Denmark: Water and Sanitation | ||
---|---|---|
Data | ||
Water coverage (broad definition) | 100% | |
Sanitation coverage (broad definition) | 100% | |
Continuity of supply (%) | 100% | |
Average urban water use (l/c/d) | 114 (2009) [1] | |
Average urban domestic water and sewer bill | DKK 398 or US$83/month (2006) for 10m3/month | |
Share of household metering | High | |
Non-revenue water | 7% [1] | |
Share of collected wastewater treated | 100% | |
Annual investment in WSS | n/a | |
Financing | Full cost recovery | |
Institutions | ||
Decentralization to municipalities | Yes | |
National water and sanitation company | None | |
Water and sanitation regulatory agency | No | |
Responsibility for policy setting | ||
Sector law | Water Supply Act of 1978 and subsequent amendments | |
Number of public service providers | 2740 (2001) | |
Public water supply and sanitation in Denmark is characterized by universal access and generally good service quality. Some salient features of the sector in the Denmark compared to other developed countries are:
Urban (85% of the population) | Rural (15% of the population) | Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Water | Broad definition | 100% | 100% | 100% |
House connections | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
Sanitation | Sewerage | 89% | 89% | 89% |
Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (2004) [2]
Access to improved water supply and sanitation in Denmark is universal. It is estimated that 89% of households are connected to the sewer network and 11% are served by on-site sanitation systems such as septic tanks. [3]
Total water consumption in Denmark is almost 1000 million m3 per year, which comes entirely from groundwater. This compares to an estimated resource of 1,800 million m3 groundwater per year. About one third is consumed by households, one third by agriculture and market gardens, and one third by industry and institutions. Some industries buy water from the public network, while others pump their own water.
Household water use in Denmark stood at 114 liters/capita/day in 2009. Between 1994 and 2009, household consumption has declined from 50 to 41.4 m3 per person per year. Water savings were caused by new installations (e.g. shower and toilets), water saving campaigns and a higher awareness of the environment among consumers, combined with a rise in the water price. [1]
The whole population has continuous access to an improved water supply and improved sanitation. A consumer survey by the utility association DANVA in 2006 showed that satisfaction with water suppliers, water quality and security of supply is very high. [4]
According to the European Environment and Health Committee the national microbial failure rate (measured against E. coli) among large water supply systems is generally zero. Very occasionally, large water supply plants have microbiological failures during a limited period. The national chemical failure rate (measured against nitrate ion or against other ions of local importance) among large water supply systems is near zero. In some parts of the country nitrate in drinking water is elevated. About 70,000 families depend on small private water supply systems. The majority of these water supply systems face problems with either nitrate pollution due to extensive agriculture production and/or pollution with pesticides or bacterial contamination. All water supplies, including small private supplies, are under regular control by the local authorities and action is taken if the water quality is poor. [5]
In 2009, the proportion of microbiological tests which complied with legislative requirements was more than 96%. The quality of the drinking water is checked at the waterworks, in the distribution network and at consumers' taps. [1]
Waste collection was 11.7 million ton from business and households in 2017. Of this, 68% was recycled, 29% was incinerated, and 3% was deposited in landfills. [6]
No single Ministry in the government of Denmark is responsible for water supply and sanitation, which is considered foremost a local government responsibility. The Danish Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for environmental policy.
In addition to the central authorities, there are two main levels of authorities responsible for water and wastewater services. There are 5 regional councils and 98 local (municipal) councils in Denmark. The regional councils are responsible for the use and protection of water resources, including extraction permits for large abstractions, and for monitoring the water quality of recipient water bodies (rivers, sea etc.), including authorizations to discharge wastewater. The municipal councils are responsible for the planning, administration and supervision of all water suppliers and the water supply infrastructure. They monitor and enforce compliance with all laws and regulations with regards to water and wastewater provision. The local authorities can issue extraction permits for small abstractions and they also operate a solid system of water quality regulation.
The Danish water supply is highly decentralized, with large and small waterworks situated all over the country. In 2001 there were 2740 "common utilities", of which municipalities owned 165 and 2575 were owned by consumers' co-operatives. Between 1980 and 2001, the number of utilities has been reduced by 29%. In spite of the high number of utilities, 60% of the drinking water is delivered by municipal utilities which account for only 6% of all utilities. [7] In many cases, thus, municipalities both regulate certain aspects of service provision and provide those same services.
