Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Workshop on the 2016-2017 EU
public consultation on water reuse
in irrigation and aquifer recharge
Background document
March 2017
3
Document information
CLIENT European Commission – DG ENV
DOCUMENT TITLE Background document for the Workshop on the 2016-2017 EU public
consultation on water reuse in irrigation and aquifer recharge
PROJECT NAME Analysis of data resulting from the open public consultation on policy options to
set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU
DATE 1st March 2017
PROJECT TEAM Deloitte
KEY CONTACTS Sarah Lockwood ([email protected])
Sébastien Soleille ([email protected])
DISCLAIMER The project team does not accept any liability for any direct or indirect damage
resulting from the use of this report or its content. This report contains an
analysis of public consultation results and is not to be perceived as the opinion
of the European Commission. The views expressed by public authorities do not
necessarily represent the official views of the government of a selected country.
Also note that the survey relied on self-declaration.
5
Table of contents
Objective of the workshop and purpose of this document 7
Who replied to the consultation 7
Session 1 - Water reuse in agriculture irrigation and aquifer recharge: why
is there a need to act (at EU level)? 9
Perception of benefits of water reuse 11
a) Irrigation 11
b) Aquifer recharge 12
Perception of barriers to water reuse 13
a) Irrigation 13
b) Aquifer recharge 15
Perception of safety of reusing treated water 17
a) Irrigation 17
b) Aquifer recharge 18
Session 2 - What should be the objectives and scope of EU minimum quality
requirements for water reuse? 20
Specific objectives of EU minimum requirements 21
a) Irrigation 21
b) Aquifer recharge 22
Other uses to be covered by EU minimum requirements 23
Session 3 - Towards a suitable policy instrument for EU minimum quality
requirements for water reuse 24
EU minimum requirements for water reuse 25
a) Irrigation 25
b) Aquifer recharge 27
Specific aspects of EU minimum requirements 28
a) Irrigation 28
b) Aquifer recharge 29
7
In a nutshell: main messages from the 2016-2017
EU public consultation on water reuse for irrigation
and aquifer recharge
Objective of the workshop and purpose of this document
The European Commission is currently reviewing options to optimise water reuse in the EU as a way
to help solve the issue of water scarcity and droughts. The workshop on March 8th, 2017 will provide
an opportunity to present an analysis of the main results of the latest public consultation (which
had been running from 27.10.2016 to 27.01.2017) and to discuss the main recommendations to
foster water reuse for irrigation and aquifer recharge in the European Union.
This background document aims to provide first insights into the results of this consultation so that
the workshop participants can provide their feedback on this analysis during the event (written
comments will only be accepted up to one week following the event).
This document gives a brief description of the people who answered to the public consultation, then
provides key elements on the 3 topics that will be discussed during the 3 sessions of the workshop:
Why is there a need to act (at EU level)?
What should be the objectives and scope of EU minimum quality requirements for water
reuse?
Towards a suitable policy instrument for EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse.
The Commission will use the outcomes of this workshop, along with the outcomes of former
consultation exercises, as a key input to the Impact Assessment of the most suitable EU policy
options and to the design of the upcoming legislative proposal on minimum requirements for water
reuse.
Who replied to the consultation
In total, 342 respondents participated in the consultation. Responses were received on-line from 103
individuals (30% of respondents) and 239 stakeholders or experts (70% of respondents). Two
additional responses were received by email after the deadline. Respondents represented a variety
of organisations, fields of activity and countries.
Organisation types (Figure 1): Private companies represented more than 50% of respondents.
National authorities, NGOs and international bodies represented less than 20% of respondents.
Figure 1: Responding organisations by type
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%
International body (2)
NGO (9)
Other (11)
National authority (14)
Other associations (23)
Local/regional authority (26)
Industrial or trade association…
Academic/scientist/research…
Utility / provider (39)
Private company (56)
Individuals30%
Academics9%
Companies and associations (private
companies, utility/providers and
industry associations)36%
Public authorities (national,
regional and local authorities)
12%
Other (NGOs, other associations,
international bodies, and other …
8
Field of activity (Figure 2): Companies, organisations and authorities involved in sanitation and/or
drinking water sectors represented half of the respondents. About 20% of respondents reported to
be involved in the environment and climate sectors, while 10% represented the agriculture sector.
Comparatively, food industry, health and economics1 sector had rather low response rates (<5% of
all respondents).
Countries (Figure 3): The large majority of responses were received from within the EU (98%). Half
of the responses were provided by three Member States: Spain, France and Germany with
particularly high contribution from Spain (more than one quarter of all participants). Twenty countries
provided ten answers or less.
Figure 2: Responding organisations by economic sector
Figure 3: Number of respondents by country
For the purpose of the analysis, respondents were grouped according to several factors in order to
show similarities and differences between various groups:
EU region: Member States were split into three regional groups: Southern EU (Italy,
Portugal, France, Spain, Greece, Cyprus and Malta), Eastern EU (Poland, Croatia, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czech Republic and Romania) and Northern EU (other States).
1 Economics represent i.e. any other industrial sectors than food, drinking water and sanitation.
9
Nearly half of responses were provided by participants representing Southern EU Member
States;
Countries with a high share of irrigation*: These countries match the selection of
Southern countries and were analysed together. *based on the ratio between the total
utilised agricultural area and the surface irrigated at least once a year;
Water stress situation: Countries facing regular water stress were selected based on the
Water Exploitation Index (WEI+). Selected countries have water basins with a WEI+ > 20%
in summer: Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Portugal, Spain and the UK;
Types of respondents: Authorities (national and local/regional), water providers
(utilities/providers), private companies, industry and trade associations, NGOs and others
(NGO, academics, international bodies and others) as well as citizens;
Countries which already implemented water reuse schemes vs. countries less
mature on this issue: Countries with mature standards in water reuse include Cyprus,
Greece, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal. These countries are all included in our selection of
Southern EU countries and are analysed together here.
Session 1 - Water reuse in agriculture irrigation and aquifer recharge:
why is there a need to act (at EU level)?
