1.
@AquaFed
Benchmarking wastewater utilities:
1) Analysis of proposals in the OECD doc
2) Analysis of proposals in the UWWTD
3) Discussion / Conclusion
@AquaFed
AquaFed
www.aquafed.org
January 2023

2.
@AquaFed
Benchmarking @contract level
Performance assessment at utility level - limited details
(approx. 100 – 150 input values)
Always
Process benchmarking: e. g. biological treatment, aeration,
energy production, Sewer O&M (approx. 500 – 800 input
values) to extract improvement proposals
Some process
benchmarking
Information of the public: basic, with low level of details
(approx. 30 input values).
Always
“can be done through automated data collection; quality assurance of collected
data could be considered”: Always third-party audited

3.
@AquaFed
Scanning through the OECD paper
Normalisation factors Always (for what is with the contract: plant and/or
network..)
Greenhouse gas CO2: Usually but not always
CH4: Contract-specific - Nitrous Oxide : usually not
Energy use and
production
Yes (for what is with the contract: energy production…)
Sewers efficiency Always
Price elements Always
Quality Always
Staffing Always /usually/ unusual for Average Women Salary

4.
@AquaFed
UWWTD proposal
Article 24: info to public
● a) compliance:
○ With article 3 (collecting systems), article 4 (IAS), article 6 (secondary treatment), article 7 (Tertiary
treatment), article 8 (Quaternary treatment),
○ Actual releases of pollutants compared with the limit values of Annex I (BDO5, N, P etc. and 12 chemicals)
● (b) volume or estimated volume of urban wastewater collected and treated /year + yearly trends and the price for
the household (EUR/L and EUR/m3);
● (c) comparison of the yearly volume of load of urban wastewater collected and treated for the household per year
and an indication of the average volume of a household in the concerned agglomeration;
Our analysis:
● All this information is provided to the authority
● WW now > water bill: Strong need to inform citizen of what they pay for: The EU could
adopt one or several composite indicators to reflect on points a) and b) - Expressed
in % to ease uptake by citizen and officials
● No issue with consolidation at State Level
● Discrepancies between national indicators make international studies mostly irrelevant

5.
@AquaFed
Annexe 6 to the UWWTD proposal
● (1) The competent authority and the operator(s) responsible
○ Ownership structure of the operators
● (2) The total urban wastewater load in p.e. of the agglomeration,
○ % collected and treated in UWWTP
○ % treated by registered IAS
○ % not collected or treated
● (3) Where relevant, a justification for why not collected or treated.
● (4) quality of the wastewater discharged to each receiving water body, including:
○ annual average concentrations and load of pollutants by each WWTP
○ estimate of the load from IAS
○ estimate of the load from CSO etc.
Our analysis:
● The authority must have this information and be transparent about it
● No issue with consolidation at State Level
● Discrepancies between national indicators make international studies mostly
irrelevant

6.
@AquaFed
Annexe 6 to the UWWTD proposal
● (5) total annual investment costs and total annual operational costs
○ distinction between collection and treatment costs,
○ total annual costs related to staff, energy, consumables, administration
○ average annual investment and operational costs per household and per m3 treated;
● (6) how the above costs are covered and, where costs are recovered through a tariff system:
○ structure of the tariff/ m3
○ including fixed and variable costs + breakdown/ collection, treatment, administration etc.
● (7) investment plans for urban wastewater collection and treatment at agglomeration level,
○ foreseen impacts on tariff
○ intended financial and societal benefits
Our analysis:
● CAPEX/ OPEX always provided to the authority. Tariff structure is set by authorities
● Strong need for transparency towards citizen
● Breakdown costs are specific to each system >> Substantial homogeneity issue
● Investment plans: same: Substantial homogeneity issue

7.
@AquaFed
Annexe 6 to the UWWTD proposal
● (8) for each WWTP:
○ total load (in p.e.) treated
○ energy required in kWh total and per m3
○ total renewable energy produced (GWh/year) + breakdown per source of energy;
○ T CO2 equivalent produced or avoided /year
● (9) total greenhouse gas emissions (T CO2 equivalent) produced or avoided/Year for
○ urban wastewater collection/treatment agglomeration
○ if available, T CO2 equivalent / construction
● (10) nature and statistics regarding complaints and answers provided
Our analysis:
● All this information is provided to the authority. No issue with consolidation at State Level
● Nothing on sludge? reuse? nuisances of the WWTPs?
● Nothing on downstream uses of water: DW abstraction, bathing sites, shellfish farms,
reuse

8.
@AquaFed
Discussion / Conclusion

9.
@AquaFed
Benchmarking in WW: Discussion
● There is national, transparent, benchmarking in a few EU MS:
○ Analysis by regulators and line ministries allows policy adaptation
○ Municipalities, academia, media tap into this information
○ Administration costs remain marginal, thanks to digitalization
● Many cities are moving towards an open data policy
● Transparency is a key principle of the Human Rights to WS - Civil Society and
Media are in demand of visibility on what is happening and what they pay for
● Most of the data described in the OECD paper and the proposed UWWTD exists :
○ >>scope for progress in transparency

10.
@AquaFed
Benchmarking in WW: Conclusions
● The UWWTD, a major cost for citizens:
○ The new UWWTD proposals are welcomed!
● Understanding the multiple dimensions of WW management: E.g.
○ % of collected volume which is treated,
○ % Compliance of Pollution removal
○ Consumer service -including nuisance
○ % Energy autonomy
○ % circularity (consolidating recovery of N,P, water reuse)
○ Provide visibility also on the downstream uses of the water: DW abstraction,
bathing sites, shellfish farms, reuse ??
● Make indicators understandable by the general public → work ahead on common
definitions, where possible at EU level to avoid meaningless comparisons
1
2
3
4
5