COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Synopsis Report Stakeholder Consultation Accompanying the document Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: consumer protection, drinking water, human nutrition, public health, quality standard, water management, water pollution, water protection, water supply

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.2.2018 SWD(2017) 451 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Synopsis Report Stakeholder Consultation Accompanying the document Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast) {COM(2017) 753 final} - {SWD(2017) 448 final} - {SWD(2017) 449 final}  
 
 
Synopsis report of the consultation work for the revision 

 of the Drinking Water Directive 

1. Introduction 
For  the  revision  of  the  Drinking  Water  Directive  (Council  Directive  98/93/EC)  several 
consultation activities in accordance with  the Better  Regulation Guidelines1 took  place. The 
start of the consultation activities was marked by an open public consultation on the quality of 
drinking water in June 2014.  

In the consultations input from a wide range of stakeholders was sought with a focus on the 
main  objective  of  the  DWD,  namely  the  provision  of  high  quality  drinking  water  to  EU 
citizens. The focus in the consultations was on (1) the scope of the Directive, (2) the actual 
content of the Directive, namely the approach to monitoring and the parameter list, (3) new 
topics such as materials and products in contact with drinking water, as well as (4) improved 
contact with consumers when it comes to drinking water e.g. through information provision. 
During  the  various  consultation  activities,  stakeholders  also  had  the  opportunity  to  submit 
their views on concrete options that were developed for the IA.  

In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines2 and under consideration of the circumstances, 
the Evaluation and the Impact Assessment of the Directive were done back to back. Through 
the  open  public  consultation  and  follow-up  consultation  activities  it  was  ensured  that  all 
stakeholders were consulted and kept informed about the revision process. In this regard the 
broad  open  public  consultation  proved  very  valuable  as  during  the  process  of  preparing, 
conducting  and  evaluating  the  survey,  the  main  stakeholder  groups  were  identified. 
Consequently,  key  associations  acting  as  multipliers  served  to  ensure  the  systemic 
information  distribution  and  the  continuous  consultation  of  all  relevant  stakeholders.  The 
input and the feedback from the various stakeholders fed into the decision-making process for 
the revision of the DWD.  

In  this  document  an  analysis  of  the  contributions  of  the  stakeholders  is  summarised.  Some 
suggestions by stakeholders were, after careful consideration, regarded as being out of scope 
for the DWD but will potentially be addressed by other means. These included for example: 
water  supply  affordability,  encouragement  of  water  safety,  better  education  etc... 
Nevertheless,  all  topics  raised  in  the  consultation  activities  were  considered  to  be  highly 
valuable for informing the revision of the DWD. 

2. Stakeholder groups consulted for the revision 
In line with the assessment of relevant stakeholders that need to be considered for the revision 
of the DWD, the following ones were consulted: 

  Water Associations 

1 Notably toolboxes 10 and 50 on the 12-week internet-based public consultation and on the complement approaches and 
tools in order to engage all relevant stakeholders and to target potential information gaps, which was done by subsequent 
targeted stakeholder consultations. 
2 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/ug_chap7_en.htm 

1 

 
 
                                                            
  Member States in a targeted consultation since 2015 and regularly through the Expert 

 

Group  
Industrial  associations  from  various  sectors  that  are  related  in  their  activities  to 
drinking  water,  or  that  identify  themselves  as  being  concerned  by  a  revision  of  the 
DWD 

  Non-governmental  organizations  related  in  their  activities  to  consumer  protection, 

nature, environmental protection, human rights etc.  

  Citizens of the European Union 
 
  Other EU institutions (EEA, EFSA, EESC…)  

Interest groups such as scientists, professional and experts in the field, academics etc. 

All of the above mentioned stakeholders provided significant input that supported the revision 
activities conducted by the Commission services. Particularly relevant was also the support by 
the WHO as well as contacts with those supporting the Right2Water initiative.  

3. Approach to consultation and inclusion of other information sources 
The revision process of the DWD was triggered by the ECI Right2Water3. It considered the 
REFIT  approach  by  the  European  Commission.  A  further  important  source  was  the 
"safe2drink.eu" project that supported the Commission with the analysis of consultations.  

For  the  open  public  consultation  5908  answers  and  138  opinions  were  received  as  well 
position  papers  from  key  stakeholders.4  Roughly  88  %  of  the  responses  came  from  citizens 
and the remaining 12 % were submitted by stakeholders such as institutions or experts in the 
field. In addition to citizens' answers to the online survey, 80 EU citizens sent detailed emails 
in  response  to  the  consultation.  Responses  came  from  all  EU  countries;  however  some  MS 
were  over-represented  (Germany,  Austria,  Portugal,  Cyprus  and  Ireland  when  compared  to 
their respective population share). Other MS such as Poland, Denmark, the UK, Sweden and 
Estonia were underrepresented. This imbalance was corrected in the analyses of the answers.   

