Statistical Report - European...

EUSurvey on the Quality of Drinking Water

Statistical Report

December 2014

Public Consultation

1

Public consultation - EU Survey http://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/

- Period: 23/06/2014 to 23/09/2014 - available in all languages - Evaluated replies: 5908 - of these: Stakeholders/Experts: 670 (11%) Part 1: General Questions to Consumers Part 2: Questions Drinking Water Directive

2

3

47

216

358 300

2228

145

12

171

956

220

21 4 27 48

385

73 64 12

106 38

271

41 14 3 20 9 95

24 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

CY IE AT PT DE FI LU BE FR NL SI MT LT SK ES EL CZ LV RO BG IT HU HR EE SE DK UK PL

Replies per MS sorted by replies per inhabitants

4

60%

35%

3% 2%

Do you live in an urbanised or a rural area? (%)

Urbanised Rural Don’t know/Not applicable Not answered

5

71%

19%

9%

1%

Large water supply zone (serving more than 5000 persons) or small water supply zone (serving less than 5000 persons) (%)

Large Small Don’t know/Not applicable Not answered

6

58%

16%

23%

2% 1%

I am well informed about the quality of my drinking water (%)

agree neither agree/no disagree disegree don't know/not applicable not answered

7

56,6

7,3 3,1

81,6

4,0

90,0

18,7

5,0 5,9 7,0 2,7 2,1

21,0

66,2

54,6

5,4

55,3

2,0 0,6

11,5 11,8

0,9

12,7

0,9 3,0

10,0

24,6

5,2

25,3

5,0

drinking directly fromthe tap

drinking after filteringit

drinking after boiling it cooking directly fromthe tap

cooking after filteringit

washing/personalhygiene

I use drinking water at my home for (%)

always most of the time not or rarely don't know/not applicable not answered

8

81,8

8,2 7,4

1,6 1,1

23,1 25,1

28,1

21,3

2,4

agree neither agree/nor disagree disagree don't know/not applicable not answered

Accessibility (I) %

Where I live, access to wholesome and clean drinking water is good

In the UE overall, the way I see it, access to wholesome and clean drinking water is good

9

88,5

5,1 3,4 1,4 1,7

21,1

28,9

19,0

28,2

2,8

agree neither agree/nordisagree

disagree don't know/notapplicable

not answered

Accessibility (II) %

Where I live, the conncection supply network is good

In the UE overall, the way I see it, the conection to the supply network is good

10

69,3

12,7 14,8

1,9 1,2

17,2

26,4

16,0

37,8

2,6

agree neither/nor disagree don't know not answered

Affordability (I) %

Where I live, the price of drinking water (for consumers) is affordable

In the EU overall, the way I see it, the price of drinking (for consumers) is affordable

11

63,1

17,3 14,1

3,8 1,7

10,6

29,1

14,6

42,6

3,1


Affordability (II) %

Where I live, the drinking water services (customer services, security of supply, …) is affordable

In the EU overall, the way I see it, drinking water services (customer services, security of supply, …) are good value for money

12

73,5

11,5 10,8

2,4 1,7

15,8

24,4 26,1 30,7

3,1

agree neither/not disagree don't know not answered

Acceptability (I) %

Where I live, the quality of drinking water is good (wholesome and clean)

In the EU overall, the way I see it, the quality of drinking water isgood (wholesome and clean)

13

70,4

12,0 15,1

0,7 1,8

12,4

24,8 26,2

33,2

3,4

agree neither/not disagree don't know not answered

Acceptability (II) %

Where I live, the sensation (perceived, subjective quality) of drinkingwater is good (i.e. wholesome as regards taste, odour, turbidity, hardness,…)

In the EU overall, the way I see it, the sensation of drinking water isgood (i.e. wholesome as regards taste, odour, turbidity, hardness,…)

14

26,5

84,1

73,0

83,8 77,8

56,5 52,8

21,2 23,1

5,5 12,3

8,7 12,4

24,3 26,0

7,0

34,7

7,8 6,8 4,0 6,0

13,4 13,5 11,8 11,6

1,1 5,7

1,7 2,1 4,1 5,5

44,3

4,0 1,5 2,2 1,8 1,7 2,2 2,2

15,6

Po

lluti

on

fro

m n

atu

ral

sou

rce

s (s

uch

as

min

eral

s)

Po

lluti

on

fro

m a

gric

ult

ure

(su

ch a

s p

est

icid

es, f

erti

liser

san

d f

aeca

l po

lluti

on

)