In a nutshell:
Perception of benefits
There is a wide perception of the benefits of reusing water for irrigation or aquifer recharge
purposes with regards to the availability of water resources, in the context of water stress or
scarcity, unsustainable abstractions and climate change (perception from more than 70% of
respondents across and within different categories of respondents). The potential contribution of
water reuse to the quality of water bodies, through preserving groundwater from salinisation
and reducing pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants, into rivers, is
perceived by a large number of respondents as well. Furthermore, water reuse is also perceived
by a number of respondents as a mean to increase resource efficiency, foster innovation
and contribute to soil fertilisation, although these benefits were considered more moderate
compared to the former ones.
On the other hand, respondents are much less inclined to perceive cost savings for authorities,
increased revenues, or energy and carbon savings as benefits of water reuse.
The analysis per category of respondents shows in particular that:
countries regularly exposed to water stress and countries from Southern EU perceive
significantly more and higher benefits than other categories of respondents;
large consensus is found about these benefits within the respondents from the sanitation,
drinking water, environment and economics sectors.
Perception of barriers
The main barriers to water reuse as identified by respondents are similar for water reuse in
irrigation and aquifer recharge. They primarily include:
the negative perception of issues around water reuse (perceived as high or medium
barrier by about 80% of respondents);
policy barriers, including insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks
associated with water reuse or insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated water
management (nearly 90% of respondents perceived them as high or medium regarding
irrigation and over 80% regarding aquifer recharge);
economic barriers, including the low price of freshwater compared to that of reused water
(in countries not affected by water scarcity) and the high cost of treatment for production
of reused water (perceived as high or medium barrier by about 80% of respondents).
10
In the specific case of irrigation, the distance between waste water treatment plants and
irrigation fields is also seen as a key barrier (2nd barrier the most pointed out by respondents).
On the other hand, significantly fewer respondents perceive awareness and availability of
technical solutions to produce safe water as barriers.
Interestingly, respondents from Southern EU countries and countries facing regular water stress
are those who perceive the most barriers to water reuse.
Perception of safety
There is an overall consensus amongst respondents about the safety of reused water
compared to water from rivers, as nearly 70% of respondents (amongst those who had an
opinion) consider reused water as at least as safe for irrigation and for aquifer recharge. In
comparison, the safety of reused water compared to groundwater is more controversial,
as 50% of respondents consider it less safe for irrigation and 44% for aquifer recharge.
These overall statistics hide very different perceptions from specific categories of respondents.
Some categories of respondents have a particularly positive or negative perception of reused
water depending on their economic sector, type of organisations, situation of water
stress or EU regions:
respondents from Southern EU countries and countries facing regular water stress are
significantly more inclined to consider reused water for both irrigation and aquifer recharge
as being at least as safe as alternative sources (rivers or groundwater) than respondents
from Eastern and Northern countries, which tend to consider reused water as less safe in
the same proportions;
respondents from some economic sectors also have a particular negative perception of
reused water safety, such as the health sector, for which 70% of respondents perceive
reused water as less safe than groundwater for irrigation purposes;
on the contrary, respondents from private companies show by far the most positive
perception of reused water safety compared to other types of organisations.
The perception of reused water safety may also significantly differ within categories of
respondents, as it is the case within the agriculture, food and environment sectors, for which no
clear position could be seen based on the public consultation.
Based on the results of the public consultation, the need to act at EU level could be justified
by the need to:
provide reassurance, through guidance on the quality of reused water, to citizens and
professionals of different sectors about the safety or reused water for human health and
the environment;
create the conditions of a level-playing field in order to overcome economic and policy
barriers to water reuse - which currently prevent this practice to be promoted at a larger
scale - and to generate its significant environmental benefits.
11
Perception of benefits of water reuse
a) Irrigation
Figure 4 shows the overall views from respondents on potential benefits of water reuse in agriculture
irrigation.
Figure 4: Views on potential benefits of water reuse in agriculture irrigation
There is a wide consensus in the perception - within and across categories of respondents - of
the following environmental benefits of reusing water:
reduced pressure on resources that are over-abstracted (85% perceive this benefit as at
least medium and 68% perceive this benefit as high);
reduction of water scarcity (83% perceive this benefit as at least medium and 63%
perceive this benefit as high); and
adaptation to climate change (76% perceive this benefit as at least medium and 55%
perceive this benefit as high).
Each of these benefits is perceived as high by more than 50% of the respondents, in particular
respondents from the sanitation, drinking water, environment and economics sectors (nearly 70%
of respondents or more in each of these categories) as well as countries in regular situation of water
stress or from Southern EU (>90% of each of these respondent categories, for each objective).
A relatively high share of respondents also perceive water reuse as an opportunity to:
reduce pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants into rivers (69%
perceive this benefit as at least medium and 45% perceive this benefit as high). In particular,
over 80% of respondents in Eastern EU perceive reduction of pollution discharge into rivers
as potential benefit of water reuse;
increase resource efficiency (77% perceive this benefit as at least medium and 44%
perceive this benefit as high). Eighty percent of respondents from Southern countries
perceive increase resource efficiency as a benefit of water reuse;
foster innovation in the water industry (77% perceive this benefit as at least medium and
42% perceive this benefit as high). Interestingly, respondents which mostly perceive this
benefit as high come from the agriculture and economics sectors, while drinking water and
12
sanitation sectors are less inclined to see it as a high benefit. Eighty percent of respondents
from Southern countries perceive innovation as a benefit of water reuse.
Between 40 and 50% (depending on the benefits considered) of the respondents perceived at least
one of these benefits as high. Although the benefit in terms of soil fertilisation was perceived as high
by only 27% of the respondents, nearly 40% perceived it as a medium benefit. This lower rate of
approval may stem from the difficulty for waste water users (for example, famers) to efficiently
estimate the amounts of nutrients from reused water, with the risk to apply nutrients in excess and
pollute the local environment.
On the other hand, respondents do not perceive cost savings for authorities, increased
revenues for sectors, job creation or energy and carbon savings as clear benefits. They
were rated as “low” or “no benefit” by 60%, >45%, 39% and 50% of respondents respectively, in
particular in Northern and Eastern EU countries for cost savings and increased revenues. On the
contrary, job creation is largely seen as potential benefit by nearly 70% of respondents in Southern
EU. Despite this discrepancy, there is good consensus within sectors and organisation types on these
four items.