The Danish Water and Waste Water Association (DANVA) is a national association of water and waste water utilities. It is a non-profit organization funded by its members, who are utilities, municipalities, consultants, contractors and personal members. Its objective "is to look after the common interests of Danish water and sewerage suppliers in promoting a steady and high-quality water and sewerage supply on an environmentally sustainable basis." DANVA was formed in 2002 as a merger of the two associations, the Danish Water Supply Association and the Danish Wastewater Association
The Danish water sector has carried out voluntary benchmarking surveys since 1999 in order to help service providers to improve their efficiency. The project is more than just a comparison of key indicators (performance benchmarking). It includes also process benchmarking, the setting of service goals and the development of a default chart of accounts. The project is financially independent through the payment of fees by participating utilities. It is estimated that around DK 15 million (US$3.15m) will have been spent on benchmarking by 2009. [8] The Danish benchmarking project is part of a North European benchmarking cooperation (NEBC) initiated in 2004 by the national water associations and several water utilities of Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden with the support of the International Water Association. It builds on the pioneering efforts of the Netherlands in this field. [9]
In 2003 the Danish government undertook a "service check" which estimated a potential for efficiency improvements worth DK 1.3 billion (US$ 273m) annually. Indeed, between 2002 and 2006 utilities participating in the benchmarking project were able to achieve annual savings of DK 450 million (US$94.5m) in operations and maintenance without any reduction of service quality or harm to the environment. The utility association DANVA attributes these savings to lessons that utilities drew from its benchmarking system. The exact source of the savings remains a bit unclear. The savings were not achieved in energy efficiency, since the specific energy consumption actually increased from 2 kWh/m3 in 2002 to 2.3 kWh/m3 in 2006; around 2% of national energy usage. [10] Neither were they achieved in reducing water losses, which hovered around the very low level of 6% during this period. [8]
There is a huge span between the lowest and the highest operating and maintenance costs for water supply in Denmark, varying from DKK 2 to DKK 13 per cubic meter (without wastewater and taxes). This suggests that there is still scope for realizing savings. These differences are determined by structural differences (such as depth of groundwater table and location of wells from consumption centers) and politically determined differences (such as pipe replacement policies and the extent of efforts going into groundwater protection). [11]
Water losses accounted for 7% of production in 2009, or 1.6 m3 per km of pipe and day. This is about the same level as in the Netherlands, but much higher than in Scotland, England and Wales or Australia, according to figures by the British water regulator OFWAT quoted by DANVA. [1] Water losses have declined from 3.4 m3/km/day in 1992. [12] Suppliers must pay a tax in the event of water losses in excess of 10% as an incentive to reduce water loss. [10]
Danish legislation requires full cost recovery for both water supply and sanitation (break-even principle).
In 2009, the average price for water and wastewater including taxes (VAT and green taxes) was DKK 52.30/m3 (US$8.36) – one of the highest tariffs in the EU. It consists of 24% for water, 48% for wastewater and 30% for taxes. [1] The total price of water measured in fixed prices has increased by 32% between 1996 and 2006. Nevertheless, a household's average expenditures for tap water and wastewater accounted for only about 0.13% of its total income. This share has remained constant, mainly because water consumption declined while tariffs increased. [13] Water prices vary a lot from one supplier to another depending on costs. The connection fee of a normal city one-family house was DKK 12,191 in 2001, varying from DKK 0 to 24,735. [14]
According to a 2006 survey by NUS consulting the average water tariff (price) without sewerage for large (commercial) consumers using 10,000 cubic meters per year in Denmark was the equivalent of US$2.24 per cubic meter. This was the highest tariff among the 14 mostly OECD countries covered by the report. [15]
Investments stood at DKK 4.03 per m3 in 2009. [1]
Water supply is the provision of water by public utilities, commercial organisations, community endeavors or by individuals, usually via a system of pumps and pipes. Public water supply systems are crucial to properly functioning societies. These systems are what supply drinking water to populations around the globe. Aspects of service quality include continuity of supply, water quality and water pressure. The institutional responsibility for water supply is arranged differently in different countries and regions. It usually includes issues surrounding policy and regulation, service provision and standardization.
Water supply and sanitation in France is universal and of good quality. Salient features of the sector compared to other developed countries are the high degree of private sector participation using concession and lease contracts and the existence of basin agencies that levy fees on utilities in order to finance environmental investments. Water losses in France (26%) are high compared to England (19%) and Germany (7%).
Public water supply and sanitation in the United Kingdom is characterised by universal access and generally good service quality. A salient feature of the sector in the United Kingdom compared to other developed countries is the diversity of institutional arrangements between the constituting parts of the UK, which are each described in separate articles, while this article is devoted to some common issues across the United Kingdom.
