Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU : analysis of open public consultation : analysis report.
Date: 2017-07-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: directive (EU), drought, irrigated agriculture, management of resources, public consultation, report, wastewater, water management, water resources, water treatment

Policy options to set minimum 
quality requirements for 
reused water in the EU 

Public consultation analysis report

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

ISBN 978-92-79-70970-8 
doi: 10.2779/76668 

© European Union, 2017 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements 
for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public 
consultation 
Analysis report 

Prepared for the European Commission – DG ENV 
under the contract led by 

10 May 2017 

This page is left intentionally blank.

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation |  

 
 
 
Contents 

Contents 

Document information 

Executive summary 

Introduction 

Who replied to the consultation? 

1 

2 

3 

9 

11 

1.  Number of respondents ............................................................11 

2. 

Types of organisations represented ............................................11 

3.  Economic sectors represented ...................................................13 

4.  Geographical scope ..................................................................16 

Analysis of results 

19 

1. 

Perception of the potential benefits of water reuse .......................19 

1.1 Irrigation ................................................................................19 

1.2 Aquifer recharge ......................................................................24 

2. 

Perception of the potential barriers of water reuse .......................28 

2.1 Irrigation ................................................................................28 

2.2 Aquifer recharge ......................................................................32 

3.  Safety of reusing treated waste water ........................................36 

3.1 Irrigation ................................................................................36 

3.2 Aquifer recharge ......................................................................39 

4.  EU minimum requirements for water reuse .................................43 

4.1 Irrigation ................................................................................43 

4.2 Aquifer recharge ......................................................................46 

5.  Specific objectives of EU minimum requirements .........................51 

5.1 Irrigation ................................................................................51 

5.2 Aquifer recharge ......................................................................54 

6.  Specific aspects of EU minimum requirements .............................56 

6.1 Irrigation ................................................................................56 

6.2 Aquifer recharge ......................................................................60 

7.  Other uses to be covered by EU minimum requirements ...............65 

7.1 Overview ................................................................................65 

7.2 Detailed analysis .....................................................................65 

1 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Contents 

 
 
 
Document information 

CLIENT 

European Commission – DG ENV 

CONTRACT NUMBER 

N° 070201/2016/746936/SER/ENV.C.1, implementing framework contract N° 
ENV.F.1/FRA/2014/0063 

DOCUMENT TITLE 

Final report 

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 

May 2017 

PROJECT TEAM 

Deloitte, IEEP (Leader of the framework contract) 

AUTHORS 

Sarah Lockwood, Lidia Wisniewska, Sébastien Soleille (Deloitte) 

KEY CONTACTS 

Sarah Lockwood (salockwood@deloitte.fr)  

Sébastien Soleille (ssoleille@deloitte.fr) 

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 consultation relied on self-declaration. 

2 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Document information 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

Since 2012 the European Commission has been actively exploring how to best optimise water reuse 
in  the  EU,  as  a  way  to  help  solve  the  issue  of  water  scarcity  and  droughts  and  help  deliver  the 
objectives  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive.  In  this  context  it  has  conducted  several  rounds  of 
stakeholder consultation. The latest public consultation, which ran from 27.10.2016 to 27.01.2017 
and  followed  by  a  stakeholders’  meeting  in  Brussels  on  8th  of  March,  specifically  focuses  on  the 
benefits,  barriers  and  relevant  EU  instruments  to  foster  water  reuse  in  agriculture  irrigation  and 
aquifer recharge. 

Who replied to the consultation 

In total, 344 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 stakeholders groups, economic sectors and countries:  

  Type  of  stakeholders:  Private  companies,  water  utilities  and  providers  and  industry  or 
trade associations represented more than a third of total respondents, a similar proportion 
to  citizens.  Public  authorities  represented  12%  of  respondents,  respondents  from 
academic/scientific/research  field  represented  9%  and  NGOs  and  international  bodies 
represented less than 5% of respondents. 

  Economic  sector:  Organisations  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  only  10%  represented  the  agriculture  sector. 
Food  industry,  health  and  economics  sector  had  even  lower  response  rates  compared  to 
previous categories (each less than 5% of respondents), 

  Countries: 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 fewer.  

For the purpose of the analysis, respondents were grouped according to several factors in order to 
show similarities and differences between various groups: 

  Types  of  stakeholders:  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, 

  EU region: Southern, Eastern or Northern EU, 
  Water stress situation (based on WEI+ indicator), 
  Countries with a high share of irrigation,  
  Countries with effective water reuse schemes. 

It is to be noted that public consultations are not representative surveys. They naturally include 
bias,  as  some  categories  of  respondents  will  participate  more  compared  to  others  and  may 
inherently represent different weight (e.g. representatives of associations compared to individual 
respondents). Results must therefore be considered with caution. 

3 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Executive summary 

 
 
 
 
 
Water  reuse 
recharge: why is there a need to act (at EU level)? 

in  agriculture 

irrigation  and  aquifer 

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 means to increase resource efficiency, foster innovation and contribute to 
soil fertilisation, although these benefits were considered more moderate compared to the former 
ones.  Several  respondents  -  in  particular  from  the  health,  environment  and  agriculture  sectors  - 
expressed  their  concern  about  the  difficulty  for  water  users  (in  particular  farmers)  to  accurately 
estimate the amounts of nutrients present in the reused water to fully benefit from nutrient recycling 
and prevent risks of environmental contamination. 

Comments from respondents generally highlighted their support for one or the other of the listed 
benefits or their indirect benefits, rather than allowed to identify new benefits. 

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. 

The results related to the perception of benefits of water reuse in irrigation are in line with the results 
of  the  consultation  carried  out  in  2014,  for  water  reuse  in  general.  Similar  conclusions  can  be 
observed both for most and least perceived benefits, with even stronger recognition of the benefit of 
adaptation to climate change (nearly 40% of respondents in 2014 perceived this benefit as high and 
over  50%  in  2016  (nearly  60%  in  the  case  of  irrigation).  On  the  contrary,  perception  about  the 
benefits of energy and carbon savings is lower in the present consultation (53% of respondents in 
2014 compared to less than 40% in 2016). Views on job creation remain similar in both consultations. 

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 a high or medium 
barrier by about 80% of respondents),  

  barriers related to policy or governance, 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 
(especially in countries not affected by water scarcity) and the high cost of treatment for 
production  of  reused  water  (perceived  as  a  high  or  medium  barrier  by  about  80%  of 
respondents) and fear of potential trade barriers in the case of water reuse for irrigation. 

4 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Executive summary 

 
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). In 
addition to recognising different barriers listed in the consultation, some respondents or participants 
to  the  Stakeholder  meeting  also  expressed  their  concerns  regarding  potential  risks  for  the 
environment of reusing water for irrigation, through the perturbation of environmental flows (e.g. 
limitation of river flows in regions affected by  water  scarcity) and the potential salinisation of the 
reused water. In the case of aquifer recharge, additional concerns were expressed regarding risks of 
contamination of the aquifers and its irreversibility, due to the difficulty to remove pollutants from 
this water body. 

On the other hand, significantly fewer respondents perceive awareness and availability of technical 
solutions to produce safe water as barriers, except in Eastern EU countries. 

Most barriers are perceived by respondents from Southern EU countries and countries facing regular 
water  stress,  which  practically  experienced  water  reuse  and  often  have  stringent  water  reuse 
schemes in place. 

The results related to barriers are  in  line with the results of the consultation carried out in 2014, 
about water reuse in general. Similar conclusions can be observed concerning the overall ranking of 
barriers. In 2016, there is higher perception as barriers (~10%) of the price of water (low price of 
freshwater  and  high  costs  of  treated  water)  and  scientific  uncertainties  regarding  potential  risks. 
Interestingly, in 2014, the low perception of economic benefits of water reuse was already explained 
by the general  lack of awareness and  the  lack of economic analyses  covering the whole range of 
costs  and  benefits  of  reuse  schemes.  On  the  other  hand,  perception  of  barriers  is  lower  (~10%) 
regarding the insufficient awareness of benefits, insufficient control on freshwater abstraction, and 
negative perception of water reuse. These conclusions are similar for water reuse for irrigation and 
for aquifer recharge. 

Perception of safety of treated water reuse 

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, both 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  in  reality  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,  keeping  in 
mind that they are involved at 68% in drinking and sanitation sectors. 

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. 

5 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Executive summary 

 
What should be the objectives and scope of EU minimum 
quality requirements for water reuse? 

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: 

 

for 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 wider environment. 

 

for aquifer recharge: 

o  protection of water resources and dependent ecosystems, 
o  protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water. 

These objectives are largely supported by the civil society and public authorities and are 
shared within and across economic sectors. They are also 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).  Many  of  the  additional 
objectives proposed by respondents in the case of water reuse for irrigation can be regrouped within 
the objective “protection of the wider environment”, such as mitigation of climate change impact, 
protection against soil erosion or maintaining a good water balance in rivers. 

In comparison, in the  specific case of irrigation,  the  protection of agricultural productivity is not 
given  as  much  importance  (40%  of  respondents  only  think  it  should  be  covered).  Yet,  a  large 
majority of respondents from the agriculture sector still considers it as an objective to be addressed 
by  EU  minimum  quality  requirements  for  irrigation  (75%  of  respondents).  A  significantly  higher 
share of respondents from Eastern EU countries also identified it as an objective compared to other 
EU regions. 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. 

Other  uses  to  be  covered  by  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  covered  by  EU  minimum  quality 
requirements.  The  relevance  of  considering  several  types  of  uses  beyond  agriculture  irrigation 
and aquifer recharge was highlighted, for water managers and suppliers to be able to maximise 
water reuse and optimise investments returns.  

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 urban green spaces. Half of the respondents consider that these uses should 
be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse.  

The idea to expand EU  minimum  requirements particularly to industrial uses  as well as to other 
urban  uses  is  slightly  more  debated  across  respondents.  Twenty  percent  and  fifteen  percent 
(respectively)  of  respondents  would  not  like  these  uses  to  be  covered  by  EU  requirements 

6 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Executive summary 

 
 
 
(compared to 10% for both other uses), while 40% of respondents think they should be included. 
Comments from some respondents on industrial uses highlighted a possible confusion with regards 
to  the  scope  of  the  water  reuse  initiative  for  irrigation  and  aquifer  recharge:  they  put  forward 
initiatives from the industry in terms of recycling and reuse of their own  waste water, while the 
waste water considered must be covered by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. 

Overall, respondents from Southern and Eastern EU countries as well as from countries facing water 
stress are more inclined than respondents from Northern EU countries to expand EU requirements 
to other types of uses. 

Towards  a  suitable  policy  instrument  for  EU  minimum 
quality requirements for water reuse 

EU minimum requirements for water reuse 

Although over 60% of all respondents are in favour of an EU regulatory framework, 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 the instrument of an EU regulation, in both cases, 
are representatives from private companies, from the sanitation, drinking water, food industry and 
environment sectors, and/or from Southern countries. Respondents from agriculture and economics 
sectors1  as  well  as  industry  or  trade  associations  show  less  consensus  on  supporting  this  policy 
option. 

Overall, the option of the instrument of a Commission recommendation is 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  the use of Commission recommendations comes from 
water providers/utilities and public authorities as well as respondents from Eastern EU countries. 

These  results  should  be  considered  with  caution,  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 to reach its 
objectives and adaptability to be relevant to local contexts and needs.  

If the choice of an EU Directive were 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 recharge in transboundary aquifers. 

The  results  related  to  EU  minimum  requirements  for  water  reuse  are  in  line  with  the 
results of the consultation carried out in 2014, about water reuse in general. Already in 
2014, nearly 80% of respondents called for a legally binding instrument on EU minimum standards 
to promote water reuse. In addition, more than 80% of respondents considered legally binding EU 
minimum  standards  as  effective  to  ensure  the  environmental  and  health  safety  of  water  reuse 
practices. 

1 i.e. any industrial sectors other than food, drinking water and sanitation 

7 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Executive summary 

 
 
                                                
 
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,  and  other  chemicals  addressed  by  EU 
legislation,  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 the agricultural sector are less favourable to including aspects related to 
monitoring, while there is strong support from most other sectors, 
respondents from the food, drinking water and sanitation sectors are also the least inclined 
to identify other chemicals as aspects as needing to be included. 

Other aspects are more controversial within and across categories of respondents, such 
as risk-based management or the question of nutrients. Risk-based management approaches 
are considered by many respondents and participants to the Stakeholder meeting as relevant to 
ensure adequate protection of health and the environment in various contexts, but their practical 
implementation  is  subject  to  extensive  discussions.  They  can  be  perceived  as  costly,  time-
consuming and requiring specific expertise. The question of nutrients is considered as a priority 
aspect  to  be  covered  when  reusing  water  for  aquifer  recharge  while  interest  for  such  an 
aspect is more moderate for irrigation purposes. There, it can be seen both as a benefit from a 
recycling perspective and a key barrier for ends-users like farmers, with high risks of environmental 
contamination (nutrient surplus and leakage to the aquifer, eutrophication). Yet, 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 in aspects to be included for irrigation and aquifer recharge lies the concern 
from  some  respondents  that  water  reuse,  if  not  well  regulated,  may  contribute  to  pollution  of 
aquifers and soils, although to a lesser extent.  

Respondents express less interest in general for including technical aspects in an instrument, 
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  including  this  aspect.  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.  This  was  explained  by  the 
willingness to allow the use of a variety of practices which can be more or less relevant to different 
local contexts and to keep the door open to innovations. 

8 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Executive summary 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 

Since 2012 the European Commission has been actively exploring how to best optimise water reuse 
in the EU, as a way to help solve the issue of water scarcity and droughts (Figure 1). In this context 
it has conducted several rounds of stakeholder consultation. The latest public consultation, which ran 
from 27.10.2016 to 27.01.2017 and followed by a stakeholders’ meeting in Brussels on 8th of March, 
specifically focuses  on the  benefits,  barriers and relevant EU  instruments to foster water reuse in 
agriculture irrigation and aquifer recharge2. 

The  Commission  will  use  the  outcomes  of  this  overall  consultation  exercise  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, to be tabled by the end of 2017. 

Figure 1: Key milestones of the water reuse initiative 

This document presents the results of this 2016-2017 public consultation exercise, in light of previous 
results from the 2014 EU public consultation on more generic aspects of water reuse. 

It is broken down into four main sections: 

  Executive summary: this section aims to synthesise key messages from the consultation 

and answer to the following questions: 
o  Why is there a need to act (at EU level)? 
o  What should be the objectives and scope of EU minimum quality requirements for water 

reuse? 

o  What would be the most suitable policy instrument for EU minimum quality requirements 

for water reuse? 

  Who replied to the consultation? 

2 The questionnaire and the presentation and minutes of the stakeholders meeting can be downloaded from CIRCA 
BC: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/10a7bc3e-4021-4d5b-bee5-f5640a1eaa4f 

9 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Introduction 

Inception impact assessment for a legislative proposalMaximisation of water reuse mentioned as a specific objective in the “Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources” Communication to support the Water Framework Directive 201320132014201520162017201820121st EU public consultation on whether and how to promote water reuse in the EUWater reuse actions were included in the Circular Economy Action Plan Ad-hoc task group on water reuse created in the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy programme 2016-20182nd EU public consultation, on water reuse in irrigation and aquifer recharge (from 27.10.2016 to 27.01.2017)Legislative proposal setting EU minimum requirements for water reuseCIS Guidelines on water reuseImpact assessment activityMay 2017Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Boardon the impact assessment report 
 
 
 
 
                                                
 
  Analysis of results: this section presents the results for each of the seven questions of the 

public consultation questionnaire: 
1.  Perception of benefits 
2.  Perception of barriers 
3.  Perception of safety of reused water 
4.  Instrument to set EU minimum quality requirements 
5.  Specific objectives of EU minimum quality requirements 
6.  Specific aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements 
7.  Other uses to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements 

For each question, an overview of key messages is provided along with further insights on 
responses (overall responses and analysis per category of respondents), for irrigation on the 
one hand and aquifer recharge on the other hand. 

  Annexes  (separated  from  this  document):  the  annexes  provide  access  to  the  full 

quantitative analysis of responses through diagrams.  

Please note that public consultations are not representative surveys. Their results provide valuable 
information on drivers for - and main concerns about - water reuse and feedback on the feasibility 
and relevance of policy options. As a convention for the present study, the notion of “consensus” was 
used to reflect at least 70% of similar responses within a same category of respondents. Yet, these 
results are not representative of all EU stakeholders and must be considered with caution.    

10 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Introduction 

 
Who replied to the consultation? 

1.  Number of respondents 

In total, 344 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 deadline3. Respondents represented a variety 
of organisations, economic sectors and countries. It is to be noted that public consultations are not 
representative surveys and naturally include bias. For instance:  

 

 

 

 

 

responses from associations represent the same weight in the analysis as any other individual 
responses, while they may in reality represent many members, 
likewise,  responses  made  for  the  EU  will  have  the  same  weight  as  responses  made  for 
individual Member States, 
responses from respondents who selected at least two different sectors will count in as many 
categories of respondents,  
some  categories  of  respondents  represent  a  low  number  of  responses,  such  as  some 
economic sectors (e.g. health), organisations (e.g. NGOs), or countries (e.g. Eastern EU), 
some categories of respondents are interdependent (e.g. 68% of respondents from private 
companies  come  from  the  drinking  water  and  sanitation  sector,  while  trade  or  industry 
associations reflect various sectors), which may affect the observed level of consensus.  

The questionnaire was available in 23 out of the 24 official EU languages. Amongst participants who 
responded on-line, the English version was used by 109 respondents and other language versions 
were used by 233 respondents. 

Respondents indicated their preference for confidentiality of their contribution: 

  51% of respondents indicated they agreed with the publication of their answers, including 

their name and organisation, 

  35% indicated their answers could be published anonymously, 
  14% of respondents refused for their responses to be published. 

The  participation  was  lower  than  in  the  consultation  carried  out  in  2014  (-37%,  544  responses 
received in 2014). In addition, the profile of respondents  (individuals or organisations) changed –
15% more experts/stakeholders than individuals participated in the present consultation. 

In comparison, the average number of responses for EU public consultations in 2016 amounted to 
407 contributions4. 

2.  Types of organisations represented 

Figure 2 highlights the types of organisations and the number of individuals that responded to the 
consultation:  

  123  responses  (i.e.  36%  of  the  total  responses)  came  from  companies  and  associations, 
including private companies (56 responses), utility / providers (39 responses) and industrial 
or trade associations (28 responses),  

  103 responses came from individuals (citizens), 

3  These  two  additional  responses  could  not  be  included  in  the  quantitative  analysis  of  results,  however  the 
qualitative comments were taken into account in the synthesis. 
4 Calculated based on 20 of the consultations published in 2016 for which figures are already available. 

11 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Who replied to the consultation? 

 
 
 
 
                                                
 
  40 responses (i.e. 12%) came from public authorities, including regional/local authorities (26 
responses) and national authorities (14 responses). National authorities represented the 9 
following  Member  States:  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Hungary,  Ireland, 
Poland, Portugal, and Spain, 

  31 responses (i.e. 9%) came from the academic/scientific/research field, 
  45  responses  came  from  other  categories:  NGOs  (9  responses),  international  bodies  (2 

responses), 23 from other associations and 11 unclassified5. 

Private companies, water utilities or providers and industry or trade associations represented nearly 
a third of responding organisations6. Public authorities, NGOs and international bodies represented 
together about 20% of responding organisations.    

Please note as a caveat to the analysis:  

 

 

the fact that respondents were asked to select themselves the category of stakeholders they 
represented, and  
the overlaps between the following categories: private companies, water utilities or providers 
and industry or trade associations. 

This resulted in a lack of clarity between the results obtained for these three profiles. 

Figure 3 indicates the number and share of participants responding as organisations. 

Figure 2: Share of respondents by type 

5 Examples of types of organisations classified in this category include standardisation organisation, organisations 
in charge of European project, independents consultants, regulatory organisation  and other organisations that 
did not know how to declare themselves in any other of the previous categories. 
6 Among private companies, 68% declared representing sanitation and/or drinking water sectors. Some water 
providers/utilities registered as private companies.  

12 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Who replied to the consultation? 

 
 
                                                
 
 
Figure 3: Number and share of responding organisations (excluding individuals) 

In addition to the split of respondents between categories presented above and used in the analysis 
of  responses,  categories  in  the  consultation  were  classified  according  to  the  stakeholders’  groups 
such as defined in the consultation strategy from the European Commission. They are presented the 
Table 1 below and their share in total responses was quantified and presented in Figure 4.  

Table 1: categories in the consultation can be classified according to stakeholders’ groups 

Stakeholders’ groups 

Corresponding categories from the 2016 consultation 

EU member States responsible 
for water management 

National authorities 

Local/regional authorities 

Regional/local water authorities 

Water  users  (Agriculture  & 
Food sector incl. irrigators) 

Industrial  or  trade  associations  (agriculture  +  food  industry  + 
irrigators)  +  private  company  (agriculture  +  food  industry  + 
irrigators) + relevant others/other associations 

Water users (Others) 

industrial  and  private  (than  Drinking  water  (DW), 
Other 
Wastewater  (WW)  and  agriculture/food)  +  relevant  others/other 
associations 

Water industry 

Utility/providers  +  Private  companies  (DW  +WW)  +  Industrial 
associations (DW + WW) + relevant others/other associations 

NGOs 

Academia 

Citizen 

Others 

NGOs 

Academia + relevant others/other associations 

Interested individuals 

Other + Other associations 

International body 

International body 

13 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Who replied to the consultation? 