Countries regularly exposed to water stress and countries from Southern EU perceive
significantly more and higher benefits than other categories of respondents, except their
similar perception of Energy and carbon savings. Eastern and Northern EU countries have very similar
views on almost all benefits.
b) Aquifer recharge
Figure 5 shows the overall views from respondents on potential benefits of water reuse in aquifer
recharge.
Figure 5: Views on potential benefits of water reuse in aquifer recharge
Similarly to agriculture irrigation, there is a wide perception by respondents of the following
environmental benefits of water reuse:
reduced pressure on resources that are over-abstracted (80% perceive this benefit as at
least medium and 60% perceive this benefit as high);
reduction of water scarcity (83% perceive this benefit as at least medium and 63%
perceive this benefit as high); and
13
protection of coastal aquifers against salt intrusions (73% perceive this benefit as at
least medium and 56% perceive this benefit as high).
Each of these benefits is perceived as high by more than 50% of the respondents.
A relatively high share of respondents also consider water reuse as an opportunity to:
improve resilience/adaptation to climate change (71% perceive this benefit as at least
medium and 50% perceive this benefit as high);
reduce pollution discharge (60% perceive this benefit as at least medium and 37%
perceive this benefit as high); and
foster innovation in the water industry (73% perceive this benefit as at least medium and
37% perceive this benefit as high). There is a large consensus across types of organisations
on this benefit: more than 70% of respondents from each category (except trade or industry
associations) perceived it as having at least a medium benefit.
Between 35 and 50% (depending on the benefits considered) of the respondents perceived at least
one of these benefits as high.
On the other hand, respondents do not perceive as clear benefits of water reuse: cost
savings for authorities (60% of respondents rated it as “low” or “no benefit”), increased
revenues for sectors (39%), job creation (40%) or energy and carbon savings (57%). An
overall consensus can be found within sectors and organisation types on this question.
Similarly to what could be seen for irrigation, respondents from countries regularly exposed to
water stress and countries from Southern EU perceive significantly more and higher benefits
than other categories of respondents, except for Energy and carbon savings.
Perception of barriers to water reuse
a) Irrigation
Figure 6 shows the perception of respondents about the main factors preventing a wider uptake of
water reuse for irrigation in agriculture.
Figure 6: Views on main barriers to wider uptake of water reuse solutions in agriculture irrigation
14
Overall, according to more than 80% of respondents, the main barriers include:
the negative perception of issues around water reuse (85% perceive this barrier as at least
medium and 63% perceive this barrier as high);
a land planning barrier (distance between waste water treatment plants and irrigation
fields): 91% perceive this barrier as at least medium and 61% perceive this barrier as high;
policy barriers:
o insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associated with water
reuse (87% perceive this barrier as at least medium and 55% perceive this barrier
as high);
o insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated water management (87%
perceive this barrier as at least medium and 62% perceive this barrier as high);
economics:
o low price of freshwater compared to price of reused water, but slightly more in
countries not affected by regular water stress (82% perceive this barrier as at least
medium and 62% perceive this barrier as high);
o high cost of treatment for production of reused water (85% perceive this barrier as
at least medium and 49% perceive this barrier as high);
administrative/legal barriers:
o fear of potential trade barriers (e.g. import bans) for food products irrigated with
reused water (80% perceive this barrier as at least medium and 49% perceive this
barrier as high);
o administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities (e.g.
specific permits for water reuse): 80% perceive this barrier as at least medium and
44% perceive this barrier as high.
A relatively high share of respondents also see the following barriers (35 to 49% depending on the
barrier considered perceive them as “high”):
absence of water reuse standards, or on the contrary – stringent national water reuse
standards,
insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse, as well as
scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks.
On the other hand, awareness and availability of technical solutions to produce safe water
as well as insufficient control of water abstractions are little seen as barriers.
The following specificities can be noted based on the analysis per category of respondents:
between types of stakeholders:
o generally, a higher number of citizens and respondents from public authorities
perceive barriers to water reuse. In particular, more citizens are concerned about
low availability and awareness of technical solution to safely reuse water as well as
absence of water reuse standards;
o respondents from private companies are more prone to see stringent water reuse
standards as a barrier compared to other respondents (86% vs. no more than 70%
for others);
between Southern, Northern and Eastern EU countries: Similarly to responses on
benefits, significant differences can be observed between Northern and Eastern EU vs.
Southern EU, as a larger proportion of respondents in Southern EU are inclined to perceive
most of potential barriers to water reuse. Particularly significant differences exist regarding
the following barriers:
o stringent national water reuse standards (almost 90% of Southern EU perceive this
barrier as at least medium vs. 62% and 50% for Eastern and Northern EU countries);
15
o administrative burden (almost 90% of Southern EU perceive this barrier as at least
medium vs. around 70% for Eastern and Northern EU countries);
between economic sectors:
o a larger share of respondents from the sanitation and drinking water sectors report
following barriers to water reuse compared other respondents: low price of
freshwater compared to reused water, distance between plants and irrigation fields
as well as insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated water management;
o the negative public perception on the quality of reused water appears as the most
highlighted barrier by food and agriculture sectors (72% and 65% identified as high);
between countries in situation of water stress and others:
o respondents from countries facing regular water stress are more likely to perceive a
large number of barriers, although they rank different barriers similarly;
o most notable differences concern stringent water reuse standards (85% of
respondents in countries facing regular water stress perceive this barrier as at least
medium vs. around 70% in other countries) and administrative barriers (88% vs.
74%).
b) Aquifer recharge
Figure 7 shows the perception of respondents about the main factors preventing a wider uptake of
water reuse for aquifer recharge.
Figure 7: Views on main barriers to a wider uptake of water reuse solutions in aquifer recharge
Overall, according to at least 80% of respondents, the main barriers include:
the negative perception of issues around water reuse (80% perceive this barrier as at least
medium and 60% perceive this barrier as high);
policy barriers:
o insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associated with water
reuse (84% perceive this barrier as at least medium and 56% perceive this barrier
as high);
o insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated water management (85%
perceive this barrier as at least medium and 58% perceive this barrier as high);
16
economics:
o high cost of treatment for production of reused water (81% perceive this barrier as
at least medium and 54% perceive this barrier as high);
o administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities (e.g.
specific permits for water reuse): 80% perceive this barrier as at least medium and
43% perceive this barrier as high.
