thisintuitively contradictory idea probably canonly be put into practice by increasing tariffsfor those consumers who do not invest indemand management, applying once againthe polluter pays principle.

The electricity sector can provide someuseful experiences regarding sharedsavings and economic incentives for supplycompanies to reduce demand.

Catalogue of measures

There are many different water demandmanagement measures. These can becategorised:

by type of incentive:

legal obligation (e.g. compulsory use ofcertain technologies, quota for wateruse);

economic incentives (e.g. tariff systems,progressive pricing, subsidies for water-saving investments);

information, motivation (e.g.information campaigns, usereducation, programmes to increaseenvironmental awareness, concern forpublic image);

by kind of tools used: infrastructure improvement (network

improvement, repair leaks, etc.); non-structural measures (information,

education, pricing) which may,


12/94


however, finally lead to infrastructureimprovements being implementednormally through end-users as aconsequence of the measures adopted;

by time horizon:

emergency measures; medium- and long-term measures;

by location of the water supply system, wheremeasures are implemented: abstraction facilities; storage facilities; conveyance and distribution network; end-users facilities;

by entity bound to carry out measures: agencies and public authorities (e.g.

initiatives within water supplycompanies); end-users (households, industries,

farmers);

by entity promoting demand managementinitiatives: international treaties and conventions; EU legislation and policies; national legislation; local and regional initiatives;

by sector in which measures are applied:

urban use (households, smallcommerce, etc.);

industry; agriculture.

Because water use and consequently waterdemand management measures varyconsiderably between sectors, the distinctionbetween urban use, industry and agriculturehas been maintained throughout thisreport.

To avoid ambiguity, it is useful to considerwater demand management in the contextof an overall water management policy,comprising water supply and demand.

Within this policy, four different fields canbe distinguished (UKWIR/EA, 1996):

resource management: policies whichaffect yield;

production management: policiestargeted at activities between abstraction

and distribution input; distribution management: policiestargeted at activities between distributioninput point and consumption;

customer-side management: policiestargeted at customers consumption (e.g.plumbing losses and water-saving devicesin households).

Examples of types of measures within eachof these fields are given in Table 2.1.


13/94

13

Water resource management in the context of tot al water supply/demand management Table 2.1.

Source: UKWIR/EA, 1996Process Opt ions Examples of measures

Resource management(infrastructure + supply)

Exploitation of additional waterresource

Increase supply yield

New boreholes or abstraction points

Constructio n o f increasedstorage or transport capacity

Reservoirs Aqueducts

Management schemes Conjunctive use

Artificial recharge

Alternative sources tofreshwater

Use of seawater for cooling systems

Productionmanagement

Production technology Technology for improving water treatmentsuch as desalinisation

Recycling treated wastewater Recycling for a variety of uses

Reduction of production requirements

Distributionmanagement

Capacity of mains distributionnetwork

Increase mains capacity

Efficiency of mains distrib utionnetwork

Localisation and repair of leaks

Pressure reductio n

Customer-sidemanagement

Water-saving equip ment R & D of w ater-saving devices

Encouraging use of devices by individ ual usersand collective users

Efficient irrigation material

Alternative industrial processes

Meter installation Assessment of volumes used

Leakage reduction For ind ividual usersFor collective users

Tariffs Adjustment of consumption-related tariffs

Use of permits for sprinklers

Penalties for exceeding irrigation volumeceiling

Reuse Rainwater f or watering g arden

Recycling of used water for other uses

Education and information General advice and information onconservation

Tactical irrigation advice

Advice on leakage

NB: Measures that are part of a water demand strategy are indicated in bold.Measures which are not part of a water demand strategy are indicated in italics.


2.3. Reasons and instruments fordemand management

2.3.1. Instruments and motivating factorsThere is a range of environmental, socialand financial factors that motivate watermanagers, suppliers and users to initiate andimplement demand management policies:

financial: water costs may be an incentiveto reduce demand;

regulatory: legislation, particularly in theindustrial sector, can require bestavailable technology to reduceenvironmental impacts;

environmental image for competitiveness:this is particularly a factor in the

industrial sector, where a competitiveedge can be gained by investing inenvironmental management;

environmental responsibility: users mayfeel a responsibility to improve/safeguardthe environment;

sustainability: environmental balance ofsupply/demand.

2.3.2. Economic viabilityThe concept of water demand management

was first elaborated in the late 1970s andthroughout the 1980s when the (physical orfinancial) limits of infrastructure solutionsbecame apparent. In particular, economictheories concerning pricing, metering andcustomer-side management were developed


14/94


in the 1980s. Despite increasing interest inthis subject in the 1990s, few publishedstudies on the economic viability of large-scale policies exist.

On the scale of a particular distribution

network, the economic viability of reducing,for example, leakage may be difficult toassess, given the fact that many case studieslack economic appraisal.

On the scale of an individual house,collective building or industrial site, theeconomic viability of saving significantquantities water can be easy to demonstrate,even when pricing policies are notimplemented (several case studies arepresented in this report).

2.3.3. Organisational frameworkIn many of the case studies presented in thisreport, the importance of developing soundpartnerships between authorities, users andsuppliers is evident. In some cases, this maybe encouraged through defining standardstructures, where there may, in addition, bea statutory obligation to consult all partners.The importance of including all concernedparties is illustrated by the Local Agenda 21

strategy implemented in the UK (see casestudy in the box below) and thedevelopment of good catchmentmanagement in the Charente (France)

water resources management protocol (seeAppendix, case study 51).

Local initiatives can be encouraged andthen assisted by a central coordinating oradvisory body. In particular, suchorganisations can assist in the exchange ofexperience and carry out research work ofcommon interest. An example of such anorganisation on a national scale is theNational Water Demand ManagementCentre in the UK (see case study in the boxbelow). Other local organisations set up byseveral partners are frequently observed,

such as, for example, the advice centre inCopenhagen (see Appendix, case study 34).

Through these types of organisation, widelyaccepted guidelines for good practice canbe drawn up. An example of this is the bestpractice framework developed by the UK

water industry and the regulators(Environment Agency) for forecastingdemand and studying the economics ofdemand management (UKWIR/EA, 1996).