Public water supply and sanitation in Germany is universal and of good quality. Some salient features of the sector compared to other developed countries are its very low per capita water use, the high share of advanced wastewater treatment and very low distribution losses. Responsibility for water supply and sanitation provision lies with municipalities, which are regulated by the states. Professional associations and utility associations play an important role in the sector. As in other EU countries, most of the standards applicable to the sector are set in Brussels. Recent developments include a trend to create commercial public utilities under private law and an effort to modernize the sector, including through more systematic benchmarking.
Water supply and sanitation in Indonesia is characterized by poor levels of access and service quality. Almost 30 million people lack access to an improved water source and more than 70 million of the country's 264 million population has no access to improved sanitation. Only about 2% of people have access to sewerage in urban areas; this is one of the lowest in the world among middle-income countries. Water pollution is widespread on Bali and Java. Women in Jakarta report spending US$11 per month on boiling water, implying a significant burden for the poor.
Water supply and sanitation in China is undergoing a massive transition while facing numerous challenges such as rapid urbanization, increasing economic inequality, and the supply of water to rural areas. Water scarcity and pollution also impact access to water.
Water supply and sanitation in Spain is characterized by universal access and good service quality, while tariffs are among the lowest in the EU. Almost half of the population is served by private or mixed private-public water companies, which operate under concession contracts with municipalities. The largest of the private water companies, with a market share of about 50% of the private concessions, is Aguas de Barcelona (Agbar). However, the large cities are all served by public companies except Barcelona and Valencia. The largest public company is Canal de Isabel II, which serves the metropolitan area of Madrid.
The Philippines' water supply system dates back to 1946, after the country declared independence. Government agencies, local institutions, non-government organizations, and other corporations are primarily in charge of the operation and administration of water supply and sanitation in the country.
Water supply and sanitation services in Ireland are governed primarily by the Water Services Acts of 2007 to 2014 and regulated by the Commission for Energy Regulation. Until 2015, the relevant legislation provided for the provision of water and wastewater services by local authorities in Ireland, with domestic usage funded indirectly through central taxation, and non-domestic usage funded via local authority rates. From 2015, the legislation provided for the setup of a utility company, Irish Water, which would be responsible for providing water and wastewater services, and funded through direct billing. The transition between these models, and certain aspects of operation of the new company, caused controversy in its initial period of operation.
Water supply and sanitation in the Netherlands is provided in good quality and at a reasonable price to the entire population. Water consumption is one of the lowest in developed countries at 128 litres per capita per day and water leakage in the distribution network is one of the lowest in the world at only 6%.
Water supply and sanitation in Israel are intricately linked to the historical development of Israel. Because rain falls only in the winter, and largely in the northern part of the country, irrigation and water engineering are considered vital to the country's economic survival and growth. Large scale projects to desalinate seawater, direct water from rivers and reservoirs in the north, make optimal use of groundwater, and reclaim flood overflow and sewage have been undertaken. Among them is the National Water Carrier, carrying water from the country's biggest freshwater lake, the Sea of Galilee, to the northern part of the Negev desert through channels, pipes and tunnels. Israel's water demand today outstrips available conventional water resources. Thus, in an average year, Israel relies for about half of its water supply on unconventional water resources, including reclaimed water and desalination. A particularly long drought in 1998–2002 had prompted the government to promote large-scale seawater desalination.
Drinking water supply and sanitation in Egypt is characterized by both achievements and challenges. Among the achievements are an increase of piped water supply between 1998 and 2006 from 89% to 100% in urban areas and from 39% to 93% in rural areas despite rapid population growth; the elimination of open defecation in rural areas during the same period; and in general a relatively high level of investment in infrastructure. Access to an at least basic water source in Egypt is now practically universal with a rate of 98%. On the institutional side, the regulation and service provision have been separated to some extensions through the creation of a national Holding Company for Water and Wastewater in 2004, and of an economic regulator, the Egyptian Water Regulatory Agency (EWRA), in 2006. , many challenges remain. Only about one half of the population is connected to sanitary sewers. Partly because of low sanitation coverage about 50,000 children die each year because of diarrhea. Another challenge is low cost recovery due to water tariffs that are among the lowest in the world. This in turn requires government subsidies even for operating costs, a situation that has been aggravated by salary increases without tariff increases after the Arab Spring. Poor operation of facilities, such as water and wastewater treatment plants, as well as limited government accountability and transparency, are also issues.