A relatively high share of respondents also see the following barriers (40 to 57% consider them as
“high”): low price of freshwater compared to price of reused water, absence of water reuse standards,
or on the contrary – stringent national water reuse standards.
On the other hand, awareness and availability of technical solutions to produce safe water
as well as insufficient awareness on benefits are less seen as barriers.
There is no major difference between respondents regarding the perception of barriers to water
reuse, although some specificities can be noted:
between types of stakeholders:
o generally, a larger share of citizens and respondents for utilities/providers and public
authorities perceive barriers to water reuse. In particular, similarly to reuse in
agriculture irrigation, more citizens seem concerned about low availability and
awareness of technical solution to safely reuse water (57% and 69% citizens
considering them as high or medium vs. no more than 46% and 54% for others);
o a larger share of respondents for utilities/providers also perceive barriers in
administrative burden, insufficient consideration for water reuse integrated water
management and low price of freshwater compared to reused water (over 80%
considering each of the factors as potential barriers);
o a larger share of respondents from private companies see as a barrier the insufficient
clarity in legislation to manage risks associated with water reuse as well as absence
of standards and stringent water reuse standards;
between Southern, Northern and Eastern EU countries: differences can be observed
between Northern and Eastern EU vs. Southern EU, as a larger proportion of respondents in
Southern EU perceive most of potential barriers to water reuse. Particularly significant
differences exist regarding the following barriers:
o insufficient consideration for water reuse integrated water management (over 90%
of Southern EU perceive this barrier as at least medium vs. around 75% for Eastern
and Northern EU countries);
o stringent national water reuse standards (over 75% of Southern EU perceive this
barrier as at least medium vs. 65% and 60% for Eastern and Northern EU countries),
o Eastern EU countries are most likely to consider low price of freshwater compared to
reused water as potential barrier (over 85%);
between economic sectors:
o a larger share of respondents from the sanitation and drinking water sectors report
following barriers to water reuse: low price of freshwater compared to reused water,
insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated water management as well as
insufficient clarity in the legislation to manage water reuse risks;
o the negative public perception on the quality of reused water appears as the most
highlighted barrier by food and agriculture sectors (over 60% identified as high);
between countries in situation of water stress and others: respondents from countries
facing regular water stress tend to perceive more barriers to water reuse, although they rank
different barriers similarly. Most notable differences concern insufficient consideration for
water reuse in integrated water management (93% of respondents in countries facing regular
water stress perceive this barrier as at least medium vs. around 80% in other countries),
stringent water reuse standards (77% vs. 65%) and administrative barriers (88% vs. 74%).
17
Perception of safety of reusing treated water
a) Irrigation
The perception of the safety of water reuse in irrigation significantly depends on the alternative
source considered (water from rivers or groundwater) and categories of respondents (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Share of respondents considering that reusing treated waste water for agriculture irrigation nowadays in the EU is…
Safety of reused water compared to water from rivers
There is a relatively large consensus amongst respondents about the safety of reused water
compared to water from rivers, as nearly 70% of respondents from each economic sector (except
agriculture, where this figure is closer to 60%) and more than 60% of respondents from each
organisation type consider reused water as at least “as safe”. Consensus is particularly large amongst
respondents from the sanitation and drinking water sectors (over 45% from these sectors
consider reused water as safer, compared to ~30% for the other sectors).
The question of safety is more controversial, however, when considering responses from the different
EU regions and countries subject to high water stress. While 80% of respondents from Southern EU
countries perceive reused water as at least as safe as using water from rivers (with half of them
considering it even safer), respondents from Northern EU countries provide more heterogeneous
answers (55% considered reused water as at least as safe) and only a third of respondents from
Eastern EU countries consider reused water as at least as safe.
Similarly, 90% of respondents in countries facing regular water stress perceive reused water as
at least as safe as using water from rivers (compared to 60% of respondents from other countries).
Safety of reused water compared to water from groundwater
The issue of safety of reused water compared to groundwater is more controversial
amongst respondents than when it is compared with water from rivers. Nearly 50% of
respondents perceive reused water as less safe as groundwater.
18
There are high discrepancies in the perception of reused water safety depending on the EU region,
situation of water stress, sector and type of organisation considered:
large share of respondents from Southern EU countries (65% of respondents from this EU
region) and countries subject to high water stress (70% of respondents from these
countries) consider reused water as at least as safe as groundwater, while 70% of
respondents from Northern and Eastern EU countries as well as countries not subject to water
stress consider reused water as less safe than groundwater;
there is also a consensus amongst 70% of respondents from the health sector on reused
water being less safe than groundwater. Sanitation and drinking water sectors are the sectors
with the most positive perception of reused water safety compared to groundwater, although
this is less consensual amongst their respondents. In comparison, responses from
agriculture, food and the environment sectors show a lack of consensus on the question
of the safety of reused water compared to groundwater (nearly 60 and 50% of respondents
respectively perceive reused water as not as safe);
remarkably, respondents from private companies are by far the most positive about the
safety of water reused compared to other types of stakeholders. They are 70% to consider
reused water as at least as safe compared to groundwater and 44% to consider it even safer.
b) Aquifer recharge
Trends with regards to reused water safety are very similar for irrigation and aquifer recharge. The
perception of the safety of water reuse in aquifer recharge significantly depends on the alternative
source considered (water from rivers or groundwater) and categories of respondents (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Share of respondents considering that reusing treated waste water for aquifer recharge nowadays in the EU is…
19
Safety of reused water compared to water from rivers
There is a relatively large consensus amongst respondents about the safety of reused water
compared to water from rivers, as: nearly 70% of respondents from the sanitation, drinking
water, economics and environment sectors (all sectors except agriculture and health, with 60%
and 64% of respondents respectively) and about 60% of respondents from each organisation type
consider reused water as at least “as safe”. Amongst these organisations, respondents from the
private sector show the highest level of confidence in the safety of reused water compared to water
from rivers (90% of respondents) while respondents from public authorities or citizen highlight the
most the lower safety of reused water compared to water from rivers (40% of respondents).