0%5%10%15%20%25%International body (2)NGO (9)Other (11)National authority (14)Other associations (23)Local/regional authority (26)Industrial or trade association (28)Academic/scientist/research (31)Utility / provider (39)Private company (56) 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Share of different groups of stakeholders in total responses, depending on their expected policy 
influence and interest in water reuse (as defined in the consultation strategy from the European 
Commission) 

On the figure, the share of responses for each category is indicated according to their participation 
to the consultation (the larger the character size, the larger the share of respondents) – categories 
indicated in small characters can be considered as less represented compared to other categories. 
All relevant categories as identified in the European Commission’s consultation strategy participated 
to  the  consultation,  although  to  various  degrees.  For  example,  NGOs  and  international  bodies 
regarded as influential stakeholders are in fact less represented in the consultation. Similarly, water 
users, in particular farmers and irrigators, which are influential and very interested in the topic, are 
not well represented compared to other categories of respondents such as citizens or respondents 
from the Water industry. 

3.  Economic sectors represented 

Stakeholders  represented  a  variety  of  economic  sectors7,8  as  shown  in  Figure  5.  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 

7 Respondents other than individuals had a possibility to select several options for the economic sector. 
8 Examples of types of organisations that declared themselves in category “Other” include for example national 
golf federations, energy production, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, as well as cross-sectoral organisations. 

14 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Who replied to the consultation? 

NGOs (3%)International body (1%)Member States (4%)Water users 10%  (incl. farmers and irrigators 8%)Water industry (24%)Citizens (30%)Local authorities (9%)Academia and research institutes (10%)LEVEL OF INTERESTLEVEL OF INFLUENCE 
 
                                                
 
climate sectors, while 10% represented the agriculture sector9. Comparatively, food industry, health 
and  economics10  sector  had  rather  low  response  rates  (each  less  than  5%  of  responding 
organisations).  Due to this difference  in number of respondents, the results should be  considered 
with caution. 

Figure 5: Responding organisations by sector 

It should be noted that respondents other than individuals had a possibility to select several options 
to  indicate  the  economic  sector  /  activity  they  represent.  Table  2  below  shows  the  share  of 
organisations that declared representing different numbers of sectors. 

Table 2: Responding organisations by type 

Over 77% of respondents declared themselves as representing only one or two sectors. In particular:  

  67% of organisations replied as being involved in the “Sanitation” sector or “Drinking Water” 

 

sector, with 50% having selected both choices, 
amongst the 48 organisations which declared being involved in the “Agriculture” sector (15% 
of  all  respondents),  18  also  represented  “Food  industry”.  Twenty  respondents  from  the 

9  The  issue  of  low  number  of  responses  from  the  agricultural  sector  was  raised  by  a  participant  during  the 
Stakeholder meeting on the EU public consultation held on 8th March 2017 in Brussels. Reasons invoked for low 
participation included the difficulty for farmers to access EU documentation and the lack of direct relevance of 
the questionnaire. 
10 The category “Economics” represents any other industrial sectors than food, drinking water and sanitation. 

15 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Who replied to the consultation? 

Numberof different sectors declared by respondentsShare of respondents142,3%234,7 %312,1%47,1%52,5%60,4%70,4%80,4% 
 
 
 
                                                
 
 
agriculture  sector  are  from  the  private  sector  (six  are  private  companies  involved  in  the 
agriculture  business,  as  fertilisers  providers,  etc.),  compared  to  12  issued  from  public 
authorities, 
it  is  also  worth  noting  that  91  (19%  of  total  stakeholders)  respondents  declared  being 
involved in the environment sector, among which 24 declared being specifically only involved 
in this sector. Seven private companies were in this specific pool of respondents.  

 

4.  Geographical scope 

About  94%  of  responses  were  received  from  the  level  of  EU  Member  States,  4%  from  EU  level 
organisations  and  2%  from  other  countries  (Norway,  Brazil).  Half  of  responses  were  provided  by 
respondents  in  three  Member  States:  Spain,  France  and  Germany,  with  particularly  high 
representation from Spain (more than one quarter of all participants). Twenty countries provided ten 
answers or  fewer. Similarly to economic sectors, respondents could select more than one country 
they represented. Figure 6 presents the number of respondents per country. 

Figure 6: Number of respondents by country 

From  a geographical perspective,  the  type of  participation  to  the consultation  carried out in  2014 
was similar to the present consultation. Most of respondents were also located in EU Member States 
(about  95%),  3%  of  responses  were  obtained  from  EU  level  organisations  and  2%  from  other 
countries. At the time, respondents from France, Spain, Italy and Germany also made up more than 
60% of total responses. 

For the purpose of the analysis, respondents were grouped in three EU regions (see Figure 7), based 
on the Member States they were responding from:  

  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), with significantly more responses for the latter category.  

Figure 7 also highlight Member States in situation of water stress (as measured by the WEI+ indicator 
based on 2013 data). 

Figure 8 indicates the share of respondents from the three regions.  Nearly half of responses were 
provided  by  participants  responding  from  Southern  EU  Member  States,  showing  the  high  level  of 
interest  for  water  reuse  from  stakeholders  and  citizens  from  southern  Europe.  Comparatively, 
respondents from Eastern countries contributed only in a small proportion (9% of responses). Due 
to this difference in number of respondents for each EU region, the results of the analysis should be 
considered with caution. 

16 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Who replied to the consultation? 

0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35% 
 
Figure 7: Repartition of respondents per countries per geographical location 

 Countries facing regular water stress based on WEI+: Cyprus, Greece, 
Portugal, Spain and UK (Source: 2013 Eurostat data. Countries with WEI+ index 
>20% in summer) 

  Countries with standards in water reuse 

Figure 8:  Share of respondents by country location in Europe 

17 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Who replied to the consultation? 

57%30%9%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%Southern EUcountries (195)Northern EUcountries (101)Eastern EU countries(30) 
 
  
  
  
This page is left intentionally blank. 

18 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Who replied to the consultation? 

 
 
 
Analysis of results 

1.  Perception of the potential benefits of water reuse 

1.1  Irrigation 

1.1.1 Overview 

A majority of respondents (more than 70% of respondents across and within different categories of 
respondents) perceive the environmental benefits of reusing water for:  

reducing pressure on resources that are over-abstracted,  
 
reducing water scarcity, and  
 
  adapting to climate change.  

These  potential  benefits  are  particularly  highlighted  by  respondents  from  the  sanitation,  drinking 
water and environment/climate sectors as well as respondents from countries in regular situation of 
water stress or  more generally  from  Southern EU  (over 80% of  respondents within  each  of these 
categories).  

A  large  number  of  respondents  (more  than  70%  of  all  respondents)  also  identify  the  following 
benefits:  

increased resource efficiency,  

 
  enhanced innovation potential in the water industry, and  
 

reduced pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants into rivers. In this 
respect, a utility provider recognised that capture of effluents currently discharged in coastal 
areas would benefit the environment. An academic representative noted that the increased 
stringency on water treatment plants to produce high quality reused water would indirectly 
benefit the environment by enhancing the global quality of water discharged.   

The benefits of water reuse as a mean to contribute to soil fertilisation, increase revenues and 
create jobs are much less consensual across categories of respondents. When identified, these 
benefits are also considered more moderate. Soil fertilisation for instance was perceived as high by 
only 27% of the respondents (some of whom highlighted its benefits to reduce the use of mineral 
fertilisers and contribute to nutrient recycling), compared to 40% for the aforementioned objectives. 
Several respondents - in particular from the health, environment and agriculture sectors - expressed 
their concern about the difficulty for water users (in particular farmers) to accurately estimate the 
amounts of nutrients present in the reused water, and therefore the difficulty to apply fertilisers in 
the right amount, in order to avoid contamination of the local environment with nutrients and meet 
the  needs  of  the  crops.  During  the  workshop  on  8th  March,  a  representative  from  Copa-Cogeca 
insisted on the need for nutrient-free or better specifications of the nutrient content of reused water, 
in order to mitigate the risks for contamination of the local environment. 

Respondents are also much less inclined overall to perceive cost savings for authorities or 
energy and carbon savings as benefits of water reuse. They were rated as “low” or “no benefit” 
by 60% and 50% of respondents respectively. 

Interesting patterns can be observed across categories of respondents. Respondents from Southern 
EU countries and countries in situation of regular water stress recognise most of the benefits 
listed in the consultation in a much larger proportion than other respondents. Similarly, respondents 

19 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
from  agriculture,  drinking  water  and  sanitation  sectors11  as  well  as  environment  sector  tend  to 
recognise more benefits than respondents from other sectors, across all categories of benefits. 

Comments  from  respondents generally highlighted their support  for one or the other of the listed 
benefits or their indirect benefits, rather than allowed to identify new benefits. 

The results related to the perception of benefits of water reuse in irrigation are in line with the results 
of  the  consultation  carried  out  in  2014,  for  water  reuse  in  general.  Similar  conclusions  can  be 
observed both for most and least perceived benefits, with even stronger recognition of the benefit of 
adaptation to climate change (nearly 40% of respondents in 2014 perceived this benefit as high and 
nearly  60%  in  2016).  In  contrast,  perception  about  the  benefits  of  energy  and  carbon  savings  is 
lower  in  the  present  consultation  (53%  of  respondents  in  2014  vs.  40%  in  2016).  Views  on  job 
creation remain similar in both consultations.  

1.1.2 Detailed analysis 

  Analysis of overall responses 

Figure 9 represents overall views on potential benefits of water reuse for irrigation. There is a wide 
perception across respondents of environmental benefits of reusing water related to:  

 

 

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). 

A relatively high share of respondents also perceives 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), 
increase resource efficiency (77% perceive this benefit as at least medium and 44% perceive 
this benefit as high), 
foster innovation in the water industry (77% perceive this benefit as at least medium and 
42% perceive this benefit as high). 

Between 40 and 50% (depending on the benefits considered) of the respondents perceive  at least 
one of these benefits as high. Although the benefit in terms of soil fertilisation is perceived as high 
by only 27% of the respondents, nearly 40% perceive it as a medium benefit. 

On the other hand, respondents do not perceive cost savings for authorities, increased revenues for 
sectors, or energy and carbon savings as clear benefits. They were rated as “low” or “no benefit” by 
60%, >45% and 50% of respondents respectively. 

11  Respondents  representing  drinking  water  and  sanitation  sectors  show  very  similar  views  regarding  every 
proposed  option  (the  responses  do  not  differ  by  more  than  5%)  which  is  not  surprising  as  around  64%  of 
respondents involved in either sector also declared to be involved in the other. 

20 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
                                                
 
Figure 9:  Overview on potential benefits of water reuse in agriculture irrigation, for all respondents 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses per type of respondents  

The 6 most supported benefits are relatively shared within and across types of respondents, as more 
than 60% of respondents from each category (except industry and trade associations) perceive them 
as having at least medium benefit. In particular, responses from authorities, citizens and NGOs show 
similar patterns regarding many benefits, especially the most supported ones. 

It is interesting to note, however, that:  

 

 

public authority representatives were generally less inclined than most types of respondents 
to highlight water reuse potential for increasing revenue (~45% of respondents vs. at least 
60% across all types of respondents except associations), job creation (~45% of respondents 
vs. at least 60% across all types of respondents except associations and providers) and costs 
saving  for  public  authorities  (15%  of  respondents  vs.  at  least  23%  across  all  types  of 
respondents).  Comparison  between  responses  from  authorities  and  the  average  of  other 
categories is presented in Figure 10, 
respondents from industry or trade associations supported the presented benefits much less 
than  other  types  of  respondents,  even  those  who  answered  as  private  companies12:  the 
difference is about 20 points between associations and companies for the top 6 benefits, but 
it  is  even  higher  regarding  other  benefits,  e.g.  soil  fertilisation  (nearly  80%  of  private 
companies recognising it as benefit vs. 40% of associations). 

12 As a reminder, some water providers/utilities registered as private companies and among this category; 68% 
of responding as private companies declared representing sanitation and/or drinking water sectors.  

21 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%20%40%60%80%100%Cost savings for public authoritiesEnergy and carbon savings (in waste water treatment and irrigation)Job creationContribution to soil fertilisationIncreased revenues for other sectors (due to higher water availability)Increased revenues and/or reduced costs for the agricultural sectorInnovation potential in the water industryIncreased resource efficiency (nutrients recyclingReduced pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment…Adaptation to climate changeReducing of water scarcityReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a potential benefitI don’t know 
 
                                                
 
Figure 10:  Overview on potential benefits of water reuse in agriculture irrigation, comparison between 
authorities and the average of other categories 

Figure in section Benefits of water reuse in agriculture irrigation in the Annex to this report shows 
benefits  perceived  and  difference  in  perception  between  respondents  representing  different 
categories. 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses per economic sector 

Respondents from agriculture, drinking water and sanitation sectors13 as well as environment sector 
tend  to  recognise  more  benefits  than  respondents  from  other  sectors,  across  all  categories  of 
benefits.  In  comparison,  respondents  from  the  food  industry,  health  sector  and  industrial  sectors 
other  than  sanitation  and  drinking  water  generally  perceived  fewer  benefits  from  water  reuse 
compared  to  the  other  sectors  (despite  their  good  perception  of  water  reuse  (over  60%  of 
respondents  from  these  sectors  perceive  benefits  in  reducing  pressure  on  resources,  increased 
resource efficiency, reducing water scarcity, fostering innovation, adaptation to climate change and 
reduced pollution).  

Interestingly though, respondents which mostly perceive as a high benefit the fostering of innovation 
come from the agriculture and industrial sectors (besides food industry), while drinking water and 
sanitation sectors are less inclined to see it as a high benefit. 

The figure in the section on Benefits of water reuse in agriculture irrigation in the Annex to this report 
shows  the  benefits  perceived  and  differences  in  perception  between  respondents  representing 
different sectors. 

13  Respondents  representing  drinking  water  and  sanitation  sectors  show  very  similar  views  regarding  every 
proposed  option  (the  responses  do  not  differ  by  more  than  5%)  which  is  not  surprising  as  around  64%  of 
respondents involved in either sector also declared to be involved in the other. 

22 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Increased revenues for other sectors (due to higherwater availability)Increased revenues and/or reduced costs for theagricultural sectorEnergy and carbon savings (in waste water treatmentand irrigation)Adaptation to climate changeReduced pollution discharge from urban waste watertreatment plants into riversIncreased resource efficiency (nutrients recyclingInnovation potential in the water industryReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesContribution to soil fertilisationReducing of water scarcityCost savings for public authoritiesJob creationAverage of other categoriesAuthorities 
 
                                                
 
  Highlights from the analysis of responses per geographical location 

Figure 11 highlights the significant difference in perception of benefits between Southern EU countries 
on  the  one  hand  and  Eastern  and  Northern  EU  countries  on  the  other  hand14  (full  comparison  is 
presented in section Benefits of water reuse in agriculture irrigation in the Annex to this report). 

Figure 11: Benefits perceived by the respondents (top 6): comparison between geographic locations of 
countries 

Overall,  respondents  from  Eastern  and  Northern  EU  countries  have  a  typically  lower  rate  of 
appreciation of all benefits compared to those from Southern EU (between 20 to 10 points less of 
total appreciation in all benefits proposed), who perceived most presented benefits as high. A very 
large majority of respondents from Southern countries highlighted benefits related to pressure on 
water  resources,  water  scarcity  and  adaptation  to  climate  change,  with  95%,  97%  and  90%  of 
respondents considering these benefits as “high” or “medium”, compared to 70%, 60% and 60% in 
other  EU  regions15.  Nearly  90%  percent  of  respondents  from  Southern  countries  also  perceive 
increased  resource  efficiency  as  a  benefit  of  water  reuse,  whereas  they  are  slightly  over  60%  in 
Northern and Eastern EU. Furthermore, they are more than 70% to highlight potential for job creation 

14 Respondents having specifically notified representing EU organisations have not been taken into account in this 
particular analysis. It should be noted that the share of responses from Southern EU was almost twice higher 
than from Northern EU and Eastern EU countries contributed only in a very small part (9% of responses). Due to 
this difference in number of respondents, the results should be considered with caution.  
15  Participants  to  the  consultation  highlighted  that  water  reuse  also  exists  and  may  be  needed  beyond  the 
Southern EU. To illustrate the benefits of water reuse in Northern EU, a representative from Flanders Knowledge 
Center Water that participated in the stakeholder meeting on 8th March provided a concrete example of a project 
in  Belgium  (Flanders)  that  involves  treated  wastewater  use  in  food  processing  company:  “Ardo  uses  annually 
600 000 m³ of water for processing vegetables. A total amount of 300 000 m³ is annually being discharged into 
the Veldbeek. Farmers currently use mostly surface water for the irrigation of vegetable crops. Farmers with fields 
adjacent to water courses place a reel in the surface water and pump the water directly on the fields. Farmers 
who do not have access to a water course, get surface water with a dung cart. Farmers sometimes ride in a radius 
of  more  than 10  km  to pump  water  from  a  canal  or  a reservoir.  This  movement  of  water  on  the road  is  time 
consuming for  the  farmers who  have  to  queue  during  dry  periods  to  pump  water  and causes  nuisance  to  the 
environment  in  terms  of  noise  and  roadside  damage.  Around  Ardo  an  underground  pipeline  network  of  high 
pressure will be constructed over an agricultural area of 670 hectares. The effluent of Ardo will be stored in a 
buffer basin of 110 000 m³ until the crops are in need for water. The pipeline network currently covers 32 km 
but will be further optimized in terms of the participating farmers. This network will be divided into several blocks 
so that there could be irrigated simultaneously in the different blocks”. 

23 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%SouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastCostsavings forpublicauthoritiesEnergy andcarbonsavings (inwaste watertreatmentandirrigation)Job creationContribution to soilfertilisationIncreasedrevenuesfor othersectors(due tohigherwateravailability)Increasedrevenuesand/orreducedcosts fortheagriculturalsectorInnovationpotential inthe waterindustryIncreasedresourceefficiency(nutrientsrecyclingReducedpollutiondischargefrom urbanwaste watertreatmentplants intoriversAdaptationto climatechangeReducing ofwaterscarcityReducedpressure onover-abstractedwaterresourcesHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a potential benefitI don’t know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%SouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthNorthEastCostsavings forpublicauthoritiesEnergy andcarbonsavings (inwaste watertreatmentandirrigation)Job creationContribution to soilfertilisationIncreasedrevenuesfor othersectors(due tohigherwateravailability)Increasedrevenuesand/orreducedcosts fortheagriculturalsectorInnovationpotential inthe waterindustryIncreasedresourceefficiency(nutrientsrecyclingReducedpollutiondischargefrom urbanwaste watertreatmentplants intoriversAdaptationto climatechangeReducing ofwaterscarcityReducedpressure onover-abstractedwaterresourcesHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a potential benefitI don’t know 
 
 
                                                
 
 
from the development of water reuse, while this benefit remains little highlighted when considering 
all responses to the consultation. 

On the other hand, respondents from Eastern EU were the most numerous to highlight the reduction 
of pollution discharge into rivers as a benefit (over 80% perceived it as benefit, compared to 77% 
and 51% of respondents from Southern and Northern EU). 

As pointed out by a representative from the French water utility company SUEZ that participated in 
the meeting on 8th March,  the future  EU  regulatory  framework should take  into account  national 
differences,  as  different  regions  have  varied  needs  in  terms  of  water  supply  and  can  benefit 
differently from development of water reuse. In particular, this participant stated that in water scarce 
regions such as  Southern  and Central Europe, water reuse  can  be  “an efficient and cost  effective 
drought-proof  water  supply  alternative  which  could  enable  economic  growth  in  such  areas  as 
agriculture, industry and tourism,  as well as enhancing  quality of  life  (green  environment,  leisure 
activities)”. In highly stressed regions, “water reuse for agricultural irrigation is absolutely critical for 
a sustainable economic growth”. On the other hand, in Northern countries, where there is significant 
pressure on sensitive water bodies, water reuse could “facilitate restoration, biodiversity protection 
and reduction of the high investment costs and energy consumption for wastewater collection and 
treatment (e.g. advanced nutrient removal)”. 

  Comparison between countries in situation of water stress and others 

Respondents from countries regularly exposed to water stress perceive significantly more and higher 
benefits than others, except for energy and carbon savings, which perception remains similar across 
categories of respondents. 

A much higher share of respondents in those countries perceived potential benefits of irrigation with 
reused  water  such  as  reducing  water  scarcity  (over  95%  vs.  70%  of  respondents  from  other 
countries), reduced pressure on water resource (over 95% vs. nearly 80%), adaptation to climate 
change (nearly 80% vs. 65%), increased resource efficiency (over 90% vs. nearly 70%) as well as 
innovation potential in the water industry (nearly 90% vs. 70%). Job creation is perceived as having 
at least a medium benefit by more than 75% of respondents from countries exposed to water stress, 
compared to about 40% of respondents from other countries. 

The figure in the section on Benefits of water reuse in agriculture irrigation in the Annex to this report 
shows the similarities and differences in perception between respondents representing countries in 
situation of water scarcity and other countries. 

1.2  Aquifer recharge 

1.2.1 Overview 

A large share of respondents (more than 70% of all respondents) perceive the environmental 
benefits of reusing water in aquifer recharge for:  

 

reducing  pressure  on  resources  that  are  over-abstracted:  an  industry  association 
representing  French  water  companies  highlighted  in  particular  the  benefits  of  the  limited 
evaporation allowed by water storage in the aquifer,  
reducing water scarcity, and  

 
  protecting coastal aquifers against salt intrusion.  

In addition, water reuse is perceived by a significant number of respondents across all sectors (over 
70%) to contribute to fostering the innovation potential in the water industry.  

