water statistics in the ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/document.aspx?document=11958_defra...data for scotland...
TRANSCRIPT
www.gov.uk/defra
Water Statistics in the UK
R&D Technical Report WT1509
March 2013
© Crown copyright 2014
You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or
medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. The views expressed in this
document are not necessarily those of Defra. Its officers, servants or agents accept no
liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising from the interpretation or use of the
information, or reliance on views contained herein.
To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or
write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-
mail: [email protected]
This document/publication is also available on our website at:
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/
Any enquiries regarding this document/publication should be sent to us at:
Water Statistics in the UK
This research was commissioned and funded by Defra with help of a Eurostat grant.
The views expressed reflect the research findings and the author’s interpretations. The
inclusion of or reference to any particular policy in this report should not be taken to
imply that it has, or will be, endorsed by Defra.
WRc would like to thank all those who contributed to this project including the
Environment Agency, SEPA, NIEA, the Met Office, CEH and all the water company
representatives that provided data and advice for this project
Water Statistics in the UK
Report No.: Defra 9945 B
Date: January 2014
Authors: Benjamin Briere de l’Isle, Nick Erander, Sarah Homewood, Mark Kowalski, Carmen Snowdon, Killian Spain
Project Manager: Sarah Homewood
Project No.: 16078-0
Client: Defra
Client Manager: Clare Winton
© Defra 2014 The contents of this document are subject to copyright and all rights are reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written consent of Defra.
This document has been produced by WRc plc.
Any enquiries relating to this report should be referred to the Project Manager at the following address:
WRc plc,
Frankland Road, Blagrove,
Swindon, Wiltshire, SN5
8YF
Telephone: + 44 (0) 1793
865000
Fax: + 44 (0) 1793 865001
Website: www.wrcplc.co.uk
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1
Freshwater resources ....................................................................................................... 2
Direct abstraction from freshwater resources ................................................................... 2
Public water supply .......................................................................................................... 3
Water efficient devices ..................................................................................................... 4
Part 1 - Freshwater Resources ............................................................................................ 5
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5
Background ...................................................................................................................... 5
Other reporting obligations and their relationship to the JQ ............................................. 5
Definition of freshwater ..................................................................................................... 7
Structure of the JQ Table 1 .............................................................................................. 8
Data gathering approach ................................................................................................... 11
Data providers ................................................................................................................ 11
Methodology ................................................................................................................... 12
Data sources .................................................................................................................. 16
Data quality and data gaps ............................................................................................. 18
Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 19
Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 19
Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 19
References ........................................................................................................................ 20
Appendix A Request for data ......................................................................................... 21
Appendix B Data quality assessment framework ........................................................... 23
Appendix C Summary of data in Joint Questionnaire Table 1 ........................................ 29
Part 2 - Direct Abstraction and Discharges in UK Freshwaters .......................................... 30
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 30
Background .................................................................................................................... 30
Scope of this document .................................................................................................. 30
Data sources ...................................................................................................................... 31
England and Wales ........................................................................................................ 31
Northern Ireland ............................................................................................................. 33
Scotland ......................................................................................................................... 33
Data pre-processing and quality assessment .................................................................... 34
Method ........................................................................................................................... 34
England and Wales ........................................................................................................ 34
Northern Ireland ............................................................................................................. 37
Scotland ......................................................................................................................... 39
Method for estimating net abstraction by sector ................................................................ 39
England and Wales ........................................................................................................ 39
Northern Ireland ............................................................................................................. 43
Scotland ......................................................................................................................... 45
Initial estimates of net abstraction by sector ...................................................................... 46
England and Wales: North West RBD ............................................................................ 46
Northern Ireland ............................................................................................................. 51
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 61
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 62
Short-term recommendations (0-3 years) ....................................................................... 62
Medium-term recommendations (1-5 years) .................................................................. 62
Long-term recommendations (5-10+ years) ................................................................... 63
Appendix A SIC2007 classification system to Division level .......................................... 65
Appendix B Abstraction description to SIC2007 ............................................................. 70
Appendix C Discharge type to SIC2007 ......................................................................... 74
Appendix D Direct abstraction statistics for England and Wales .................................... 83
Part 3 – Non-household water use of public water supply ................................................. 89
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 89
Background .................................................................................................................... 89
Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 89
Data gathering approach ................................................................................................... 91
Overview ........................................................................................................................ 91
Water Company Contacts .............................................................................................. 92
Data Quality and Data Gaps .............................................................................................. 93
Context of non-household water use .............................................................................. 94
Future Considerations .................................................................................................... 94
Water Use Statistics........................................................................................................... 95
Approach ........................................................................................................................ 95
Processing steps ............................................................................................................ 95
Results ........................................................................................................................... 98
References ........................................................................................................................ 98
Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 101
Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 101
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 102
Appendix A Communication with water companies ...................................................... 103
Telephone Script .......................................................................................................... 103
Email Outline ................................................................................................................ 104
Appendix B Key information from draft Water Resource Management Plans .............. 106
Appendix C Data available for use in the study ................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix D Data quality assessment framework ......................................................... 112
Part 4 - Water Efficiency .................................................................................................. 114
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 114
Background .................................................................................................................. 114
Objectives .................................................................................................................... 115
Data gathering approach ................................................................................................. 115
Overview ...................................................................................................................... 115
Water company contacts .............................................................................................. 115
Savings values ............................................................................................................. 116
Water use statistics ...................................................................................................... 116
Processing the data...................................................................................................... 116
Results ......................................................................................................................... 119
Water efficient devices selection .................................................................................. 126
Distribution and uptake ................................................................................................. 127
Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 129
Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 129
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 131
References ...................................................................................................................... 131
Appendix A Communication with water companies ...................................................... 133
Telephone script ........................................................................................................... 133
Email Outline ................................................................................................................ 134
Glossary ........................................................................................................................... 136
1
Executive Summary
The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is requested by Eurostat
to report UK a variety of statistics on water. WRc was commissioned by Defra to
investigate the availability and quality of the some of these statistics across the UK and to
advise on options for filling any gaps.
This research was divided into four components: freshwater resources, net abstraction
from freshwater sources, use of public water supply, and use of water efficient devices.
Details of each of these studies can be found in Parts 1 to 4 of this report. A summary of
the key findings and recommendations, with commentary on the complexity of reporting
these statistics in the future is provided here with particular focus on the stakeholders
involved in data provision.
The ease of future reporting for each of the three Eurostat driven datasets can be
summarised as:
.
Green light – freshwater resources
- Data is of a good quality and can be provided at the same spatial and
temporal resolution by each of the contributing organisations.
- Stakeholder relationships already exist.
Amber light – net abstraction from freshwater resources
- Data quality is variable. The spatial resolution of data is good, although there
are abstractions which do not appear in the dataset due to the current
licensing exemptions and missing data returns. The mapping to SIC from the
abstraction datasets has inherent uncertainty as there is not direct alignment
between the classification systems. The temporal resolution of data is
adequate although changes to the abstraction licensing requirements in recent
years makes historical comparison difficult. The biggest risk to data quality is
in the use of assumed loss factors to calculate net abstraction; there is
considerable uncertainty that these provide an accurate reflection of the
volume returned directly to the environment and this is where the biggest
opportunity for data improvement exists.
- There are few stakeholders involved as the environmental regulators for each
nation coordinate both abstraction and discharge datasets. However, within
each regulator there is no consistent reporting route and additionally a lack of
consistency between datasets. For a smooth reporting process to Eurostat,
Defra would need to instigate a formal reporting procedure with all of the
environmental regulators. Additionally, if WRGIS is to be used as the vehicle
for reporting abstraction to Eurostat, licensing conditions would need to be
reviewed to ensure existing barriers are overcome, and that the tool is
enhanced for reporting sectoral statistics purpose.
2
Freshwater resources
Datasets and tools to produce water accounts exist and can be brought together to
establish the robust procedure required to publish formally yearly national, basin and sub-
basin data. The required datasets are held by three key organisations.
- Met Office precipitation and actual evapotranspiration data is currently not licensed
to Defra. The short term recommendation is acquisition of MORECS data. In the
longer term, good quality modelled data – such as MOSES – would be ideal for the
required reporting to Eurostat. This modelled data has a higher spatial resolution
and would allow better reporting at RBD level.
- The British Geological Survey (BGS) hold data on borehole water levels. Currently
this data is not shared with Defra, but our discussions have indicated that they
would be willing to share this data for the purposes of Eurostat reporting, and they
work closely with CEH.
- The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) hold data on river flows. This is
currently shared with Defra.