Similarly to the section on irrigation, the question of safety is more controversial when
considering responses from the different EU regions and countries subject to regular water
stress. While 80% of respondents from Southern EU countries perceive reused water as at least as
safe as using water from rivers (with half of them considering it even safer), respondents from
Northern and Eastern EU countries provide more heterogeneous answers with less than half of
respondents only perceiving reused water as at least as safe.
Similarly, 85% of respondents in countries facing regular water stress perceive reused water as
at least as safe as using water from rivers (compared to 53% of respondents from other countries).
Safety of reused water compared to water from groundwater
The issue of safety of reused water compared to groundwater is more controversial
amongst respondents than when it is compared with water from rivers. Forty four percent
of respondents perceive reused water as less safe as groundwater.
There are high discrepancies in the perception of reused water safety depending on the EU region,
situation of water stress, sector and type of organisation considered:
large share of respondents from Southern EU countries (70% of respondents from this EU
region) and countries subject to regular water stress (80% of respondents from these
countries) consider reused water as at least as safe as groundwater, while 80% of
respondents from Eastern EU countries, 60% of respondents from Northern EU countries and
60% of respondents from countries not subject to high water stress consider reused water
as less safe than groundwater;
over 50% of respondents from the health and agriculture sectors considered
reused water as less safe than groundwater. The percentage of respondents with similar
answers is lower for other sectors, such as in the environment, sanitation and drinking water
sectors with 40% of respondents considering reused water not as safe as groundwater;
remarkably, respondents from private companies are once again by far the most positive
about the safety of water reused compared to other types of stakeholders. They are 90% to
consider reused water as at least as safe compared to groundwater, compared to 60% in
average for all respondents.
20
Session 2 - What should be the objectives and scope of EU minimum
quality requirements for water reuse?
In a nutshell:
Objectives of the EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse
Respondents to the public consultation identify in their vast majority (>70%) the following
objectives as key for the EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse:
in irrigation:
o protection of human health of consumers through the safety of agricultural products
placed on the EU market;
o protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water;
o protection of water resources and dependent ecosystems; and
o protection of the environment.
in aquifer recharge:
o protection of water resources and dependent ecosystems;
o protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water.
This overall trend is shared across the civil society, public authorities and the private sector,
although respondents from public authorities and civil society showed particularly remarkable
level of consensus on each of these objectives. These objectives were mostly shared within and
across EU regions, except for the protection of human health of public directly exposed to water
reuse in the case of irrigation, which was recognised as an objective by a lower share of Eastern
EU countries compared to other EU regions (50% vs. 70% for other EU regions). These objectives
were also shared within and across economic sectors.
The protection of agricultural productivity is not given as much importance in comparison to the
aforementioned objectives (40% of respondents only think it should be covered). Yet, a large
majority of respondents from the agriculture sectors still considers it as an objective to be
addressed by EU minimum quality requirements for irrigation (75% of respondents). A significant
higher share of respondents from Eastern EU countries (57%) also identified it as an objective
compared to other EU regions (<40%). Should the protection of agricultural productivity be set
as a primary objective of future EU minimum requirements or not, the impact on the agricultural
productivity of the future policy instrument for water reuse will need to be carefully assessed.
Scope of EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse
A large majority of respondents considers the possibility or even the need for other types of uses
than irrigation and aquifer recharge to be targeted by EU minimum quality requirements. In
particular, there is a large consensus (in particular within the health and the environment sectors)
on the possibility or need to expand EU minimum requirements to the irrigation of sport fields
and the irrigation of urban green spaces. Half of the respondents consider that these uses should
be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse. Respondents from Southern
countries are the most willing to consider an expansion of EU minimum quality requirements to
other types of uses, in particular compared to Northern EU countries.
The idea to expand EU minimum requirements particularly to industrial uses as well as to other
urban uses at a lesser extent is more debated. 20% and 15% (respectively) of respondents would
not like these uses to be covered by EU requirements (compared to 10% for other uses),
compared to about 40% which think they should be included on the contrary. For industrial uses,
this ‘reluctance’ is explained by some respondents as being the need for different and usually less
stringent quality levels, adapted to the specificities of different types of industries and industrial
uses.
21
Specific objectives of EU minimum requirements
a) Irrigation
Figure 10 shows the proportion of respondents in favour of specific objectives that should be
addressed by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture.
Figure 10: Proportion of respondents recognising specific objectives that should be addressed by EU
minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture
There is a large overall consensus from respondents (>70% of respondents for each category
of objectives, within and across economic sectors, types of organisations, and EU regions) about the
need for the EU minimum quality requirements to address the protection of human health, of
water resources and environment:
protection of human health of consumers (safety of agricultural products placed on the
EU market) is ranked as the primary objective (87% of respondents consider it should be
addressed). Consensus on this issue is particularly large amongst:
o respondents from public authorities (97% of respondents from this category), NGOs
(>90%) and citizen (88%); and
o respondents from the agriculture, food, health and the environment sectors (>90%
in each sector);
protection of water resources and dependent ecosystems is the second higher
objective (80% of respondents consider it should be addressed). Consensus on this issue is
particularly large amongst:
o respondents from public authorities (90% of respondents from this category), NGOs
(83%) and citizen (88%); and
o respondents from the health sector (90%), the environment sector (87%) and
agriculture and economics sectors (>80% in each sector).
These objectives are followed equally by:
protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water: consensus is
particularly large amongst:
o respondents from public authorities (85% of respondents from this category) and
NGOs (80%); and
o respondents from the agriculture, food, health and the environment sectors (>80%
in each sector);
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Protection ofhuman health of
consumers
(safety of
agricultural
products placed
on the EU
common market)
Protection ofhuman health of
public directly
exposed to
reused water
(e.g. workers)
Protection ofwater resources
and dependant
ecosystems
Protection of thewider
environment
(e.g. soil)
Protection ofagricultural
productivity (crop
yield)
Other I don't know
22
protection of wider environment (75% of respondents). Consensus on this issue is
particularly large amongst:
o respondents from public authorities (85% of respondents from this category); and
o respondents from the health sector (90%) and to a lesser extent the economics and
the environment sectors (80% of respondents).