Apart from the open public consultation, which lasted from June 2014 until September 2014, 
several  other  consultation  activities  were  carried  out  to  ensure  that  all  relevant  stakeholders 
can contribute to the revision:  

In  September  2014  and  in  October  2015  Stakeholder  Dialogue  on  Transparency  and 
Benchmarking launched, two dialogues were performed5.  

A targeted public stakeholder consultation conference reaching a wide range of stakeholders 
including  national  and  regional  authorities,  representatives  of  industry  and  business 
associations,  as  well  as  companies  and  experts  was  organised  in  May  2015  for  the  REFIT 
Evaluation.    A  specific  internet-based  Consultation  page6  was  created  and  stakeholders  had 

3 http://www.right2water.eu/node/37/view 
4 Consultation Report 
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0070b535-5a6c-4ee4-84ba-6f6eb1682556/Public%20Consultation%20Report.pdf 
5  Summary Report: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/4fa04ec0-2b16-409a-b5b1-edbb6ffd6287 
6 www.safe2drink.eu including a specific functional mailbox safe2drink@ecorys.com 

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
more than three months to submit their input and feedback. Important documents were further 
publicly available in a specific folder on the Commission's data repository CIRCABC7. 

A  further  Stakeholder  Conference  on  the  review  and  on  possible  options  took  place  as  a 
public  hearing  in  December  2015  for  which  a  background  document8  was  distributed 
beforehand. At the conference, a specific questionnaire/ evaluation form9 was handed out and 
electronically issued, and all presentations and minutes including participants list were made 
publicly available.10 This conference also targeted a wide range of stakeholders. 

In the beginning of 2016, Member States were contacted digitally for their input and had time 
until May 201611 to respond. In total 15 responses to the questionnaire and 16 position papers 
were  registered, simultaneously a seminar  on drinking water protection was held in January 
2016. 

The  Commission  co-organised  with  WHO  a  large  stakeholder  consultation  on  the  drinking 
water  parameters  on  23  September  2016  in  Brussels.  This  conference  aimed  at  collecting 
input to adapt the drinking water standards to scientific and technical progress. Draft versions 
of the report were made available before and are publicly accessible12. At the conference the 
underlying rationale and preliminary findings of the project, including possible proposals for 
the  revision  of  Annex  I  of  the  Directive,  were  presented  and  discussed.  In  addition  to  the 
feedback received during the consultation, all Member States and stakeholders were invited to 
submit written feedback on the draft background papers presented at the consultation. Updates 
were  presented  to  the  Drinking  Water  Expert  Group  in  March  2017.  All  relevant  feedback 
was  considered  during  the  preparation  of  the  WHO  report.  A  detailed  annotated  log  of  the 
feedback including comments on individual parameters is provided in Appendix 2 of the final 
WHO report. 

After  the  publication  of  the  Inception  Impact  Assessment  on  the  new  portal  on  the  Better 
Regulation Website on 28/02/2017 stakeholders had the opportunity to provide feedback until 
28/03/2017. The feedback mechanism registered 32 replies. These replies came again from a 
industry 
wide  range  of  stakeholders, 
representatives' as well environmental organisations and local authorities. 

including  citizens,  business  associations  and 

In March 2017 the Commission published the supporting Impact Assessment Study. After its 
publication stakeholders had the opportunity to provide their feedback from March until end 
of April 2017 to DG Environment.  

7
 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/3fccab4b-812d-46be-8efe-1f866cf556c5 
8 https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/ec261386-9b0c-4fd0-9037-
3db85070517b/DWD_stakeholder%20workshop_background%20document_final.pdf 
9 http://www.safe2drink.eu/dwd_stakeholder-workshop_evaluation-form/ 
10 http://www.safe2drink.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Meeting-report-8-12-2015.pdf 
11 https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/52c8b4f5-7df5-43fb-a573-
f00967a2e4f4/Item%208%20Review%20Draft%20Policy%20options%20for%20revision.pdf (see slides 15/16) 
12 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/b6bb0d99-8c88-4b9d-9a14-68a0f2695e6d  

3 

 
 
 
                                                            
4. Summary results of stakeholder consultations 

In  the  following  chapter  the  analyses  of  the  stakeholder  consultations  are  summarised.  To 
present a complete picture of the input, feedback and ideas that were received, the summary is 
structured  according  to  topics13.  Divergent  opinions  from  stakeholder  groups  as  well  as 
interdependencies,  consistencies  or  contradictions  among  groups  are  pointed  out  where 
deemed necessary. Generally it can be said that the DWD is considered to be a relevant part 
of  the  EU  legislative  framework  to  ensure  the  protection  of  the  consumer.  Nevertheless, 
considering the age of the DWD, the aim of revising the DWD is in general supported by all 
relevant stakeholders.  