At a national level the datasets are fit for purpose to produce statistics. Further discussion
with the data providers (CEH, Met Office and BGS) would be beneficial as part of a
continual data quality and transparency improvement programme. This is a key
assessment criteria for the production of Eurostat statistics.
Direct abstraction from freshwater resources
Datasets of abstraction information for England, Wales and Northern Ireland are available.
Whilst information on actual abstraction volumes exists for the majority of licences in
England and Wales, data improvement is on-going in Northern Ireland where actual
abstraction volumes are only available for major licences.
Data for Scotland are not readily accessible and it has not been possible to assess the
quality or coverage of this data. SEPA, who are responsible for abstraction regulation in
Red light – use of public water supply
- Data quality is variable, and requires gap filling and estimation to provide
national picture. Data are not readily accessible and are currently provided in a
variety of formats and resolutions. This makes combining the datasets for
consistent analysis complicated.
- There are many stakeholder relationships as data are held by individual
companies. Within each organisation there may be multiple contacts involved
with obtaining the correct data for analysis. This makes the collation of data a
lengthy and complex process.
3
Scotland, are known to be undertaking a programme of data improvement and therefore
this information may be available in the future.
Net abstraction (accounting for the volume that is not directly returned to the immediate
environment) has historically been calculated using assumed loss factors developed for
abstraction charging (other than where measured discharge data is available, which is in a
minority of cases). This is currently a significant weakness in the calculation of net
abstraction and a key recommendation from this study is to improve the use of discharge
data, in conjunction with abstraction data by sector to improve net abstraction estimates.
The current datasets are limited due to their design to monitor compliance with licence
conditions rather than for analysis of volumetric data. Opportunities exist in both the short
and longer term to improve the structure of the datasets to allow reporting.
- In the shorter term the structure of the abstraction datasets could be improved to
remove the existing ‘many to many’ relationships and repetition of volumetric data in
database tables.
- To assist with improving loss factors in the shorter term, case study areas where
abstraction and discharges can be aligned could be used to improve the loss
factors. Alternatively, if resources allowed, improved mapping to SIC using existing
datasets could be used to calculate net abstraction for all water bodies and RBDs.
However currently many discharges are not measured and therefore this is a
weakness in the approach – more accurate discharge data that is available through
regular reporting and collection of this information in a central database would
improve the estimates.
- EPR changes from 2017 onwards provide an opportunity to align information held
on abstraction and discharges. This would allow consistent information on sector
and location to be held in a single database and, hence, facilitate the calculation of
net abstraction by sector. WRGIS could be used to calculate these net abstraction
figures once both the abstraction and discharge data is aligned, or mapped, to SIC.
A substantial part of this mapping exercise has been undertaken for this project.
Public water supply
Data on mains water use by non-household sectors is held by individual water companies,
and is not currently collated into any central database. There is no regulatory requirement
for reporting of this information, or for the information to be held in a consistent manner.
Hence, the collation of this data for Eurostat reporting purposes presents a challenge in
both obtaining and aligning data. The key recommendations to enable future reporting are:
- To engage with the water industry with the aim of improving the quantity and quality
of sector level information held about customers. Ideally this should be to SIC2007
(at two-digit level for the manufacturing sector) in line with reporting requirements
for the Joint Questionnaire. Additionally, agreement should be reached with the
industry around the data processing steps – such as inclusion, or otherwise, of
4
meter under-registration adjustments – so that datasets provided from different
companies are consistent.
- In the longer term, the introduction of retail competition into the UK Water Sector
provides an opportunity to engage with water suppliers to allow relevant information
to be held centrally suitable for reporting purposes. Engagement with the Open
Water Programme to allow consideration of whether the requirements for EU
reporting should be incorporated into the data held by the Central Market Agency.
There are many stakeholders involved in the provision of this data, and a key focus needs
to be on nurturing and maintaining the relationships to enable this data provision at a
suitable resolution, and of a consistent quality for Eurostat reporting.
Water efficient devices
Water efficiency devices may be distributed to households through a number of routes,
including water companies, retailers, merchants and charities. However, the single largest
route to installation is considered to be through water companies who have a statutory
duty to promote water efficiency.
Water companies hold data on the number and type of water efficiency devices distributed
via different channels. There are industry derived estimates of how many of these devices
end up installed in homes based upon the distribution route. However, there is very little, if
any, evidence on the longevity of device installation as follow up with households is rare.
This means the overall impact of water efficiency device installation is unknown over
longer time periods.
- Information on number of devices installed, by type, could be regularly collected
from water companies to allow estimation of the impact of devices using the latest
available quantitative research on savings.
- Defra could work with the water industry to improve knowledge of uptake rates and
longevity of savings to allow improved estimates of the impact and business case
for water efficiency activities.
- To improve the overall estimates of how many water efficient devices are installed
Defra could engage with other distributors such as retailers and charities.
5
Part 1 - Freshwater Resources
Introduction
This part of the report details the work on freshwater resources providing data on hydro-
meteorological parameters. This data provides elements of a water balance as spatially
aggregated data on a specific reporting unit such as the United Kingdom or national level
(England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) or River Basin Districts levels.
Background
In order for Defra to populate Table 1 of the OECD/Eurostat Joint Questionnaire (JQ),
information on freshwater inflow and outflow is requested.
Data are collected continuously by “measuring authorities”1 and a hydrological year
summary, the “UK Hydrological Review”, is published annually through collaboration
between the Centre of Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) and the British Geological Survey
(BGS). The review presents rainfall, evaporation and soil moisture deficits provided by the
Met Office, river flows, groundwater and surface reservoir stocks data with monthly and
annual analysis. This overview of water resources status as part of the National
Hydrological Monitoring Program (NHMP) could be used to fill in precipitation the JQ table
for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, though extracting information from
these publications may be a source of error. It is therefore advised that data is sourced
directly from those organisations participating in the production of the review to ensure
Quality Assurance of the data delivered e.g. avoiding error in the duplication of data.
An assessment of the data contained in the UK Hydrological Review has been made in
this study when raw data were not available. Financial support for this review is provided
by Defra, the Environment Agency (England) & Natural Resources Wales, the Scottish
Environment Protection Agency, the Rivers Agency (Northern Ireland) and the Office of
Water Services (OFWAT).
Other reporting obligations and their relationship to the JQ
In addition to the request to report under the Eurostat JQ, Member States also have legal
obligations to report progress with the implementation of EU Directives. The two Directives
particularly relevant to this study are the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
1 Environment Agencies (England), Natural Resources Wales, Scottish Environment Protection Agency,
Northern Ireland Rivers Agency, Met Office, Water Services Companies, Scottish Water, Northern Ireland Water and Northern Ireland Environment Agency.
6
(UWWTD) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD). For both these Directives reporting
templates have been developed and agreed between the Member States and the
European Commission. Electronic reports are uploaded to the Common Data Repository
(CDR)2 via the Water Information System for Europe (WISE)3 according to the deadlines
laid down in the Directive. Information is provided for each RBD, at various scales from
RBD to Water Body depending on the information required. Defra is currently responsible
for the provision of the information relating to the UK and relates to the JQ for wastewater
re-use (UWWTD) or for EEA Annual Management Plan in the State & Quantity of Water
Resources (EWN-4) which is developed in line with the JQ.
Defra are responsible (currently devolved to the Environment Agencies) for providing
information to Eionet, the European Environment Agency’s Information and Observation
Network4 which gathers data on freshwater resources availability, abstraction and use at
various spatial scales (Member States, River Basin District, NUTS 2) annually through the
WISE-SoE annual data flow. These data are provided voluntarily by the Member States
and are primarily used to formulate indicators, assess the state and trends of the water
resources, and monitor the progress towards the achievement of European policy
objectives as specified by the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) Annual
Management Plan (AMP) on water statistics.
The Eionet Reporting Obligations Database (ROD) contains information on all
environmental reporting obligations (mandatory and voluntary) that EEA member countries
have towards DG Environment, European marine conventions, Eurostat, OECD, UN,
UNECE, as well as the EEA itself. ROD itself does not contain any data but details when,
what and to whom data should be reported.
The voluntary Eionet reporting obligation for Inland waters5 consists of several tables of
statistics and includes Water Resources (tab. 1), Water Abstraction (tab. 2), Water Use
(tab. 3), Wastewater Treatment (tab. 4 – 7), Water Quality of Rivers and Lakes (tab. 8 &
9). Data is requested every 24 months with the next report due on 12/12/2014. However,
Eionet also includes associated reporting obligations for the State & Quantity of Water
Resources (EWN-4), Water emission quality (WISE-1).