In comparison, only nearly 40% of respondents think that protection of agricultural productivity
should be covered by the EU requirements. Yet, respondents from the agricultural sector are more
than 75% to think that protection of agricultural productivity should be an objective of the EU policy
instrument on water reuse, well above the number of similar responses provided by the other sectors.
Respondents from Eastern EU countries also show higher level of support for this objective compared
to other EU regions (57% vs. 36% in Southern EU and 32% in Northern EU).
b) Aquifer recharge
Figure 11 shows the proportion of respondents in favour of specific objectives that should be
addressed by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge.
Figure 11: Proportion of respondents recognising specific objectives that should be addressed by EU
minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge
There is large overall consensus from respondents (>80% of respondents for each category of
objectives) about the need for the EU minimum quality requirements to address:
protection of water resources and dependent ecosystems (87% of respondents
consider it should be addressed). Consensus on this issue is particularly large amongst
respondents from NGOs, public authorities, citizens and water providers (>90% of
respondents from these categories);
protection of human health of consumers (84% of respondents consider it should be
addressed). Consensus on this issue is particularly large amongst:
o respondents from public authorities (90% of respondents from this category), NGOs
(83%) and citizen (88%), as well as water providers (84%);
o respondents from the health sector (100%).
The analysis of responses confirms the consensus - within and between sectors, EU regions and
countries groups impacted or not by water stress - around the objectives related to the protection of
human health and water resources and dependent ecosystems, as more than 70% of respondents
of each economic sector and 80% of respondents in each EU region and countries groups are in
favour of including these objectives in the EU policy instrument about water reuse for aquifer
recharge.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Protection of water
resources and
dependant
ecosystems
Protection of human
health of consumers
(in case the recharged
aquifer is abstracted
for drinking water
purposes)
Other I don't know
23
Other uses to be covered by EU minimum requirements
Participants were asked to share their views on whether EU minimum quality requirements ‘could’ or
‘should’ cover or not other uses for treated waste water: irrigation of sport fields, irrigation of urban
green spaces, industrial uses and other urban uses.
The largest consensus amongst respondents (>85%) concern:
the irrigation of urban green spaces, which ‘should’ be addressed according to 50% of
respondents and ‘could’ be addressed according to 35% of respondents; and
the irrigation of sport fields, which ‘should’ be addressed according to 48% of respondents
and ‘could’ be addressed according to 38% of respondents.
A very large amount of respondents (80%) also consider either the possibility (37%) or even the
need (43%) to cover other urban uses. Although industrial uses ‘should’ be included according to
40% of respondents and ‘could’ be included according to 35% of respondents, this type of use is
more controversial amongst respondents. A higher number of respondents explicitly say not to be
in favour of including industrial uses in EU minimum quality requirements (nearly 20% compared to
10% for irrigation of sport fields & urban green spaces or 15% for other urban uses).
The level of support for one or the other of these types of use is quite heterogeneous between
economic sectors (Figure 12). Irrigation of sport fields and urban green spaces receive relatively
large support from respondents from the health (62% of respondents consider these uses should be
included in the requirements) and environment sectors (54%). On the contrary, respondents from
the ‘economics’ sector are the least inclined to include additional uses to EU minimum quality
requirements.
Figure 12: Proportion of respondents per sector considering that EU minimum quality requirements for
water reuse should cover other uses of treated waste water
When looking at the responses from different EU regions, respondents from Southern and
Eastern EU countries are more inclined than Northern regions to expand EU requirements
to irrigation of sport fields, irrigation of urban green spaces or other urban uses (>80% of
respondents from these EU regions ‘could’ include these types of uses in EU requirements). Amongst
85% of respondents from Southern EU countries are also in favour of expanding EU requirements to
industrial water reuse. Similarly, respondents from countries in situation of water stress were also
the most inclined to expand EU requirements to other types of water use compared to other
countries.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Industrial uses Irrigation of sport fields(incl. golf courses)
Irrigation of urban greenspaces
Other urban uses (street cleaning, firefighting…)
Sanitation Drinking water Food Agriculture Health Environment Economics
24
Session 3 - Towards a suitable policy instrument for EU minimum
quality requirements for water reuse
In a nutshell
EU minimum requirements for water reuse
Although over 60% of all respondents are in favour of an EU regulation, there is no
clear consensus across all types of respondents on the most suitable type of EU
instrument - as listed in the questionnaire - to promote water reuse in irrigation and in
aquifer recharge.
The respondents which are mostly in favour of an EU regulation, in both cases, are
representatives from private companies (~80%), from the Sanitation, drinking water, food
industry and environment sectors (~60 from each category), and/or from Southern countries
(~65%). Respondents from agriculture and economics sectors2 as well as Industry or trade
associations are the least keen on supporting this policy option.
Overall, Commission recommendations are the 2nd preferred policy option within and across
most categories of respondents, although CEN standards are generally preferred by respondents
from agriculture, food and health sectors for water reuse in irrigation. The highest level of support
for Commission recommendations comes from water providers/utilities and public authorities as
well as respondents from Eastern EU countries.
These results should be considered with precaution, as many comments - from respondents who
selected the EU regulation or Commission recommendations - pointed to the preference for an
EU Directive, which was not listed in the closed list of policy options from the public consultation.
Many respondents call for an instrument providing both sufficient level of protection and
adaptability.
In case the choice of an EU Directive would be retained, there will be a need to carefully assess
the impacts of non-harmonised national legislations on the perception of consumer safety in a
shared European market as well as on the development of aquifer recharges in transboundary
aquifers.