Case studies

Sustainable water management in Local Agenda 21, UK

Local authorities in the UK are being encouraged to develop Local Agenda 21 (LA21) strategies by the year2000, through defining LA21 comprehensive action plans (EA and LGMB, 1998). By 1998, around 70% of theauthorities were engaged in this process. Water is one of the key issues in sustainable development, and, inparticular, with the prospect of an extra 4.4 million new households due to be built between 1996 and 2016and the uncertainty of climate change, promot ion of water efficiency is viewed as an important element.A large number of partners in sustainable water management need to be consulted in developing LA21strategies: water users; government regulators; water suppliers; facilitators (manufacturers, housebuilders); opinion-shapers (lobbies, associations, federations, etc.).

As well as encouraging the development of LA21 strategies, local authorit ies can provide a lead on waterefficiency through their own way of operating; for example, through water conservation within their ownpremises, giving advice to tenants in authority housing, and also through their responsibility for newdevelopment p lans, building regulations, etc.

National Water Demand Management Centre, UK

In 1997, the UK Environment Agency (EA) upgraded the National Water Demand Management Centre(NWDMC) in the UK, initially established in 1993 in order to reinforce its commitment to sustainable watermanagement through the provision of specialist services. The NWDMC contributes to the EA strategythrough promotion, advice, technical assistance and research.In particular, promot ion actions by the NWDMC include: a monthly bulletin containing discussion articles and case studies (currently at a circulation of 1500); consultation reports; support for t he regulators contribut ion to the water industrys strategic business plans; publication of case studies;

a web site; roadshow activities, for example at home exhibitions; research and development activities, for example on how to establish effective methods for communicating

means of water conservation.


15/94

15

2.4. Water management:a public or a private matter?

Traditionally, the public sector has beenheavily involved in the allocation andmanagement of water, as a result of several

specific characteristics of the water sector:

water projects often involve largeinvestments which cannot easily beprovided by private companies;

it is often necessary to impose regulationsto meet the expectations of all thedifferent users (different sectors of wateruse);

public initiative is frequently necessary toface extreme events such as droughts andfloods;

water is allocated by governments topromote social redistribution; water, especially in regions of scarcity, has

a strategic importance (regionaldevelopment, national security).

Over recent years, economic considerationshave become more and more important in

water policies, giving more relevance to theprivate sector in this field (water supply and

water demand management). Therefore, itis necessary to make economic decisions

compatible with social objectives (efficiencyand equity considerations).

Different forms of water allocation schemesattempt to combine both efficiency andequity principles. While economic efficiencyis concerned with the amount of wealth thatcan be generated by a given resource base,equity deals with the distribution of the total

wealth among the sectors and individuals ofa society (Dinar et al., 1997, quoted in

World Bank, 1997).

A World Bank study on water allocationmechanisms identifies several forms of waterallocation, together with their majoradvantages and disadvantages (see Table 2.2).


Water allocati on mechanisms Table 2.2.

Source: World Bank, 1997Allocationmechanism

Definit ion Advant ages Disadvant ages Example

Marginalcost pricing

Targetsa price forwater equal to themarginal cost ofsupplying the last unit

of that water.Water supply chargestypically includecollection, transportto a treatment plant,water treatment tomeet qualitystandards, distributionto customers andmonitoring andenforcement.

Water charges mayalso include any socialcosts (or benefits),although they may bemore difficult t ocalculate.

Avoids the tendencyto underprice water

Could avert overusebecause priceswould rise to reflectthe relative scarcityof water supplied

Can also becombined withpollution charges ortaxes

Difficultiesindefining marginalcost itself asa resultof problems in

collecting sufficientinformation toestimate benefitsand costs

Tends to neglectequity issues

Requires volumetricmonitoring which isnot alwaysin place

IrrigationIn France,water issold on the'binomial tariff' basis.The Societ du Canal

de Provence designstariffs with theobjective that theyreflect long-runmarginal capital costsand operating costs inthe peak period,operating costs onlyin the off -peak period,and possibledischarge reduction inthe form of pollutionfees. Thusthe Statesubsidises 50 %of allelements of the tariff.

Public/admini-strativeallocation

The governmentdecideswhich waterresourcescan be usedby the system as awhole, and allocatesand d istributes waterwithin different partsof that system.

The State's role isparticularly strong inintersectoralallocation, as it isoften the onlyinstitution that

includesall usersofwater resources, andhasjurisdiction overall sectors of wateruse.

Tends to promoteequity objectives,ensuring watersupply to areasofinsufficient quantity;the physicalallocation of wateramong the users isindependent of thecharge

Prices do notrepresent either thecost of water supplyor its value to the user

Often leads to wasteand misallocation ofwater

Often doesnotsupport userparticipation

The dominantincentive to comply isenforcement by law

The structures or feesfor water often do notcreate incentives forusers to save and useit more efficiently


16/94


The study highlights that no single type ofallocation is optimal for all situations, andthat, in practice, most countries have somecombination of water allocation mechanisms.

2.5. The influence of EU policies

Compliance with EU water directives, inparticular with the urban wastewatertreatment directive, requires high levels ofinvestment in EU countries.

Water systems when first installed, at thebeginning of the century, were for health and

welfare reasons, and the States providedsubsidies to cover the necessary investmentfor equipment and installation. Once theinitial investment phase was completed, thetrend was for governments to stop subsidiesto the water services sector, and to pass thecosts onto the water consumers via water bills.

The proposed water framework directivetakes the river basin as the basic unit forintegrated water management. The directiveincorporates the recovery of the costs for

water services (costs of water servicesincluding environmental and resourcecosts). It opens the possibility to MemberStates to establish their priorities, takinginto account the social, environmental andeconomic effects of the recovery, as well asthe geographic and climatic conditions ofthe region or regions affected.

2.6. Methodology applied

Obviously, the appropriateness of measuresis very much dependent on the kind of

water use and the specific conditions of thewater supply system. Normally, demandmanagement programmes are acombination of various measures,

Allocationmechanism

Definit ion Advant ages Disadvant ages Example

Watermarkets

The allocation ofwater isreferred to asan exchange of wateruse rights, comparedto a temporary

exchange of a givenquantity of waterbetweenneighbouring users.Sometimes it requiresthe intervention ofgovernment to createthe conditionsnecessary for marketsto operate (definingwater rights, creatingthe institut ional andlegal framework,investing ininfrastructure to allowwater transfers).