The development of the reporting formats for the WFD, together with the development of
WISE, has led to the formalisation of the “report once, use many” principle. To this end,
the EEA and Eurostat are currently working together to identify how the information
required for the JQ can be pre-filled from information already reported (e.g. for the UWWT
Directive, and for water quantity), thus avoiding the need for Member States to provide the
information required again. For example, if countries report data for water quantity in 2013
(for Eionet, deadline 31 October 2013), this will be used to pre-fill the 2014 Eurostat/OECD
2 http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/184
3 http://water.europa.eu/
4 Eionet: http://www.eionet.europa.eu/about
5 http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/645
7
Joint Questionnaire and no additional Eurostat reporting would need to be done for this
parameter. However, an initial meeting with Defra indicated that the quality of the data
contained in WISE may need to be improved for this to be achieved for the UK.
Definition of freshwater
There is currently no international definition of what constitutes freshwater. Freshwater has
been defined by different bodies as water with less than 500 parts per million (ppm) of
dissolved salts, although some give higher upper salinity limits, e.g. 1000 ppm or
3000 ppm (Table 1). The SEEA-W stipulates that all inland water bodies, are included in
the water accounts regardless of their salinity level.
Table 16 Range of water salinity
Type of water Freshwater Brackish water Saline water Brine
Dissolved Salts
(ppm)
< 500
Alternative definition 1000 or
3000
500-3000 3000-5000 > 5000
If this provides a clear definition for surface water, this concept hardly applies to
groundwater and coastal aquifers where salinity increases gradually from freshwater to
sea water. The JQ DCM does not provide any indication on how to treat saline intrusion
from the coast in the account. This issue is however marginal in the UK and would not
necessarily result in a large change in the groundwater stock. The difference in the
estimation of the volume is probably more relevant when addressing saline groundwater at
the bottom of the aquifer, deep underground. The assessment of the transition zone
between deep saline water in aquifer formation and the maximum depth at which
freshwater and brackish water can be extracted. There is a need to provide more detailed
definition of freshwater, brackish water or sea water in the JQ and remove the discrepancy
currently embedded in the definition of fresh surface water (difference between rainfall and
evapotranspiration) and the available fresh water inland (surface and groundwater) which
is better described in terms of quality. The dilemma consists of selecting an appropriate
quality parameter that qualify the water as freshwater resource without excluding polluted
inland water but excluding brackish and sea water (saline).
Alternatively, natural water has been defined in the UNSD Central Product Classification
(CPC) as product code 18000 and includes potable and non-potable water, suitable for
further use, including treated water (e.g., from desalination plants, water treatment plants),
untreated water (e.g., obtained directly from natural sources) but also includes used water
suitable for further use which could be interpreted as freshwater as sea water is
distinguished separately as product 16200. The Eurostat's Concepts and Definitions
6 American Meteorological Society (2000), UNESCO (1985) and Venice system (1959)
8
Database (CODED7) distinguishes fresh surface water as “waters of rivers, streams, lakes,
ponds and tanks and other enclosures where the water has a constantly negligible salinity”
without defining what negligible is; and sea water as “water where the salinity is high and
not subject to significant variation”. Fresh ground water has been defined as “fresh water
which is being held in, and can usually be recovered from, or via, an underground
formation. All permanent and temporary deposits of water, both artificially charged and
naturally, in the subsoil, of sufficient quality for at least seasonal use. This category
includes phreatic water-bearing strata, as well as deep strata under pressure or not,
contained in porous or fracture soils. For purposes of the Joint Questionnaire, ground
water includes springs, both concentrated and diffused, which may be subaqueous”. An
economic limitation for the depth that can be extracted could also be used to limit the
amount of fresh groundwater reserves. Discussion with BGS seems to indicate that such
limit currently stands at 200m below mean sea level.
The Environment Agency standards for chloride, the main chemical species contributing to
salinity, in freshwater is set to 250 ppm (EA, 1999) and a general quality of groundwater
body of 187,5 ppm (River Basin Districts Typology, 2009) is currently applied in England
and Wales. Similar values are applied for freshwater in Scotland and Northern Ireland and
it is supposed that the River Basin Districts Typology apply also to Scotland and Northern
Ireland. This threshold could be used to distinguish freshwater and sea water in the
accounts for groundwater.
Structure of the JQ Table 1
The water cycle model is described in the Data Collection Manual for the OECD/ Eurostat
Joint Questionnaire on Inland Water (JQDCM, 2008) and follows a mass balance
approach whereby inflows to territories (precipitation and external inflow) are balanced
against outflows (evapotranspiration, outflow to sea and neighbouring territories,
consumptive use) to identify water available for recharge of aquifers and for annual
abstraction. This is shown in Figure 1 and the data collection table shown in Figure 2. The
definitions provided with the JQ are given in Table 2.
Items (9) – Recharge to aquifer, (10) – Groundwater available for annual abstraction and
(11) Freshwater resources 95% of years, LTAA have not been researched as these were
excluded from the scope of work by Defra.
7
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_NOM_DTL_GLOSSARY&StrNom=CODED2&StrLanguageCode=EN
9
Figure 1 Schematic illustration of the water cycle as captured by the JQ 8
Figure 2 Table 1 Joint Questionnaire on Inland Water
8 Data Collection Manual for the OECD/Eurostat Joint Questionnaire on Inland Waters Tables 1 – 7.
Concepts, definitions, current practices, evaluations and recommendations. Version 2.21. Online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/coded_files/OECD_ESTAT_JQ_Manual_version_2_21.pdf
Other territories
Sea
Other territories
P (1)
ETa (2) C (12)
Qi (4)
Qo,s (6)
Qo,n (7)
P - ETa=D (3)
R (9)
(6) + (7) = (5)
Territory
(106 m³) LTAA 2007 2006
INLAND WATERS
Groundwater available for annual abstraction (10)
TOTAL FRESHWATER RESOURCES (8) [=(3)+(4)]
Recharge into the Aquifer (9)
TABLE 1: Freshwater resources (a)
of which: into the sea (6)
Contact:
Freshwater resources 95 % of years, LTAA (11)
YOUR FOOTNOTES
of which: into neighbouring territories (7)
Total actual outflow (5)
Precipitation (1)
Actual evapotranspiration (2)
Internal Flow (b) (3)
Actual external inflow (4)
10
Table 2 Parameters to derive indicators of the water cycle model
Parameter Identification
No.
Definition
Precipitation 1 Total volume of atmospheric wet precipitation
(rain, snow, hail, etc.).
Actual Evapotranspiration 2 Total volume of evaporation from the ground,
wetlands and natural water bodies and
transpiration of plants.
Internal Flow 3 Total volume of river runoff and groundwater
generated, in natural conditions, exclusively by
precipitation into a territory. Note: Calculated
from precipitation (1) less actual
evapotranspiration (2).
Actual External Inflow 4 Total volume of actual flow of rivers and
groundwater, coming from neighbouring
territories.
Total Actual Outflow 5 Actual outflow of rivers and groundwater into
the sea plus actual outflow into neighbouring
territories. Note: Calculated from (6) and (7).
Actual Outflow to the sea 6 The total volume of actual outflow of rivers and
groundwater into the sea.
Actual Outflow to Neighbouring
Territories
7 The total volume of actual outflow of rivers and
groundwater into neighbouring territories.
Total Freshwater Resources 8 Total volume of water added from outside to
the zone of saturation of an aquifer.
Recharge to Aquifer 9 Total volume of water added from outside to
the zone of saturation of an aquifer.
Groundwater Available for
Annual Abstraction
10 Recharge less the long term annual average
rate of flow required to achieve ecological
quality objectives for associated surface water.
Freshwater Resources 95 per
cent of time
11 Portion of the total freshwater resource that
can be depended on for annual water
development during 19 out of 20 consecutive
years, or at least 95 per cent of the years
included in longer consecutive periods.
11
Data gathering approach
Data providers
Statistics are provided by the following two official sources of data:
- Meteorological Office (Met Office)
- Centre of Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) and British Geological Survey (BGS) who are
jointly responsible for the maintenance of National Hydrological Monitoring
Programme (NMHP) which are based on the National River Flow Archive (NRFA)
and National Groundwater Level Archive (NGLA).
The Met Office and CEH are funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
(BIS) and are best placed to provide robust and official national statistics.
Discussion with the Met Office indicated that the Met Office Surface Exchanges Scheme
(MOSES) model would be the best data source to derive water statistics at River Basin
District level. However, some additional work would be required to be completed by the
Met Office to extract and record data at this resolution. Alternatively, the current dataset
based on the Meteorological Office Rainfall and Evapotranspiration Calculation System
(MORECS) model can be used to derive UK and national statistics. MORECS is currently
used by CEH to produce the UK Hydrological Review. It has not been possible to obtain
data (MORECS or MOSES) for this project directly from the Met Office due to licensing
issues.