Specific aspects to be covered by minimum quality requirements for water
reuse
Priority aspects to be covered by minimum quality requirements for water reuse in irrigation
include: microbiological contaminants, monitoring, other chemicals addressed by EU
legislation and risk-based management, both for irrigation and groundwater recharge
purposes. While these aspects are generally subject to large consensus within and across key
categories of respondents (economic sectors, types of organisation), the following differences can
be noted:
respondents from Southern EU countries are significantly less inclined than other EU regions
to include other chemicals into EU minimum requirements;
larger shares of respondents from the agriculture, health and environment sectors expect EU
instrument to cover chemicals (with a preference for chemicals already covered by existing
EU legislation) compared to sanitation, drinking water and food sectors;
respondents from the agricultural sector are less favourable to cover aspects related to
monitoring and risk-based management (>60 and 50% respectively), while it is a strong
requirement from most other sectors (>70% and >65% overall);
2 i.e. any industrial sectors other than food, drinking water and sanitation
25
less consensus is found between respondents from trade and industry associations.
The question of nutrients is also considered as a priority aspect to be covered when
reusing water for aquifer recharge (78% of respondents) while interest for such an aspect is
more moderate for irrigation purposes (52%) when looking at all categories of respondents.
This aspect is, in both cases, of very high interest to the health sector (73% in the case of
irrigation and 79% in the case of aquifer recharge).
Beyond these priorities lies the concern from some respondents that water reuse, if not well
regulated, may contribute to pollute the aquifers, as well as soils although to a lesser extent.
Respondents express less interest in general for technical aspects such as wastewater
management or aquifer recharge techniques. In this respect, the sanitation and drinking water
sectors – which are both directly concerned by this aspect, reach a large consensus about not
covering this aspect in EU minimum quality requirements. Similarly, less interest is shown by
respondents in including the handling of treated water at farm level in EU minimum quality
requirements for irrigation, although respondents from the health and agriculture sectors - which
are the most directly concerned by this issue - showed slightly more interest.
EU minimum requirements for water reuse
a) Irrigation
There is no clear consensus across all types of respondents on the most suitable type of EU
instrument to promote water reuse in irrigation as listed in the questionnaire (Figure 13 andFigure
14).
Figure 13: Opinions from different types of organisations on the best instruments to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation
Figure 14: Opinions from different economic sectors on the best instruments to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sanitation
Drinking water
Food industry
Agriculture
Health
Environment
Economics
Instr
um
ent
needed f
or
agricultura
l ir
rigation
EU regulation (binding) Commission recommendation (not binding)
CEN standards (not binding) Other
26
Sixty percent of respondents are in favour of an EU regulation (binding) to set minimum
requirements for water reuse. Amongst these respondents:
A very large consensus comes from private companies (82% of respondents) while only half
of the respondents from other types of organisations indicated to be in favour of an EU
regulation;
This option is preferred by respondents from Southern EU countries (66% of respondents
compared to 53% of respondents in Northern countries and 43% from Eastern countries)
and generally in countries facing water stress 67% of respondents compared to 54% for
other countries);
This option has a relatively high level of support from respondents from sanitation, drinking
water, food and environmental sectors (at least 60% of those who shared their opinions)
compared to agriculture, health and other economic sectors (<50% of respondents in each
category).
About 25% of respondents would prefer a non-binding instrument, such as Commission
recommendation (2/3 of these respondents) or CEN standards (1/3 of these respondents). Preference
for one or the other of these non-binding instruments depends on the economic sectors EU region
and organisation types considered:
CEN standards are generally preferred by respondents from agriculture, food and health
sectors while Commission recommendation is preferred by respondents from the sanitation,
drinking water, environment and economics sectors;
The level of support for a Commission recommendation is also higher from respondents
representing providers (40% of respondents) and public authorities (nearly 30% of
respondents), while respondents from industry or trade associations are mostly in favour of
CEN standards (>20%);
Respondents from Northern countries are equally supportive of both non-binding options,
while respondents from other EU regions prefer EU recommendation over CEN standards, in
particular from Eastern EU countries where 36% of respondents support the idea of an EU
recommendation.
The rest of respondents does not have any opinion or would rather consider other policy
options. Amongst these respondents, most advocate for a legislation adapted to local contexts such
as an EU Directive.
While the choice of an EU Directive was not proposed in the closed list of options included in the
public consultation, most comments from respondents which ticked the categories “EU Regulation”,
“Commission recommendation”, or “others” tend to show that a Directive would be the preferred
option, for its binding character associated to its flexibility to be best adapted to local contexts.
27
b) Aquifer recharge
Similarly to irrigation, there is no clear consensus across all types of respondents on the
most suitable type of EU instrument to promote water reuse in aquifer recharge as listed
in the questionnaire (Figure 15 and Figure 16).
Figure 15: Opinions from different types of organisation on the best instruments to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge
Figure 16: Opinions from different economic sectors on the best instruments to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge
Nearly 65% of respondents are in favour of an EU regulation (binding) to set minimum
requirements for water reuse. Amongst these respondents:
a very large consensus comes from private companies (80% of respondents) and citizens
(nearly 70%) while only about half of the respondents from other types of organisations
indicated to be in favour of an EU regulation;
This option is preferred by respondents from Southern EU countries (67% of respondents
compared to about 50% of respondents from Northern countries and Eastern countries) and
generally in countries facing water stress;
This option has a relatively high level of support from respondents from sanitation, drinking
water, food and environmental sectors (at least 60% of those who shared their opinions)
compared to health, agriculture and other economic sectors (52%, 47% and 40%
respectively).
About 25% of respondents would prefer a non-binding instrument, such as Commission
recommendation (2/3 of these respondents) or CEN standards (1/3 of these respondents). Preference
for one or the other of these non-binding instruments depends on the economic sectors EU region
and organisation types considered:
unlike water reuse for irrigation, Commission recommendations are the 2nd preferred policy
option by respondents from all sectors (~20-25% of support across these sectors, and except
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sanitation
Drinking water
Food industry
Agriculture
Health
Environment
Economics
Instr
um
ent
needed f
or
aquifer
recharg
e
EU regulation (binding) Commission recommendation (not binding)
CEN standards (not binding) Other
28
economics which rank it first) and organisation types. In comparison, support for CEN
standards is very low;
compared to other EU regions, respondents from Eastern EU countries are the most inclined
to support the idea of an EU recommendation.
The rest of respondents does not have any opinion or would rather consider other policy
options. Amongst these respondents, most advocated for a legislation adapted to local contexts
such as an EU Directive.