The seller has theopportunity t oincrease profitability

The buyer benefits

because the watermarket encouragesincreasing wateravailability

Empowerment ofwater usersbyrequiring theirconsent to anyreallocation of waterand compensationfor any watertransferred

Provision of waterrightst enure to thewater users

Inducesa shifttowards improvedwater managementand efficiency inagriculture

Difficultiesforestablishing themarket: measuringwater, definingwater rights when

flows are variable,enforcingwithdrawal rules,investing inconveyancesystems,environmentaldegradation

Third-party effectshave to beidentified andquantified to takeinto account theassociated costs inthe exchangeprocess (pollution,

overdraft of watertables, etc.)

User-basedallocation

Irrigation:farmer-managedirrigation (by timerotation, depth ofwater, area of land,sharesof t heflow).Domestic-watersupply: communitywells and hand-pumpsystems.User-basedallocation requires

collective actioninstitutions withauthority to makedecisions on waterrights. The effect ofuser-based allocationdepends on thecontent of local normsand the strength oflocal institutions.

Potential flexibilityto adapt waterdelivery patterns tomeet local needs

Administrativefeasibility,sustainability andpoliticalacceptability

Requiresa verytransparentinstitutionalstructure

Local user-basedinstitutions can belimited in theireffectiveness forintersectoralallocation of waterbecause they do not

include all sectors ofusers

Communal irrigationsystem

In Portugal (Vila Covavillage), issues such asbeginning and endingof the irrigationperiod, losses incanals, travel time ofwater, user sequence,and night turnsareaddressed via various

arrangements thatinvolve differentcommunityinstitutions.


17/94

17

comprising, for example, structural andnon-structural measures or targeting variousentities within the water supply systemsimultaneously (e.g. supply agency and end-users).

This report is concerned mainly withmeasures which aim to achieve efficiencyincreases in the medium and long run, andleaves emergency drought managementprogrammes as a separate issue.

Throughout the report, the distinctionbetween urban, industrial and agriculturaluse has been maintained, considering that

water use in these three sectors variesconsiderably, and that water demandmanagement programmes consequentlyhave to be designed specifically for eachsector.

Following this general introduction, thereport concentrates on case studies whichillustrate the different types of demandmanagement measures available. Theobjective is to evaluate the potential impactof different measures in order to elaborategeneral guidelines for designing demandmanagement programmes.



18/94


3. Technological approaches

Most of the water use in households is fortoilet flushing, bathing and showering, andfor washing machines and dishwashing. Theproportion of water for cooking anddrinking, compared with the rest of theuses, is minimal. Table 3.1 gives the patternsof water use by households in England and

Wales, Finland and Switzerland.

Typical water consumption figures fortraditional domestic appliances are givenin Table 3.2 for England and Wales, Finland,

France and Germany.

Statistics show that there is a potential toimprove the water efficiency of commonhousehold appliances such as toilets, tapsand washing machines. Some appliances are

3.1. Water-saving devices

3.1.1. IntroductionHigher standards of living are changing

water demand patterns. This is reflectedmainly in increased domestic water use,especially for personal hygiene. Most of theEuropean population have indoor toilets,showers and/or baths for daily use. Theresult is that most of the urban waterconsumption is for domestic use.

For instance, in Spain, the urban waterconsumption is apportioned as follows: 70%for household consumption, 24% for smallindustries and services, and 6% for publicservices (MMA, 1998).

Table 3.1. Patt erns of w ater use by households in England and Wales, Finland and Swit zerland

Sources: UK Departmentof t he Environment, 1997;Etelmki, 1999; SwissOrganisation for GasandWater Supply, web page.

Table 3.2. Average app liance consumption in England and Wales, Finland, France and Germany

Source: OFWAT, 1997;Etelmki, 1999

Household uses England and Wales (%) Finland (%) Swit zerland (%)

Toilet flushing 33 14 33

Bathing and showering 20 29 32

Washing machinesanddishwashing

14 30 16

Drinking and cooking 3 4 3

Miscellaneous 27 21 14

External use 3 2 2

ApplianceEngland andWales

Finland France Germany

ToiletWashing machine

Dishwasher

Shower

Bath

9.5 l/f lush80 l/ cycle

35 l/ cycle

35 l/shower

80 l/bath

6 l/f lush74-117 l/cycle

25 l/cycle

60 l/shower

150-200 l/bath

9 l/f lush75 l/cycle

24 l/cycle

16 l/minute

100 l/bath

9 l/f lush72-90 l/cycle

27-47 l/cycle

30-50 l/shower

120-150 l/bath

Water-savingappliances

No incentive forthe majority ofhouseholds toconserve water,but commerce andindustry haveinvested in flushcontrollers forurinals, push

operation taps,low-volume showerheadsand devicesto limit toilet flushvolume

The amount ofwater per flush intoilets dependsmainly on theconstruction yearof the building:

prior to 1976,9 l/ flush;

1976-93, 6 l/f lush;1993-96, 4 l/f lush;since 1996, 2-4l/flush

Domestic water-saving app liancesare not widespread

Somemunicipalitieshaveinvested heavily ininstallingwater-savingdevicesandincreasing publicawareness


19/94

19

Evolutio n of w ater used for w ashing machines (1970-98) Figure 3.1.

Source: Water Efficiencyin Cit ies, InternationalConference, 1999.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160180

1970 1980 1985 1988 1992 1998

Water used(litres/cycle)

best adapted to collective buildings such aspublic toilets (taps which turn offautomatically); nevertheless, most are not

widely used because they are expensive.Further research and development in recent

years has refined these appliances and madethem more accessible to the public. Sometypical water-saving devices, which can be

used in the home, are described in Table 3.3.

Over recent years, the EU has establishedconditions required for the ecologicallabelling of dishwashers (Official Journal ofthe European Communities, 7 August 1993)and of washing machines (Official Journal of

the European Communities, 1 August 1996).Amongst other conditions, dishwasherscannot use more than 1.85 l of water percutlery item. Washing machines cannot usemore than 15 l/kg of clothes in a cycle of60 oC, and both types of machine must giveclear instructions about water and energysaving.