Po

lluti

on

fro

m e

xplo

rati

on

or

exp

loit

atio

n o

f h

ydro

carb

on

s(s

uch

as

oil,

sh

ale

gas,

etc

)

Po

lluti

on

fro

m in

du

stri

also

urc

es

(su

ch a

s h

eav

ym

etal

s, s

olv

ents

, ad

dit

ive

s,o

r o

ther

ch

em

ical

s w

hic

h…

Pollu

tio

n f

rom

hu

man

co

nsu

mp

tio

n a

nd

inad

equ

ate

was

tew

ater

tre

atm

ent

(su

ch

as a

mm

on

ium

, nit

rate

s, …

Sub

stan

ces

fro

m m

ater

ials

in

dir

ect

con

tact

wit

h d

rin

kin

g w

ater

(su

ch a

s co

nta

min

ants

le

ach

ing

fro

m p

ipes

, du

cts,

…

Thre

ats

to d

rin

kin

g w

ater

q

ual

ity

du

e to

imp

acts

of

clim

ate

chan

ge (

such

as t

ho

se

cau

sed

by

flo

od

s, d

rou

ghts

, …

Oth

er t

hre

ats

or

oth

er

po

lluti

on

so

urc

es (

ple

ase

spe

cify

)

Threats to drinking water (%)


Replies to questions related to the Drinking Water Directive

15

16

26,0

18,4

57,2 53,5

15,9

10,2 13,1

17,9

38,8

55,2

19,6 17,3

11,3 7,6

4,9 6,6 7,9 8,6 5,3 4,8

No change to current regimeis necessary; the current listis kept, and limit values are

reflecting the latest scientificevidence (which is required

by the Directive)

Restrict the list to a few keyparameters most relevant for

human health.

Revise and extend the list ofparameters, e.g. to consider

new and emergingpollutants, if there are

possible effects on humanhealth and if this does not

lead to a significant increasein the price of water.

Revise and extend the list ofparameters, e.g. to consider

new andemerging pollutants,if there are possible effects

on human health and even ifthis leads to a significantincrease in the price of

water.

Quality standards in the Drinking Water Directive (%)


17

27,4

5,1

40,7

22,7

80,9

12,0 19,0

11,7

21,1 24,1

6,0 2,0

37,1

68,4

24,8

37,8

5,0 8,9 8,3

5,0 4,2 4,7 1,7

42,4

8,2 9,7 9,3 10,7 6,4

34,7

No action isnecessary

because the levelof monitoringand control

efforts isadequate

Monitoring andcontrol efforts

should bereduced because

the costsoutweigh the

health benefits

Monitoringshould be more

frequent,provided this

does not lead toa significant

increase in theprice of water

Monitoringshould be morefrequent, even if

this leads to asignificant

increase in theprice of water

Monitoringshould be moretransparent, andresults should beavailableonline

Other

Monitoring and Control of Drinking Water (%)


18

56,3

45,0

41,3

35,5

54,6

5,5

11,2

16,0 16,9 18,4

12,4

2,1

11,3

15,7 16,8

20,2

16,6

11,9

1,9 2,5 2,5 2,9 2,3

33,1

19,4 20,8

22,5 22,9

14,1

47,4

Easily understandableinformation to all thatdrinking water quality

is compliant (waterquality ok)

Simplified informationintelligible to all

summarising waterquality aspects (a labelwith colours, a flag, an

index, etc.)

Basic quality aspects(some parameters as

for bottledwater/mineralwater)

All detailedinformation from each

analysis and allparameters that

arebeing monitoredshould be made

available

All detailedinformation from each

analysis and allparameters should

bemade available andit should be indicatedfor each parameter

whether it meets thelegal requirements

Others

Content of consumer information (%)


19

15,5

66,1 70,6

42,3 46,9

7,6

16,9 11,4 9,7

23,6 19,3

1,6

50,9

7,3 9,4

17,8 14,6

9,6 5,2 5,0

1,9 5,7

9,2

39,2

11,4 10,2 8,4 10,6 10,0

42,0

No

act

ion

is n

ece

ssar

yb

ecau

se t

he

curr

ent

info

rmat

ion

pro

visi

on

sar

ead

equ

ate

Mo

re u

p-t

o-d

ate

info

rmat

ion

sho

uld

be

m

ade

avai

lab

leo

nlin

e

All

mo

nit

ore

d u

p-t

o-d

ate

info

rmat

ion

sh

ou

ld b

e m

ade

avai

lab

le o

nlin

e

New

info

rmat

ion

to

ols

(e.

g.