Similarly to responses about irrigation, most comments from respondents which ticked the categories
“EU Regulation”, “Commission recommendation”, or “others” tend to show that a Directive would be
the preferred option.
Specific aspects of EU minimum requirements
Participants were asked to indicate what specific aspects should be covered by EU minimum quality
requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation and groundwater recharge.
a) Irrigation
Figure 17 shows respondents’ opinion about which aspects should be specifically covered by EU
minimum quality requirements in irrigation.
Figure 17: Proportion of respondents recognising specific aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation
Aspects to be covered in priority by EU minimum quality requirements for irrigation, based on the
overall responses to the public consultation, include:
microbiological contaminants (90% of responses). This aspect is subject to a large
consensus across all categories of respondents;
monitoring (71% of respondents). This aspect is subject to a large consensus across all
categories of respondents, except from the agriculture sectors (where answers were more
heterogeneous) and economics (with lower level of interest);
other chemicals addressed by EU legislation (~70%). In particular, a large majority of
respondents from the agriculture (80%), health (90%), environment (80%) and economics
(70%) sectors show interest for this aspect. Many respondents from NGOs and academics
are also in favour of including this aspect (88%). Respondents from Northern and Eastern
EU are also more than 80% to support this option (vs. <60% from Southern countries);
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Microbiological
contaminants
Monitoring Other chemicals
already
addressed by
EU legislation
on water quality
in the
environment or
on discharges
to water
Risk-based
management
(e.g. water
safety plan)
Nutrients Handling of
treated water at
farm level (e.g.
irrigation
practices)
Other chemicals
not addressed
by existing EU
legislation
Waste water
treatment
techniques
29
risk-based management (~65%). This aspect is of high interest for sanitation, drinking
water, food and health sectors (>65% of respondents in each category), but of lower interest
for respondents from the agriculture, environment and economics sectors (<55%). Many
respondents from NGOs and academics are also in favour of considering this aspect (88%).
Less consensus is found between respondents from trade and industry associations, although they
generally show less willingness to include one or another of these aspects in EU minimum quality
requirements.
In comparison, other aspects are more controversial within and across categories of respondents.
About 50% or less of respondents express their interest in the following aspects:
nutrients (52% of respondents expressed their interest). Interestingly, respondents from
Southern EU are only about 40% to support this option (vs. 60% from Eastern and 70% from
Northern EU countries);
handling of treated water at farm level (45%). The highest level of support is achieved
within the health (63%) and agriculture sectors (58%) - which are naturally the most
concerned by this issue – but the percentage of responses show less consensus on this
question than for the other aspects;
other chemicals not addressed by EU existing legislation (44%). The sanitation,
drinking water, food and economics sectors are the least inclined to include this aspects in
minimum requirements (less of 40% of respondents in each of these categories). The
message is less clear when looking at the responses from the agriculture (~60% interest),
health (52%) and environment sector (55%), which are more heterogeneous. Furthermore,
respondents from Southern EU are only about 60% to support this option (vs. >80% of
respondents from Eastern and Northern EU countries);
wastewater treatment techniques (39%). The sanitation and drinking water sectors –
which are both directly concerned by this aspect, reach a large consensus about not covering
this aspect in EU minimum quality requirements (<25% in favour of such an option).
Similarly to previous options, respondents from Southern countries are the least inclined to
include this aspect in future EU requirements.
Another aspect to be covered, mentioned by some respondents beyond those listed in the public
consultation questionnaire, is to ensure the safety of workers involved in water reuse.
b) Aquifer recharge
Figure 18 shows respondents’ opinion about which aspects should be specifically covered by EU
minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge.
Figure 18: Proportion of respondents recognising specific aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Microbiological
contaminants
Nutrients Monitoring Other
chemicals
already
addressed by
EU legislation
on water
quality in the
environment or
on discharges
to water
Risk-based
management
(e.g. water
safety plan)
Other
chemicals not
addressed by
existing EU
legislation
Artificial
recharge
techniques
Waste water
treatment
techniques
30
Aspects to be covered in priority by EU minimum quality requirements for aquifer recharge, based
on the overall responses to the public consultation, include:
microbiological contaminants (82% of responses). This aspect is subject to a large
consensus across all categories of respondents, and in particular within the sanitation and
drinking water sectors (91% of respondents) and health and environment (>80% of
respondents). Responses from the agriculture sector are less homogeneous, as only 60% of
them would include this aspect in future EU requirements;
nutrients (78% of responses). This aspect is subject to a large consensus across all
categories of respondents, and in particular within the sanitation, drinking water, health and
environment sectors (>80% of respondents). Yet, lower consensus is found within
respondents from the agriculture sector (65% of respondents would include this aspect in EU
minimum requirements);
monitoring (72% of respondents). Yet, lower consensus is found within respondents from
the agriculture and economics sector (<60% of respondents from these categories would
include this aspect in EU minimum requirements);
other chemicals already addressed by EU legislation (71%). This aspect is subject to a
very large consensus within and across respondents from the health (94%), economics
(90%) and environment sectors (81%) and large consensus amongst respondents from the
agriculture sector (75%). It is also largely supported by respondents from the Eastern and
Northern EU countries (>85% of respondents from each of these categories compared to
<65% of respondents from Southern EU countries) and generally by respondents from
countries not experiencing water stress (82%vs. 57% for other countries);
risk-based management (~65%). Although this aspect is generally supported by the
sanitation, drinking water and health sector, there is less consensus on this aspect within
and between economic sectors.
About 50% of respondents or less express their interest in each of the following categories:
other chemicals not addressed by EU existing legislation (52% of respondents). Yet,
this aspect is supported in particular by a number of respondents from the health, agriculture
and economics sector, but without clear consensus within these sectors except for health
(>70%). It is also supported in majority by respondents from the Eastern and Northern EU
countries (>70% of respondents from each of these categories compared to <41% of
respondents from Southern EU countries) and generally by respondents from countries not
experiencing water stress (65%% vs.35% for other countries);
artificial recharge techniques (43%); and/or
waste water treatment techniques (38%).
The lower interest in technical prescriptions could be explained by some respondents by the diversity
of techniques in the reuse of water and the need to allow new techniques to be developed to meet
specific challenges in given situations and geographies.