In addition to regulations, new technologiesalso have a positive impact on the use of

water by these domestic appliances, andhave achieved important reductions overthe last 20 years (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2).

Technological approaches

Typical water -saving devices in households Table 3.3.

Sources: FundacinEcologa y Desarrollo,1999

Equipment Descript ion Wat er saving

Taps

Tapswith air devices Introduction of air bubblesinto thewater, increasing it s volume Lessflow and same effect

Flow reduction of around 50 %

Tapswith thermostats They keep the selectedtemperature

Reduction of around 50 %of waterand energy

Taps with infrared sensors Water isavailable when an object isunderneath

Reduction of between 70 and 80 %

Electronic taps, or taps withbuttons for a timed length of flow

Water running for a limited time

ToiletsDouble-command toilets

Command for 6 l/ flush,command for 3 l/ flush

Water-saving devices for oldequipment

Device to mix water and air for taps Increases the volume of water

(reduction of flow)

Reduction of around 40 %

Button to interrupt toilet flush Reduction of around 70 %

Device to limit shower flow Reduction of between 10 and 40 %


20/94


However, the difficulty is often to encourageuse and increase market penetration ofthese devices. Initiatives can include theshort- or long-term renovation of buildings,such as offices, sports facilities, schools orapartment blocks, when companies or localauthorities decide to integrate waterefficiency as a design criterion. Increasingthe market penetration of appliances in the

domestic field is more difficult and requiresinformation campaigns explaining thereasons and advantages of the newappliances, for example in terms of reduced

water bills. This is obviously a long-termprocess, since the turnover of suchappliances in individual homes is slow.

Case studies 1, 2 and 3 (see Appendix)illustrate some successful projects of thistype at small and large scales.

The impact of the use of water-savingdevices on water demand is differentdepending on the importance of householddemand in relation to total urban waterdemand. For example, a 1070% reductionin household water demand in theNetherlands, with a total demand for urbanuse of 1014 million m3, 57% of which goesto households, would result in a waterreduction of between 58 and 405 million m3

(between 6 and 40% of the total urbandemand). In the UK, with a total demandfor urban use of 12117 million m3 of which44% is for household demand, the waterreduction would be between 533 and 3732million m3 (between 4 and 31% of the totalurban demand).

3.1.2. Main findingsWater-saving devices in households

1. Most of the water used in households isfor toilet flushing (33%) and bathingand showering (2032%). The lowestpercentage of domestic use is fordrinking and cooking (3%).

2. Different experiences show that savings

can be achieved using various water-saving devices in households, publicplaces and industry (especially hotelsand leisure centres). Nevertheless, thesekinds of devices are not very widespreadin households.

3. Water-saving devices on taps, and toiletswith 6 l/flush, could achieve reductionsin use of around 50%.

4. It would be necessary to encourage

market penetration of these devices byincreasing the information for users andseeking the cooperation of producers(better information to consumers aboutthe available technologies).

5. The impact of the use of householdwater-saving devices on total urbandemand is different depending on theproportion of household demand intotal urban demand.

3.2. Water metering

In a number of countries, domestic usersare charged a flat rate. Examples includethe UK, where the charge is based on the

Figure 3.2. Evolut ion of w ater used for d ishwashers (197099)

Source: Water Efficiencyin Cities, InternationalConference, 1999.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1970 1980 1985 1992 1997 1999

Water used(litres/cycle)


21/94

21

value of property, Ireland, where users payflat rates for water through their local taxes,and Iceland, where users pay an annualfixed charge per m2 of property plus anoverall charge per property.

However, in most countries, water ismetered and the charge is related in some

way to the volume consumed.

The impact of the introduction of meteringon water consumption is difficult to separatefrom other factors, in particular the watercharges applied. It is also essential to have acorrect balance between real waterconsumption and unaccounted water. Waterlosses are better measured if a meter isinstalled at the waterworks as well as at the

consumers.

However, immediate savings from theintroduction of revenue-neutral meteringare estimated to be about 1025% ofconsumption, and this is because of theeffects of information, publicity and leakagerepair, as well as the non-zero marginalpricing. Savings are also sustainable overtime (Pezzey and Mill, 1998).

In case studies 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 (seeAppendix), the introduction of metering

has been an important part of waterdemand management, accompanied by arevised charging system and regulations onleakage.

3.2.1. Main findingsUrban sector

1. Metering is an essential element inobtaining a correct balance between real

water consumption and unaccountedwater (water losses). Water losses arebetter measured if a meter is installed at

the waterworks as well as at theconsumers.

2. The impact of the introduction ofmetering on water use is difficult toseparate from other factors, in particularthe water charges applied.

3. Immediate savings from theintroduction of revenue-neutralmetering are estimated to be about 1025% of consumption.

4. The introduction of metering, as part ofwater demand management, is usuallyaccompanied by a revised chargingsystem and regulations on leakage.

5. Usually, water meters have been used todetermine water consumption, but insome countries, such as Denmark, meterreadings will be used to calculate apollution tax, on the basis that waterconsumption indicates the discharge to

the sewage treatment plant.

6. In introducing water metering to newregions, there are social effects to betaken into account (effects on sociallydisadvantaged households which aremore vulnerable to water metering andpricing large family size, medicalconditions).

3.3. Leakage reduction in distributionnetworks

Losses of water in the distribution networkcan reach high percentages of the volumeintroduced. The problems associated withleakage are not only related to the efficiencyof the network, but also to water qualityaspects (contamination of drinking water ifthe pressure in the distribution network is

very low).

The concept of leakage covers differentaspects:

losses in the network because pipes are notproperly sealed; leakage usually occurs atthe pipe joints, and is particularly relevantin old and extended networks;

losses in users installations before thewater is metered;

undermeasurement by meters when thewater flow is low (mechanical problems);

sometimes, when some uses are notmeasured (e.g. public gardens, streetcleaning) and are calculated byestimations, the differences are counted

as losses.

The following examples of leakage estimatesfor different countries show big differencesdue to the different states of the networks,and also due to the different conceptsexplained above (see Table 3.4).