Firstly, some key examples from the report on the open public consultation are presented. The 
consultation  clearly  supported  the  update  and  revision  of  drinking  water  parameters.  The 
responses  highlighted  the  following  threats  of  pollution  from  agriculture,  from  industrial 
sources,  and  from  human  consumption  and  inadequate  waste  water  treatment.  Additionally, 
the consultation also asked about further aspects and possible policy options. The responses 
support harmonised materials in contact with drinking water, incentives to save water, and to 
cover the entire supply chain. A strong message from the consultation, especially mentioned 
by EU citizens, was the wish for more up-to-date online information.  

Overview of the main topics addressed by stakeholders in the consultation activities  

Quality of drinking water and current monitoring activities 

The  main  threats  to  the  quality  of  drinking  water  were  seen  in  'pollution  from  agriculture' 
(especially from MS: DE, CZ, UK-Scotland) and from 'industrial sources', a bit less but also 
perceived  as  very  threatening  is 
'pollution  through  exploitation  and  exploration  of 
hydrocarbons'. Stakeholders and experts perceive a higher threat to quality of drinking water 
than citizens as is visible from the open public consultation.  

Stakeholders agreed that the current DWD is not effective enough regarding the protection of 
human health from certain microbiological substances such as legionella. For monitoring and 
transparency  provisions  a  variety  of  approaches  were  suggested.  Some  MS  and  water 
suppliers/associations (BE, CZ, FR, NO and UK; EurEau, WHP, United Utilities, Dwr Cymru 
Welsh  Water,  CC  Water)  favour  a  risk-based  approach.  From  those  who  have  responded  to 
the  stakeholder  consultations  only  the  Baden-Württemberg  municipalities  (DE)  support  the 
current approach in scope and frequency.  

Furthermore,  alignment  and  consistency  among  EU  legislations  (i.e.  the  WFD,  the 
Groundwater  Directive,  and  the  Construction  Products  Regulation)  is  crucial  to  avoid 
unnecessary  administrative  burden,  also  with  regard 
to  monitoring  and  reporting 
requirements.  If  there  is  insufficient  harmonization  between  standards,  water  supply 
companies are forced to use more treatment than actually needed. 

13 As also pointed out in the analysis of the open public consultation survey, many respondents did not specify 
their institution or sector, and therefore a structure according to topics rather than stakeholder groups was 
preferred. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
Risk-based approach 

Risk-based  approaches,  for  example  implemented  by  water  safety  plans  are  considered  to 
deliver  key  complementary  elements  for  the  provision  of  safe  drinking  water.  Many 
stakeholders  argued  that  guidelines  on  details  of  risk  management  should  be  developed. 
Regarding  a  change  in  the  monitoring  method,  the  inclusion  of  all  stakeholders  is 
indispensable: for example also communication with consumers appears to be very important 
in the context of risk management, as consumers might otherwise perceive flexibility as less 
safety in their drinking water. When developing and implementing water safety plans, better 
cooperation with authorities working with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and better 
interaction  with  its  implementation  will  be  a  crucial  element  for  protecting  drinking  water 
from source to tap.  

Parameters and emerging substances 

In all consultation activities the need for revising and extending the list of parameters in the 
DWD were mentioned by the entire range of stakeholders. From a Member States perspective, 
some  were  clearly  in  favour  of  an  extended  list  (e.g.  Denmark,  Malta,  Cyprus  and 
Luxembourg),  whereas  others  do  not  want  to  see  a  price  hike  arising  out  of  a  too  broad 
extension  (e.g.  GR,  ES,  HR).  Only  a  couple  of  stakeholders,  namely  Baden-Württemberg 
municipalities (DE) and Vienna Water (AT) argue that the status quo is sufficient. From those 
who have responded to the stakeholder consultations French and English farmers opposed the 
unnecessary  stringent  regulations  and  changes  to  the  DWD.  A  focus  and  support  for  closer 
monitoring  was  seen  by  a  large  majority  of  stakeholders  for  endocrine  disruptors  (87  %), 
pharmaceuticals  (85  %),  substances  used  in  consumer  products  (87  %)  and  faecal  matter, 
pathogenic  germs,  parasites  and  viruses  (81  %).  This  strongly  supportive  feedback  for  the 
revision  of  the  parameter  list  was  used  as  the  basis  for  the  establishment  of  a  cooperation 
project with the WHO.  