A large proportion of respondents also considers adaptation to climate change and reduced pollution 
discharge into rivers as benefits of reusing water for aquifer recharge, although they are considered 
slightly more moderate to the first ones and appear less consensual across sectors and categories of 
stakeholders. Several respondents commented on the benefits of aquifer recharge to reduce pollution 

24 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
discharge, e.g. by reducing water exposure to various contaminations and eutrophication occurring 
at the surface of the earth and through filtering services from the soils.  

While  it  was  not  explicitly  listed  as  a  potential  benefit  in  the  questionnaire  for  the  EU  public 
consultation, respondents from Spain and France also highlighted as a benefit the natural storage 
and  distribution  system  offered  by  the  aquifers,  which  may  greatly  limit  the  need  for  costly 
infrastructures. 

On the other hand, respondents are much less inclined to perceive cost savings for authorities, 
or energy and carbon savings as benefits of water reuse. They were rated as “low” or “no benefit” 
by 60% and 57% of respondents respectively. 

Interesting  patterns  can  be  observed  across  categories  of  respondents.  Respondents  from  the 
sanitation and drinking water sectors, environment and industrial sectors other than food industry 
perceive more benefits from water reuse than other sectors, especially in the environmental field. 
Furthermore,  significant  differences  can  be  observed  according  to  the  location  of  respondents. 
Respondents from Southern EU countries recognise in a much larger proportion than other 
EU regions most of the benefits listed in the consultation.  

The results related to benefits are in line with the results of the consultation carried out 
in 2014, which was about water reuse in general. Similar conclusions can be observed both for 
most and least perceived benefits, with even stronger recognition of the benefit of adaptation 
to climate change (nearly 40% of respondents in 2014 perceived this benefit as high and over 53% 
in 2016). On the contrary, perception about the benefits of energy and carbon savings is lower 
in the present consultation (53% of respondents in 2014 vs. about 35% in 2016).  

1.2.2 Detailed analysis  

  Analysis of overall responses 

Figure 12 represents overall 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 

  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 considers 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).  

Between 35 and 50% (depending on the benefits considered) of the respondents perceive 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. 

25 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
Figure 12: Views on potential benefits of water reuse in aquifer recharge 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across economic sectors 

Respondents from the sanitation and drinking water sectors, environment and industrial sectors other 
than food industry perceive more benefits from water reuse than other sectors (in general, perception 
higher about 15 points) such as agriculture, health and food industry, especially in the environmental 
field.  Economic  benefits  such  as  carbon  or  cost  savings,  or  job  creation,  are  perceived  as  of  low 
interest for all sectors in general. 

The figure in the section on Benefits of water reuse in aquifer recharge in the Annex to this report 
shows  benefits  perceived  and  the  difference  in  perception  between  respondents  representing 
different sectors. 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across the types of respondents 

All  types  of  respondents  strongly  perceive  environmental  benefits  (adaptation  to  climate  change, 
reduction of pressure  on over  abstracted  water resources, reduction of water scarcity), which are 
perceived  as  “medium”  or  “high”  by  at  least  60%  within  each  type  of  respondents.  Industry  and 
trade associations are, however, less optimistic than other types of respondents regarding the most 
perceived benefits (difference is from 5 to 25 points between responses from associations compared 
to  other  categories).  More  respondents  from  private  companies  perceive  more  benefits  than  any 
other group (except regarding potential benefits of reduced pollution and energy and carbon savings 
of which citizens and NGOs are more supportive). While most economic benefits are little identified 
by the respondents, respondents from private companies still perceive job creation as a benefit of 
water reuse for aquifer recharge (+20% share of respondents in average compared to what citizens, 
public authorities and NGOs expressed).   

The figure in the section on Benefits of water reuse in aquifer recharge in the Annex to this report 
shows  benefits  perceived  and  the  difference  in  perception  between  respondents  representing 
different categories. 

  Analysis of responses across geographical regions 

Similarly  to  the  responses  for  irrigation,  respondents  from  Southern  EU  countries  perceive 
significantly more and higher benefits than respondents from other EU regions (the difference in their 
perception of all benefits is of about 10 to 30 points compared to Northern and Eastern countries, 
except for reduced pollution and energy and carbon savings). They perceive most presented benefits 
as high, and in particular those related to reduced pressure on water resources and water scarcity 
and  protection  of  aquifers,  with  over  90%  of  respondents  perceiving  them  as  “high”  or  medium” 

26 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cost savings for public authoritiesEnergy and carbon savingsJob creationIncreased revenues and/or reduced costs for…Innovation potential in the water industryReduced pollution discharge from urban waste water…Improved resilience/adaptation to climate changeProtection of (coastal) aquifers against salt intrusionReduced water scarcityReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a potential benefitI don’t know 
 
benefits. They are also significantly more likely to consider job creation as a benefit from water reuse 
compared to respondents from Eastern and Northern EU (60% of respondents compared to 20% and 
less than 40% respectively). 

In comparison, far fewer respondents from Eastern EU countries identified benefits from water reuse, 
either in a similar or lower proportion than respondents from Northern EU countries (the difference 
in their perception is no more than 10 points more or less compared to Northern EU countries for 
many benefits except reduced pollution, job creation and energy and carbon savings). In particular, 
respondents from Eastern EU countries were more inclined than respondents from Northern EU to 
identify as a benefit the reduction of pollution discharge into rivers (63% of respondents compared 
to 42%).  

The figure in the section on Benefits of water reuse in aquifer recharge in the Annex to this report 
shows  benefits  perceived  and  the  difference  in  perception  between  respondents  representing 
different categories. 

  Comparison between countries in situation of water stress and others 

Similarly  to  the  previous  section,  respondents  from  countries  regularly  exposed  to  water  stress 
perceive  significantly  more  and  higher  benefits  than  other  categories  of  respondents,  except  for 
energy and carbon savings.  In particular,  reduced  pressure on resources, reduced  water scarcity, 
protection of coastal aquifers against salt intrusions and improved resilience to climate change (all 
environmental benefits) are massively identified as benefits by respondents from countries in water 
stress  situation  compared  to  other  respondents.  The  difference  is  of  about  25  points  in  average 
compared to countries that are  not  exposed to water  stress.  They also identify  significantly  more 
economic benefits such as job creation and increased revenues for water using sectors (nearly 30 
points in average compared to countries that are not exposed to water stress). 

The figure in the section on Benefits of water reuse in aquifer recharge in the Annex to this report 
shows  benefits  perceived  and  the  difference  in  perception  between  respondents  representing 
countries in situation of water scarcity and other countries. 

27 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
 
 
2.  Perception of the potential barriers of water reuse 

2.1  Irrigation 

2.1.1 Overview  

Overall, according to the respondents, the negative perception on the quality of reused water 
and land planning issues (distance between waste water treatment plants and irrigation fields) are 
the main factors preventing a wider uptake (over 80% and nearly 90% of respondents perceiving 
these  factors  as  barriers,  respectively).  Barriers  related  to  policy  and  governance  such  as 
insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associated with water reuse and 
consideration in integrated water management (about 80% of respondents) are generally more 
perceived as a barrier than the absence of national water reuse standards (nearly 70%). In countries 
where  water  reuse  schemes  are  already  in  place  and  which  experience  water  reuse  in  practice, 
however,  respondents  particularly  highlight  administrative  and  legal  barriers  due  to  the  high 
stringency of national standards and associated administrative burden.  

Other barriers mentioned by a majority of respondents from different groups (categories, location) 
include economic barriers (low price of freshwater compared to reused water in particular and high 
cost of treatment for production of reused water to a lesser extent) and fear of potential trade 
barriers. In this respect, a respondent highlighted the need to consider both potential trade barriers 
between Member States and barriers between the EU and other countries, which will not have similar 
minimum requirements. 

There is a large consensus regarding the perception of all these barriers, although they are more or 
less stressed by different categories of respondents. Most of these barriers though are perceived 
by respondents from Southern EU countries and countries facing regular water stress.   

On the other hand, awareness and availability of technical solutions to produce safe water 
are not considered as barriers or seen as low barriers by a majority of respondents, except in Eastern 
EU countries. 

In addition to recognising different barriers listed in the consultation, some participants expressed 
their concerns about other potential barriers of water reuse. Several respondents representing 
different categories (several authorities, academics, a water provider, an industry association and 
several  individuals)  share  their  concern  regarding  environmental  risks  of  reusing  water  for 
irrigation, through the perturbation of environmental flows (e.g. limitation of river flows in 
regions  affected  by  water  scarcity),  the  contamination  of  soils  and  groundwater  by  nutrients, 
pathogens, heavy metals or emerging contaminants and their potential salinisation (one individual 
stakeholder from Spain highlighted increased salinity of reused water). Besides the issue of water 
and  soil  contamination,  a  representative  from  Copa-Cogega  also  highlighted  that  particulates  are 
increasingly  becoming  a  problem  as  water  with  particulates  is  not  suitable  for  using  with  current 
technology (sprinkle systems are not adapted to spread solids).    

The results related to barriers are in line with the results of the consultation carried out in 
2014, about water reuse in general. Similar conclusions can be observed concerning the overall 
ranking of barriers. In 2016, there is higher perception as barriers (~10%) of the price of water 
(low price of freshwater  and  high costs of  treated water) and  scientific uncertainties  regarding 
potential risks. Interestingly, in 2014, the low perception of economic benefits of water reuse was 
already explained by the general lack of awareness and the lack of economic analyses covering the 
whole range of costs and benefits of reuse schemes. On the other hand, perception of barriers is 
lower  (~10%) regarding  the  insufficient awareness of benefits,  insufficient  control  on  freshwater 
abstraction, ‘negative perception’ of water reuse. 

28 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
2.1.2 Detailed analysis 

  Analysis of overall responses 

Figure 13 represents overall views on potential barriers of water reuse in irrigation.  

Figure 13:  Views on main barriers to wider uptake of water reuse solutions in agriculture irrigation 

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 

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), 
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. 

29 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Insufficient control on (freshwater) water abstractions Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse Absence of national water reuse standards Administrative burden for water operators and users and for publicauthorities (e.g. specific permits for water reuse) Stringent national water reuse standards Fear of potential trade barriers (e.g. import bans) for food productsirrigated with reused waterHigh cost of treatment for production of reused water Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risksassociated with water reuse Insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated watermanagement (e.g. in scarce areas no incentives to develop water reuse… Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused waterDistance between waste water treatment plants and irrigation fields –need for conveyance infrastructure Negative public perception on the quality of reused waterHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a barrierI don’t know 
 
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. 

As stated in a position paper from Copa-Cogeca, the awareness of water reuse potential is still very 
low. According to the association, the term reuse “is perceived as more complicated, more costly and 
more risky”. In order to change the perception of reuse as a safe and efficient process, they suggest 
for example using the term water recycling rather than urban waste water reuse, as the water returns 
to the natural cycle. 

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. 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across economic sectors 

A  larger share  of respondents from  the  sanitation  and  drinking water sectors report  the  following 
barriers  to  water  reuse  compared  to  other  respondents  (as  shown  in  Figure  14):  low  price  of 
freshwater  compared  to  reused  water  (about  10  to  15  points  more  than  food  and  agriculture), 
distance between plants and irrigation fields (about 12 points more than food industry sector) as well 
as insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated water management (about 10 points more 
than all other sectors).  

Figure 14: Views on main barriers in agriculture irrigation by sanitation and drinking water sectors in 
comparison with other sectors 

The negative public perception on the quality of reused water appears as the most highlighted barrier 
by food and agriculture and health sectors (72% and 65% identified as high), as shown in Figure 15.  

30 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Distance between waste water treatment plants and irrigation fields –need for conveyance infrastructure Insufficientconsideration forwater reuse inintegrated watermanagement (e.g. inscarce areas noincentives to developwater reuse projects) Low price offreshwater comparedto price of reusedwaterSanitationDrinking waterAverage of other sectors 
 
Figure 15: Views on the share of respondents highlighting  negative perception of water quality in the 
case of agriculture irrigation by food, agriculture and health sectors in comparison with other sectors 

In  this  respect,  a  representative  from  a  farmer  association  highlighted  during  the  8th  March 
stakeholder meeting the natural tendency from both these categories of stakeholders to follow public 
opinion on this matter, which reflects consumer demands. For both of these sectors, the question of 
the ultimate liability for water reuse was extensively raised during the meeting. 

The figure in the section on Barriers against a wider uptake of reused water in agriculture irrigation 
in  the  Annex  to  this  report  shows  barriers  perceived  and  the  difference  in  perception  between 
respondents representing different sectors. 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across types of respondents  

Respondents  from  civil  society  or  public  authorities  perceive  more  and  stronger  barriers  to  water 
reuse compared to other types of respondents. In particular, citizens are particularly concerned about 
the low availability and awareness of technical solutions to safely reuse water as well as about the 
absence of water reuse standards. Public authorities stress the negative perception of water reuse 
by the public and lack of awareness on reused water quality as well as economic barriers (high costs 
of treatment, fear of potential trade barriers, low price of freshwater compared to the price of reused 
water). 

The private sector  as well as  water  utilities  or  providers  (which  can be  from  the public or  private 
sector)  rather  highlight  as  barriers  legal  constraints  and  administrative  burden  related  to  the 
development of water reuse (approximately 85% of respondents in these categories identified these 
barriers as of high importance). They also mention the low price of freshwater compared to reused 
water.  

While respondents from industry and trade associations are seeing the least benefits to water reuse 
in general,  few  also report  barriers  compared to  other types of respondents (between 10 or  15% 
fewer respondents ranked barriers as medium or high, depending on the type of barrier considered). 
This pattern is difficult to explain based on available information. 

The figure in the section on Barriers against a wider uptake of reused water in agriculture irrigation 
in  the  Annex  to  this  report  shows  barriers  perceived  and  the  difference  in  perception  between 
respondents representing different categories. 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across geographical regions 

A larger proportion of respondents in Southern EU are inclined to perceive potential barriers to water 
reuse  compared to respondents from  Northern and  Eastern EU. Particularly significant differences 
exist regarding the following barriers: 

 

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), 

31 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%20%40%60%80%100%SanitationDrinking waterFood IndustryAgricultureHealthEnvironment / ClimateEconomicsOther 
 
 

administrative burden (almost 90% of Southern EU perceive this barrier as at least medium 
vs. around 70% for Eastern and Northern EU countries). 

As pointed out by a representative from Copa-Cogeca during the workshop on 8th March, respondents 
from Southern EU countries are those that perceive both most barriers and benefits to water reuse 
because of their practical experience of water reuse in the field. He suggested that lessons could be 
learnt from this implementation, in particular to alleviate administrative barriers to water reuse in 
the Member States. 

Interestingly, respondents from Eastern EU countries reported in a large proportion the awareness 
and availability of technical solutions to  produce  safe water as a barrier (80% of respondents  vs. 
58% in Northern and Southern EU) while they are not considered as such by most respondents from 
other EU regions. 

The figure in the section on Barriers against a wider uptake of reused water in agriculture irrigation 
in  the  Annex  to  this  report  shows  barriers  perceived  and  the  difference  in  perception  between 
respondents from different EU regions.  

  Comparison between countries in situation of water stress and others 

Respondents from countries facing regular water stress generally perceive a larger number of barriers 
compared  to  respondents  from  other  countries,  although  they  usually  rank  the  different  barriers 
similarly.  The  key  barriers  identified  are  similar  to  those  previously  highlighted  for  Southern  EU 
countries:  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%). 

Regarding the price of water, respondents in countries experiencing water stress are slightly more 
concerned than others about the possibility that the price of freshwater is low compared to the price 
of reused water. Among them, 83% consider it as a potential barrier to water reuse (including 69% 
considering is as high barrier) and 73% of respondents in countries not in situation of water stress 
consider it as barrier (including 52% considering is as high barrier). 

The figure in the section on Barriers against a wider uptake of reused water in agriculture irrigation 
in  the  Annex  to  this  report  shows  barriers  perceived  and  the  difference  in  perception  between 
respondents representing countries in situation of water scarcity and other countries.  

2.2  Aquifer recharge 

2.2.1 Overview 

Overall, a large share of respondents consider the following barriers to a wider uptake of water reuse 
(over 70% of overall perception): the negative perception on the quality of reused water, barriers 
related  to  policy  and  governance  such  as  insufficient  clarity  in  the  regulatory  framework  to 
manage  risks  associated  with  water  reuse  and  insufficient  consideration  in  integrated  water 
management as well as economic barriers, through low price of freshwater compared to price of 
reused  water  and  high  cost  of  treatment  for  production  of  reused  water.  The  policy  barriers 
mentioned  are  generally  more  perceived  as  a  barrier  than  absence  of  national  water  reuse 
standards (less than 60%). In countries where water reuse schemes are already in place and which 
experience water reuse in practice, however, respondents particularly highlight administrative and 
legal barriers due to the high stringency of national standards (over 70% considering as barriers 
in Southern EU  vs. less than 50% in Northern EU countries). There is a large consensus between 
regarding the perception of all these barriers, although they are more or less stressed by different 
categories of respondents. Most of these barriers though are perceived by respondents from 
Southern EU countries and countries facing regular water stress.  

Few respondents consider awareness and availability of technical solutions to produce safe 
water as barriers, except respondents from Eastern EU countries. 

32 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
In addition to recognising different barriers listed in the consultation, some participants expressed 
their  concerns  about  other  potential  barriers  of  water  reuse  in  aquifer  recharge,  and  in 
particular  the  risks  for  the  environment.  Concern  was  expressed  regarding  risks  of 
contamination of the aquifers and its irreversibility, due to the difficulty to remove pollutants 
from this water body.  

During  the  workshop  on  8th  March,  some  stakeholders  highlighted  the  need  for  more 
transparency  and  public  involvement  among  key  elements  to  successfully  develop  water  reuse, 
confirming the fact that negative perception and lack of awareness on benefits are seen as barriers 
today. 

The results related to barriers are in line with the results of the consultation carried out in 
2014 about water reuse in general. Similar conclusions can be observed concerning the overall 
ranking of barriers. In 2016, there is higher perception as barriers (~10%) of the price of water 
(low price of freshwater and high costs of treated water) and of scientific uncertainties regarding 
potential risks. On the other hand, perception of barriers is lower (~10%) regarding insufficient 
awareness of benefits and ‘negative perception’ of water reuse. These conclusions are similar to 
conclusions for water reuse in irrigation. 

2.2.2 Detailed analysis  

  Analysis of overall responses 

Figure 16 represents overall views on potential barriers of water reuse 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 

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), 
insufficient  consideration  for  water  reuse  in  integrated  water  management  (85% 
perceive this barrier as at least medium and 58% perceive this barrier as high), 

  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 sees 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. 

33 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
Figure 16:  Views on main barriers to a wider uptake of water reuse solutions in aquifer recharge 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across economic sectors 

Respondents from the sanitation and drinking water sectors are those who identify most barriers to 
water reuse compared to other sectors. In particular, a large share of these respondents report the 
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. 

Respondents  from  food,  agriculture  and  health  sectors  particularly  highlight  the  negative  public 
perception on the quality of reused water (over 90% in health sector and nearly 80% in food and 
agriculture). 

The figure in the section on Barriers against a wider uptake of reused water in aquifer recharge in 
the  Annex  to  this  report  shows  barriers  perceived  and  the  difference  in  perception  between 
respondents representing different sectors. 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across types of respondents 

Similarly  to  reuse  in  agriculture  irrigation,  more  responding  citizens  are  concerned  about  low 
availability  and  awareness  of  technical  solution  to  safely  reuse  water  (57%  and  69%  citizens 
considering  them  as  high  or  medium  compared  to  no  more  than  46%  and  54%  for  others 
respondents).  

Public authorities rather stress the economic barriers (high costs of treatment (85% of respondents 
considering it a barrier), low price of freshwater compared to the price of reused water (nearly 80%)), 
in  addition,  they  are  about  80%  to  highlight  policy  barriers  (insufficient  clarity  in  the  regulatory 
framework to manage risks associated with water reuse and insufficient consideration for water reuse 
in  integrated  water  management)  as  well  as  negative  perception  of  water  reuse  by  the  public  as 
barriers. 

A large share of respondents as water utilities/providers also perceives as barriers the administrative 
burden  and  insufficient  consideration  for  water  reuse  integrated  water  management  (over  80% 
considering each of the factors as potential barriers). 

Respondents from  private companies tend to  highlight more as a barrier the insufficient clarity in 
legislation to manage risks associated with water reuse and insufficient consideration for water reuse 
in  integrated  water  management  (over  80%  of  respondents)  as  well  as  inadequacy  of  national 

34 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Absence of national water reuse standards Administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities(e.g. specific permits for water reuse) Stringent national water reuse standards High cost of treatment for production of reused water Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associatedwith water reuse Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused water Insufficient consideration for water reuse integrated water management (e.g.in scarce areas no incentives to develop water reuse projects) Negative public perception on the quality of reused waterHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a barrierI don’t know 
 
standards (absence or too stringent). Indeed, about 75% of private companies consider stringent 
national standards as barrier compared to slightly more than 60% in average and 45% of authorities, 
and nearly 70% believe that absence of standards would be a barrier compared to 56% in average 
and less than 40% of associations). 

While respondents from industry and trade associations are seeing the least benefits to water reuse 
in  general, few also report barriers compared  to  other types of respondents (between 10 or  20% 
fewer respondents ranked barriers as medium or high, depending on the type of barrier considered). 
This pattern is difficult to explain based on available information. 