Discussions with CEH indicate that the most suitable current data sources would be the
National River Flow Archive (NRFA). CEH have access to an extensive river flow gauge
network (Table 3). The NRFA is the UK’s focal point for river flow data and covers over
1000 gauging (monitoring) stations.9. Other carefully selected monitoring points could be
used in the future to refine estimates of some of the statistics for the JQ.
Table 3 CEH monitoring station network categories source of data
Categories Description
Service Level
Agreement (SLA)
Gauging stations that are covered by the NRFA Service Level Agreement
with the Measuring Authorities and Defra, for which flow data requires an
additional level of validation.
Benchmark Subset of gauging stations deemed to have a near-natural regime, with little
impact of human activity.
9 Hydrometry in the UK: NRFA Categories and Networks
http://www.ceh.ac.uk/data/nrfa/hydrometry/categories.html
12
Categories Description
National
Hydrological
Monitoring
Programme (NHMP)
Gauging stations included within the National Hydrological Monitoring
Programme, used for contemporary reporting of hydrological conditions and
water resources status.
Hiflows Pooling Gauging stations that are deemed by the Hiflows-UK project as suitable for
inclusion within pooling groups, and for QMED estimation, when using the
Flood Estimation Handbook statistical procedures for flood frequency
estimation. Measurements of floods of a high magnitude are considered to
be of good quality.
Hiflows QMED Gauging stations that are deemed by the Hiflows-UK project as suitable for
estimation of the median annual flood. Measurements of floods of low
magnitude are considered of good quality, but the station is not considered
suitable for pooling.
The National Groundwater Level Archive (NGLA) is the UK’s focal point for groundwater
level information and the latest UK Hydrological Review (2010) uses 28 boreholes
representative of the principal aquifer types (Chalk, Jurassic limestones, Permo-Triassic
sandstones, Magnesian limestone, and Carboniferous limestone). Similarly, the addition of
borehole monitoring data could refine the estimate of groundwater stocks. The information
collected from the BGS would help the provision of statistics related to items (9), (10) and
(11) which are outside the scope of this work.
Methodology
The methodology set out in Table 4 which is extracted from the Data Collection Manual
(Nagy et al., 2008) and shown schematically in Figure 1 should be used to populate the
Joint Questionnaire on Inland Waters using data sourced from the Met Office, CEH and
BGS.
An example based on dataset supplied is provided for England. It should be highlighted
that the datasets supplied were already aggregated at national level (England, Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland) and at UK level. It has therefore not been possible to
produce water statistics at the River Basin District scale.
13
Table 4 Methodology to derive indicators of the water cycle model
Parameter Identification
No.
Proposed measurement or calculation
Precipitation 1 Annual data can be sourced from the Met
Office Rain Radar Data from the NIMROD
System or Met Office Integrated Data Archive
System (MIDAS) Land and Marine Surface
Stations Data (1853-current). Data at national
level is available in the UK Hydrological
Review and may be used to produce national
statistics, provided source is acknowledged
i.e. Met Office.
Actual Evapotranspiration 2 The current recommended methodology to
estimate actual evapotranspiration is the FAO
Penman-Monteith equation. The calculation
undertaken by the Met Office in MORECS
uses the same formulation (Hough, 2003).
Internal Flow 3 Internal flow = (1) – (2) to provide a first
estimate of the internal flow
Actual External Inflow 4 Actual external inflow are estimated using the
same methodology as for item (3) but only
taking into account those rivers that
significantly contribute to the flow across
boundaries.
Actual Outflow to the sea 6 Actual outflow to sea are assessed using river
flow monitoring data from CEH for surface
water. A selection of flow gauges could be
used summing the flows as appropriate at
national level or for each RBD.
Actual Outflow to Neighbouring
Territories
7 Actual outflow to neighbouring territories are
assessed using the same method as (5)
above.
Total Actual Outflow 5 Total Actual Outflow = (6) + (7)
Total Freshwater Resources 8 Total freshwater resources = (3) + (4)
Notes to Table:
The Penman-Monteith equation calculates evapotranspiration and is described by
the FAO in its technical note FAO56 (FAO, 1998).
‘Recharge into aquifer’, ‘Groundwater Available for Annual Abstraction’ and ‘Freshwater
Resources 95 per cent of time’ (Table 2) are outside the scope of this work as defined by
Defra. However, some information has been gathered during the project that helps
14
establish data availability and the methodology that could be used to derive statistics in the
future.
‘Recharge into aquifer’ (Table 2, Identification No. 9) is derived from an estimate based on
the monitoring of a selection of representative boreholes within RBDs.
The methodology used in this report, which is also used by CEH, follows the
recommendation from Eurostat and uses the equation ∑ where R (m3) is
the net recharge to the aquifer, n is the number of stations in the aquifer, wi (m2) is the
area represented by station i, Δhi (m) is the change of the groundwater table during the
year, and, Si is the storage coefficient of the aquifer in the neighbourhood of station i. The
main difficulty in using this equation is to assess the area represented by the station.
Alternatively, expert knowledge from hydrogeologists is required to establish that a
borehole is representative of a certain area and how the measurement at this location
should be interpolated to represent the aquifer. The current assessment is undertaken by
BGS.
Aquifers that can be assessed comprise the Chalk, Lower Greensand, Permo-Triassic
Sandstone, and the Magnesian, Jurassic and Carboniferous Limestones, for which storage
coefficients are readily available from the British Geological Survey. Currently 28
boreholes from the archive have been chosen as index wells. Data for these boreholes are
compiled monthly to provide a continually updated picture of national and regional trends
and variations in groundwater resources (the Hydrological Summary for the UK). These
data are also available from BGS or CEH.
‘Groundwater Available for Annual Abstraction’ (10), currently calculated by BGS, could be
assessed using the same method as for the recharge into aquifers but by defining a
minimum water table height based on ecological damage or technical constraints. This
methodology would need to be developed in conjunction with the Environment Agency and
Natural Resources Wales.
‘Freshwater Resources 95 per cent of time’ (11) could be estimated by establishing an
annual 5 percentile minimum flow and subtracting this value from the annual estimate.
Based on data provided and collected from publicly available sources, the following
example is reproduced establishing statistics for England. Figures in Table 5 are in 106m3.
Precipitation (1) in the UK Hydrological review for England over 2007 is reported as
934 mm of rain. The area for England reported by the Office of National Statistics (SAM,
2012) as item D) AREACHECT = Area to mean high water measurements in hectares is
13044880.1505 ha. Using the data sources and transformations described in Table 6, we
calculate that the precipitation in England is:
( )
( )
15
Actual evapotranspiration (2) in millimetres (mm) was provided directly by CEH
aggregated at UK or national level at a monthly period interval.
For 2007, actual evapotranspiration was calculated using:
∑ ( )
Internal flow (3) is defined by Eurostat as the difference between (1) and (2). Hence:
Actual external inflow (4) data has not been provided and cannot be calculated based on
the data provided, i.e. directly measured flow gauge data are required. This data is held by
CEH and the Actual external inflow (4) could be calculated by CEH as it is related to item
(7) Outflow to other territories.
Total actual outflow (5) has been provided by CEH aggregated to UK and national spatial
scale at a daily time step in m3/s. Outflow to the sea (6) and outflow to other territories (7)
were not provided as separate data items.
For 2007, total actual outflow was calculated using the daily actual outflow provided by
CEH (outflow number 600044) in cubic metres per second:
∑ ( )
The total freshwater resources (8) is the sum of (3) and (4). Because the actual external
inflow is not available, the total freshwater resources cannot be accurately reported as
there are transfer flows to/from Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland’s international River
Basin Districts would require liaison with the Republic of Ireland’ Environment Agency.
16
Table 5 Completed JQ Table 1 for England (2007 to 2010) using available data
TABLE 1: Freshwater resources (a) ENGLAND
(Figures in 106m3)
2007 2008 2009 2010
Precipitation (1) 121839.2 128100.7 114142.7 94836.3
Actual evapotranspiration (2) 76703.9 76534.3 70755.4 65328.8
Internal Flow (b) (3) [=(1)-(2)] 45135.3 51566.4 43387.3 29507.5
Actual external inflow (4)
Total actual outflow (5) 58724.2 63209.6 49363.8 41254.1
of which: into the sea (6)
of which: into neighbouring territories (7)
TOTAL FRESHWATER RESOURCES (8)
[=(3)+(4)]
Data sources
The aim of this project was to identify and compile data from a range of bodies for the
provision of freshwater resources statistics. Suitable data sources were identified (river
flows from CEH, meteorological data from the Met Office) and used to test out the
methodology in Table 3.