The UK regulator has set a mandatoryleakage target for each water company inEngland and Wales, and there is anincentive to show that unaccounted water isactually water being used legitimately ratherthan leakage (Financial Times Newsletters,October 1998). In 1998/99, leakage levelsreported by water companies were 22%lower than in 1996/97 (DETR, 1999).



22/94


In Switzerland, network losses in somecommunities and small suppliers areestimated to be around 30% of waterintroduced. Nevertheless, in cities likeZurich, where leakage control of 4050% ofthe total distribution network length iscarried out every year, losses decreased from

10 to 5% over the last 10 years (Skarda,1999).

Preventive maintenance and networkrenewal are the main factors effectingleakage of a network. The internationalsurvey for IWSA (Durban 1995) presents anaverage of 0.6% of annual pipereplacement.

The present situation can be characterisedby very different replacement rates ofbetween

0.1 and 2%. In Switzerland, the averageservice life of an installation is assumed tobe 50 years, but new types of external and

internal well-protected pipes could have aservice life of 200 years. The ZurichCantonal Water Authority recommendsreplacement rates of 2% of the totaldistribution network length (Skarda, 1999).

There are several ways of expressing the

efficiency of a distribution network. In eachcase, an optimal (or benchmark)performance target can be determined andthe progress towards its achievementassessed.

(a) Efficiency ratio This ratio is calculated as follows:

Efficiency ratio (%) = (metered volume/distributed volume) x 100.

It is the simplest ratio to calculate because itonly uses measured values. It compares themeasured delivery volumes with the volumereleased into the network. However, the valueof this ratio should be interpreted carefully as

Table 3.4. Estimated losses from water netw orks

Sources:(1) Mountain Unlimited,

1997(2) WHO, 1997(3) Mountain Unlimited,

1995(4) PTL/IW, 1999(5) Vangsgaard, 1997(6) FEI, 1999(7) OFWAT, 1997(8) Umweltbundesamt, 2000(9) IRSA, 1996

(10) EEA/WHO, 1999(11) EEA, 1999(12) MMA,1998

Count ry Est imat ed losses(% of water supply)

Source

Albania Up to 75 (1)

Armenia 50-55 (2)Bulgaria (Sofia) 30-40 (3)

Bulgaria (other than Sofia) More than 60 (3)

Croatia 30-60 (3)

Czech Republic 20-30 (4)

Denmark 4-16 (5)

Finland 15 (6)

France (national average, 1990) 30 (7)

France (Paris) 15 (7)

France (highly rural area) 32 (7)

Germany (former West Germany, 1991) 6.8 (8)Germany (former East Germany, 1991) 15.9 (8)

Germany (average, 1991) 8.8 (8)

Hungary 30-40 (3)

Italy (national average) 15 (9)

Italy (Rome) 31 (9)

Moldova 40-60 (3)

Romania 21-40 (10)

Slovakia 27 (11)

Slovenia 40 (4)

Spain 24-34 (12)

Ukraine Around 50 (3)

UK (England and Wales) 8.4 m3/km mainspipe/day

243 l/property/day(7)


23/94

23

it cannot be used to compare differentnetworks, since it does not take into accountthe total volumes involved (metered,unmetered, network maintenance). It ismore useful to use this ratio to analyse trendover time for a particular network, ratherthan using its absolute value.

Nevertheless, it is possible to give somerough guidelines.

(b) Net efficiency ratio

This ratio is probably a better indicator andcan be calculated as follows:

Net efficiency ratio (%) = ((meteredvolumes+unmetered authorised consumedvolumes+volumes used for networkmaintenance)/(distributed volumes)) x 100.

This value gives a better idea of the actualleakage in the network, since it takes intoaccount all types of water that are used(metered/unmetered/networkmaintenance). However, two of the

expressions (unmetered volumes andnetwork volumes) are rough estimations,

which means that the indicator can beerroneous. Also, the network manager canincrease the net efficiency value byinappropriate estimates of maintenance

volumes (cleaning etc.).

(c) Linear leakage indexThe physical state of networks can becompared by relating the lost volumes to thelength of the network, where:

Linear leakage index (m3/day/km) = losses/lengthof network.

The length of the network may include thetotal distance of pipework between theproducer and the water buyers, or simply

only the principal mains distribution pipes,excluding private access pipes.

An alternative expression for urbannetworks is l/property/day.

Estimated leakage expressed in this mannercan be compared to optimal leakage(benchmark annual leakage which takesinto account metered connections, baselevel of leakage and network pressure andits variations) to produce an international

leakage index (UK Environment Agency,1998a). The base level of leakage is theaggregation of loss sources which areindividually too small to be detected byactive leakage control techniques. Even if allbacklog bursts have been eradicated, newbursts are always occurring and take time tobecome apparent, located and repaired.

(d) Linear flow indexThis index can be used to evaluate the rateof use of a network and its nature:

Linear flow index (m3/day/km) = meteredvolumes/length of network.

Rural areas generally have a low index (lessthan 10) whereas urban zones have a higher

value (over 30). The index can be used toprovide a context for the other indicatorsmentioned above (optimal efficiency andlinear leakage index).

(e) Full network assessmentsMany suppliers argue that a large number of

factors should be taken into account inleakage performance and that simplisticindicators such as those described abovemay not be comparable. A full exampledescription is given in Table 3.5 (UKEnvironment Agency, 1998c).

Type of net work Bad (%) Insufficient (%) Average (%) Good (%)

Urban < 60 60-75 75-85 > 85

Intermediate < 55 55-70 70-80 > 80

Rural < 50 50-65 65-75 > 75



24/94


Although drinking water is a ready-to-useproduct and may be costly to produce ifextensive treatment is required, leakagereduction is not always economically viable.Increasing production to feed leaks may becheaper than extensive pipe repairs. For

further examples, see case studies 8 to 11 inthe Appendix.

3.3.1. Main findingsTechnological approaches

1. Maintenance and network renewal isone of the main elements of anyefficient water management policy.Losses in the water distribution networkcan reach high percentages of the

volume introduced. Leakage coversdifferent aspects: losses in the networkbecause of deficient sealing, losses inuser installations before the water ismetered, and sometimes theconsumption differences betweenquantities used (measured) and those

not measured are also counted as losses.Leakage figures from different countriesindicate not only the different states ofthe networks, but also the differentaspects included in the calculations (e.g.