The figure in the section on Barriers against a wider uptake of reused water in aquifer recharge in 
the  Annex  to  this  report  shows  barriers  perceived  and  the  difference  in  perception  between 
respondents representing different categories. 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across geographical regions 

A larger proportion of respondents in Southern EU perceive most of potential barriers to water reuse 
listed in the consultation. They highlight in particular: 

 

 

 

insufficient  consideration  for  water  reuse  integrated  water  management    (nearly  90%  of 
respondents from Southern EU perceive this barrier as at least medium compared to about 
77% for Eastern and 63% for Northern EU countries), which was less stressed in the case of 
irrigation, 
stringent  national  water  reuse  standards  (over  70%  of  respondents  from  Southern  EU 
perceive this barrier as at least medium compared to 43% and 48% for Eastern and Northern 
EU countries), and 
absence of national water reuse standards (64% of respondents from Southern EU perceive 
this barrier as at least medium compared to 47% for Eastern and Northern EU countries). 

A larger share of respondents from Eastern EU countries considers low price of freshwater compared 
to reused water as a high potential barrier than from other EU regions (over 80% compared to 75% 
for Southern and 70% for Northern EU countries). 

The figure in the section on Barriers against a wider uptake of reused water in aquifer recharge in 
the  Annex  to  this  report  shows  barriers  perceived  and  the  difference  in  perception  between 
respondents from different EU regions. 

  Comparison 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. Similarly to barriers identified in Southern EU 
countries, 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%). 

Regarding the price of water, respondents in countries in situation of water stress are slightly more 
concerned than others about the possibility that the price of freshwater is low compared to price of 
reused water. Among them, nearly 77% consider it as a potential barrier to water reuse (including 
60% considering is as high barrier) and 71% of respondents in countries not in situation of water 
stress consider it as barrier (including 48% considering is as high barrier). 

The figure in the section on Barriers against a wider uptake of reused water in aquifer recharge in 
the  Annex  to  this  report  shows  barriers  perceived  and  the  difference  in  perception  between 
respondents representing countries in situation of water scarcity and other countries. 

35 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
3.  Safety of reusing treated waste water  

Respondents were asked their views on the safety of reusing treated waste water for irrigation and 
aquifer recharge compared to the use of freshwater from rivers and groundwater. 

3.1  Irrigation 

3.1.1 Overview 

The  results  of  the  consultation  show  a  relative  consensus  among  respondents  about 
reused water in irrigation as being at least as safe as compared to water abstracted from 
rivers. This perception is more controversial regarding groundwater.  

There  is  a  large  consensus  among  respondents  representing  different  economic  sectors 
about the safety of reused water compared to water from rivers, as nearly 70% of them (in 
each sector but agriculture, where this figure is closer to 60%) consider reused water as at least as 
safe. There is also a consensus between different types of stakeholders, as more than 60% of 
respondents from each group indicate that they perceive reused water as at least as safe as using 
water  from  rivers,  with  private  companies  having  a  particularly  favourable  opinion.  The  large 
majority  of  respondents  from  Southern  EU  countries  and  countries  in  high  water  stress 
also report a positive perception of the safety of reused water in agriculture compared to freshwater. 

On the other hand, the  results  of  the  consultation  show  a  more  negative  perception  from 
respondents  of  the  safety  of  reused  water  compared  to  groundwater,  as  nearly  50%  of 
respondents perceive it as not as safe. This is particularly true for respondents from Northern EU 
countries and for respondents from the health sector, for which this figure raises to nearly 70%.  

3.1.2 Detailed analysis 

  Analysis of overall responses 

Figure 17 sets out the overall views on safety of water reuse in irrigation. There is a relatively large 
consensus amongst respondents about the safety of reused water compared to water from rivers. In 
comparison,  the  issue  of  safety  of  reused  water  compared  to  groundwater  is  more  controversial 
amongst  respondents.  Nearly  50%  of  respondents  perceive  reused  water  as  less  safe  than 
groundwater. These overall figures hide high discrepancies in the perception of reused water safety 
depending on the EU region, situation of water stress, sector and type of organisation as detailed 
below. 

Figure 17:  Share of respondents considering that reusing treated waste water for agriculture irrigation 
nowadays in the EU is… 

36 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Using water from riversUsing water from groundwatersafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know 
 
 
 
 
  Analysis of responses across economic sectors 

Figure  18  shows  difference  in  perception  of  safety  between  respondents  representing  different 
sectors. 

Figure 18:  Share  of respondents considering that reusing treated waste water for agriculture irrigation 
nowadays in the EU is… 

Positive perception about the safety of reused water compared to water from rivers or groundwater 
is  most  largely  seen  amongst  respondents  from  the  sanitation  and  drinking  water  sectors:  for 
instance, over 45% of respondents from these sectors consider reused water as safer as water from 
rivers and nearly 70% as being at least as safe, compared to ~30% safer for the other sectors.  

Most reservations are seen in both cases from respondents from the health and agriculture sectors. 
In particular, respondents from the health sector show high consensus on their perception of reused 
water as being less safe than groundwater (70% of respondents). 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across types of stakeholders  

Notably,  respondents  from  private  companies  are  by  far  the  most  positive  across  types  of 
stakeholders about the safety of water reused compared to other sources of freshwater (groundwater 
or water from rivers):  

  70% consider reused water as at least as safe compared to groundwater and 44% to consider 

it even safer (support from other groups does not exceed 50%),  

  75% consider it at least as safe as using water from rivers and 49% even safer (support from 

other groups of respondents does not exceed 65%).  

It could be explained by the fact that the majority of responding private companies (68%) declared 
representing  sanitation  and/or  drinking  water  sectors  and  these  sectors  have  general  better 
perception of the water reuse safety. 

In comparison, respondents from industry and trade associations as well as NGOs and academics 
have the most negative perception of the safety of  reused water, in particular when compared to 
groundwater. Figure 19 shows difference in perception of safety between respondents representing 
different categories. 

37 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%SanitationDrinking waterFoodAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomicsSanitationDrinking waterFoodAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomicsUsing water fromgroundwaterUsing water from riverssafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know 
 
Figure 19:  Share of respondents considering that reusing treated waste water for agriculture 
irrigation nowadays in the EU is…

  Analysis of responses across geographical regions 

The  question  of  safety  of  reused  water  for  irrigation  compared  to  other  sources  of  freshwater  is 
controversial when considering responses from the different EU regions. A significantly larger share 
of respondents from Southern EU countries consider reused water as at least as safe, independently 
from the source of water it is compared with. 

 

 

In  comparison  to  groundwater:  65%  of  respondents  from  Southern  EU  countries  also 
consider  reused  water  as  at  least  as  safe,  while  70%  of  respondents  from  Northern  and 
Eastern EU countries consider reused water as less safe than groundwater, 
In comparison to rivers: 80% of respondents from Southern EU countries perceive reused 
water as at least as safe (with half of them considering it even safer), compared to 55% of 
respondents from Northern EU and only a third of respondents from Eastern EU countries. 

There is larger consensus between respondents from Northern and Eastern EU countries about the 
opinion  that  reused  water  was  less  safe  than  groundwater,  in  comparison  to  water  sourced  from 
rivers, which remains more controversial within each of these EU regions. 

Figure 20 shows difference in perception of safety between respondents from different EU regions. 

Figure 20: Safety perception – comparison between Southern EU, Northern EU and Eastern EU 
countries in the reuse of water for agriculture irrigation 

38 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%AuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizensAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizensUsing water fromriversUsing water fromgroundwatersafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%NorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthUsing waterfrom riversUsing waterfromgroundwatersafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know 
 
 
  Comparison between countries in situation of water stress and others 

A majority of respondents from  countries  facing  regular water stress perceive  reused  water as at 
least as safe as using water from rivers or from groundwater. They account for a much larger share 
than respondents from other countries: 

  When compared to rivers, 80% of respondents from  countries facing regular water stress 
perceive  reused  water  as  at  least  as  safe,  compared  to  50%  of  respondents  from  other 
countries. 

  When compared  to groundwater, 70% of respondents from  countries facing regular water 
stress consider reused water as at least as safe, compared to 30% of respondents from other 
countries. 

The figure in the section on Perceived safety of water reuse in agriculture irrigation in the Annex to 
this report shows the difference in perception of safety between respondents representing countries 
in situation of water scarcity and other countries. 

3.2  Aquifer recharge 

3.2.1 Overview 

The results of the consultation show similar trends regarding agriculture irrigation. The results 
of  the  consultation  show  a  relative  consensus  among  respondents  about  reused  water  in 
irrigation  as  being  at  least  as  safe  as  compared  to  water  abstracted  from  rivers.  This 
perception is more controversial regarding groundwater, except for respondents from Southern EU 
and countries in situation of water stress, which report a positive perception of the safety of reused 
water compared to both water sources. 

There is a large  consensus among  respondents representing different economic sectors about the 
safety of reused water compared to water from rivers, as more than 60% of them consider reused 
water as at least as safe, with over 70% of them in each sanitation, drinking water, economics and 
environment sectors. There is also a consensus between different types of stakeholders, with private 
companies having a particularly favourable opinion.  

More concerns are found about the safety of reused water compared to groundwater, as 
44%  of  respondents  perceive  it  as  not  as  safe.  The  concerns  are  particularly  strong  for 
respondents from Eastern and Northern EU countries (for which this figure raises to 80% and 60%) 
and for respondents from the health and agriculture sectors, for which this figure raises to over 50%. 

3.2.2 Detailed analysis 

  Analysis of overall responses 

Figure 21 represents overall views on safety of water reuse in aquifer recharge. Trends with regards 
to safety of reused water 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. As for irrigation in agriculture, 
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 than groundwater.  

These overall trends hide high discrepancies in the perception of reused water safety depending on 
the EU region, situation of water stress, sector and type of organisation as detailed below. 

39 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
Figure  21:    Share  of  respondents  considering  that  reusing  treated  waste  water  for  aquifer  recharge 
nowadays in the EU is… 

  Analysis of responses across economic sectors 

Figure  22  shows  difference  in  perception  of  safety  between  respondents  representing  different 
sectors. 

Figure  22:    Share  of  respondents  considering  that  reusing  treated  waste  water  for  aquifer  recharge 
nowadays in the EU is… 

There is a relatively large consensus amongst respondents from  different economic sectors about 
the safety of reused water compared to water from rivers, as nearly 60% of respondents from all 
sectors  except  agriculture  and  health  consider  reused  water  as  at  least  “as  safe”.  Amongst  these 
sectors, respondents from industrial sectors other than food and sanitation/drinking sectors are those 
that reported the most positive perception of reused water  safety. This may  be  explained by less 
stringent levels of water quality required for some industrial uses. 

Similarly to water reuse for irrigation, respondents from the health and agriculture sectors have the 
most reservations about the safety of reused water, in particular as compared to groundwater (over 
50% of respondents, compared to ~40% for other sectors).   

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across types of stakeholders  

Figure  23  shows  difference  in  perception  of  safety  between  respondents  representing  different 
categories of stakeholders. 

40 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Using water from riversUsing water from groundwatersafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know 
 
 
Figure  23:    Share  of  respondents  considering  that  reusing  treated  waste  water  for  aquifer  recharge 
nowadays in the EU is… 

A significant share of respondents shared their opinion on the safety of reused water across different 
groups, except industry or trade associations which were around 40% to claim not having an opinion. 
While there is a relative consensus regarding the safety of reused water compared to rivers amongst 
those that shared an opinion (more than 60% of respondents from each group indicated that they 
perceive reused water as at least as safe as using water from rivers), perception of safety of reused 
water compared to groundwater is more controversial within and across stakeholders categories. 

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 75% to consider reused water as 
at least as safe compared to both groundwater and water abstracted from rivers, compared to 50% 
in average for all respondents.  

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across geographical regions 

Figure 24 shows difference in perception of safety between respondents representing different  EU 
regions. 

Figure  24:    Share  of  respondents  considering  that  reusing  treated  waste  water  for  aquifer  recharge 
nowadays in the EU is… 

Similarly to the section on irrigation, the question of safety of reused water for irrigation compared 
to  other  sources  of  freshwater  is  controversial  when  considering  responses  from  the  different  EU 
regions. 

41 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
 
 
A significantly larger share of respondents from Southern EU countries consider reused water as at 
least as safe, independently from the source of water it is compared with: 

 

 

in  comparison  to  rivers:  over  70%  of  respondents  from  Southern  EU  countries  perceive 
reused water as at least as safe (with over 40% of them considering it even safer), compared 
to less than half of respondents from Northern and Eastern EU, 
in comparison to groundwater: over 60% of respondents from Southern EU countries also 
consider reused water as at least as safe, while nearly 70% of respondents from Eastern EU 
countries and nearly 60% of respondents from Northern EU countries consider reused water 
as less safe than groundwater. 

Larger consensus was reached between respondents from Northern and Eastern EU countries about 
the  opinion  that  reused  water  was  less  safe  than  water  sourced  from  rivers,  in  comparison  to 
groundwater, which remains more controversial within each of these EU regions. 

  Comparison between countries in situation of water stress and others 

Figure 25 shows difference in perception of safety between respondents representing countries with 
different situations of water stress. 

Figure  25:    Share  of  respondents  considering  that  reusing  treated  waste  water  for  aquifer  recharge 
nowadays in the EU is… 

A comparison between responses from countries in situation of water stress and others also shows 
significant differences in the perception of water reuse safety when using water for aquifer recharge. 
A  majority  of  respondents  from  countries  facing  regular  water  stress  perceive  reused  water  for 
aquifer recharge as at least as safe as using water from rivers or from groundwater (no significant 
difference  in the perception of safety is seen  from  the comparison with one or the other of these 
freshwater sources). Respondents from these countries account for a much larger share than from 
other countries: 

 

 

In  comparison  to  rivers,  nearly  75%  of  respondents  from  countries  facing  regular  water 
stress perceive reused water as at least as safe with more than 40% of them considering it 
even safer, compared to 43% of respondents from other countries. 
In  comparison  to  groundwater,  nearly  75%  of  respondents  from  countries  facing  regular 
water  stress  consider  reused  water  as  at  least  as  safe,  compared  to  40%  of  respondents 
from other countries. 

42 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
 
4.  EU minimum requirements for water reuse 

Respondents  were  asked  their  view  on  the  best  instrument  to  use  in  order  to  set  minimum 
requirements for water reuse at EU level. Both for irrigation and aquifer recharge, proposed options 
were:  EU  regulation  (binding),  Commission  recommendation  (not  binding),  CEN  standards  (not 
binding) or other.  

4.1  Irrigation 

4.1.1 Overview 

A  majority  of  respondents  (60%)  are  in  favour  of  an  EU  regulation  to  set  minimum 
requirements  for  water  reuse.  The  level  of  support  from  each  category  of  respondents  across 
economic  sectors  for  such  an  instrument  is  not  lower  than  50%,  although  this  trend  hides  some 
specificities across categories of respondents. High support for an EU binding instrument can be 
seen in particular from respondents from: 

 

the sanitation, drinking water, food and environmental sectors, in particular from the private 
sector, 

  Southern EU countries and countries facing water stress. 

About  25%  of  respondents  prefer  a  non-binding  instrument,  such  as  Commission 
recommendation (2/3 of these respondents) or CEN standards (1/3 of these respondents). Among 
respondents these respondents: 

  CEN standards are generally preferred within: 

o  agriculture, food and health sectors, 
o 
industry or trade associations,   

  Commission recommendation is generally preferred within:  

sanitation, drinking water, environment and economics sectors, 

o 
o  providers and public authorities, 
o  Eastern and Southern EU countries (respondents from Northern EU countries being 

slightly more open to other policy options or undecided). 

Several  comments  from  respondents  pointed  out  the  preference  for  an  EU  Directive,  either 
explicitly or implicitly, for its binding character associated to its flexibility to be best adapted to 
local contexts and needs. However this instrument was not specifically listed amongst policy options 
in the consultation questionnaire. For this reason, the results should be considered with caution. 

It should be noted that  there  was  no  significant difference  in  the  results  when  comparing 
agriculture irrigation and aquifer recharge. The two proposed uses of water received about the 
same distribution of answers from the respondents.   

During the stakeholder meeting on 8th March, participants confirmed their overall support 
for  an  EU  action  to  promote  safe  water  reuse.  Attendees  agreed  that  any  EU  instrument 
should be flexible and  adapted to local situations as well as to the European context. It 
should also take into account differences between countries as well as the level of risk and quality 
control of reused water. Specifically regarding the instrument for irrigation, respondents to the 
consultation and participants of the workshop highlighted the importance of ensuring the economic 
feasibility of the implementation of a future instrument and of preventing potential overlap with other 
instruments (through conducting an impact assessment). The question was also raised of carefully 
assessing the impact of such EU instrument on agricultural products traded within and outside the 
EU. 

The results related to EU minimum requirements for water reuse are in line with the results 
of the consultation carried out in 2014, about water reuse in general. Already in 2014, nearly 
80% of respondents called for legally binding EU  minimum  standards  to promote water reuse. In 

43 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
 
 
 
addition, more than 80% of respondents considered legally binding EU minimum standards effective 
to ensure the environmental and health safety of water reuse practices.  

4.1.2 Detailed analysis 

  Analysis of overall responses 

Figure 26 represents overall views on the instruments to set minimum requirements for water reuse 
at EU level in irrigation. 

Over 60% of respondents are in favour of an EU regulation (binding) to set minimum requirements 
for  water  reuse.  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.  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.  

Figure 26: Views of the respondents on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality 
requirements for water reuse in agricultural irrigation 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across economic sectors 

Figure  27  shows  difference  in  views  between  respondents  representing  different  sectors  on  the 
instruments to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in irrigation. 

The  analysis  across  economic  sectors  shows  that  respondents  of  each  category  rank    EU  binding 
regulation as the preferred policy option, with a particularly high level of support from respondents 
from  sanitation,  drinking  water,  food  and  environmental  sectors  (at  least  60%)  compared  to 
agriculture and other economic sectors (50% or less).  

CEN standards are the second preferred policy option by other respondents representing agriculture, 
food and health sectors, with 20% or more respondents in favour of this instrument. In particular, 
respondents from the food sector showed high level support with nearly 30% of respondents in favour 
of this option compared to Commission recommendations (~5%). 

Commission recommendations are the second preferred policy option by other respondents from the 
sanitation, drinking water, environment and economics sectors (~25% of support in average across 
these sectors).   

44 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Instrument needed for agricultural irrigationEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know 
 
Figure 27: Views of the respondents by sector on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality 
requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across types of stakeholders  

The analysis of responses by type of stakeholder shows similar trends with regards to the primary 
support to EU regulation. At least 50% of respondents from private companies (over 80%), citizens 
(65%) and NGOs, academics and other associations (over 50%) supported this option. The high rate 
of responding private companies in favour of an EU regulation could be explained by the fact that 
the  great  majority  comes  from  sanitation  and/or  drinking  water  sector  which  are  in  majority 
supporting such legally binding instrument. Public authorities, utility providers and industry or trade 
associations are slightly less favourable for the legally binding option (slightly less than 50% of these 
respondents in favour of EU regulation) compared to other stakeholders. 

Commission  recommendation  was  the  second  preferred  option  and  CEN  standards  were  least 
preferred across sectors. 

Figure  28  shows  views  of  different  types  of  stakeholders  on  the  instruments  to  set  EU  minimum 
quality requirements for water reuse in irrigation. 

Figure 28: Views of the respondents by categories on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum 
quality requirements for water reuse in agricultural irrigation 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across geographical regions 

Figure 29 shows difference in views from respondents from different EU regions on the instruments 
to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in irrigation. 

45 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%EconomicsHealthAgricultureEnvironmentFood industrySanitationDrinking waterEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%ProvidersIndustry or trade associationsAuthoritiesNGO and othersCitizensPrivate companiesEU regulation (binding)CEN standards (not binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)OtherI don't know 
 
 
Respondents from Southern EU countries are slightly more in favour (65%) of an EU regulation than 
Northern  and  Eastern  EU  countries  (respectively  53%  and  42%).  When  considering  non-binding 
options, respondents from Eastern EU countries are more in favour of a Commission recommendation 
compared to respondents from other countries (over 35% vs. about 10 to 15% for other countries). 
Respondents from Northern countries are equally supportive of both non-binding options and slightly 
more respondents are open to other policy options or undecided). 

Figure 29: Views of the respondents on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality 
requirements for water reuse in agricultural irrigation 

  Comparison between countries in situation of water stress and others 

Respondents  from  countries  with  water  stress  are  more  in  favour  of  an  EU  regulation  than 
respondents  from  other  countries  (87%  compared  to  70%).  When  considering  a  non-binding 
instrument, they also tend to prefer a Commission recommendation (about 20% vs. about 15% for 
other countries) more than other countries. 

Figure 30 shows difference in views between respondents representing countries in situation of 
water stress and other countries on the instruments to set EU minimum quality requirements for 
water reuse in groundwater recharge. 

Figure 30: Views of the respondents on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality 
requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation by water stress 

4.2  Aquifer recharge 

4.2.1 Overview 

Similarly  to  the  opinions  on  the  most  suitable  EU  policy  instrument  for  water  reuse  in 
irrigation,  a  majority  of  respondents  (60%)  are  in  favour  of  an  EU  regulation  to  set 
minimum requirements for water reuse for aquifer recharge. The level of support from each 
category of respondents across economic sectors for such an instrument is not lower than 50% for 
all but agriculture and industrial sectors other than food industry, drinking water and sanitation. Over 

46 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%NorthEastSouthInstrumentneeded foragriculturalirrigationEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Countries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stressEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know 
 
 
80% of respondents from private companies are in favour of this option. The highest supporters of 
this option include: 

representatives of private companies and civil society, 
sanitation, drinking water, food industry and environment sectors, 

 
 
  Southern EU countries and countries facing water stress. 

About  25%  of  respondents  prefer  a  non-binding  instrument:  Commission  recommendation 
(2/3  of  these  respondents)  or  CEN  standards  (1/3  of  these  respondents).  Amongst  these 
respondents, Commission recommendations are the preferred policy option within and across 
most categories of respondents (except economics sector). The highest level of support is from water 
providers/utilities,  public  authorities  and  Eastern  EU  countries.  CEN  standards  are  the  least 
preferred policy option. They are in particular supported by respondents from agriculture sector. 