The list of sources and associated data which should enable Defra to update and complete
defined estimates yearly is given in Table 4.
‘Recharge to Aquifer’ (9), ‘Groundwater Available for Annual Abstraction’ (10), and
‘Freshwater Resources 95 per cent of time’ (11) have been excluded from the scope of
work. ‘Consumptive water use’ (12) can be derived using the method provided in the
Water Use Statistics Net Abstraction task report described in Part 2.
Table 6 Data source to populate the JW for the UK
Data items Source Spatial
extent
Temporal
extent
Unit
provided
Unit
transformation
Improvement
Precipitation
(1)
Met Office
(MORECS)
40 km2
grid
Monthly mm Precipitation
(m) × Area
(km)2 =
106 m3
Met Office
(MOSES)
5 km2 grid
Actual evapo-
transpiration
(2)
Met Office
(MORECS)
40 km2
grid
Monthly mm AE (m) ×
Area (km)2 =
106 m3
Met Office
(MOSES)
5 km2 grid
17
Data items Source Spatial
extent
Temporal
extent
Unit
provided
Unit
transformation
Improvement
Internal flow
(3)
Calculation Water
body
level or
RBD
Monthly 106 m3 (1) - (2) N/A
Actual external
inflow (4)
CEH Water
body
level or
RBD
Daily m3/s Actual
external
inflow (m3/s)
* 86400 /
1000000 =
106 m3
Additional
number of
catchment
index
Total actual
outflow (5)
Calculation Water
body
level or
RBD
Daily m3/s (6) + (7) N/A
Of which into
Sea (6)
CEH Water
body
level or
RBD
Daily m3/s Total actual
outflow to
sea (m3/s) *
86400 /
1000000 =
106 m3
Additional
number of
catchment
index
Of which into
neighbouring
countries (7)
CEH Water
body
level or
RBD
Daily m3/s Total actual
outflow into
neighbouring
country
(m3/s) *
86400 /
1000000 =
106 m3
Additional
number of
catchment
index
Standard Area
Measurements
Office of
National
Statistics
UK and
National
- hectares 1 hectare
(ha) is
0.001 square
kilometre
(km2)
N/A
Data from the Office of National Statistics assessing UK and national areas was used10.
10
https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BCA8F54A8-0597-42C4-BE9E-45F34274D965%7D
18
Data to verify this methodology was sought from CEH and the Met Office (Appendix A).
A number of steps to obtain this data were taken:
The specific MORECS data required is not covered by Open Government licence
and the cost is therefore the same for both Government and private sector
customers. Data would cover the period 1961 – 2013.
The use of sample MORECS (resolution 40 km x 40 km) or MOSES (resolution
5 km x 5 km) data in the same format as the full data set was explored to validate
the methodology.
The methodology was verified with datasets provided at a UK and National level. However,
it has not been possible to verify the methodology to produce river basin district water
statistics using original dataset produced by CEH or the Met Office.
To ensure the dataset format complies with current international standards for the delivery
of statistics to Eurostat, it is recommended that the SDMX11 standards that have recently
been published by Eurostat are used in the future to facilitate data exchange between the
supplier of data (CEH, BGS and Met Office) and the receiving organisations (Defra and
Eurostat).
Data quality and data gaps
Assessment of data quality is important due to the number of data sets that are required to
be combined to produce an overall picture of freshwater availability. A data quality
assessment framework was devised and can be found in Appendix B. This allows data
confidence assessment in line with the JQ DCM.
For other statistics of freshwater use (i.e. net abstraction from freshwater sources, use of
public water supply, and use of water efficient devices), data has been assessed against
this framework and issues highlighted. It has not been possible to review the CEH/ BGS or
Met Office data to assess quality and gaps at an RBD level because only a nationally
aggregated dataset were provided.
A limitation to this study is the lack of access to base data that have been used to assess
UK and national dataset though some limited checks indicates the methodology
recommended by Eurostat is similar to the methodology used by authors of the UK
hydrological Review (CEH, BGS and Met Office).
11
Statistical Data and Metadata exchange: SDMX is an initiative to foster standards for the exchange of statistical information.
19
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
1. Two organisations in the UK already collect data suitable to support the
development of UK environmental-economic accounting statistics. These are:
- Centre of Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), a public-sector research centre part of
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)12; and
- Met Office, a Trading Fund within the Department for Business Innovation and
Skills (BIS), and member of NERC.
2. The methodology proposed, following the recommendation of the JQ DCM,
provides the statistics required by the Eurostat Joint Questionnaire on Inland
Waters (JQ). Currently available datasets meet the spatial and temporal resolution
required for reporting water statistics at a UK and UK nation level.
3. The methodology could not be confirmed or tested to produce statistics at River
Basin District (RBD) resolution. However, limited effort on the part of CEH would be
required to produce water statistics at RBD level.
4. If statistics are required at RBD scale, it is suggested that CEH, BGS and the Met
Office collaborate to provide the necessary data at this spatial resolution. It is
recommended that data of higher spatial resolution from MOSES be obtained from
the Met Office in preference to MORECS. This will improve the accuracy of derived
precipitation and actual evapotranspiration statistics reported at RBD scale.
Recommendations
In reporting data from CEH/ Met Office to Defra it is recommended that:
Statistical Data and Metadata Exchange (SDMX) standards are used to facilitate
data exchange between the supplier of data (CEH and Met Office) and the receiving
organisations (Defra and Eurostat).
Temporal scale and spatial scale should be clearly stated when providing water
statistics. Small (catchment-) scale data is favoured as it allows aggregation of
statistics without loss of information to larger geographic areas.
The groundwater available for annual abstraction and recharge to aquifer should be
reported in 106 m3 of water to facilitate reporting to Eurostat.
A formal agreement between Defra and the Met Office for accessing meteorological
data should be sought.
12
NERC is a non-departmental public body funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).
20
In addition, it is recommended that a formal audit of the methodology using actual raw data
is undertaken to provide Defra with confidence in publishing the water statistics.
References
American Meteorological Society. June 2000. Glossary of Meteorology “Water that
contains less than 1000 mg l-1of dissolved solids.”
Nagy, M., Lenz, K., Windhofer, G., Fürst, J. and Fribourg-Blanc, B. (2008) Data Collection
Manual for the OECD/Eurostat Joint Questionnaire on Inland Waters. Version 2.2.
Luxembourg: Eurostat.
UNESCO (1995) The International System of Units (SI) in Oceanography - Report of
IAPSO working group on Symbols, Units and Nomenclature. Technical Paper 45. Paris:
UNESCO.
United Nations Statistical Division (2002) System of Environmental - Economic Accounting
for Water, Report ST/ESA/STAT/SER.F/100. New York: United Nations. Available at
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaw/seeawaterwebversion.pdf
Food and Agricultural Organisation (1998) Crop evapotranspiration - Guidelines for
computing crop water requirements - FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Rome: FAO.
Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/X0490E/X0490E00.htm
Environment Agency (1999) Drinking Water Standard in application of Council Directive
98/83/EC.
River Basin Districts Typology (2009) Standards and groundwater threshold values (Water
Framework Directive (England and Wales) Directions 2009.
Hough, M. (2003) A historical comparison between the Met Office Surface Exchange
Scheme-Probability Distributed Model (MOSES-PDM) and the Met Office Rainfall and
Evaporation Calculation System (MORECS). Crown Copyright.
Venice system (1959). The final resolution of the symposium on the classification of
brackish waters. Archo Oceanogr. Limnol., 11 (suppl): 243–248.)
21
Appendix A Request for data
Letter outline to CEH (sent by Defra in July 2013)
Dear Sir, Madam,
This letter is to confirm that WRc are currently working on behalf of Defra to establish
River Basin District water statistics to report to Eurostat.
To carry out this work would require the following information to establish a water balance
in the UK.
The time period for which the data should be provided is a calendar year (1st of January to
31st of December). Monthly and yearly statistics would be required. The time period
covered by this study starts in 2003 to the latest available calendar year that has been
validated.
All 190 MORECS squares (40*40km) covering England, Wales and Scotland should be
provided and Northern Ireland should also be included.
Elements that should be included are:
1. Total rainfall (mm)
2. Actual Evapotranspiration (mm)
3. Potential Evapotranspiration (mm)
4. Hydrologically Effective Rainfall / Runoff (mm)
A long term average should complement this data and should span over previous 20
consecutive years.
Note: In order to ensure year on year repeatability of the process to calculate these
statistics, we would appreciate data format that is transmitted remains the same. We
would also like to ensure which type of Quality Assurance procedure has been made.