Albania up to 75%, Croatia 3060%,

Czech Republic 2030%, France 30%,and Spain 2434%).

2. It is possible to use different indices toexpress the efficiency of a distributionnetwork.

Efficiency ratio:this uses only measuredvalues and compares the measureddelivery volumes with the volumereleased into the network, but it doesnot take into account the total volumesinvolved (it is not used to comparedifferent networks).

Net efficiency ratio:this takes into accountall types of water uses (measured,

Table 3.5. Leakage descript ion in selected d istr ibut ion units of Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux

Source: UK EnvironmentAgency, 1998c.

NorthumbrianWater, UK

Essex and Suffolk,UK

Dijon, France

Population 2 532 100 1 662 200 151 000

Connections 887 005 586 851 20 583

Properties 1 108 756 733 564 20 583

lMains (km) 16 294 8 250 550

Night pressure (metres head) 50 45 40

Day pressure (metres head) 40 35 40

Distribution input (million l/day) 799 498 32.5

Total losses (million l/day) 194 85 3.6

Households 1 030 278 686 200 20 324

Household use (million l/day) 364.6 269.3 23.3

Maximum yield of resources (million l/day) 2 000 540 100

Resource headroom (%) 60 8 68Leakage measures

l/connection/day 219 145 175

l/property/day 175 116 175

l/head/day 77 51 24

% of distribution input 24 17 11

m3 /km/day 12 10 7

Mains length/connection 18 14 27

Mains length/property 15 11 27

Measured tariff (pence/m3) 100 110200 120

Marginal operating cost (pence/m3

) 10 10 8

Per capita demand (l/head/day) 144 162 154

Occupancy rate (person/household) 2.5 2.4 7.4

Occupancy rate (person/connection) 2.9 2.8 7.3


25/94

25

unmeasured and maintenance). It canbe erroneous if there is aninappropriate use of maintenance

volumes, which increase the netefficiency value.

Linear leakage index:the physical state ofnetworks can be compared by relatingthe lost volumes to the length of thenetwork.

Linear flow index:this can evaluate therate of use of a network and its nature.Rural areas generally have a low index(less than 10) whereas urban zones havea higher value (over 30).

3. Many suppliers argue that a large

number of factors should be taken intoaccount in leakage performance andthat the indicators described may not becomparable.

4. Generally, network meters areconsidered necessary to enable goodnetwork management.

5. For most rural municipalities,distribution network maintenance is nota priority (lack of regular monitoring,network plans). This situation coincides

with a price of water which is lower thanthe national average and also with a lackof a general use of domestic meters.

6. Tracing and repairing leakage can bevery expensive. Increasing waterproduction to feed leaks may provecheaper in some systems. Theconsequence is that local authoritiesmay decide not to trace leakage despite

low efficiency ratios but continue theirwasteful use of water.

3.4. New technologies: changingprocesses

3.4.1. IndustryUntil now, a lot of emphasis has been put onreducing energy use in the industrial sectorto reduce costs. It was only during the 1990sthat improving water efficiency also beganto be considered as a way of cutting costs.

Actions to improve water efficiency arefocused on the process and on thedischarges (see Figure 3.3).

In a study carried out between 1992 and1997 in the industrial sector of Catalonia,the Institute of Energy (Catalonia, Spain)found that around 35% of the proposedcost-saving measures were implemented inareas of management and control, 32% inthe process and just 18% in the reuse ofeffluents (see Figure 3.4).

Evolution of water demand for the industrial sector in different water supply companies,Catalonia, Spain (199195)

Figure 3.3.

Source: ICAEN, 1999.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

SGAB Sabemsa(A.Barbera)

MPA.Terrassa

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995



26/94


By implementing water-saving measures, theamount of water saved varies depending onthe industrial sector. Following a studycarried out by the same institute in 1999, therange of potential water saving is fromaround 25% to more than 50% (see Figure3.5).

For more information, see case studies 12 to22 in the Appendix.

Figure 3.4. Percentage of water-saving measures implemented , depending on t he technology


Manageme

nt

andcont

rol

Vario

us

Changes

in

theprocess

Cleaning

Refrigeration

Sanitary

water

Water

treatme

nt

Re-use

of

effluents

Implemented proposals (%)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Figure 3.5. Potential w ater saving in different industrial sectors


Average

Leather

Pulp

Chemicals

Textile

Food

0 20 40 60

Water savingpotential (%)

3.4.2. AgricultureThe main water use within the agriculturalsector is for irrigation, with minorcontributions to water demand by livestock-farming and fish-farming. Irrigation is thesubject of this section, even though incertain areas livestock watering can alsorepresent a significant demand. This latterissue is illustrated by a case study of watersavings achieved in the large number of


27/94

27

dairies in Brittany in France (see Appendix,case study 27).

(a) Efficient irrigation equipmentIrrigation has a different role in Europeanagriculture, depending above all on the

climate of the country considered. Themajor part of irrigated land in Europe islocated in the south of Spain, Italy, France,Greece and Portugal, accounting for 85%of the total irrigated area in the EU (EEA,1999).

Consideration of the efficiency of theirrigation systems (e.g. storage, transport,distribution and irrigation equipment) isessential for any policy related to water useefficiency.

Major differences exist among irrigationsystems between modern schemes (e.g. dripand sprinkler) and traditional systems (e.g.gravity irrigation). A survey of 39 Spanishirrigation schemes with a total irrigated areaof over 82000 ha indicated that the averageefficiency in gravity schemes was below60%, compared to around 80% in pressureirrigation systems (CEDEX, 1992). Withinthis overall value, which is calculated fromthe conveyance, distribution and applicationefficiencies, about 8590% corresponds to

the conveyance efficiency in concrete-linedcanals, which are normally found inpressure and in gravity irrigation systems(CEDEX, 1992).