Similarly to irrigation,  many  comments  from  respondents  pointed out  the  preference  for  an  EU 
Directive, for its binding character providing sufficient level of protection associated to its flexibility 
to be best adapted to local  contexts. However  this instrument was not  specifically  listed amongst 
policy options in the consultation questionnaire. For this reason, the results should be considered 
with caution. 

During the workshop on 8th March, participants confirmed their overall support for an EU 
action while highlighting that it should be adapted to local situations. As the Groundwater 
Directive already addresses a number of aquifer recharge challenges in terms of water quality, some 
participants highlighted that a future EU instrument should not lead to an overlap between existing 
legislation and that it should bring more clarity to the conditions of water reuse as an added-value. 
In addition, some stakeholders expect exchange of best practices and guidance to complement any 
new EU legislation. 

The results related to EU minimum requirements for water reuse are in line with the results 
of the consultation carried out in 2014, about water reuse in general. Already in 2014, nearly 
80% of respondents called for  legally binding EU  minimum  standards  to promote water  reuse. In 
addition, more than 80% of respondents considered legally binding EU minimum standards effective 
to ensure the environmental and health safety of water reuse practices.  

4.2.2 Detailed analysis 

  Analysis of overall responses 

Figure 31 represents overall views the instruments to set minimum requirements for water reuse at 
EU level in 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. 
Nearly 60% of respondents are in favour of an EU regulation (binding) to set minimum requirements 
for water reuse. About 25% of respondents 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.  The  rest  of  respondents  does  not  have  any  opinion  or  would 
rather  consider  other  policy  options.  Amongst  these  respondents,  most  advocated  for  legislation 
adapted to local contexts such as an EU Directive.  

Similarly  to  responses  about  irrigation,  most  comments  from  respondents  which  selected  the 
responses “EU Regulation”, “Commission recommendation”, or “others” tend to show that a Directive 
would be the preferred option. 

47 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
Figure 31: Views of the respondents on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality 
requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across economic sectors 

The analysis across economic sectors shows that respondents from most sectors rank the EU binding 
regulation as the preferred policy option (Figure 32), with a particularly high level of support from 
respondents  from  sanitation,  drinking  water,  food  and  environmental  sectors  (at  least  60%  of 
respondents from each of these sectors) compared to health, agriculture and other economic sectors 
(52%, 47% and 40% respectively). 

Commission recommendations are the preferred option by industrial sectors other than food, drinking 
water and sanitation. They are, however, the second preferred policy  option by other respondents 
from all other sectors (~20-25% of support across these sectors). 

Support for CEN standards is low (less than 10%, except agriculture where 15% are in favour of this 
option).  

Figure 32: Views of the respondents by sector on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality 
requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across types of stakeholders  

Nearly 70% of citizens and over 80% of private companies support EU regulation option while only 
about half of the respondents from other types of organisations indicated to be in favour of an EU 
regulation. Commission recommendation was the second preferred option for all stakeholders and 
CEN standards was least preferred. 

Figure  33  shows  difference  in  views  between  respondents  representing  different  categories  of 
stakeholders  on  the  instruments  to  set  EU  minimum  quality  requirements  for  water  reuse  in 
groundwater recharge. 

48 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%20%40%60%80%100%Instrument needed for aquifer rechargeEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%EconomicsAgricultureHealthFood industryEnvironmentDrinking waterSanitationEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know 
 
 
Figure 33: Views of the respondents by categories on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum 
quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across geographical regions 

Respondents  from  Southern  EU  countries  are  slightly  more  in  favour  of  an  EU  regulation  than 
Northern and Eastern EU countries (67% of respondents in Southern countries compared to about 
50% for other regions). When considering a non-binding instrument, respondents from Eastern EU 
countries are the most inclined to support the idea of an EC recommendation compared to other EU 
regions (about 30% vs. about 10 to 15% for other regions).  

Figure  34  shows  difference  in  views  between  respondents  from  different  EU  regions  on  the 
instruments to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in groundwater recharge. 

Figure 34: Views of the respondents by geographical locations on the instrument to be used to set EU 
minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge 

  Comparison between countries in situation of water stress and others 

Respondents from countries with water stress are more in favour of an EU regulation than others 
(nearly  70%  vs.  over  55%).  They  also  tend  to  prefer  more  than  other  countries  the  Commission 
recommendation (about 20% vs. about 15% for other countries) as a non-binding instrument. 

Figure 35 shows differences in views on the instruments to set EU minimum quality requirements for 
water  reuse  in  groundwater  recharge,  between  respondents  representing  countries  in  situation  of 
water stress and other countries. 

49 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Industry or trade associationsAuthoritiesProvidersNGO and othersCitizensPrivate companiesEU regulation (binding)CEN standards (not binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)OtherI don't know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%NorthEastSouthInstrumentneeded foraquiferrechargeEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know 
 
 
Figure 35: Views of the respondents on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality 
requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge by water stress 

50 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Countries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stressEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know 
 
5.  Specific objectives of EU minimum requirements 

Participants were asked to share their opinions on specific objectives to be addressed by EU minimum 
quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation and groundwater recharge. 

5.1  Irrigation 

5.1.1 Overview 

Key objectives for the EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse identified by respondents 
in the consultation include: 

 

protection of human health of consumers through the safety of agricultural products placed 
on the EU market, 
protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water, 
protection of water resources and dependent ecosystems, and  

 
 
  protection of the wider environment. 

There is large overall consensus from respondents on these objectives, within and across categories 
of  stakeholders  (in  particular  within  public  authorities  and  civil  society)  and  economic  sectors  (in 
particular within agriculture, health and environment). Consensus on these objectives is also seen 
amongst  most  respondents  of  Southern  and  Northern  EU  regions,  except  for  respondents  from 
Eastern EU countries which identify less the protection of human health of public directly exposed to 
water reuse as an objective. No difference is seen between respondents from countries facing water 
stress and respondents from other countries. 

In  comparison,  the  protection  of  agricultural  productivity  is  not  given  as  much  importance  by 
respondents.  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 
(nearly 60% vs. less than 40% for other regions). 

Some respondents (11%) chose the option “other objectives”, and provide additional objectives that 
seemed  important  to  them,  most  of  them  focusing  on  the  environment.  Many  of  the  additional 
objectives proposed by respondents can be regrouped within the objective “protection of the wider 
environment”,  such  as  mitigation  of  climate  change  impact,  protection  against  soil  erosion  or 
maintaining  a  good  water  balance  in  rivers.  Other  comments  were  complements  to  the  objective 
“protection of human health of consumers through the safety of agricultural products placed on the 
EU market”, with suggestions of possible aspects to be addressed to meet this objective. They are 
in the section 6 (Specific aspects of EU minimum requirements).  

5.1.2 Detailed analysis 

  Analysis of overall responses 

Figure  36  shows  the  proportion  of  respondents  in  favour  of  specific  objectives  that  should  be 
addressed by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture. 

When looking at overall responses, there is a large consensus from respondents 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),  

51 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
 
 
 
  protection of water resources and dependent ecosystems is the second higher objective (80% 

of respondents consider it should be addressed).  

These objectives are followed equally (75% of respondents) by: 

protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water, 

 
  protection of wider environment. 

In  comparison,  only  nearly  40%  of  respondents  think  that  protection  of  agricultural  productivity 
should be covered by the EU requirements.  

Figure 36: Proportion of respondents recognising specific objectives that should be addressed by EU 
minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across economic sectors 

A  majority  of  respondents  in  all  sectors  recognise  specific  objectives  of  health,  water  and 
environmental protection. The only major difference in sectors comparison can be observed in the 
objective of protecting agricultural productivity, where 75% of agriculture representatives would like 
to see this objective addressed by minimum requirements for water reuse in agriculture.  

Figure 37 shows difference in views on specific objectives that should be addressed by EU minimum 
quality  requirements  for  water  reuse  in  agriculture  between  respondents  representing  different 
sectors. 

Figure 37: Views of the respondents by sector on the specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality 
requirements in agriculture irrigation 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across types of stakeholders  

At least 70% of respondents in all categories consider as objectives of EU minimum requirements 
the  protection  of  human  health  of  consumers,  the  protection  of  human  health  of  public  directly 
exposed to reused water and the protection of water resources and dependent ecosystems. While 
respondents  from  civil  society  and  public  authorities  show  a  very  large  support  for  all  of  these 
objectives  (generally  more  than  80%  of  respondents),  respondents  from  industry  and  trade 
associations show a lower level of support (50% of respondents), which cannot be explained based 

52 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection ofhuman health ofconsumers (safetyof agriculturalproducts placed onthe EU commonmarket)Protection of waterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection ofhuman health ofpublic directlyexposed to reusedwater (e.g.workers)Protection of thewider environment(e.g. soil)Protection ofagriculturalproductivity (cropyield)OtherI don't know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection of humanhealth of consumers(safety of agriculturalproducts placed onthe EU commonmarket)Protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water (e.g. workers…)Protection of waterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection of thewider environment(e.g. soil)Protection ofagriculturalproductivity (cropyield)OtherI don't knowSanitationDrinking waterFoodAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomics 
 
 
on  the  comments  received.  The  protection  of  agricultural  productivity  is  the  objective  finding  the 
least support within and across categories of stakeholders, with a maximum of 50% of respondent 
considering it important. 

Figure 38 shows the views across types of stakeholders on specific objectives to be addressed by EU 
minimum quality requirements for water reuse for agriculture irrigation.  

Figure 38: Views of the respondents by categories on the specific objectives to address in EU minimum 
quality requirements in agriculture irrigation 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across geographical regions 

The analysis within EU regions shows a large consensus on the protection of the human health of 
consumers  and  in  the  protection  of  resources  and  ecosystems  (over  85%  and  about  80%  in  all 
regions).  While  respondents  from  Southern  and  Northern  EU  countries  consider  the  protection  of 
human health of workers as a key objective (75% of respondents from each of these categories at 
least),  only  50%  of  respondents  in  Eastern  EU  countries  share  this  view.  On  the  contrary,  the 
protection of agricultural  productivity is considered  important much more in  Eastern EU countries 
(55%) compared to in Northern and Southern countries. 

Figure 39 shows difference in views on specific objectives that should be addressed by EU minimum 
quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture between respondents from different EU regions. 

Figure 39: Views of the respondents by geographical location on the specific objectives to address in EU 
minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation 

53 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection of human health ofconsumers (in case the rechargedaquifer is abstracted for drinkingwater purposes)Protection of water resources anddependant ecosystemsOtherI don't knowAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection ofhuman healthof consumers(safety ofagriculturalproductsplaced on theEU commonmarket)Protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water (e.g. workers…)Protection ofwaterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection ofthe widerenvironment(e.g. soil)Protection ofagriculturalproductivity(crop yield)OtherI don't knowSouthEastNorth 
 
 
  Comparison between countries in situation of water stress and others 

Analysis  of  responses  from  countries  in  situation  of  water  scarcity  and  others  did  not  reveal  any 
major differences between these two categories.  

5.2  Aquifer recharge 

5.2.1 Overview 

There is large overall consensus from respondents (over 80% of respondents) regarding the 
two listed objectives for the EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge: 

  protection of water resources and dependent ecosystems, and  
  protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water. 

Consensus on these objectives is very large in particular amongst respondents from public authorities 
and civil society as well as water utilities/water providers. Further analysis of responses confirms this 
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:  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. 

While a number of respondents (11%) chose the option “other objectives”, they did not specify any 
additional objectives to those listed in the questionnaire.  

5.2.2 Detailed analysis 

  Analysis of overall responses 

Figure  40  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. 

The need for the EU minimum quality requirements to contribute to the protection of water resources 
and  dependent  ecosystems  was  supported  by  87% of  respondents  while  the protection of  human 
health of consumers was supported by 84% of respondents. 

Figure 40: Proportion of respondents recognising specific objectives that should be addressed by EU 
minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge 

54 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection of waterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection of humanhealth of consumers(in case the rechargedaquifer is abstractedfor drinking waterpurposes)OtherI don't know 
 
 
 
  Highlights from the analysis of responses across economic sectors 

The comparison between sectors also reflects the overall level of consensus for both the objectives: 

 

 

the  share  of  respondents  in  favour  of  the  protection  of  water  resources  and  dependent 
ecosystems ranges from 82% to 90% depending on the economic sector considered, 
the share of respondents in favour of the protection of human health range from 70% for the 
food and economics sectors to 100% for the health sector.  

The figure in the section on Specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in 
aquifer recharge in the Annex to this report shows the difference in views on specific objectives that 
should  be  addressed  by  EU  minimum  quality  requirements  for  water  reuse  in  aquifer  recharge 
between respondents representing different sectors. 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across types of stakeholders  

The level of consensus within categories of stakeholders is lower than within a same sector. Although 
both  objectives  of  protection  of  human  health  and  protection  of  water  resources  and  dependent 
ecosystems remain important for all categories of respondents (at least 60% of respondents from 
each category), private companies and industry associations tend to perceive them as less important 
than  other  categories  of  respondents.  This  trend  cannot  be  explained  based  on  the  qualitative 
responses to the consultation. 

The figure in the section on Specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in 
aquifer recharge in the Annex to this report shows the difference in views on specific objectives that 
should  be  addressed  by  EU  minimum  quality  requirements  for  water  reuse  in  aquifer  recharge 
between respondents representing different categories. 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across geographical regions  

The analysis within EU regions shows a consensus on the protection of the human health of consumer 
(between  80%  and  90%)  and  in  the  protection  of  resources  and  ecosystems  (over  85%  in  all 
regions).  

The figure in the section on Specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in 
aquifer recharge in the Annex to this report shows the difference in views on specific objectives that 
should  be  addressed  by  EU  minimum  quality  requirements  for  water  reuse  in  aquifer  recharge 
between respondents from different EU regions. 

  Comparison between countries in situation of water stress and others 

Analysis  of  responses  from  countries  in  situation  of  water  scarcity  and  others  did  not  reveal  any 
major differences between these two categories. 

55 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
6.  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.  

6.1  Irrigation 

6.1.1 Overview 

A majority of respondents from  all  categories identify  the following key aspects to be covered by 
minimum EU requirements:  

  microbiological contaminants: this aspect has a large consensus across all categories, 
  monitoring: this aspect has a large consensus across all categories of respondents, except 
from respondents from the agriculture sector (where answers are more heterogeneous) and 
from  respondents  from  industrial  sectors  other  than  food,  drinking  water  and  sanitation, 
which  expressed  a  lower  level  of  interest  in  this  aspect.  Several  participants  to  the 
consultation  highlighted  that  quality  requirements  for  agricultural  irrigation  should  be 
measured at the output of wastewater treatment plants where it is produced, and not after 
delivery in agricultural fields, 

  other  chemicals  addressed  by  EU  legislation:  this  aspect  is  largely  supported  by 
respondents from the agriculture, health and environment sectors, respondents from NGOs 
and academics, and respondents from Northern and Eastern EU. 

In comparison, other aspects are more controversial within and across categories of respondents, 
such  as  risk-based  management  in  particular.  Risk-based  management  approaches  were 
extensively  discussed  during  the  Stakeholder  meeting  on  March  8th.  They  appeared  as  a  key 
instrument to ensure adequate protection of health and the environment, but their modalities were 
subject  to  extensive  discussions.  While  risk  assessment  can  consist  in  a  simple  decision  tree  to 
identify sources the most vulnerable to contamination according to some stakeholders, other perceive 
this  exercise  as  being  costly,  time-consuming  and  requiring  specific  expertise.  In  consequence,  it 
was asked in particular to clarify the type of risk-assessment to be used, as it may be qualitative 
(simplified  approach  based  on  expert  judgment)  or  quantitative  /  semi-quantitative  (comprising 
estimation of  likelihood/frequency  and  severity/consequence).  Participants  recommended that  the 
approach remains flexible to ensure deeper investigation is carried out with increasing level of risks. 
Several  respondents  raised  the  question  of  the  relevance  of  setting  quality  parameters  with 
associated thresholds when EU minimum requirements could rather promote key principles such as 
risk-based approach. 

About 50% or less of respondents expressed their interest in the following aspects:  

  nutrients: interestingly, respondents from Southern EU are only 40% to support this option 
(vs.  60%  from  Eastern  and  70%  from  Northern  EU  countries).  The  question  of  nutrients 
remains highly controversial, as it can be seen both as a benefits from water reuse and a 
key  barriers  for  ends-users  like  farmers.  Several  respondents  to  the  consultation  and  a 
participant to the Stakeholder meeting on 8th March, highlighted the difficulty for farmers to 
reuse water which may be charged with nutrients.  In practice, farmers need accurate and 
timely information on the quality of water they use, to mitigate potential contamination of 
the environment (groundwater contamination or eutrophication if water is directly released 
in the environment) or risks for their crops. 

  handling of treated water at farm level: 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, 

56 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
 
 
 
  other  chemicals  not  addressed  by  EU  existing  legislation:  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), 

  waste water treatment techniques: 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 (less than 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. Concerns from several respondents about including 
this aspect in minimum requirements lie in possible consequences on impeding innovation. 
Best practices are continuously improving, as illustrated by a respondent through the work 
of the WIRE Action Group under the EIP-WATER. 

Other aspects to be covered were raised by respondents to the consultation and/or during the 
Stakeholder meeting on 8th March, beyond those listed in the public consultation questionnaire:  

 

 

some respondents highlighted the need to ensure the safety of workers involved in water 
reuse and include relevant criteria, 

a  key  issue  raised  during  the  stakeholder  meeting  on  8th  March  relates  to  the  need  to 
clarify  ultimate  liability  with  regards  to  water  reuse  in  the  Member  States, 
independently of the selected EU instrument. According to some participants, this question 
could  directly  impact  on  the  types  of  aspects  to  be  included  in  the  EU  minimum 
requirements.  In  this  respect,  some  stakeholders  recommended  to  apply  minimum 
requirements that are stringent enough for farmers to be confident in the water they use on 
their crops, especially if they are to be held liable about the quality of food products irrigated 
with treated waste water. According to a comment provided by a representative from Global 
GAP, “it is important to specify if the [requirements] will cover the use of treated wastewater 
in irrigation or in any pre-harvest activity the farmer may do, e.g. de-frosting, application 
of plant protection products, pre-washing of products, washing of machinery in contact with 
the fruits and vegetables, hand washing, etc.” In addition, applying different water quality 
thresholds for different activities may be challenging as same water source is often used for 
several different activities. 

 

elaborating  on  the  consumer  health  objectives  for  the  EU  minimum  requirements,  some 
respondents  also  proposed  to  consider  as  an  aspect  to  be  included  the  protection  of  the 
intra-EU  market from  foreign agricultural  products produced using regulated  waste water 
with lower and the need to clearly report the origin of the water used to grow products. 

6.1.2 Detailed analysis 

  Analysis of overall responses 

As shown in  Figure 41, 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)  
  monitoring (71% of respondents),  
 
 

other chemicals addressed by EU legislation (~70%), and  
risk-based management (~65%). 

The question of  nutrient  is another  important  aspect  to be covered  for 52% of  respondents.  Less 
than 50% of respondents expressed their interest in the following aspects:  

57 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
 
handling of treated water at farm level (45%), 
other chemicals not addressed by EU existing legislation (44%), and  

 
 
  waste water treatment techniques (39%). 

Figure 41: Proportion of respondents recognising specific aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality 
requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation and aquifer recharge 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across economic sectors 

Figure  41  shows  the  different  views  between  respondents  from  different  economic  sectors  with 
regards to specific aspects that should be covered by EU minimum quality requirements. 

Beyond the large consensus within and across the different sectors for the aspect of microbiological 
contaminants and monitoring, differences can be observed between sectors for other aspects: 

Risk-based  management:  Respondents  in  majority  recognise  risk-based  management  aspect, 
however respondents from agriculture, environment and economics sectors express less interest in 
seeing this aspect covered than other sectors (of about 10 to 15 points). 

Other chemicals: There is a clear difference between chemicals already covered in EU legislation 
and other chemicals, with a higher interest for the formers found in each category of respondents: 

  A large majority of respondents from the agriculture (80%), health (90%), environment 
(80%) and economics (70%) sectors show interest for the coverage of chemicals already 
addressed by EU legislation. About 60% of respondents from the sanitation sector and 65% 
from the drinking water sector also show interest in this aspect. Respondents from the food 
sector are less interested in this aspect (55%). 

  Respondents are much less in favour of covering chemicals not addressed by EU legislation. 
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).  
Trade and industry associations show less interest to include these aspects in EU minimum 
quality requirements. 

 

Nutrients: The health sector is more in favour of including nutrients in the minimum requirements 
(73%) than other sectors (e.g. about 20 points more than agriculture sector). 

Handling  of  treated  water  at  farm  level:  The  highest  level  of  support  for  handling  of  treated 
water at farm level is from the health (63%) and agriculture sectors (58%) - which are naturally the 

58 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringOtherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironmentor ondischarges towaterRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)NutrientsHandling oftreated waterat farm level(e.g. irrigationpractices)Otherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't know 
 
most concerned by this issue – but the percentage of responses show less consensus on this question 
than for the other aspects.  

Waste water treatment techniques: Least interest for waste water treatment techniques is shown 
by the sanitation and drinking water sectors – which are both directly concerned by this aspect, they 
reach a large consensus (less than 25% in favour of this option).  