Please send this data directly back to WRc at < >.
22
Letter outline to the Met Office (sent by Defra in July 2013)
Dear Sir, Madam,
This letter is to confirm that WRc are currently working on behalf of Defra to establish
River Basin District water statistics to report to Eurostat. To carry out this work would
require the following information to establish a water balance in the UK.
The Centre for Ecology & Hydrology already provides Defra with statistical information of
river flow at National Level. A similar dataset would be required with monthly and annual
flows for each selected river for a calendar year. The time period covered by this study
starts in 2003 to the latest available calendar year that has been validated.
The flow data would be extracted from the National River Flow Archive following a
template that would ensure year on year repeatability of the process by Defra. A GIS files
should be provided with the location of the flow gauges measurements a referenced to the
time series file.
Other flow gauges data may be required to be included at a later stage and it would be
required that another GIS files containing all current operating flow gauges are provided. A
monthly and yearly estimate of flow for each of these flow gauges would also prove useful.
The average long term flow should be provided over a preceding period of 20 consecutive
years.
Please send this data directly back to <>
23
Appendix B Data quality assessment framework
The data quality assessment framework was developed to offer a consistent approach to
review of data on public water supply, direct abstraction and freshwater resources. This
appendix review the six attributes to data quality that should be expected to publish
statistics namely Relevance, Completeness, Accuracy, Timeliness, Comparability, and
Accessibility.
Relevance
Definition:
Relevance is the degree to which statistics meet current and potential users’ needs. It
refers to whether all statistics that are needed are produced and the extent to which
concepts used (definitions, classifications etc.) reflect user needs.
Guidance:
Does the data provide the type of information that is required for reporting? Does data
have to be provided for a standard area or classification (e.g. By RBD, Standard Industrial
Classification)? Do the statistics reflect this? Is the statistic exactly what is requested or is
it a surrogate measure?
WRc assessment:
Data from Met Office, CEH and BGS are relevant to the production of water statistics and
water statistics produced using these data comply with UNSD and Eurostats guidance on
the production of water statistics. These organisations hold a good network and model
capacity to produce water statistics at UK and national level. However, the current
organisations cannot report water statistics to Defra at River Basin District level and further
work is required. It should be highlighted that the procedure for assessing the quality of the
dataset delivered is currently not sufficient for the production of National Statistics
published by the Office of National Statistics.
Completeness
Definition
Completeness is the extent to which all statistics that are needed are available. It is usually
described as a measure of the amount of available data from a statistical system
compared to the amount that was expected to be obtained.
24
Guidance
Does the dataset or sample cover the entire the population of interest? Are certain parts of
the population missing (causing under-coverage), or out-of-scope parts of the mistakenly
included (causing over-coverage)? Are there any data gaps or missing values? Could
there be any double-counting? Has weighting been used to adjust for over- or under-
representation of particular groups within the sample?
WRc assessment
The main components of the JQ Table 1 are available. Using the MORECS dataset from
the Met Office will generate inaccuracies for River Basin District water statistics due to the
coarse assessment of rainfall and evapotranspiration (40x40 km2 grid). This will be
embedded in any subsequent dataset that is derived from MORECS. MOSES operates at
a finer spatial resolution and it is expected to be more appropriate for future reporting at
River Basin District scale.
Accuracy
Definition:
Accuracy in the general statistical sense denotes the closeness of computations or
estimates to the exact or true values.
Guidance:
Have all data fields been completed correctly and consistently? Are there any systematic
errors that might bias the data? Are random errors known and quantified (i.e. what is the
level of precision and confidence)?
WRc assessment
Some uncertainties in river flows exist as approximately 70% of the mainland is measured
using flow gauges and calculation of the total river outflow at national level is based on
index catchments. Similarly, MORECS squares do not cover the whole UK. The Met Office
also demonstrated that MOSES datasets are superior to MORECS datasets as they offer
higher resolution (time and space) and a better representation of reality through a better
representation of the processes of evaporation, drainage and soil moisture (Murray, 2004).
Figure 3 (left) shows the spatial distribution of index catchments across Great Britain.
Figure 3 (right) also shows the geographical extent and relatively coarse reporting grid of
the MORECS model.
25
Figure 3 Spatial distribution of Index catchment and spatial extent of MORECS tile
(Northern Ireland is not included)
Timeliness
Definition
Timeliness of information reflects the length of time between its availability and the event
or phenomenon it describes.
Guidance
Are the data current and up-to-date? How frequently are the data updated? Many data
generation processes (e.g. water company business plans and river basin management
plans) operate on a cyclical rather than on-going basis.
26
WRc assessment
Data contained in the UK hydrological review are published yearly, but relate to an annual
period up to 3 years prior to the year in which they are reported (i.e. data pertaining to
2009 were made available in 2012). However, if an agreement for data exchange is
obtained between data suppliers and Defra, this delay in obtaining these annual statistics
may be reduced.
Comparability
Definition
Comparability is the extent to which differences between statistics from different
geographical areas, non-geographical domains, or over time, can be attributed to
differences between the true values of the statistics.
Guidance
Are the data comparable between different geographical areas, through time, and between
domains? For example, it can be difficult to legitimately aggregate, compare and interpret
data between the four UK nations due to differences in regulatory reporting requirements.
WRc assessment
To avoid the issue of comparability, UK-wide organisations have been used to source
datasets ensuring comparability. Aggregation of datasets has been tested at UK and UK
nation scales. This assessment indicates that an appropriate methodology is used. A
similar methodology would need to be developed by the data suppliers to produce water
statistics at RBD level in the future. Differences between national and RBD boundaries are
reproduced in Figure 4.
27
Figure 4 Difference between RBD and National boundaries
28
Accessibility
Definition
Accessibility refers to the physical conditions in which users can obtain data: where to go,
how to order, delivery time, clear pricing policy, convenient marketing conditions
(copyright, etc.), availability of micro or macro data, various formats (paper, files, CD-
ROM, Internet etc.), etc.
Guidance
Who owns the data? Is it commercially sensitive or confidential? What format is the data
held in? Is there a fee or is the data available free of charge? Are there any licencing or
data protection restrictions or other legal barriers to using the data?
WRc assessment
Data are not widely accessible. Rainfall and evapotranspiration data (via MORECS or
MOSES) are only available for a fee and under licence from the Met Office. CEH and BGS
datasets are available through the National Hydrological Monitoring Program.
29
Appendix C Summary of data in Joint Questionnaire Table 1
A spreadsheet has been provided separately and presents results for England, Wales,
Scotland, Northern Ireland and the UK. The file contains an explanatory note to produce
UK and National water statistics and the base data that was provided or sourced.
Water statistics have been calculated for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
and summed up to produce Table 1 UK figures. It shows that small discrepancies will arise
when scaling up and down at UK, National and subsequently RBDs levels. The main
source of error would be in the spatial coverage of the different methods used to calculate
elements of the JQ Table.
Figures are provided in million cubic meters.
TABLE 1: Freshwater resources (a) UK 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Precipitation (1) 292,292 316,187 284,961 231,974 Actual evapotranspiration (2) 136,206 136,312 131,620 120,984 126,192 139,959
Internal Flow (b) (3) [=(1)-(2)] 156,086 179,875 153,340 110,990 Actual external inflow (4)
Total actual outflow (5) 167,774 193,501 163,434 130,242 164,895 189,072
of which: into the sea (6) of which: into neighbouring territories (7) TOTAL FRESHWATER RESOURCES (8)
[=(3)+(4)] Recharge into the Aquifer (9) Groundwater available for annual
abstraction (10) Freshwater resources 95 % of years, LTAA
(11)
From Eurostat13
2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009
Precipitation (1) 303,966 328,562 307,871 -11,674 -12,375 -22,910
Actual evapotranspiration (2) 130,666 128,747 137,994 5,540 7,565 -6,374
Internal Flow (b) (3) [=(1)-(2)] 173,300 199,815 169,877 -17,214 -19,940 -16,537
Actual external inflow (4) 5,838 8,830 7,231 -5,838 -8,830 -7,231
Total actual outflow (5) 179,138 208,645 177,107 -11,364 -15,144 -13,673
From UK HR 2007 2008 2009 2010 Precipitation (1) 292,267 316,195 296,418 232,202 Difference with Table 1 25 -8 -11,457 -228
Based on CEH datasheet (GB) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Total actual outflow (5) 163,097 183,910 151,860 121,005 147,926 183,801
Difference with Table 1 4,677 9,592 11,574 9,237 16,969 5,271
13
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/environment/data/database Renewable freshwater resources (env_wat_res)
30
Part 2 - Direct Abstraction and Discharges in UK Freshwaters
Introduction
Background
The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is requested by Eurostat
to report UK a variety of statistics on water. WRc was commissioned by Defra to
investigate the availability and quality of the some of these statistics across the UK and to
advise on options for filling any gaps.