A way of improving water use efficiency inagriculture would be to transform irrigationschemes from gravity into pressurisedsystems, a policy which is partly beingapplied in countries which have a majorshare of traditional schemes. However, the

approximate cost of implementing pressureirrigation is of the order of EUR 10000/ha,an amount that frequently surpasses theproductive capacity of the respective areas.

In eastern Europe, the sprinkler is the mostextensively used irrigation method, butbecause of recent economic problems, thereis no control and maintenance and some ofthe schemes have been abandoned. Farmersdo not have the large investment resourcesfor new irrigation equipment (see

Appendix, case studies 23, 24, 25 and 26).

Global efficiency of irrigation systems

(Lujn, 1991)

To estimate the global efficiency of eachirrigation system, three different efficienciesare considered: conveyance, distribution and

application efficiency.

Conveyance efficiency refers to losses of waterfrom the point of abstraction to thedistribution network.

Distribution efficiency refers to the waterreceived in the distribution network and thelosses that take place until the water reachesthe irrigation units.

Application efficiency refers to losses in theirrigation units.

Global efficiency can be expressed as theproduct of the individual efficiencies.



28/94


Irrigation methods in some Mediterranean countries

Cyprus

The irrigation network in Cyprus consists of closed systems with an overall conveyance efficiency

averaging 9095%. Field application efficiency averages 8090%. In parallel with thegovernments effort to increase the water available for agriculture, emphasis was placed on theoptimum utilisation of water through improved irrigation methods. To encourage farmers to usethese methods, the government offered incentives to participating farmers in the form of subsidiesand long-term low-interest loans for the purchase and installation of improved irrigation systems.In addition, through extensive demonstrations, the government convinced the farmers thatimproved irrigation methods, initially sprinklers for vegetables and the hose/basin method for treecrops, to be followed by micro-irrigation systems, not only saved water but also led to increased

yields. As a result, the area irrigated by surface irrigation methods decreased from about 13400 hain 1974 to less than 2000 ha in 1995, while the area equipped for micro-irrigation increased overthe same period from about 2700 ha to almost 35600 ha. The areas irrigated by surfaceirrigation methods are mostly cropped with deciduous trees and are found in the hilly areas of thecountry. The cost of irrigation development varies and depends on a number of factors. Theaverage cost of irrigation development using tube wells varies from about EUR 3890/ha for up to1 ha, EUR 2237/ha for 2 ha to EUR 1683/ha for 3 ha. This includes the cost of on-farm micro-irrigation systems. Excluding the cost of the dam, the development of surface water varies from

EUR 1544/ha to EUR 2584/ha including on-farm micro-irrigation systems. The average annualcost of maintenance varies from EUR 297347/ha for private schemes (tube wells) to EUR 49119/ha for public schemes (FAO, 1997).

Malta

Of a total managed area of 763 ha, it is estimated that 500 ha are equipped with micro-irrigationsystems and 150 ha with sprinkler irrigation systems, while surface irrigation is carried out on theremaining 113 ha. The cost of irrigation development is approximately EUR 1584/ha for micro-

irrigation, while the operation and maintenance costs are about EUR 792/ha/year. Through amore efficient use of water by means of micro-irrigation, there is potential for an expansion inirrigated areas. The government is assisting farmers financially in buying irrigation equipment byoffering grants and subsidising interest rates under the financial assistance policy (FAO, 1997).

Spain

Irrigated agriculture accounts for 56% of total agricultural production, occupying only 18% ofthe total agricultural surface (EEA, 1999). In all, 41% of the irrigation uses modern equipment(pressurised systems), the most extended system being gravity irrigation (a network of open channelsconvey the water to the irrigated land), designed to provide water in periods of maximum needs(MAPA, 1998).

The size of the irrigated properties has to betaken into account when assessing theeconomic possibility of introducing modernirrigation techniques and equipment. Forinstance, Spain, which has an average farmsize of 18 ha, is facing restructuring toconcentrate properties, where possible, toallow the introduction of more efficientequipment (MAPA, 1998).


29/94

29

3.4.3. Main findings(a) Industry1. The introduction of water-saving

technologies in the industrial sector isfocused basically on the most commonprocesses: cooling and washing.

2. Water substitution means immediatesavings for an industry (cost savingscorrespond to the drop in watercharges, especially if the substitution didnot imply additional investment).

3. Improving the control of processconditions can reduce waterconsumption by about 50%.

4. Work in closed circuits can reduce water

use by about 90%.

5. A reduction in the cost of the existingwater-saving technologies couldencourage further extension to smallindustries.

6. Better communication betweenindustries with high water consumptionmay help to disseminate pilot projectresults on water-saving technologies.

(b) Agriculture1. The main water use within the

agricultural sector is for irrigation, withminor use by livestock-farming and fish-farming.

2. National policies to encourage themodernisation or substitution oftraditional irrigation methods are inplace in Mediterranean countries.

3. In some Mediterranean countries,policies include plans to increase thesize of properties to allow the possibilityof introducing modern irrigationtechniques.

4. The cost of modernisation of existingirrigation methods (gravity) intopressurised methods depends on severalfactors and often surpasses theproductive capacity.

5. Governments often offer financialincentives or direct subsidies to farmersfor changing irrigation equipment.



30/94


4. Economic approaches

In general, water bill composition over thelast few years has depended on thedevelopment of water policies, in particularin relation to the implementation ofEuropean directives.

Components of water bills usually include apart related to the water supply service (e.g.drinking water service, water treatment, andnetwork maintenance) and other partsrelate to other institutions (e.g. treatmenttax, collection system and other taxes).

Examples are given in Table 4.1 (France),Table 4.2 (Spain), Tables 4.3 and 4.4(Slovenia), and Table 4.5 (Switzerland).

4.1. Water charges

Water charges are based on differentpolicies, depending on the differentavailability of water resources (at national orregional level).

This complexity makes the assessment of theinfluence of water price on the reduction on

water demand problematic. It also makesthe comparison of water prices betweendifferent countries difficult. The complexity

relates to the different concepts included inwater bills (tariff structures and chargingmethods), and to the different national

water management systems.