Figure 42:  Proportion of respondents per sector recognising specific aspects that should be covered by 
EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in irrigation 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across types of stakeholders  

Respondents  from  the  industry  and  trade  associations  are  generally  less  favourable  than  other 
stakeholders  for  the  EU  minimum  requirements  to  cover  the  different  aspects  listed  in  the 
consultation,  and  in  particular  monitoring  (50%)  and  risk-based  management  (40%).  This  trend 
cannot be explained based on qualitative results from the consultation. 

The figure in the section on Specific aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in 
agriculture irrigation  in the Annex to this report  shows  the  difference  in views on specific aspects 
that should be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation 
between respondents representing different categories. 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across geographical regions 

Respondents from Southern EU countries are less in favour than other EU regions of including in EU 
minimum requirements other chemicals (whether they are already covered or not by EU legislation), 
nutrients or technical aspects such as  waste water  management and handling of treated water at 
farm level. The difference is of about 10 to 20 points depending on the aspect and region considered. 

Figure 43 shows difference in views on specific aspects that should be covered by EU minimum quality 
requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation between respondents from different EU regions.   

59 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MicrobiologicalcontaminantsNutrientsMonitoringOther chemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon water qualityin theenvironment oron dischargesto waterRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)Other chemicalsnot addressedby existing EUlegislationArtificialrechargetechniquesWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowSanitationDrinking waterFoodAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomics 
 
 
 
 
Figure 43:  Proportion of respondents per location recognising specific aspects that should be covered by 
EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in irrigation 

  Comparison between countries in situation of water stress and others 

Other  chemicals  already  addressed  by  EU  legislation  are  largely  supported  by  respondents  from 
countries not in situation of water stress (80% vs. around 50% for other countries). Also, the majority 
of respondents from countries not in situation of water stress favours including other chemicals not 
addressed by EU existing legislation (nearly 60%) which is much more than those subject to water 
stress (about 30%). 

In addition, respondents from countries in situation of water stress are more in favour of including 
risk-based management and less supportive of including the technical aspects such as waste water 
management and handling of treated water at farm level in the requirements than others. 

The figure in the section on Specific aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in 
agriculture irrigation  in the Annex to this report  shows  the  difference  in views on specific aspects 
that should be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation 
between respondents representing countries in situation of water stress and other countries. 

6.2  Aquifer recharge 

6.2.1 Overview 

According  to  the  responses,  priority  aspects  to  be  covered  by  minimum  quality  requirements  for 
water reuse include: microbiological contaminants, monitoring, other chemicals addressed 
by EU legislation and risk-based management (for over 60% of respondents). The question of 
nutrients is considered as a priority aspect to be covered when reusing water for aquifer recharge 
(78% of respondents). Differences can be seen depending on the economic sector and the region 
considered.  

60 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringaspectsRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)Otherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironmentor ondischarges towaterHandling oftreated waterat farm level(e.g. irrigationpractices)NutrientsOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowSouthEastNorth 
 
 
 
In particular: 

  microbiological contaminants, nutrients and monitoring are aspects that are subject 
to  a  large  consensus  across  most  categories  of  respondents,  and  in  particular  within  the 
sanitation  and  drinking  water  sectors  and  health  and  environment  (over  80%  of 
respondents). Responses from the agriculture sector are more mixed, 

  other chemicals already addressed by EU legislation is an aspect subject to a very large 
consensus  within  and  across  respondents  from  the  health,  economics  and  environment 
sectors and large consensus amongst respondents from the agriculture sector (75%). It is 
also  largely  supported  by  respondents  from  the  Eastern  and  Northern  EU  countries  and 
generally  by  respondents  from  countries  not  experiencing  water  stress.  Less  consensus 
within and across categories of respondents is seen for including other chemicals that are 
not yet addressed by EU legislation, except from respondents from Northern and Eastern EU 
countries. 

Respondents  express  less  interest  in  general  for  technical  aspects  such  as  waste  water 
management and artificial recharge techniques. Some respondents explain this 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. 

Another aspect to be covered, as mentioned by some respondents beyond those listed in the public 
consultation questionnaire, is to ensure the safety of workers involved in water reuse. 

6.2.2 Detailed analysis 

  Analysis of overall responses 

As shown in  Figure 44, 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), 
  nutrients (78% of responses), 
  monitoring (72% of respondents), 
 
 

other chemicals already addressed by EU legislation (71%), 
risk-based management (~65%). 

Figure 44: Proportion of respondents recognising specific aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality 
requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge 

61 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MicrobiologicalcontaminantsNutrientsMonitoringOtherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironmentor ondischarges towaterRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)Otherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationArtificialrechargetechniquesWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't know 
 
 
 
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), 
artificial recharge techniques (43%), and/or  

 
 
  waste water treatment techniques (38%). 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across economic sectors 

Respondents from the agriculture sector are those who support the least the consideration of: 

  microbiological contaminants (60% of respondents only would include this aspect in future 
EU requirements compared to over 80% of respondents in other sectors such as sanitation 
and drinking water sectors, health and the environment), 
nutrients  (65%  of  respondents  compared  to  over  80%  of  respondents  from  sanitation, 
drinking water, health and environment sectors), 

 

  monitoring (less than 60%), and 
 

risk-based management (around 40% of respondents compared to around 70% from the 
health, sanitation and drinking water sector). 

Figure 45 shows difference in views on specific aspects that should be covered by EU minimum quality 
requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge between respondents representing different sectors. 
Full figure presenting all aspects can be found the Annex of the report. 

Figure 45: Proportion of respondents in agriculture and other sectors recognising 4 specific aspects to 
be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across types of stakeholders   

Respondents  from  the  industry  and  trade  associations  are  generally  less  favourable  than  other 
stakeholders  for  the  EU  minimum  requirements  to  cover  the  different  aspects  listed  in  the 
consultation, and in particular microbiological contaminants and risk-based management (less than 
40%  of  respondents).  This  trend  cannot  be  explained  based  on  qualitative  results  from  the 
consultation. 

Responses  from  authorities  and  providers  are  more  or  less  in  line  between  themselves  for  many 
aspects except regarding the technical aspects such as waste water treatment and artificial recharge 
techniques.  For  these  aspects,  responding  authorities  are  much  more  in  favour  to  cover  them  by 

62 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Microbiological contaminantsNutrientsMonitoringRisk-based management(e.g. water safety plan)SanitationDrinking waterFoodAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomics 
 
minimum requirements than providers (over 50% of authorities vs. 20% and 32% of providers in 
favour of waste water treatment and artificial recharge techniques respectively). 

The figure in the section on Specific aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in 
aquifer recharge in the Annex to this report shows the difference in views on specific aspects that 
should be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge between 
respondents representing different categories. 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across geographical regions 

A majority of respondents from the Eastern and Northern EU countries support the consideration of 
“Other chemicals” in the EU minimum requirements, whether they are already addressed by existing 
EU legislation (85% of respondents compared to less than 65% of respondents from Southern EU 
countries) or not (over 70% of respondents compared to 40%).  

In  addition,  respondents  from  Southern  EU  countries  are  slightly  less  in  favour  of  including  the 
technical  aspects  such  as  waste  water  management  and  artificial  recharge  techniques  in  the 
requirements than others (about 10 points). 

Figure 46 shows difference in views on specific aspects that should be covered by EU minimum quality 
requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge between respondents from different EU regions. 

Figure 46: Proportion of respondents per location recognising specific aspects to be covered by EU 
minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge 

  Comparison between countries in situation of water stress and others 

Respondents from countries that do not face water stress are more supportive of including the aspect 
“Other  chemicals”  in  the  EU  minimum  requirements,  whether  they  are  already  addressed  by  EU 
legislation (82% of respondents compared to 57% from other countries) or not (65% of respondents 
compared to 35% from other countries).  

In  addition,  respondents  from  countries  in  situation  of  water  stress  are  less  in  favour  than  other 
countries of including the technical aspects such as waste water management and artificial recharge 
techniques in the requirements. 

Figure 47 shows difference in views on specific aspects that should be covered by EU minimum quality 
requirements  for  water  reuse  in  aquifer  recharge  between  respondents  representing  countries  in 
situation of water stress and other countries. 

63 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MicrobiologicalcontaminantsNutrientsMonitoringRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)Otherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironmentor ondischarges towaterOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationArtificialrechargetechniquesWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowSouthEastNorth 
 
Figure 47: Views of the respondents in countries affected by water stress on the aspects to be covered 
in EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge 

64 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%NutrientsMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)Otherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironment oron dischargesto waterArtificialrechargetechniquesOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowOtherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironment oron dischargesto waterMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringNutrientsOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)ArtificialrechargetechniquesWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowCountries in situation of water scarcityCountries not in situation of water scarcity0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%NutrientsMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)Otherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironment oron dischargesto waterArtificialrechargetechniquesOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowOtherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironment oron dischargesto waterMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringNutrientsOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)ArtificialrechargetechniquesWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowCountries in situation of water scarcityCountries not in situation of water scarcity0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%NutrientsMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)Otherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironment oron dischargesto waterArtificialrechargetechniquesOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowOtherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironment oron dischargesto waterMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringNutrientsOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)ArtificialrechargetechniquesWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowCountries in situation of water scarcityCountries not in situation of water scarcity 
 
 
 
7.  Other  uses  to  be  covered  by  EU  minimum 

requirements  

Participants were asked to share their views on other uses of treated waste water that EU minimum 
quality requirements for water reuse should cover: irrigation of sport fields, irrigation of urban green 
spaces, industrial uses and other urban uses. 

7.1  Overview 

Other types of uses than irrigation and aquifer recharge “could” be addressed according to a large 
majority  of  respondents  (and  “should”  be  addressed  for  50%  of  them).  In  this  respect,  a 
representative from the water suppliers highlighted during the Stakeholder meeting on 8th March the 
relevance of considering several types of uses beyond agriculture irrigation and aquifer recharge, in 
order to maximise water reuse and optimise investments returns. 

Among  the  overall  responses,  the  largest  consensus  amongst  respondents  (over  85%) 
concerns  the  extension  of  irrigation  to  urban  green  spaces  and  sport  fields.  This  overall 
consensus hides various levels of support between economic sectors. While irrigation of sport fields 
and  urban  green  spaces  receives  relatively  large  support  from  respondents  from  the  health  and 
environment sectors, they are supported by fewer respondents from the industrial sectors other than 
food industry and water and sanitation. 

In  comparison,  other  types  of  uses,  and  in  particular  industrial  uses,  are  slightly  more 
controversial  overall (nearly 20% of respondents think industrial  uses  should not be addressed, 
compared to 10% for irrigation of sport fields & urban green spaces or 15% for other urban uses). 
Yet, these industrial uses “should” still be included according to 40% of respondents and “could” be 
included according to 35% of respondents.  Some respondents from private companies in drinking 
water  or  sanitation  and  industrial  sectors  highlight  that  minimum  standards  already  exist  for 
industrial  uses  and  that  creating  new  ones  would  lead  to  regulatory  duplications  and  additional 
administrative  burden. It is important to highlight  a possible  confusion in  the responses  from  the 
respondents on this issue. Based on the Stakeholder meeting on 8th March and some comments from 
the consultation, it appears that the scope of EU minimum requirements was not necessarily clear 
for everyone, which may have impacted the responses to this question: the water to be reused would 
be the waste water as covered by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, and not waste water 
directly treated by the industrial sector. 

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. This trend is also found for the respondents from countries in situation of water 
stress compared to other countries. 

7.2  Detailed analysis 

  Analysis of overall responses 

Figure 48 shows overall support of respondents for developing EU minimum quality requirements for 
other uses of treated waste water. The largest consensus amongst respondents (>85%) concerns:  

 

 

irrigation  of  urban  green  spaces,  which  ‘should’  be  addressed  according  to  50%  of 
respondents and ‘could’ be addressed according to 35% of respondents; and 
irrigation of sport fields, which ‘should’ be addressed according to 48% of respondents and 
‘could’ be addressed according to 38% of respondents. 

65 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
 
 
 
In comparison, slightly less consensus is achieved with regards to the other two types of uses:  

  Other urban uses: 80% of respondents consider either the possibility (37%) or even the need 

 

(43%) to cover this type of use,  
Industrial uses: 75% of respondents consider either the possibility (35%) or even the need 
(40%) to cover this type of use. 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). Some even highlighted the availability of guidance for water reuse in the industry. As 
mentioned  in  the  overview,  the  scope  of  water  reuse  may  not  have  been  clear  to  some 
respondents and might have impacted on the relevance of answers. 

Figure 48: Views of respondents on other uses of treated waste water to be covered by EU minimum 
quality requirements 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across economic sectors 

The level of support of a type of use or another is quite heterogeneous within and across categories 
of stakeholders. 

Respondents from the health sector show the highest level of support for including the irrigation of 
sport fields (“should” be included for 62% of respondents), urban green spaces (“should” be included 
for 62% of respondents) and to a lesser extent other urban uses (“should” be included for 59%) in 
EU  minimum  quality  requirements  for  water  reuse.  Similarly,  respondents  from  the  environment 
sector were more keen than other sectors to include irrigation of sport fields and urban green spaces 
(each  use  “should”  be  included  according  to  54%  of  respondents)  under  EU  minimum  quality 
requirements. 

Drinking  water  and  sanitation  respondents  are  more  or  less  in  line  regarding  opinion  on  the  EU 
minimum quality requirements for all listed uses except for other uses (street cleaning, firefighting, 
etc.),  where  respondents  from  sanitation  are  nearly  90%  in  favour  of  including  these  uses  and 
drinking water representatives are less than 70% in favour.  

There is no clear difference across sectors with regards to the need or possibility to include industrial 
uses, except for the agriculture and environment sectors which appear to be the most in favour of 
these options. 

The figure in the section on Other uses to cover by EU minimum quality requirements in the Annex 
to this report shows the difference in views on other uses of treated waste water to be covered by 
EU minimum quality requirements between respondents representing different sectors. 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across types of stakeholders  

The level of support of a type of use or another is quite heterogeneous within and between categories 
of stakeholders. 

66 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Industrial uses Irrigation of sport fields (incl. golf courses) Irrigation of urban green spacesOther urban uses (street cleaning, firefighting…)Should be covered by EU minimum quality requirementsCould be covered by EU minimum quality requirementsShould not be covered by EU minimum quality requirementsI don't know 
 
The civil society and academics are the categories the most in favour of addressing other types 
uses  than  agriculture  irrigation  and  aquifer  recharge  in  the  EU  minimum  requirements,  including 
irrigation  of  urban  green  spaces  (~60%  of  respondents),  irrigation  of  sports  fields  (~55%  of 
respondents) and other urban uses such as street cleaning, firefighting, etc. (~50% of respondents). 

Respondents from public authorities are in great majority in favour of including all listed uses in the 
scope  of  the  EU  minimum  requirements  (over  80%  state  that  other  uses  could  be  covered  by 
requirements). Their support is highest in favour of including the irrigation of urban spaces (nearly 
90%). 

In  comparison,  the  group  of  industries  and  trade  associations  is  remarkably  less  in  favour  of 
including  other  uses  than  agriculture  irrigation  and  aquifer  recharge  in  the  scope  of  EU  minimum 
requirements, compared to other stakeholders: 25% only on average think the different other uses 
should  be  covered  by  EU  minimum  quality  requirements.  In  particular,  50%  of  respondents  from 
these categories consider that industrial uses should not be covered (please refer in this respect to 
the disclaimer from section “Analysis of overall responses” above). 

The figure in the section on Other uses to cover by EU minimum quality requirements in the Annex 
to this report shows the difference in views on other uses of treated waste water to be covered by 
EU minimum quality requirements between respondents representing different categories. 

  Highlights from the analysis of responses across geographical regions 

When looking at the responses from different EU regions, respondents from Southern and Eastern 
EU countries are much more inclined than Northern regions to expand EU requirements to irrigation 
of sport fields, irrigation of urban green spaces or other urban uses (over 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. 

The figure in the section on Other uses to cover by EU minimum quality requirements in the Annex 
to this report shows the difference in views on other uses of treated waste water to be covered by 
EU minimum quality requirements between respondents from different EU regions. 

  Comparison between countries in situation of water stress and others 

Similarly, respondents from countries in situation of water stress are also the most inclined to expand 
EU requirements to other types of water use compared to other countries.  Almost all respondents 
from  these  countries  are  in  favour  of  including  other  uses  (over  90%)  while  in  countries  not  in 
situation  of  water  stress  about  15%  to  25%  in  average  of  respondents  consider  that  other  uses 
should not be covered by EU minimum quality requirements. 

The figure in the section on Other uses to cover by EU minimum quality requirements in the Annex 
to this report shows the difference in views on other uses of treated waste water to be covered by 
EU minimum quality requirements between respondents representing countries in situation of water 
scarcity and other countries. 

67 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deloitte  fait  référence  à  un  ou  plusieurs  cabinets  membres  de  Deloitte 
Touche  Tohmatsu  Limited,  société  de  droit  anglais  («  private  company 
limited by guarantee »), et à son réseau de cabinets membres constitués 
en entités indépendantes et juridiquement distinctes. Pour en savoir plus 
sur  la  structure  légale  de  Deloitte  Touche  Tohmatsu  Limited  et  de  ses 
cabinets  membres,  consulter  www.deloitte.com/about.  En  France, 
Deloitte  Conseil  est  le  cabinet  membre  de  Deloitte  Touche  Tohmatsu 
Limited, et les services professionnels sont rendus par ses filiales et ses 
affiliés. 

© 2017 Deloitte Conseil. Membre de Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited 

68 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public consultation | 
Analysis of results 

Policy options to set minimum quality requirements 
for reused water in the EU – analysis of open public 
consultation 
Annex  

Prepared for the European Commission – DG ENV 
under the contract led by 

10 May 2017 

This page is left intentionally blank. 

2 

 
 
Contents 
List of figures ............................................................................................... 7 

Document information ................................................................................ 11 

Benefits of water reuse in agriculture irrigation .............................................. 13 

Overall results ......................................................................................... 13 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders ................................. 14 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector ...................................... 15 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location ............................... 16 

Detailed analysis – responses in countries in situation of water stress ............ 17 

Benefits of water reuse in aquifer recharge .................................................... 18 

Overall results ......................................................................................... 18 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders ................................. 19 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector ...................................... 20 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location ............................... 21 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress .......... 22 

Barriers against a wider uptake of reused water in agriculture irrigation ............ 23 

Overall results ......................................................................................... 23 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders ................................. 24 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector ...................................... 25 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location ............................... 26 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress .......... 27 

Barriers against a wider uptake of reused water in aquifer recharge ................. 28 

Overall results ......................................................................................... 28 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders ................................. 29 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector ...................................... 30 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location ............................... 31 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress .......... 32 

Perceived safety of water reuse in agriculture irrigation ................................... 33 

Overall results ......................................................................................... 33 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders ................................. 34 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector ...................................... 35 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location ............................... 36 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress .......... 36 

Perceived safety of water reuse in aquifer recharge ........................................ 37 

Overall results ......................................................................................... 37 

3 

 
Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders ................................. 37 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector ...................................... 38 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location ............................... 39 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress .......... 39 

Instrument to use to set EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation
 ................................................................................................................ 40 

Overall results ......................................................................................... 40 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders ................................. 40 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector ...................................... 41 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location ............................... 41 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress .......... 42 

Instrument to use to set EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge . 43 

Overall results ......................................................................................... 43 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders ................................. 44 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector ...................................... 44 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location ............................... 45 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress .......... 45 

Specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture 
irrigation ................................................................................................... 46 

Overall results ......................................................................................... 46 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders ................................. 47 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector ...................................... 47 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location ............................... 48 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress .......... 49 

Specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer 
recharge ................................................................................................... 50 

Overall results ......................................................................................... 50 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders ................................. 51 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector ...................................... 51 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location ............................... 52 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress .......... 52 

Specific aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture 
irrigation ................................................................................................... 53 

Overall results ......................................................................................... 53 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders ................................. 54 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector ...................................... 55 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location ............................... 56 

4 

 
Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress .......... 57 

Specific aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer 
recharge ................................................................................................... 58 

Overall results ......................................................................................... 58 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders ................................. 59 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector ...................................... 60 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location ............................... 61 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress .......... 62 

Other uses to cover by EU minimum quality requirements ............................... 63 

Overall results ......................................................................................... 63 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders ................................. 64 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector ...................................... 65 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location ............................... 66 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress .......... 67 

5 

 
 
 
This page is left intentionally blank.

