Post a comment on the text below

(under the dynamic map)

Note: Financial cost recovery levels are shown for the following services reported by the EU Member States: “Drinking water abstraction (surface and/or groundwater), treatment and distribution”; “Sewage collection and wastewater treatment”; “Drinking water abstraction (surface and/or groundwater), treatment and distribution and sewage collection and wastewater treatment (when considered together)”

Data source: 2nd RBMPs (WFD 2016 database; Schema: RBMP PoM – Service)

Previous comments

  • veerenrob (Rob van der Veeren) 26 Jan 2022 15:41:35

    I have a problem here: you look at “Sewage collection and wastewater treatment" in combination. In the Netherlands we have these two activities as two seperate water services. For both water services the cost recovery rate is approximately 100%. For wastewater treatment, full cost recovery is even laid down in law. Occasionnally, from one year to the other cost recovery rates may differ from 100%, but it the long run, regional water boards are not allowed to make profits nor losses. Regional water authorities estimate their costs a year before and according to those estimates, they fix their tariffs. If during the year costs appear to be higher than expected for that year, tariffs may be increased the next year to compensate for the difference. In this way 100% cost recovery is guaranteed. This applies to wastewater treatment, but also to drinkingwater production and delivery.  For drinkingwater you have taken a number slightly lower than 100% since that was reported in our River Basin Management Plan. But also here over the course of a couple of years, cost recovery should be 100%, by law. 

    • zalllnih (Nihat Zal) 04 Mar 2022 15:05:31

       Thanks for this very good insight into the mechanism. We include part of this text in the additional information,  as an example under the Accuracy and Uncertainty sub-section. However, it should be noted that these are aspects that by design fall out of the scope of an indicator format. Incorporating such insights is indeed highly relevant and much more illustrative of the real situation, yet it would require an extended report format where this can be explored for as many countries or RBDs as the resources dedicated to the study allow. 


      I have a problem here: you look at “Sewage collection and wastewater treatment" in combination. In the Netherlands we have these two activities as two seperate water services. For both water services the cost recovery rate is approximately 100%. For wastewater treatment, full cost recovery is even laid down in law. Occasionnally, from one year to the other cost recovery rates may differ from 100%, but it the long run, regional water boards are not allowed to make profits nor losses. Regional water authorities estimate their costs a year before and according to those estimates, they fix their tariffs. If during the year costs appear to be higher than expected for that year, tariffs may be increased the next year to compensate for the difference. In this way 100% cost recovery is guaranteed. This applies to wastewater treatment, but also to drinkingwater production and delivery.  For drinkingwater you have taken a number slightly lower than 100% since that was reported in our River Basin Management Plan. But also here over the course of a couple of years, cost recovery should be 100%, by law. 

       

You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.