Table 4.1.Str ucture of average w ater b ills in France, in FRF *(average water bills for a typical consumption of 120 m

3/household/year)

Source: Financial TimesNewsletters, 1999. Component 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Water distribution 654 685 731 765 793 822 842

Resource preservation 12 18 20 26 31 32 33

Wastewater treatment 389 424 477 525 555 585 614

Pollution charges 83 134 165 220 253 284 291

Taxes and para-taxes 91 107 130 153 167 187 194

Total 1 229 1 368 1 523 1 689 1 799 1 910 1 974

* January 1999: FRF 6.559 = EUR1.

Table 4.2.Structure of average water bills, for domestic use in Spain(average water bills for a typical consumption of 100 m

3/year)

Source: MMA, 1998.Component Wat er prices f or different t own sizes

(price per m3, in ESP *)

Average1992

Average1994

20 000

50 000

50 000

100 000

>100 000 Metropoli-

tan areas

Drinking water service 77 149 76 66 68 94

Wastewater treatment 19 37 36 17 32

Wastewater collectionnetwork maintenance 27 35 19 16 16 23

Meter maintenance 8 11 7 4 7 8

Total (water supplycompany activities) 88 164 107 123 81 115

Wastewater charges 73 30 23 39 29 47

Wastewater collectioncharge 28 16 22 17 28 23

Other charges 5 5 10 8 5 7

Total (other institutions) 96 40 44 86 37 65

Total 161 197 146 209 113 168

* December 1998: ESP 166.753 = EUR1.


31/94

31

In France, the water price increase has beenslowing down over recent years. The average

water bill rose by 3.3% in 1997, comparedwith rises of 11.3% in 1992 and 1993. Therise during the whole period 199197 was61%. The average price was FRF 16.45/m3

in 1997, but actual prices per m3 varied fromFRF 4.80 to FRF 33.57. This meant that theratio of the most expensive to the cheapest

was 7:1. In towns between 50000 and100000 inhabitants, the water priceincreased by 65.3% (199197), and, intowns over 100000 inhabitants (excludingParis), the increase was 51.5% (belowaverage) for the same period.

There was a major increase in the price ofwater in Spain between 1992 and 1994, with

a relatively higher increase in the activitiesrelated to wastewater treatment, and thewastewater collection charge. Nevertheless,there is a great regional difference betweenprices, due to the different conceptsincluded in water bills and also the different

water management systems. For 1998, thehighest prices were found in the islands(Canary Islands, ESP 406/m3; BalearicIslands, ESP 289/m3) and in theMediterranean coastal area (Murcia, ESP362/m3), and the lowest in the northern

regions (Galicia, ESP 108/m3). For the sameyear (1998), the average price of urbanwater in Spain was ESP 229/m3 (INE, 1998).

In 1996, the average water price per m3 fordrinking water in Slovenia was EUR 0.29(SIT 50) (Habitat II, 1996).

Economic approaches

Water price structure for Rizana Vodovod (regional public supply service forthe Slovenian coastal region), Slovenia

Table 4.3.

Source: Institucionalnaureditev vodnegagospodarstva v Sloveniji,Vertikalno poro ilo,VodnogospodarskiInstit ute, 1998.

Component Proport ion inthe total price

(%)

Price per m3

(SIT) *Paid to

Water 39.5 145.95 Rizana drinking water supplyservice

Basic tax 1 2.0 7.33 State

Water return price 1.7 6.3 State

Wastewater collect ion and t reatment 47.2 174.28 Sewage collect ion service

Basic tax 2 3.1 11.34 State

General tax for water pollution 6.5 23.80 State

Total 369.00

* March 1998: SIT 179 = EUR1.

Water pr ices for drinking water, Slovenia (1995) Table 4.4.

Source: Slovenian Ministryof t he Environment andPhysical Planning (1996):Sanacija komunalneinfrastrukture in izhodicazaurejanje prostora, IIfaza, Water ManagementInstit ute, C-565, 1996.

Sect or Average price (minimum, maximum) (SIT/ m3) *

Drinking water supply (1995)

Domestic use 46.44 (14.70, 121.44)

Profit-making users (e.g. industry, small business) 88.68 (25.55, 215.50)

Social, public services (e.g. health care, education) 69.91 (34.33, 161.30)

Others 82.75 (17.94, 215.50)

Sewage water collection and treatment ** (1996)

Domestic use 14.39 (1.44, 56.08)

Profit -making users (industry, small businesses, etc.) 28.16 (4.42, 129.38)Others 29.92 (4.42, 75.90)

* March 1998: SIT 179 = EUR1.** The charges on sewage water collection and treatment are based on water quantities supplied from the publicnetwork.


32/94


The average price per m3 of water inSwitzerland in 1996 was CHF 1.5 (SwissOrganisation for Gas and Water Supply, webpage).

In Italy, a recent report on water tariffs bythe consumer body Federconsumatori

(Financial Times Newsletters, March 1999)indicated that, in most cases, consumers arecharged value added tax (VAT) on theirclean-water use, but not on their wastewaterand sewage services. In Milan, people havebeen paying for wastewater services since1996, but no treatment plants are yetoperational. Overall, water prices increasedby 8% between 1995 and 1996, by 1.7% in1998, and are expected to increase by11.2% in the year 2000 because of amechanism introduced by the governmentawaiting the enactment of Law No 36/94(known as the Galli Law). Until the GalliLaw becomes operational, prices will bebased on a low-use tariff, intended to allowuniversal access to basic services, with prices

increasing sharply with consumption. Butthe concept of universal access is differentfor different areas: in Forli, the lowest waterprice applies for 60 m3/year; in Turin, theallowance rises to 100 m3/year; in Milan, it is128 m3/year. Tariffs for basic consumption

vary from ITL 182/m3 in Milan to ITL

1060/m3

in Forli.

In general, users can see the inclusion ofdifferent components or aspects into waterbills as a way of paying more taxes notnecessarily related to the water used,especially if the new taxes are calculated fora fixed quantity of water. It would benecessary to separate clearly thecomponents included in the water bill, andthe charges and taxes included should berelated to the water cycle.

Table 4.6 summarises the system of watercharges and taxes related to watermanagement for different Europeancountries.

Table 4.5. Water bill structure in Zurich, Switzerland

Source: Skarda, 1999.Component Nat ure Price (C

sustainable water use in europe - unknown - lallana et al

Documents