6 

 
List of figures 
Figure 1: Views of the respondents on the potential benefits of water reuse in 
agriculture irrigation ................................................................................... 13 
Figure 2: Proportion of respondents per type of stakeholders considering the 
benefits of water reuse in agriculture irrigation as medium or high ................... 14 
Figure 3: Proportion of respondents per sector considering the benefits of water 
reuse in agriculture irrigation as medium or high ............................................ 15 
Figure 4: Proportion of respondents considering a given benefit in aquifer 
recharge– comparison between geographical location ..................................... 16 
Figure 5: Proportion of respondents considering a given benefit in aquifer 
recharge– comparison between countries in situation of water stress and other 
countries ................................................................................................... 17 
Figure 6: Views of respondents on the potential benefits of water reuse in aquifer 
recharge ................................................................................................... 18 
Figure 7: Proportion of respondents per type considering the benefits of water 
reuse in aquifer recharge as medium or high ................................................. 19 
Figure 8: Proportion of respondents considering a given benefit in aquifer 
recharge– comparison between geographical location ..................................... 20 
Figure 9: Proportion of respondents considering a given benefit in aquifer 
recharge– comparison between geographical location ..................................... 21 
Figure 10: Proportion of respondents considering a given benefit in aquifer 
recharge– comparison between countries in situation of water stress and other 
countries ................................................................................................... 22 
Figure 11: Views of respondents on the main barriers against a wider uptake of 
reused water in agricultural irrigation............................................................ 23 
Figure 12: Proportion of respondents per type considering the main barriers to a 
wider uptake of reused water in agriculture irrigation as medium or high .......... 24 
Figure 13: Proportion of respondents per sector considering the main barriers to a 
wider uptake of reused water in agriculture irrigation as medium or high .......... 25 
Figure 14: Barriers perceived by the respondents to a wider uptake of reused 
water in agriculture irrigation: comparison between geographic locations of 
countries ................................................................................................... 26 
Figure 15: Barriers perceived by the respondents to a wider uptake of reused 
water in agriculture irrigation: comparison between countries in situation of water 
stress ....................................................................................................... 27 
Figure 16: Views of the respondents on the main barriers to a wider uptake of 
reused water in aquifer recharge .................................................................. 28 
Figure 17: Proportion of respondents per type considering barriers to a wider 
uptake of reused water in aquifer recharge as medium or high......................... 29 
Figure 18: Proportion of respondents who consider different barriers to a wider 
uptake of reused water in aquifer recharge as medium or high per sector ......... 30 
Figure 19: Views of the respondents on the different barriers to a wider uptake of 
reused water in aquifer recharge per geographical location in Europe ............... 31 
Figure 20: Views of the respondents on the different barriers to a wider uptake of 
reused water in aquifer recharge per countries in function of water stress ......... 32 
Figure 31: Share of respondents considering that reusing treated waste water for 
agriculture irrigation nowadays in the EU is… ................................................. 33 

7 

 
Figure 32: Share of respondents by category of stakeholders considering that 
reusing treated waste water for agricultural irrigation nowadays in the EU is… ... 34 
Figure 33: Share of respondents by sector considering that reusing treated waste 
water for agriculture irrigation nowadays in the EU is… ................................... 35 
Figure 34: Share of respondents by geographical locations considering that 
reusing treated waste water for agriculture irrigation nowadays in the EU is… .... 36 
Figure 35: Share of respondents by countries in situation of water stress 
considering that reusing treated waste water for agriculture irrigation nowadays in 
the EU is… ................................................................................................. 36 
Figure 36: Share of respondents considering that reusing treated waste water for 
aquifer recharge nowadays in the EU is… ....................................................... 37 
Figure 37: Share of respondents by category of stakeholders considering that 
reusing treated waste water for aquifer recharge nowadays in the EU is… ......... 37 
Figure 38: Share of respondents by sector considering that reusing treated waste 
water for aquifer recharge nowadays in the EU is… ......................................... 38 
Figure 39: Share of respondents by geographical locations considering that 
reusing treated waste water for aquifer recharge nowadays in the EU is… ......... 39 
Figure 40: Share of respondents by countries in situation of water stress 
considering that reusing treated waste water for aquifer recharge nowadays in the 
EU is… ...................................................................................................... 39 
Figure 21: Views of the respondents on the instrument to be used to set EU 
minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agricultural irrigation ............ 40 
Figure 22: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the 
instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in 
agricultural irrigation .................................................................................. 40 
Figure 23: Views of the respondents by sector on the instrument to be used to set 
EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation ........ 41 
Figure 24: Views of the respondents by geographical locations on the instrument 
to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture 
irrigation ................................................................................................... 41 
Figure 25: Views of the respondents on the instrument to be used to set EU 
minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation by water 
stress ....................................................................................................... 42 
Figure 26: Views of the respondents on the instrument to be used to set EU 
minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge ................... 43 
Figure 27: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the 
instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in 
aquifer recharge ......................................................................................... 44 
Figure 28: Views of the respondents by sector on the instrument to be used to set 
EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge .............. 44 
Figure 29: Views of the respondents by geographical locations on the instrument 
to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer 
recharge ................................................................................................... 45 
Figure 30: Views of the respondents on the instrument to be used to set EU 
minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge by water stress
 ................................................................................................................ 45 
Figure 51: Views of the respondents on the specific objectives to address in EU 
minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation ................................... 46 

8 

 
Figure 52: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the specific 
objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation
 ................................................................................................................ 47 
Figure 53: Views of the respondents by sector on the specific objectives to address 
in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation ........................... 47 
Figure 54: Views of the respondents by geographical location on the specific 
objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation
 ................................................................................................................ 48 
Figure 55: Views of the respondents in countries affected by water stress on the 
specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture 
irrigation ................................................................................................... 49 
Figure 56: Views of the respondents on the specific objectives to address in EU 
minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation ................................... 50 
Figure 57: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the specific 
objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation
 ................................................................................................................ 51 
Figure 58: Views of the respondents by sectors on the specific objectives to 
address in EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge ..................... 51 
Figure 59: Views of the respondents by geographical location on the specific 
objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge .. 52 
Figure 60: Views of the respondents in countries affected by water stress on the 
specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer 
recharge ................................................................................................... 52 
Figure 41: Views of respondents on the aspects to be covered by EU minimum 
quality requirements in agricultural irrigation ................................................. 53 
Figure 42: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the aspects to 
be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in agricultural irrigation ......... 54 
Figure 43: Views of the respondents by sector on the aspects to be covered by EU 
minimum quality requirements in agricultural irrigation ................................... 55 
Figure 44: Views of the respondents by geographical location on the aspects to be 
covered by EU minimum quality requirements in agricultural irrigation .............. 56 
Figure 45: Views of the respondents in countries affected by water stress on the 
aspects to be covered in EU minimum quality requirements in agricultural 
irrigation ................................................................................................... 57 
Figure 46: Views of the respondents on the aspects to be covered by EU minimum 
quality requirements in aquifer recharge ....................................................... 58 
Figure 47: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the aspects to 
be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge ................ 59 
Figure 48: Views of the respondents by sector on the aspects to be covered by EU 
minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge ......................................... 60 
Figure 49: Views of the respondents by geographical location on the aspects to be 
covered by EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge .................... 61 
Figure 50: Views of the respondents in countries affected by water stress on the 
aspects to be covered in EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge . 62 
Figure 61: Views of the respondents on the other uses to cover by EU minimum 
quality requirements ................................................................................... 63 
Figure 62: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the other uses 
to cover by EU minimum quality requirements ............................................... 64 

9 

 
Figure 63: Views of the respondents by sector on the other uses to cover by EU 
minimum quality requirements..................................................................... 65 
Figure 64: Views of the respondents by geographical location on the other uses to 
cover by EU minimum quality requirements ................................................... 66 
Figure 65: Views of the respondents in countries affected by water stress on the 
other uses to cover by EU minimum quality requirements ............................... 67 

10 

 
Document information 

CLIENT 

European Commission – DG ENV 

CONTRACT NUMBER  N° 070201/2016/746936/SER/ENV.C.1, implementing 

framework contract N° ENV.F.1/FRA/2014/0063 

DOCUMENT TITLE 

Annex to the Final report 

PROJECT NAME 

DATE 

Analysis of data resulting from the open public 
consultation on policy options to set minimum quality 
requirements for reused water in the EU 
May 2017 

PROJECT TEAM 

Deloitte, IEEP (Leader of the framework contract) 

AUTHORS 

KEY CONTACTS 

DISCLAIMER 

Sarah Lockwood, Lidia Wisniewska, Sébastien Soleille 
(Deloitte) 
Sarah Lockwood (salockwood@deloitte.fr)  
Sébastien Soleille (ssoleille@deloitte.fr) 

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 consultation relied 
on self-declaration. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
This page is left intentionally blank.

12 

 
Benefits of water reuse in agriculture irrigation 

Overall results 

Figure 1: Views of the respondents on the potential benefits of water reuse in agriculture irrigation 

13 

0%20%40%60%80%100%Cost savings for public authoritiesEnergy and carbon savings (in waste water treatment and…Job creationContribution to soil fertilisationIncreased revenues for other sectors (due to higher water…Increased revenues and/or reduced costs for the agricultural…Innovation potential in the water industryIncreased resource efficiency (nutrients recyclingReduced pollution discharge from urban waste water…Adaptation to climate changeReducing of water scarcityReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a potential benefitI don’t know 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders 

Figure 2: Proportion of respondents per type of stakeholders considering the benefits of water reuse in agriculture irrigation as medium or high 

14 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Increased revenuesfor other sectors(due to higher wateravailability)Increased revenuesand/or reduced costsfor the agriculturalsectorEnergy and carbonsavings (in wastewater treatment andirrigation)Adaptation to climatechangeReduced pollutiondischarge from urbanwaste watertreatment plants intoriversIncreased resourceefficiency (nutrientsrecyclingAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Innovation potentialin the water industryReduced pressure onover-abstractedwater resourcesContribution to soilfertilisationReducing of waterscarcityCost savings forpublic authoritiesJob creationAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens 
 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector 

Figure 3: Proportion of respondents per sector considering the benefits of water reuse in agriculture irrigation as medium or high 

15 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Reduced pressure onover-abstracted waterresourcesIncreased resourceefficiency (nutrientsrecycling)Reducing of waterscarcityInnovation potential inthe water industryAdaptation to climatechangeReduced pollutiondischarge from urbanwaste water treatmentplants into riversSanitationDrinking waterFood IndustryAgricultureHealthEnvironment / ClimateEconomicsOther0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Contribution to soilfertilisationIncreased revenuesand/or reduced costs forthe agricultural sectorIncreased revenues forother sectors (due tohigher water availability)Job creationCost savings for publicauthoritiesEnergy and carbonsavings (in waste watertreatment and irrigation)SanitationDrinking waterFood IndustryAgricultureHealthEnvironment / ClimateEconomicsOther 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location 

Figure 4: Proportion of respondents considering a given benefit in aquifer recharge– comparison between geographical location 

16 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cost savings for public authoritiesIncreased revenues for other sectors (due to higher water availability)Job creationIncreased revenues and/or reduced costs for the agricultural sectorContribution to soil fertilisationEnergy and carbon savings (in waste water treatment and irrigation)Adaptation to climate changeReducing of water scarcityReduced pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants into riversInnovation potential in the water industryIncreased resource efficiency (nutrients recyclingReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesCost savings for public authoritiesJob creationIncreased revenues for other sectors (due to higher water availability)Energy and carbon savings (in waste water treatment and irrigation)Increased revenues and/or reduced costs for the agricultural sectorReducing of water scarcityContribution to soil fertilisationIncreased resource efficiency (nutrients recyclingAdaptation to climate changeReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesInnovation potential in the water industryReduced pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants into riversCost savings for public authoritiesEnergy and carbon savings (in waste water treatment and irrigation)Job creationContribution to soil fertilisationIncreased revenues for other sectors (due to higher water availability)Increased revenues and/or reduced costs for the agricultural sectorInnovation potential in the water industryIncreased resource efficiency (nutrients recyclingReduced pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants into riversAdaptation to climate changeReducing of water scarcityReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesNorthEastSouthHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a potential benefitI don’t know 
 
Detailed analysis – responses in countries in situation of water stress 

Figure 5: Proportion of respondents considering a given benefit in aquifer recharge– comparison between countries in situation of water stress and other countries 

17 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cost savings for public authoritiesEnergy and carbon savings (in waste water treatment and irrigation)Job creationContribution to soil fertilisationInnovation potential in the water industryIncreased revenues for other sectors (due to higher water availability)Increased resource efficiency (nutrients recyclingIncreased revenues and/or reduced costs for the agricultural sectorReduced pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants into riversAdaptation to climate changeReducing of water scarcityReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesCost savings for public authoritiesIncreased revenues for other sectors (due to higher water availability)Energy and carbon savings (in waste water treatment and irrigation)Increased revenues and/or reduced costs for the agricultural sectorJob creationContribution to soil fertilisationReduced pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants into riversAdaptation to climate changeIncreased resource efficiency (nutrients recyclingInnovation potential in the water industryReducing of water scarcityReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesCountries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stressHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a potential benefitI don’t know 
 
 
 
Benefits of water reuse in aquifer recharge 

Overall results 

Figure 6: Views of respondents on the potential benefits of water reuse in aquifer recharge 

18 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cost savings for public authoritiesEnergy and carbon savingsJob creationIncreased revenues and/or reduced costs for…Innovation potential in the water industryReduced pollution discharge from urban waste water…Improved resilience/adaptation to climate changeProtection of (coastal) aquifers against salt intrusionReduced water scarcityReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a potential benefitI don’t know 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders 

Figure 7: Proportion of respondents per type considering the benefits of water reuse in aquifer recharge as medium or high 

19 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Reduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesInnovation potential in the waterindustryProtection of (coastal) aquifersagainst salt intrusionReduced water scarcityImproved resilience/adaptationto climate changeAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Increased revenues and/orreduced costs for economicsectors using water (due tohigher water availability)Reduced pollution discharge fromurban waste water treatmentplants into riversJob creationEnergy and carbon savingsCost savings for publicauthoritiesAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector 

Figure 8: Proportion of respondents considering a given benefit in aquifer recharge– comparison between geographical location 

20 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Reduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesInnovation potential in the waterindustryProtection of (coastal) aquifersagainst salt intrusionReduced water scarcityImproved resilience/adaptationto climate changeAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Increased revenues and/orreduced costs for economicsectors using water (due tohigher water availability)Reduced pollution discharge fromurban waste water treatmentplants into riversJob creationEnergy and carbon savingsCost savings for publicauthoritiesAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location  

Figure 9: Proportion of respondents considering a given benefit in aquifer recharge– comparison between geographical location 

21 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cost savings for public authoritiesIncreased revenues and/or reduced costs for economic sectors using water (due to higher…Job creationEnergy and carbon savingsReduced pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants into riversImproved resilience/adaptation to climate changeInnovation potential in the water industryProtection of (coastal) aquifers against salt intrusionReduced water scarcityReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesIncreased revenues and/or reduced costs for economic sectors using water (due to higher…Job creationCost savings for public authoritiesEnergy and carbon savingsProtection of (coastal) aquifers against salt intrusionImproved resilience/adaptation to climate changeReduced water scarcityInnovation potential in the water industryReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesReduced pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants into riversCost savings for public authoritiesEnergy and carbon savingsJob creationInnovation potential in the water industryIncreased revenues and/or reduced costs for economic sectors using water (due to higher…Reduced pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants into riversImproved resilience/adaptation to climate changeReduced water scarcityProtection of (coastal) aquifers against salt intrusionReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesNorthEastSouthHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a potential benefitI don’t know 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress  

Figure 10: Proportion of respondents considering a given benefit in aquifer recharge– comparison between countries in situation of water stress and other countries 

22 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cost savings for public authoritiesEnergy and carbon savingsJob creationInnovation potential in the water industryIncreased revenues and/or reduced costs for economic sectors using water (due to higher water…Reduced pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants into riversImproved resilience/adaptation to climate changeReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesReduced water scarcityProtection of (coastal) aquifers against salt intrusionCost savings for public authoritiesEnergy and carbon savingsIncreased revenues and/or reduced costs for economic sectors using water (due to higher water…Job creationReduced pollution discharge from urban waste water treatment plants into riversImproved resilience/adaptation to climate changeInnovation potential in the water industryProtection of (coastal) aquifers against salt intrusionReduced water scarcityReduced pressure on over-abstracted water resourcesCountries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stressHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a potential benefitI don’t know 
 
 
 
Barriers against a wider uptake of reused water in agriculture irrigation 

Overall results 

Figure 11: Views of respondents on the main barriers against a wider uptake of reused water in agricultural irrigation 

23 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Insufficient control on (freshwater) water abstractions Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse Absence of national water reuse standards Administrative burden for water operators and users and for publicauthorities (e.g. specific permits for water reuse) Stringent national water reuse standards Fear of potential trade barriers (e.g. import bans) for food productsirrigated with reused waterHigh cost of treatment for production of reused water Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risksassociated with water reuse Insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated watermanagement (e.g. in scarce areas no incentives to develop water reuse… Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused waterDistance between waste water treatment plants and irrigation fields –need for conveyance infrastructure Negative public perception on the quality of reused waterHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a barrierI don’t know 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders 

Figure 12: Proportion of respondents per type considering the main barriers to a wider uptake of reused water in agriculture irrigation as medium or high 

24 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Insufficient considerationfor water reuse inintegrated watermanagement (e.g. inscarce areas no incentivesto develop water reuseprojects) Scientific uncertainties asregards potential risks Stringent national waterreuse standards Low awareness oftechnical solutions toproduce safe reused water Absence of national waterreuse standards Insufficient control on(freshwater) waterabstractions Low availability oftechnical solutions toproduce safe reused waterAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Negative publicperception on thequality of reused waterDistance between waste water treatment plants and irrigation fields –need for conveyance infrastructure Fear of potential tradebarriers (e.g. importbans) for foodproducts irrigated withreused waterHigh cost of treatmentfor production ofreused water Low price offreshwater comparedto price of reusedwater Insufficient clarity inthe regulatoryframework to managerisks associated withwater reuse Administrative burdenfor water operatorsand users and forpublic authorities (e.g.specific permits forwater reuse) Insufficient awarenesson benefits of waterreuseAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens 
 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector 

Figure 13: Proportion of respondents per sector considering the main barriers to a wider uptake of reused water in agriculture irrigation as medium or high 

25 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Distance between waste water treatment plants and irrigation fields –need for conveyance infrastructure Insufficientconsideration forwater reuse inintegrated watermanagement (e.g. inscarce areas noincentives to developwater reuse projects) Administrativeburden for wateroperators and usersand for publicauthorities (e.g.specific permits forwater reuse) Insufficient clarity inthe regulatoryframework to managerisks associated withwater reuse Low price offreshwater comparedto price of reusedwaterHigh cost oftreatment forproduction of reusedwater Negative publicperception on thequality of reusedwater Fear of potentialtrade barriers (e.g.import bans) for foodproducts irrigatedwith reused waterSanitationDrinking waterFood IndustryAgricultureHealthEnvironment / ClimateEconomicsOther0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Stringent national waterreuse standards Insufficient awarenesson benefits of waterreuse Insufficient control on(freshwater) waterabstractions Low awareness oftechnical solutions toproduce safe reusedwater Scientific uncertaintiesas regards potentialrisks Absence of nationalwater reuse standards Low availability oftechnical solutions toproduce safe reusedwaterSanitationDrinking waterFood IndustryAgricultureHealthEnvironment / ClimateEconomicsOther 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location 

Figure 14: Barriers perceived by the respondents to a wider uptake of reused water in agriculture irrigation: comparison between geographic locations of countries 
26 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Insufficient control on (freshwater) water abstractions Stringent national water reuse standards Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse Absence of national water reuse standards Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities (e.g. specific permits for water reuse) Fear of potential trade barriers (e.g. import bans) for food products irrigated with reused water Insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated water management (e.g. in scarce areas no incentives to develop water reuse projects) Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associated with water reuse High cost of treatment for production of reused water Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused waterDistance between waste water treatment plants and irrigation fields –need for conveyance infrastructure Negative public perception on the quality of reused water Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Stringent national water reuse standards Insufficient control on (freshwater) water abstractions Absence of national water reuse standards Fear of potential trade barriers (e.g. import bans) for food products irrigated with reused water Administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities (e.g. specific permits for water reuse)Distance between waste water treatment plants and irrigation fields –need for conveyance infrastructure Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated water management (e.g. in scarce areas no incentives to develop water reuse projects) Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused water High cost of treatment for production of reused water Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associated with water reuse Negative public perception on the quality of reused water Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Insufficient control on (freshwater) water abstractions Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse Absence of national water reuse standards Administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities (e.g. specific permits for water reuse) High cost of treatment for production of reused water Fear of potential trade barriers (e.g. import bans) for food products irrigated with reused water Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associated with water reuse Stringent national water reuse standards Negative public perception on the quality of reused water Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused water Insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated water management (e.g. in scarce areas no incentives to develop water reuse projects)Distance between waste water treatment plants and irrigation fields –need for conveyance infrastructureNorthEastSouthHighMediumI don't consider this as a barrierLowI don’t know 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress  

Figure 15: Barriers perceived by the respondents to a wider uptake of reused water in agriculture irrigation: comparison between countries in situation of water stress 

27 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Insufficient control on (freshwater) water abstractions Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse Administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities (e.g. specific permits for water reuse) Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Absence of national water reuse standards High cost of treatment for production of reused water Fear of potential trade barriers (e.g. import bans) for food products irrigated with reused water Stringent national water reuse standards Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associated with water reuse Insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated water management (e.g. in scarce areas no incentives to develop…Distance between waste water treatment plants and irrigation fields –need for conveyance infrastructure Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused water Negative public perception on the quality of reused water Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Insufficient control on (freshwater) water abstractions Absence of national water reuse standards Stringent national water reuse standards Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Fear of potential trade barriers (e.g. import bans) for food products irrigated with reused water Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse High cost of treatment for production of reused water Administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities (e.g. specific permits for water reuse) Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associated with water reuse Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused waterDistance between waste water treatment plants and irrigation fields –need for conveyance infrastructure Insufficient consideration for water reuse in integrated water management (e.g. in scarce areas no incentives to develop… Negative public perception on the quality of reused waterCountries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stressHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a barrierI don’t know 
 
Barriers against a wider uptake of reused water in aquifer recharge 

Overall results 

Figure 16: Views of the respondents on the main barriers to a wider uptake of reused water in aquifer recharge 

28 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Absence of national water reuse standards Administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities(e.g. specific permits for water reuse) Stringent national water reuse standards High cost of treatment for production of reused water Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associatedwith water reuse Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused water Insufficient consideration for water reuse integrated water management (e.g.in scarce areas no incentives to develop water reuse projects) Negative public perception on the quality of reused waterHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a barrierI don’t know 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders 