Water supply and sanitation in Belgium is provided by a large variety of organizations: Most of the 581 municipalities of Belgium have delegated the responsibility for water supply and sanitation to regional or inter-municipal utilities. There are more than 62 water supply utilities, including 2 regional, 30 inter-municipal and 30 municipal utilities. Another 100 mostly small municipalities provide services directly without having a legally of financially separate entity for water supply. Water is not scarce in Belgium and water supply is generally continuous and of good quality. However, wastewater treatment has long lagged behind and Brussels only achieved full treatment of its wastewater in 2007. In 2004 the European Court of Justice ruled condemning Belgium's failure to comply with the EU wastewater directive, and the ruling has not been fully complied with so far. Wallonia satisfies 55% of the national needs in drinking water while it counts only 37% of the population. Flanders and Brussels are dependent on drinking water from Wallonia, at a level of 40% and 98% respectively.
A water tariff is a price assigned to water supplied by a public utility through a piped network to its customers. The term is also often applied to wastewater tariffs. Water and wastewater tariffs are not charged for water itself, but to recover the costs of water treatment, water storage, transporting it to customers, collecting and treating wastewater, as well as billing and collection. Prices paid for water itself are different from water tariffs. They exist in a few countries and are called water abstraction charges or fees. Abstraction charges are not covered in this article, but in the article on water pricing). Water tariffs vary widely in their structure and level between countries, cities and sometimes between user categories. The mechanisms to adjust tariffs also vary widely.
Water supply and sanitation in Turkey is characterized by achievements and challenges. Over the past decades access to drinking water has become almost universal and access to adequate sanitation has also increased substantially. Autonomous utilities have been created in the 16 metropolitan cities of Turkey and cost recovery has been increased, thus providing the basis for the sustainability of service provision. Intermittent supply, which was common in many cities, has become less frequent. In 2004, 61% of the wastewater collected through sewers was being treated. In 2020 77% of water was used by agriculture, 10% by households and the rest by industry.
Water supply and sanitation in Malaysia is characterised by numerous achievements, as well as some challenges. Universal access to water supply at affordable tariffs is a substantial achievement. The government has also shown a commitment to make the sector more efficient, to create a sustainable funding mechanism and to improve the customer orientation of service providers through sector reforms enacted in 2006. The reform creates a modern institutional structure for the water sector, including an autonomous regulatory agency, an asset management company and commercialised state water companies that have to reach certain key performance indicators that will be monitored by the regulatory agency. The government has also stated its intention not to embark on new private sector contracts for water provision, after a bout of such contracts during the 1990s showed mixed results.
Water supply and sanitation in Japan is characterized by numerous achievements and some challenges. The country has achieved universal access to water supply and sanitation; has one of the lowest levels of water distribution losses in the world; regularly exceeds its own strict standards for the quality of drinking water and treated waste water; uses an effective national system of performance benchmarking for water and sanitation utilities; makes extensive use of both advanced and appropriate technologies such as the jōkasō on-site sanitation system; and has pioneered the payment for ecosystem services before the term was even coined internationally. Some of the challenges are a decreasing population, declining investment, fiscal constraints, ageing facilities, an ageing workforce, a fragmentation of service provision among thousands of municipal utilities, and the vulnerability of parts of the country to droughts that are expected to become more frequent due to climate change.
Water supply and sanitation in Nairobi is characterised by achievements and challenges. Among the achievements is the expansion of infrastructure to keep pace with population growth, in particular through the construction of the Thika Dam and associated water treatment plant and pipelines during the 1990s; the transformation of the municipal water department into an autonomous utility in 2003; and the more recent reduction of water losses – technically called non-revenue water – from 50 to 40%.
Water supply and sanitation in Vietnam is characterized by challenges and achievements. Among the achievements is a substantial increase in access to water supply and sanitation between 1990 and 2010, nearly universal metering, and increased investment in wastewater treatment since 2007. Among the challenges are continued widespread water pollution, poor service quality, low access to improved sanitation in rural areas, poor sustainability of rural water systems, insufficient cost recovery for urban sanitation, and the declining availability of foreign grant and soft loan funding as the Vietnamese economy grows and donors shift to loan financing. The government also promotes increased cost recovery through tariff revenues and has created autonomous water utilities at the provincial level, but the policy has had mixed success as tariff levels remain low and some utilities have engaged in activities outside their mandate.
Water supply and sanitation in Georgia is characterized by achievements and challenges. Among the achievements is the improvement of water services in the capital Tbilisi where the water supply is now continuous and of good quality, major improvements in the country's third-largest city Batumi on the Black Sea where the country's first modern wastewater treatment plant now is under operation, as well as a general increase in access to drinking water in the entire country. Water and sewer tariffs remain affordable, with the private water company Georgian Water and Power (GWP) serving the capital being financially viable and profitable, while the public water company serving most of the rest of the country remains financially weak. The improvements were achieved after the Rose Revolution of 2004 when the government decided to reform the sector and to invest in it after many years of neglect.