As part of this section on abstraction and discharges net abstraction is calculated. Net
abstraction is the difference between the volume of water abstracted from a given area
and the volume of water discharged back into the same area, in a given time period. Area
may be variously defined as water body, RBD or nation.
Scope of this document
This document reports on the availability and quality of data available to estimate net
abstraction, by industrial sector, from freshwater sources in the UK. Following discussion
with Defra, it was agreed that the proposed approach to calculating net abstraction be
trialled in one region, making best use of information and data already held by WRc. In
fact, this report documents methods and estimates of sectoral net abstraction for each
RBD in Northern Ireland, and for the North West RBD in England. It concludes by making
short, medium and long-term recommendations for improvements in the approach to
calculating and reporting direct abstraction and net abstraction statistics by sector to
Eurostat.
Statistics on reported (actual) direct freshwater abstraction (excluding the impact of
discharges) are presented for England and Wales in JQ Table format, in Appendix D.
These statistics have been derived using the methods employed in this study. Estimates of
net abstraction contained in this report are preliminary only and not intended for reporting
to Eurostat but to illustrate a possible method for deriving net abstraction figures by sector.
This report is accompanied by data licenced to Defra by the Environment Agency which
has been post-processed to accommodate alignment and reporting of water use against
the NACE2 classification system for industrial sectors (equivalent to the 2007 version of
the UK’s Standard Industrial Classification system (SIC2007)).
31
Data sources
England and Wales
For this study, the Environment Agency has been able to provide data and information for
both England and Wales however it should be noted that in the future this will change.
Historical data on abstractions and discharges from water bodies in Wales are currently
held centrally by the Environment Agency but will transfer to Natural Resources Wales
which took over responsibility for the management of water abstraction licenses in Wales
in April 2013.
Direct abstraction
Data on abstractions from water bodies in England are held by the Environment Agency.
Before the Water Act 2003, licences were required for all non-exempt activities irrespective
of volume. The above Act deregulated abstractions of up to 20 m3 per day (with effect from
April 2005) hence licences are now only required for abstractions greater than 20 m3 per
day.
Licensed quantities are held against the licence holder’s details as maximum permitted
values for a calendar year or day on the National Abstraction Licensing Database (NALD).
Data on the location of each abstraction point is also held by licence number.
Until recently, all licence holders had to report the actual volume they abstracted to the
Environment Agency in a data return. With the introduction of risk-based regulation of
abstraction licensing, from 1 April 2008, data returns were no longer required for licences
authorising less than 100 m3 per day. From financial year 2008/09, returns were also re-
based from calendar years to an April-March financial year. Actual abstraction volumes are
held against licence number and a description of the purpose to which the water is used.
However, not every abstraction purpose has an associated abstraction volume.
Discharges to water bodies
Data on permitted quantities to discharge to a water body are held by the Environment
Agency. Permitted (licensed) discharge volumes are held in one database (Water
Information Management System or WIMS) against the licence holder’s details; actual
discharged volumes from discharge licence holders who are required to report a volume
are stored in the Environment Agency’s system for recording raw water resources
monitoring data (WISKI). The locations of discharge points are also recorded against
discharge licence number.
The Environment Agency’s Consented Discharges to Controlled Waters with Conditions
dataset (Ref: AfA184) contains details on all discharges licensed under the Environmental
Permitting Regulations (EPR) in England and Wales, including discharge site type,
32
discharge location, discharge licence holder details, effluent type, and consent conditions
(maximum daily flows or other authorised quantities). Discharge site type code can be
related to industrial sector and hence SIC (see Appendix C). According to the Environment
Agency, measured volumetric discharge data are available for around 5% of the total
number of discharge licences, of which most are large wastewater treatment works
(WwTW) or major industrial sites.
To expedite delivery of this research in the time available, pre-existing volumetric
discharge data from SIMCAT environmental water quality models were used with
permission, in preference to the collation of discharge data from source Environment
Agency databases. With additional resources, further use and interrogation of discharge
datasets may yield greater accuracy in the estimation of net abstraction.
Net abstraction estimates from WRGIS
The Environment Agency operates a geographic information system (GIS) to manage and
report its water resources information (WRGIS). This was used recently to produce revised
water stress maps for England and Wales showing the extent to which the current level of
abstraction in some areas of the UK is unsustainable. To estimate water stress, WRGIS
was used to calculate the net abstraction from each water body in England and Wales.
The source data for WRGIS includes NALD, WIMS/WISKI and Catchment Abstraction
Management Strategy (CAMS) registers.
Owing to the paucity of measured discharge data available, in most cases, net abstraction
is calculated in WRGIS by multiplying the recorded abstraction volume by a loss factor
relevant to the purpose for which the water is being used. This loss factor is a surrogate for
estimating the actual volume discharged back into the same water body. The choice of
loss factor applied to an abstraction volume is defined by an associated purpose code.
NALD uses a proprietary description of purpose codes which include, for example,
‘Evaporative Cooling’, and ‘Process Water’. Each purpose has one of four possible loss
factors, as defined for use in the Environment Agency Abstraction Charges Scheme (Table
7).
Table 7 Definition and interpretation of loss factors described in the Environment
Agency Abstraction Charges Scheme
Loss factor description Loss factor Percentage of volume abstracted which is discharged
back to the same water body
High loss 1 0% (wholly consumptive)
Medium loss 0.6 40% (partially consumptive)
Low loss 0.03 97% (substantially non-consumptive)
Very low loss 0.003 99.7% (non-consumptive)
33
Total abstraction and discharge volumes and resultant net abstraction figures by water
body were obtained under licence from the Environment Agency on 15 October 2013 for
review. Net abstraction is not currently available from WRGIS by industrial sector.
Northern Ireland
Direct abstraction
Data on abstractions from water bodies in Northern Ireland are held by the Water
Management Unit at the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). Abstraction is
controlled by the Water Abstraction and Impoundment (Licensing) Regulations (Northern
Ireland) 2006. As in England and Wales, those wishing to abstract over 20 m3 per day
must hold an abstraction licence.
Data on actual and authorised volumes were supplied for 2011/2012 by NIEA on
30 August 2013.
Discharges to water bodies
Consents to discharge trade or sewage effluent directly to water bodies are managed by
the Water Management Unit at NIEA on behalf of the Department of Environment
(Northern Ireland). Data relating to discharge locations and consented discharge flows are
available from NIEA. With the exception of large wastewater treatment works and major
industrial users, few data on actual volumes discharged are available.
To expedite delivery of this research, volumetric discharge data from four pre-existing
SIMCAT environmental water quality models covering Northern Ireland, already held by
WRc, were used with permission.
Scotland
Data on abstractions from, and discharges to, water bodies in Scotland are held by the
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). Such activities are licensed and
governed by the Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR) 2011. CAR is a risk-based
approach to control with four tiers of authorisation for all controlled activities.
Those wishing to abstract less than 10 m3 per day from freshwaters need not contact
SEPA but must comply with the appropriate General Binding Rules (GBR). Those wishing
to abstract at least 10 m3 per day from freshwaters must register their activities with SEPA.
Those abstracting more than 50 m3 per day must hold a licence. Complex licences are
required for those who wish to abstract more than 2000 m3 per day. Licence holders are
required to report the actual volume they have abstracted annually via an online data
return to SEPA.
34
The type of authorisation which applies to discharges depends upon the nature and
volume of effluent discharged. With few exceptions, all sewage and trade effluents must
be registered with SEPA. All organic or sewage effluents with a daily organic load in
excess of 15 population equivalent (pe) require a simple licence; a complex licence is
required for loads in excess of 100 pe. All other trade effluents discharging more than
10 m3 per day or a daily load more than 15 pe must hold a licence. A complex licence is
required for larger discharges (greater than 100 pe or greater than 100 m3 per day).
Special conditions apply to fish farms.
At time of writing, neither abstraction nor discharge data had been made available for
Scotland for use in this study. WRc is aware that a project has begun in SEPA to draw
together abstraction statistics for Scotland for reporting to the EEA. It is hoped that,
following this exercise, abstraction data may be more readily accessible and validated for
future use.
Data pre-processing and quality assessment
Method
Each dataset was qualitatively assessed for three major elements of data quality:
data coverage
data completeness
data accuracy
Major concerns on any of the above are set out below as each dataset is discussed in
turn. The analysis method by which results were obtained introduces additional uncertainty
which is discussed in the Method for estimating net abstraction section.