On  emerging  substances,  some  stakeholders  mainly  from  water  suppliers  but  as  well  from 
Member States authorities suggested that the DWD should not regulate these substances, but 
define firstly approaches on how to deal with them. However, many stakeholders also invoked 
the need for keeping the Precautionary Principle as the leading principle in this regard.  

Materials and products in contact with drinking water 

Early  on  in  the  consultation  activities  the  topic  of  materials  and  products  in  contact  with 
drinking water was raised. Generally stakeholders from business associations as well as from 
consumer associations and from authorities argued in favour of the harmonization of materials 
and  products  in  contact  with  drinking  water.  From  Germany  a  proactive  campaign  for  this 
topic  was  visible  in  the  51  individually  submitted  but  content-wise  same  answers  to  the 
survey of the open public consultation. 

5 

 
 
On materials and products in contact with drinking water a common methodology should be 
developed, as indeed the current situation prevailing appears unsatisfactory14 as was stated by 
business associations. According to the business associations this would lessen the burden on 
companies  and  strengthen consumer  and health protection. Further considerations should  be 
based  on  the  results  of  the  ongoing  assessment  within  the  study  commissioned  by  the 
Commission.   

Access to and content of information for the consumer 

About  58.5  %  of  the  EU  citizens  that  responded  to  the  open  public  consultation  see 
themselves as being generally well-informed; however, this varies strongly depending on their 
origin MS15. Almost all stakeholders mentioned either via responding to the survey or through 
other forms of feedback (i.e. direct emails) their wish for more up-to-date online information 
on the quality of drinking water.  

Regarding the content, information on how analyses are performed and on parameter values is 
wished for in general. Stakeholders do not have a convergent view on the depth and width of 
information  they  wish  for,  but  do  agree  that  online  publication  is  an  adequate  way.  Some 
water  suppliers  and  other  business  associations  are  against  the  supply  of  too  much 
information. Generally the use of new technologies for the distribution of information seems 
to be supported by stakeholders from MS, institutions, expert backgrounds etc.  

This triggered the decision-making process of including the provision of smart information as 
a option in the Impact Assessment.  

Consumer confidence in drinking water 

All  stakeholders  agreed  that  efforts  are  required  to  boost  consumer  confidence  in  drinking 
water quality. Upon the question of a ‘water quality label’, such a label may not be compared 
with  existing  energy  consumption  labels,  as  indeed  for  drinking  water  limit  values  are 
established – making the term ‘safe drinking water’ operational in numerical values. Positive 
experience with a drinking water App has been reported from Portugal.  

Access to drinking water 

Although  most  citizens  that  replied  to  the  open  public  consultation  believe  that  they 
themselves have good access to drinking water, this is not the case for all, in particular for the 
poorer  segment  of  the  population  (‘bottom  40  %’).  Access  to  drinking  water  could  be 
addressed in an approach similar to the one already existing on waste water, i.e. an obligation 

14 Article 10 “Quality assurance of treatment, equipment and materials Member States shall take all measures 
necessary to ensure that no substances or materials for new installations used in the preparation or 
distribution of water intended for human consumption or impurities associated with such substances or 
materials for new installations remain in water intended for human consumption in concentrations higher than 
is necessary for the purpose of their use and do not, either directly or indirectly, reduce the protection of 
human health provided for in this Directive; . . . . .”   
15 The range of satisfaction with the level of information about the drinking water quality by countries varies 
significantly from 18 % Luxembourg to as high as 85 % for Austria (see Public Consultation report by Ecorys, p. 
29) 

6 

 
 
                                                            
for  Member  States  to  provide  their  citizens  with  safe  drinking  water.  With  the  idea  of 
providing access to drinking water initially brought forward by the ECI Right2Water16, also 
during the process of the consultations especially citizens stressed the importance for having 
access  to  water  as  a  human  right.17  The  results  of  the  open  public  consultation  have  shown 
that supporters of the ECI Right2Water submitted 186 times the same text to the survey and 
provided 41 position papers with the same text to cement their position.  