Figure 17: Proportion of respondents per type considering barriers to a wider uptake of reused water in aquifer recharge as medium or high 

29 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% High cost of treatmentfor production ofreused water Insufficientconsideration for waterreuse integrated watermanagement (e.g. inscarce areas noincentives to developwater reuse projects) Negative publicperception on thequality of reused water Administrative burdenfor water operators andusers and for publicauthorities (e.g.specific permits forwater reuse) Low price offreshwater comparedto price of reusedwater Insufficient clarity inthe regulatoryframework to managerisks associated withwater reuseAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Insufficient awarenesson benefits of waterreuse Scientific uncertaintiesas regards potentialrisks Absence of nationalwater reuse standards Low awareness oftechnical solutions toproduce safe reusedwater Stringent national waterreuse standards Low availability oftechnical solutions toproduce safe reusedwaterAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector 

Figure 18: Proportion of respondents who consider different barriers to a wider uptake of reused water in aquifer recharge as medium or high per sector 

30 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% High cost of treatmentfor production of reusedwater Low price of freshwatercompared to price ofreused water Administrative burdenfor water operators andusers and for publicauthorities (e.g. specificpermits for water reuse) Insufficientconsideration for waterreuse integrated watermanagement (e.g. inscarce areas noincentives to developwater reuse projects) Insufficient awarenesson benefits of waterreuse Negative publicperception on thequality of reused waterSanitationDrinking waterFood IndustryAgricultureHealthEnvironment / ClimateEconomicsOther0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Insufficient clarity inthe regulatoryframework to managerisks associated withwater reuse Stringent nationalwater reuse standards Absence of nationalwater reuse standards Low availability oftechnical solutions toproduce safe reusedwater Low awareness oftechnical solutions toproduce safe reusedwater Scientificuncertainties asregards potential risksSanitationDrinking waterFood IndustryAgricultureHealthEnvironment / ClimateEconomicsOther 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location 

Figure 19: Views of the respondents on the different barriers to a wider uptake of reused water in aquifer recharge per geographical location in Europe 

31 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Stringent national water reuse standards Absence of national water reuse standards Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Insufficient consideration for water reuse integrated water management (e.g. in scarce areas no incentives to develop water reuse projects) Administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities (e.g. specific permits for water reuse) Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associated with water reuse High cost of treatment for production of reused water Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused water Negative public perception on the quality of reused water Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Absence of national water reuse standards Stringent national water reuse standards Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused water Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Insufficient consideration for water reuse integrated water management (e.g. in scarce areas no incentives to develop water reuse projects) Administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities (e.g. specific permits for water reuse) High cost of treatment for production of reused water Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associated with water reuse Negative public perception on the quality of reused water Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse Administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities (e.g. specific permits for water reuse) Absence of national water reuse standards High cost of treatment for production of reused water Stringent national water reuse standards Negative public perception on the quality of reused water Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused water Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associated with water reuse Insufficient consideration for water reuse integrated water management (e.g. in scarce areas no incentives to develop water reuse projects)NorthEastSouthHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a barrierI don’t know 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress  

Figure 20: Views of the respondents on the different barriers to a wider uptake of reused water in aquifer recharge per countries in function of water stress 

32 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities (e.g. specific permits for water reuse) Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Absence of national water reuse standards Stringent national water reuse standards High cost of treatment for production of reused water Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associated with water reuse Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused water Negative public perception on the quality of reused water Insufficient consideration for water reuse integrated water management (e.g. in scarce areas no incentives to develop waterreuse projects) Low availability of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Low awareness of technical solutions to produce safe reused water Absence of national water reuse standards Stringent national water reuse standards Scientific uncertainties as regards potential risks Insufficient awareness on benefits of water reuse Administrative burden for water operators and users and for public authorities (e.g. specific permits for water reuse) High cost of treatment for production of reused water Insufficient consideration for water reuse integrated water management (e.g. in scarce areas no incentives to develop waterreuse projects) Insufficient clarity in the regulatory framework to manage risks associated with water reuse Low price of freshwater compared to price of reused water Negative public perception on the quality of reused waterCountries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stressHighMediumLowI don't consider this as a barrierI don’t know 
 
 
Perceived safety of water reuse in agriculture irrigation  
Overall results 

Figure 21: Share of respondents considering that reusing treated waste water for agriculture irrigation nowadays in the EU is… 

33 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Using water from riversUsing water from groundwatersafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders 

Figure 22: Share of respondents by category of stakeholders considering that reusing treated waste water for agricultural irrigation nowadays in the EU is… 

34 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%AuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizensAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizensUsing water fromriversUsing water fromgroundwatersafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector 

Figure 23: Share of respondents by sector considering that reusing treated waste water for agriculture irrigation nowadays in the EU is… 

35 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%SanitationDrinking waterFoodAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomicsSanitationDrinking waterFoodAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomicsUsing water fromgroundwaterUsing water from riverssafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location 

Figure 24: Share of respondents by geographical locations considering that reusing treated waste water for agriculture irrigation nowadays in the EU is… 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress  

Figure 25: Share of respondents by countries in situation of water stress considering that reusing treated waste water for agriculture irrigation nowadays in the EU 
is… 

36 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%NorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthUsing waterfrom riversUsing waterfromgroundwatersafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Countries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stressCountries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stressUsing water fromriversUsing water fromgroundwatersafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know 
 
 
 
Perceived safety of water reuse in aquifer recharge 

Overall results 

Figure 26: Share of respondents considering that reusing treated waste water for aquifer recharge nowadays in the EU is… 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders 

Figure 27: Share of respondents by category of stakeholders considering that reusing treated waste water for aquifer recharge nowadays in the EU is… 

37 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Using water from riversUsing water from groundwatersafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%AuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGOs and othersCitizensAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGOs and othersCitizensUsing water fromriversUsing water fromgroundwatersafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector 

Figure 28: Share of respondents by sector considering that reusing treated waste water for aquifer recharge nowadays in the EU is… 

38 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%SanitationDrinking waterFoodAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomicsSanitationDrinking waterFoodAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomicsUsing water fromgroundwaterUsing water from riverssafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know 
 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location 

Figure 29: Share of respondents by geographical locations considering that reusing treated waste water for aquifer recharge nowadays in the EU is… 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress  

Figure 30: Share of respondents by countries in situation of water stress considering that reusing treated waste water for aquifer recharge nowadays in the EU is… 
39 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%NorthEastSouthNorthEastSouthUsing waterabstracted fromriversUsing waterabstracted fromgroundwatersafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Countries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stressCountries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stressUsing water abstractedfrom riversUsing water abstractedfrom groundwatersafer thanas safe asless safe thanI don't know 
 
 
 
 
 
Instrument to use to set EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation 

Overall results 

Figure 31: Views of the respondents on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agricultural irrigation 

Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders 

Figure 32: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in 
agricultural irrigation 

40 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Instrument needed for agricultural irrigationEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%ProvidersIndustry or trade associationsAuthoritiesNGO and othersCitizensPrivate companiesEU regulation (binding)CEN standards (not binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)OtherI don't know 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector 

Figure 33: Views of the respondents by sector on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation 

Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location 

Figure 34: Views of the respondents by geographical locations on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture 
irrigation 

41 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%EconomicsHealthAgricultureEnvironmentFood industrySanitationDrinking waterEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%NorthEastSouthInstrumentneeded foragriculturalirrigationEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress  

Figure 35: Views of the respondents on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture irrigation by water stress 

42 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Countries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stressEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know 
 
 
 
Instrument to use to set EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge 

Overall results 

Figure 36: Views of the respondents on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge 

43 

0%20%40%60%80%100%Instrument needed for aquifer rechargeEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders 

Figure 37: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer 
recharge 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector 

Figure 38: Views of the respondents by sector on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer 
recharge 

44 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Industry or trade associationsAuthoritiesProvidersNGO and othersCitizensPrivate companiesEU regulation (binding)CEN standards (not binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)OtherI don't know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%EconomicsAgricultureHealthFood industryEnvironmentDrinking waterSanitationEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location 

Figure 39: Views of the respondents by geographical locations on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer 
recharge 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress  

Figure 40: Views of the respondents on the instrument to be used to set EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in aquifer recharge by water stress 

45 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%NorthEastSouthInstrumentneeded foraquiferrechargeEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Countries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stressEU regulation (binding)Commission recommendation (not binding)CEN standards (not binding)OtherI don't know 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture 
irrigation 

Overall results 

Figure 41: Views of the respondents on the specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation 

46 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection ofhuman health ofconsumers (safetyof agriculturalproducts placed onthe EU commonmarket)Protection of waterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection ofhuman health ofpublic directlyexposed to reusedwater (e.g.workers)Protection of thewider environment(e.g. soil)Protection ofagriculturalproductivity (cropyield)OtherI don't know 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders 

Figure 42: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector 

Figure 43: Views of the respondents by sector on the specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation 

47 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection of human health ofconsumers (in case the rechargedaquifer is abstracted for drinkingwater purposes)Protection of water resources anddependant ecosystemsOtherI don't knowAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection of humanhealth of consumers(safety of agriculturalproducts placed onthe EU commonmarket)Protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water (e.g. workers…)Protection of waterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection of thewider environment(e.g. soil)Protection ofagriculturalproductivity (cropyield)OtherI don't knowSanitationDrinking waterFoodAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomics 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location 

Figure 44: Views of the respondents by geographical location on the specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation 

48 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection ofhuman healthof consumers(safety ofagriculturalproductsplaced on theEU commonmarket)Protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water (e.g. workers…)Protection ofwaterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection ofthe widerenvironment(e.g. soil)Protection ofagriculturalproductivity(crop yield)OtherI don't knowSouthEastNorth 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress  

Figure 45: Views of the respondents in countries affected by water stress on the specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture 
irrigation 

49 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection ofhuman healthof consumers(safety ofagriculturalproductsplaced on theEU commonmarket)Protection ofwaterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water (e.g. workers…)Protection ofthe widerenvironment(e.g. soil)Protection ofagriculturalproductivity(crop yield)OtherI don't knowProtection ofhuman healthof consumers(safety ofagriculturalproductsplaced on theEU commonmarket)Protection ofwaterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection ofthe widerenvironment(e.g. soil)Protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water (e.g. workers…)Protection ofagriculturalproductivity(crop yield)OtherI don't knowCountries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stress0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection ofhuman healthof consumers(safety ofagriculturalproductsplaced on theEU commonmarket)Protection ofwaterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water (e.g. workers…)Protection ofthe widerenvironment(e.g. soil)Protection ofagriculturalproductivity(crop yield)OtherI don't knowProtection ofhuman healthof consumers(safety ofagriculturalproductsplaced on theEU commonmarket)Protection ofwaterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection ofthe widerenvironment(e.g. soil)Protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water (e.g. workers…)Protection ofagriculturalproductivity(crop yield)OtherI don't knowCountries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stress0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection ofhuman healthof consumers(safety ofagriculturalproductsplaced on theEU commonmarket)Protection ofwaterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water (e.g. workers…)Protection ofthe widerenvironment(e.g. soil)Protection ofagriculturalproductivity(crop yield)OtherI don't knowProtection ofhuman healthof consumers(safety ofagriculturalproductsplaced on theEU commonmarket)Protection ofwaterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection ofthe widerenvironment(e.g. soil)Protection of human health of public directly exposed to reused water (e.g. workers…)Protection ofagriculturalproductivity(crop yield)OtherI don't knowCountries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stress 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge 

Overall results 

Figure 46: Views of the respondents on the specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation 

50 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection of waterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection of humanhealth of consumers(in case therecharged aquifer isabstracted fordrinking waterpurposes)OtherI don't know 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders 

Figure 47: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture irrigation 

Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector 

Figure 48: Views of the respondents by sectors on the specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge 

51 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection of human health ofconsumers (in case the rechargedaquifer is abstracted for drinkingwater purposes)Protection of water resources anddependant ecosystemsOtherI don't knowAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection of water resourcesand dependant ecosystemsProtection of human health ofconsumers (in case therecharged aquifer is abstractedfor drinking water purposes)OtherI don't knowSanitationDrinking waterFoodAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomics 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location 

Figure 49: Views of the respondents by geographical location on the specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge 

Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress  

Figure 50: Views of the respondents in countries affected by water stress on the specific objectives to address in EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer 
recharge 

52 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection of waterresources and dependantecosystemsProtection of human healthof consumers (in case therecharged aquifer isabstracted for drinkingwater purposes)OtherI don't knowSouthEastNorth0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Protection of humanhealth of consumers(in case therecharged aquifer isabstracted fordrinking waterpurposes)Protection of waterresources anddependantecosystemsOtherI don't knowProtection of waterresources anddependantecosystemsProtection of humanhealth of consumers(in case therecharged aquifer isabstracted fordrinking waterpurposes)OtherI don't knowCountries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stress 
 
 
 
 
Specific aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in agriculture 
irrigation 

Overall results 

Figure 51: Views of respondents on the aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in agricultural irrigation 

53 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringOther chemicalsalreadyaddressed by EUlegislation onwater quality inthe environmentor on dischargesto waterRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)NutrientsHandling oftreated water atfarm level (e.g.irrigationpractices)Other chemicalsnot addressed byexisting EUlegislationWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't know 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders 

Figure 52: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in agricultural irrigation 

54 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringRisk-basedmanagement (e.g.water safety plan)Other chemicalsalready addressed byEU legislation onwater quality in theenvironment or ondischarges to waterNutrientsOther chemicals notaddressed by existingEU legislationHandling of treatedwater at farm level(e.g. irrigationpractices)Waste watertreatment techniquesI don't knowAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector 

Figure 53: Views of the respondents by sector on the aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in agricultural irrigation 

55 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringRisk-basedmanagement (e.g.water safety plan)Other chemicalsalready addressedby EU legislation onwater quality in theenvironment or ondischarges to waterNutrientsHandling of treatedwater at farm level(e.g. irrigationpractices)Other chemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowSanitationDrinking waterFoodAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomics 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location 

Figure 54: Views of the respondents by geographical location on the aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in agricultural irrigation 

56 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoring aspectsRisk-basedmanagement (e.g.water safety plan)Other chemicalsalready addressedby EU legislation onwater quality in theenvironment or ondischarges to waterHandling of treatedwater at farm level(e.g. irrigationpractices)NutrientsOther chemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowSouthEastNorth 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress  

Figure 55: Views of the respondents in countries affected by water stress on the aspects to be covered in EU minimum quality requirements in agricultural irrigation 

57 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%NutrientsMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringRisk-basedmanagement (e.g.water safety plan)Other chemicalsalready addressed byEU legislation onwater quality in theenvironment or ondischarges to waterArtificial rechargetechniquesOther chemicals notaddressed by existingEU legislationWaste watertreatment techniquesOther chemicalsalready addressed byEU legislation onwater quality in theenvironment or ondischarges to waterMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringNutrientsOther chemicals notaddressed by existingEU legislationRisk-basedmanagement (e.g.water safety plan)Artificial rechargetechniquesWaste watertreatment techniquesCountries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stress0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%NutrientsMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringRisk-basedmanagement (e.g.water safety plan)Other chemicalsalready addressed byEU legislation onwater quality in theenvironment or ondischarges to waterArtificial rechargetechniquesOther chemicals notaddressed by existingEU legislationWaste watertreatment techniquesOther chemicalsalready addressed byEU legislation onwater quality in theenvironment or ondischarges to waterMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringNutrientsOther chemicals notaddressed by existingEU legislationRisk-basedmanagement (e.g.water safety plan)Artificial rechargetechniquesWaste watertreatment techniquesCountries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stress0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%NutrientsMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringRisk-basedmanagement (e.g.water safety plan)Other chemicalsalready addressed byEU legislation onwater quality in theenvironment or ondischarges to waterArtificial rechargetechniquesOther chemicals notaddressed by existingEU legislationWaste watertreatment techniquesOther chemicalsalready addressed byEU legislation onwater quality in theenvironment or ondischarges to waterMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringNutrientsOther chemicals notaddressed by existingEU legislationRisk-basedmanagement (e.g.water safety plan)Artificial rechargetechniquesWaste watertreatment techniquesCountries in situation of water stressCountries not in situation of water stress 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer 
recharge 

Overall results 

Figure 56: Views of the respondents on the aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge 

58 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MicrobiologicalcontaminantsNutrientsMonitoringOther chemicalsalready addressedby EU legislationon water quality inthe environmentor on dischargesto waterRisk-basedmanagement (e.g.water safety plan)Other chemicalsnot addressed byexisting EUlegislationArtificial rechargetechniquesWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't know 
 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders 

Figure 57: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge 

59 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringNutrientsRisk-basedmanagement (e.g.water safety plan)Other chemicalsalready addressed byEU legislation onwater quality in theenvironment or ondischarges to waterOther chemicals notaddressed by existingEU legislationArtificial rechargetechniquesWaste watertreatment techniquesI don't knowAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector 

Figure 58: Views of the respondents by sector on the aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge 

60 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MicrobiologicalcontaminantsNutrientsMonitoringOther chemicalsalready addressedby EU legislation onwater quality in theenvironment or ondischarges to waterRisk-basedmanagement (e.g.water safety plan)Other chemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationArtificial rechargetechniquesWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowSanitationDrinking waterFoodAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomics 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location 

Figure 59: Views of the respondents by geographical location on the aspects to be covered by EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge 

61 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MicrobiologicalcontaminantsNutrientsMonitoringRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)Other chemicalsalreadyaddressed by EUlegislation onwater quality inthe environmentor on dischargesto waterOther chemicalsnot addressedby existing EUlegislationArtificialrechargetechniquesWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowSouthEastNorth 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress  

Figure 60: Views of the respondents in countries affected by water stress on the aspects to be covered in EU minimum quality requirements in aquifer recharge 

62 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%NutrientsMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)Otherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironment oron dischargesto waterArtificialrechargetechniquesOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowOtherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironment oron dischargesto waterMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringNutrientsOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)ArtificialrechargetechniquesWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowCountries in situation of water scarcityCountries not in situation of water scarcity0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%NutrientsMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)Otherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironment oron dischargesto waterArtificialrechargetechniquesOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowOtherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironment oron dischargesto waterMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringNutrientsOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)ArtificialrechargetechniquesWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowCountries in situation of water scarcityCountries not in situation of water scarcity0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%NutrientsMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)Otherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironment oron dischargesto waterArtificialrechargetechniquesOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowOtherchemicalsalreadyaddressed byEU legislationon waterquality in theenvironment oron dischargesto waterMicrobiologicalcontaminantsMonitoringNutrientsOtherchemicals notaddressed byexisting EUlegislationRisk-basedmanagement(e.g. watersafety plan)ArtificialrechargetechniquesWaste watertreatmenttechniquesI don't knowCountries in situation of water scarcityCountries not in situation of water scarcity 
 
 
 
Other uses to cover by EU minimum quality requirements  

Overall results 

Figure 61: Views of the respondents on the other uses to cover by EU minimum quality requirements 

63 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Industrial uses Irrigation of sport fields (incl. golf courses) Irrigation of urban green spacesOther urban uses (street cleaning, firefighting…)Should be covered by EU minimum quality requirementsCould be covered by EU minimum quality requirementsShould not be covered by EU minimum quality requirementsI don't know 
 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per type of stakeholders 

Figure 62: Views of the respondents by category of stakeholders on the other uses to cover by EU minimum quality requirements 

64 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%AuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizensAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizensAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizensAuthoritiesProvidersPrivate companiesIndustry or trade associationsNGO and othersCitizens Industrial uses Irrigation ofsport fields(incl. golfcourses) Irrigation ofurban greenspacesOther urban uses (street cleaning, firefighting…)Should be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuseCould be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuseShould not be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuseI don't know 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per economic sector 

Figure 63: Views of the respondents by sector on the other uses to cover by EU minimum quality requirements 

65 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%SanitationDrinking WaterFood IndustryAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomicsSanitationDrinking WaterFood IndustryAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomicsSanitationDrinking WaterFood IndustryAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomicsSanitationDrinking WaterFood IndustryAgricultureHealthEnvironmentEconomics Industrial uses Irrigation of sportfields (incl. golfcourses) Irrigation of urbangreen spacesOther urban uses (street cleaning, firefighting…)Should be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuseCould be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuseShould not be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuseI don't know 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per geographical location 

Figure 64: Views of the respondents by geographical location on the other uses to cover by EU minimum quality requirements 

66 

0%20%40%60%80%100% Industrial usesOther urban uses (street cleaning, firefighting…) Irrigation of sport fields (incl. golf courses) Irrigation of urban green spaces Industrial usesOther urban uses (street cleaning, firefighting…) Irrigation of sport fields (incl. golf courses) Irrigation of urban green spaces Industrial usesOther urban uses (street cleaning, firefighting…) Irrigation of sport fields (incl. golf courses) Irrigation of urban green spacesNorthEastSouthShould be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuseCould be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuseShould not be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuseI don't know 
 
 
Detailed analysis – responses per countries in situation of water stress  

Figure 65: Views of the respondents in countries affected by water stress on the other uses to cover by EU minimum quality requirements 

67 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Other urban uses (street cleaning, firefighting…) Industrial uses Irrigation of sport fields (incl. golf courses) Irrigation of urban green spaces Industrial usesOther urban uses (street cleaning, firefighting…) Irrigation of sport fields (incl. golf courses) Irrigation of urban green spacesCountries insituation of waterstressCountries not insituation of waterstressShould be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuseCould be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuseShould not be covered by EU minimum quality requirements for water reuseI don't know 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
H
-
0
1
-
1
7
-
7
9
3
-
E
N
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

doi: 10.2779/76668