SMS,

Ap

ps,

…)

sho

uld

be

use

d

mo

re a

ctiv

ely

tod

isse

min

ate

dri

nki

ng

wat

er in

form

atio

n

wh

ere

nec

essa

ry

In a

dd

itio

n t

o in

form

atio

n o

nm

y w

ater

su

pp

ly,

dis

sem

inat

ion

an

din

ter-

linka

ge o

f in

form

atio

n t

on

atio

nal

or

Euro

pe-

wid

e…

Oth

ers

Ways to inform consumers (%)


20

22,2

8,0

51,0

79,2 82,1

8,1

18,4 17,1 19,2

7,5 6,2 1,3

38,7

49,7

18,7

4,0 3,5 8,3

11,5 14,1

3,0 2,8 1,8

39,0

9,2 11,0 8,1 6,5 6,4

43,2

No additionalactions should betaken because thecurrent provisions

areadequate

The current regimefor taking remedial

action is toorestrictive and

overly protective

Water suppliesshould be closed

whenever failuresare found, andfreesupply of

drinking water bybottles, containers,tankers should be

granted

Remedial actionshould be

supplemented byadditional

preventive action,i.e. by antagonisingcritical trends, longbefore a near miss

or failure

Requirements forprompt notification

of consumers incase of failuresusing modern

communicationtools should be

introduced

Others

Actions in case of problems (%)


21

19,4

28,8

11,6

39,6

6,5

15,9

21,3 18,8

16,1

1,5

39,0

26,6

42,3

21,1

8,0

14,4

9,9 11,8 11,0

40,3

11,3 13,4

15,5

12,2

43,7

No action isnecessary becausethe status quo for

derogations shouldbemaintained

Derogations shouldnot be allowed at all,

even if this mayrequirealternative

supplies which maylead to higher costs

The currentderogations shouldbe extended to be

allowed for afurthertransition

period

A new derogationsregime should beintroduced to alimited extent

andunder strictconditions

Others

Derogations (%)


22

62,9 61,0

49,7

65,4

53,4

63,9

10,2 13,3 12,8

18,0 12,6

20,4

11,8

1,5

14,7 13,3 17,0

10,6 12,9

16,0

7,8 3,5

6,6 7,5 5,4 6,1 2,5

48,8

5,6 6,3 7,8 6,1 7,2 5,8

41,9

Dri

nki

ng

wat

er r

egu

lati

on

ssh

ou

ld c

ove

r th

e en

tire

su

pp

lyp

roce

ss a

nd

no

t b

e lim

ited

to

qu

alit

y st

and

ard

s at

th

e ta

p

Dri

nki

ng

wat

er t

reat

men

t sh

ou

ldb

e re

gula

ted

sim

ilar

to f

oo

dp

rod

uct

ion

inst

alla

tio

ns

refe

rrin

gto

th

e h

azar

d a

nal

ysis

an

d c

riti

cal

con

tro

l po

ints

(H

AC

CP

)…

Furt

her

pro

visi

on

s as

reg

ard

sex

ten

ded

res

po

nsi

bili

ty a

nd

liab

ility

of

wat

er s

up

plie

rs o

rm

arke

t su

rvei

llan

ce/i

nsp

ecti

on

regi

mes

sh

ou

ld b

e ta

ken

into

…

Mat

eria

ls in

co

nta

ct w

ith

d

rin

kin

g w

ater

(p

ipes

, du

cts,

va

lves

, fit

tin

gs, f

ilter

s, t

aps…

) sh

ou

ld b

e re

gula

ted

in a

mo

re

har

mo

nis

ed w

ay

Asp

ects

of

wat

er u

se a

nd

wat

erre

-use

in h

ou

seh

old

s an

d f

oo

din

du

stry

sh

ou

ld b

e ad

dre

ssed

exp

licit

ly

Ad

dit

ion

al in

cen

tive

s to

sav

ed

rin

kin

g w

ater

sh

ou

ld b

ein

tro

du

ced

Oth

er a

spec

ts s

ho

uld

be

add

ress

ed

Further aspects (%)


Further Evaluation is going on: - All responses - Detailed responses to open questions - Additional stakeholder contributions are currently being analysed with the view to assess the need for improvements of the EU drinking water policy and how they could be achieved.

23

European Commission

DG Environment

Unit C.2 - Marine Environment

and Water Industry

[email protected]

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water

24

mailto:[email protected]





http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water

Statistical Report - European...

Documents

Transcript of Statistical Report - European...