The access to water is generally seen by stakeholders across the line as important, however, 
many wish for national approaches to this, also under the consideration that some MS already 
have  legislation  in  this  regard  in  place.  In  this  context,  the  scope  of  the  DWD  was  often 
discussed. Many stakeholders, both institutions and citizens, stated that right to water issues 
should  be  considered  exclusively  under  the  human  right  approach,  that  water  should  be 
regarded  as  a  public  good,  not  as  a  commodity,  and  all  taxes  for  the  water  services  should 
work  on  the  principle  of  cost-recovery  (EPHA  (INT),  UGT  (ES)),  Unite  the  Union  (UK), 
EPSU  (INT),  United  Services  Union  (DE),  Irish  Coalition  against  Water  Charges, 
Stakeholders (SK), CA (UK), EFFAT (INT)). 

Further topics raised in the consultations 

Recurrently, in different consultation activities, the following topics were raised. These were 
also consequently explicitly or implicitly addressed or taken up in the IA: 

  Business  associations  from  the  bottled  water  industry  were  surprised  about  the  link 
between the circular economy and the DWD and stress that no discrimination against a 
healthy  product  such  as  bottled  water  should  be  attempted  and  that  further  the 
environmental impact of bottled water is scientifically unfounded. 

  Regarding  the  improvement  of  efficiency,  benchmarking  is  considered  an  important 
element of efficient water management. However such benchmarking should be done 
at  national  /  regional  level  and  not  EU-wide  (argument  mainly  made  by  Member 
States).  

  On reporting for small water supply zones no consensus among stakeholders is visible: 
whereas some do not want to impose reporting obligations, others see an urgent need 
to  do  so.  The  administrative  burden  for  small  water  supplies  has  to  be  considered: 
Small supplies should not directly report, but the data could be assembled at regional 
or  national  level  before  being  reported  to  the  Commission.  New  technologies  and 
approaches  would  need  to  be  used,  along  the  lines  already  established  for  bathing 
water and waste water data. 

Responses from National Parliaments  

The  French  National  Parliament  submitted  a  position  paper  in  the  time  frame  of  the  open 
public consultation. The French Parliament regretted that the questionnaire did not explicitly 
ask a question about the right to water and sanitation.  

The main comments on the Impact Assessment Study by stakeholders were: 

16 Right2Water European Citizens' Initiative with more than 1.6 million signatures. 
17 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-1061434/feedback_en 

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
  Public  operators  have  questions  on  transparency  and  SMART  information  –  they 
mainly fear comparisons of costs as they could not reflect those associated with their 
public mission;  

  Bottled  water  industry  contested  that  consumption  of  bottled  water  is  used  as  an 

indicator for confidence in tap water.  

  Stakeholders  representing  the  industry  as  well  as  Member  States  call  for  the 
harmonization of materials and products in contact with drinking water (Article 10 in 
the existing legislation). The lack of harmonization is perceived as an obstacle to the 
internal market.  

  Some stakeholders have misunderstood the meaning of the theoretical health indicator 

used for modelling in the IA.  

5. Conclusion 
Stakeholders from Member States and industry showed support for the existence of the DWD 
and agreed that, although not necessarily quantifiably, the DWD supported and still supports 
the  improvement  of  the  drinking  water  quality  in  the  EU.  Most  stakeholders  from  all 
backgrounds support in general the revision of the DWD especially regarding parameters and 
new  monitoring  approaches  under  the  provision  that  costs  and  benefits  are  considered 
throughout  the  revision  process.  Stakeholders  from  agriculture  however  argued  against 
strengthening parameters related to agriculture like nitrate and pesticides.  

Closer  unity  among  stakeholders  can  be  found  on  the  topic  of  expanding  the  list  of 
parameters. Except for a few exemptions, many are in favour for including more substances in 
the list, as well as revising the thresholds provided for the already included substances. This 
clear support was taken up by the Commission services and throughout the revision phase. A 
project cooperation with the WHO ensured that the developed parameter list relies on highest 
scientific  standards  without  losing  sight  of  underlying  EU  approaches  to  risks,  such  as  the 
Precautionary Principle.  

Stakeholders  representing  the  industry  as  well  as  Member  States  have  called  for  the 
harmonization  of  materials  and  products  in  contact  with  drinking  water  (Article  10  in  the 
existing  legislation).  The  lack  of  harmonization  is  perceived  as  an  obstacle  to  the  internal 
market.  This  topic  was  consequently  discussed  and  approached  together  with  DG  GROW 
under the Regulation for Construction Products. 

All of the topics raised by the stakeholders were considered throughout the Evaluation and the 
Impact  Assessment  and  informed  thereby  the  decision-making  process  of  the  Commission 
service. Through the manifold consultation activities that took place over the revision phase, it 
was possible to re-discuss topics with stakeholders, clarify positions and to reach consensus 
on many items. 

8