England and Wales
Direct abstraction data from NALD
Data on actual and authorised abstraction volumes were obtained under licence from the
Environment Agency. Discharge point locations (as XYs) were obtained under separate
licence. Each discharge point was assigned to a WFD water body by spatial query.
Direct abstraction data from United Utilities CAMS Register
Data on abstraction volumes and locations are also available from UU’s CAMS register. A
mid-2011 extract was readily available to WRc and used with permission.
35
Pre-existing water body and RBD GIS polygon data layers were used to assign all
abstraction locations to the relevant Water Framework Directive (WFD) water body and
RBD.
The data include water body impact point coordinates and these were used in preference
to licence point coordinates. The dataset includes an anomalously sited abstractor in
Devon. This point was retained since it may be as a result of mis-recorded co-ordinates,
but in any case can be safely ignored as its contribution to RBD statistics will be small.
The total volume abstracted in North West RBD according to UU CAMS was somewhat
less than the total actual abstraction volume reported from Environment Agency data
returns in NALD. As NALD already holds a form of sector code, NALD data were used in
preference to UU CAMS abstraction data for subsequent pilot calculations of net
abstraction in the North West RBD.
Discharge data from SIMCAT models
Discharge data originally provided by United Utilities (UU) to WRc to produce SIMCAT
models were re-used with permission to assess the feasibility of a bottom-up approach to
estimating discharge volumes by sector and to assess likely data quality issues with
discharge data for England and Wales.
Discharge data for the UU area are based on four SIMCAT models (Solway, Lakes, Ribble
Mersey and part of the Dee) produced for UU by WRc in 2012. The figure used to estimate
volumes discharged per annum is the SimFlowMean value. This is in megalitres per day
(Ml/d) and has been converted to millions of cubic metres per year for further analysis.
Where actual values had been supplied by UU or the Environment Agency they were
included in the SIMCAT model in preference to estimated values. Where estimation was
unavoidable, Table 8 records how mean discharge flows were estimated from dry weather
flow (DWF) or flow to full treatment (FFT) values described in the discharge permit.
Table 8 Derivation of discharge flows for UU SIMCAT models where measurements of
flow are not available
Source of discharge Estimate of discharge flow where
flow consent available
Estimate of discharge flow where
consent value not available
Wastewater
treatment works
SimFlowMean = DWF x 1.3;
DWF = FFT / 3
DWF = pe * 240 l/pe/d
Other (including
private discharges)
SimFlowMean = maximum
consented flow
-
Pre-existing water body and RBD GIS polygon data layers were used to assign all
discharge locations to the relevant WFD water body and RBD.
36
A discharge type coding system present in the SIMCAT models for Northern Ireland was
made available such that all discharge licences which fell within North West RBD could be
coded to an industrial sector. This coding system was specifically designed for coding
discharges and is appended for reference in Appendix C.
A lookup table was created by WRc to link discharge type codes to SIC2007 (equivalent to
NACE Revision 2) in order that a 2-digit SIC2007 sector code could be applied to each
discharge licence. This provides data at the level required to comply with reporting
requirements for the Joint Questionnaire on Inland Waters (JQ).
The need for manual categorisation of sector increases the probability of systematic error.
Aggregation of results to larger areas and broader industry categories is likely to reduce
this effect somewhat.
Net abstraction estimates from WRGIS
WRc received WRGIS summary data on total volumes abstracted from and discharged to
each water body in England and Wales under licence from the Environment Agency on 15
October 2013. Given the different methods and assumptions used to derive WRGIS
outputs, it has not been possible to corroborate statistics for abstraction and discharge
volumes assigned to water bodies derived from other datasets held by WRc (abstraction
locations and actual/licensed volumes from NALD, SIMCAT modelled discharges).
It is understood from discussions with Environment Agency staff that the net abstraction
figures were derived by using the average of six years of actual abstraction volumes as
reported to the Environment Agency via annual data returns relating to 2002-2007, from
which was subtracted the sum of all discharge flows. The component discharge flows
which are summed are a mixture of measured discharges and – where measured flows
are not available – a suitable multiplier of dry weather flow or proportion of maximum
permitted discharge flows, much in the same way as is done in SIMCAT water quality
modelling. In many cases, however, discharge flows are synthesised from the use of loss
factors applied to abstraction volumes, as described in the dataset chapter above. All
public water supply abstractions are assigned a loss factor of 1 (wholly consumptive). This:
(a) avoids double-counting the volume of wastewater discharged post-consumer use
(b) acknowledges that little if any volume abstracted for public water supply is likely to
be discharged in the same water body whence it came.
As stated above, one of four loss factors are applied to an abstraction volume according to
its associated purpose, as defined in NALD. Whether or not the values of the loss factors
applied to each NALD purpose are correct, this approach benefits from the fact that it can
be easily and systematically applied using only abstraction data.
If it is likely that the use of loss factors is to continue, at least in the short term, it is WRc’s
view that a review of loss factors should be carried out, by sector if possible, to minimise
any systematic error. This could be applied to a test area (one RBD, or CAMS area, say)
37
where good quality abstraction and discharge data are known to exist. Ultimately,
however, a true estimate of net abstraction can only be reached when a greater proportion
of discharge volumes are reported and recorded, and assigned to the relevant industrial
sector, preferably by the licence holder.
Northern Ireland
Abstraction
Data on abstraction licences were sourced from the NIEA Compliance and Enforcement
Database. A licensed volume is available for 355 of the 592 licences in the database.
Location data are available for 314 licences and was supplied separately in spreadsheet
format by NIEA. The spreadsheet provided lists the location and source type (ground or
surface water) of each abstraction point for each licence, however only quotes the
maximum authorised abstraction volume for the licence. The abstraction locations and
source types relating to the remaining 278 abstraction licences are unknown, meaning
abstraction totals reported at RBD level should be treated with caution.
Actual reported abstraction volumes are only available for 161 of the licences. The most
comprehensive year of returns is 2012, though where data were not available for 2012, a
total was calculated from the most recent data return available (either 2011 or 2010).
Unfortunately, there is no explicit link between abstraction point and reported volume,
meaning that reported volumes are only of use at the licence level.
Geospatial analysis of the abstraction point data revealed that 25 licences have
abstraction points in multiple water bodies. Given the format of the monitoring data, it is
not possible to assign an abstraction volume to an individual abstraction point. This means
that some assumptions must be made to calculate abstraction at water body level, the
main assumption being that the abstracted volume is proportional to the number of points
within a water body.
The number of licences without a reported volume is such that a total at any scale would
be such a large underestimate it would be of little use. To derive a more useable figure,
where a licence does not have a reported volume, a volume for that licence should be
estimated using the national average of the proportion of the maximum authorised volume
used for the relevant sector. However, 270 licences remain with no authorised volume or
where a particular sector has no reported volume at a national level. This means that the
total abstracted volume at a national scale will be underestimated.
With no sector detail available, each licence requires manual assignment to the 2-digit
SIC2007 sector classification based upon licence holder name. This will have introduced a
coding error to perhaps 5% of licences which would be resolved ultimately by requiring
licence holders to state both the nature of business and purposes for which they use the
water they abstract.
38
Discharges
In order to simulate typical rather than permitted volumes, and on advice from NIEA, WRc
re-used existing SIMCAT model data it held for the province to simulate average discharge
flows. Four individual SIMCAT models were used to cover the entirety of Northern Ireland:
North West Foyle; North West Erne; The North East; and Neagh Bann. For each model, a
table was produced as part of the model output which held a modelled discharge flow
against an individual location.
As in SIMCAT models used to estimate the discharge flows in United Utilities region, the
simFlowMean model parameter was extracted to represent discharge flows and hence
annual volumes for each known discharge location. For the purposes of this study for
Northern Ireland, simFlowMean is a time-averaged simulated flow for the period January
2005 and December 2010. Table 9 summarises the quality of the data used to generate
simulated flows for discharges in Northern Ireland.
Table 9 Quality of discharge flow data in Northern Ireland SIMCAT models
Quality of Flow Data Explanation / Comments Number of Discharge
Points
Measured flow data
provided
Measured data were provided for the
discharge site
324
Observed data taken
during Water Quality
Sampling
Normal flow / effluent instrument not
available, flow data recorded during a
water quality observation
7
Consent Maximum
Daily Volume used to
derive mean flow
The maximum permitted discharge
volume per day was treated as a 99
percentile from which the mean was
calculated.
96
DWF Consent used to
derive mean flow
The DWF discharge consent was
multiplied by 1.3
37
No flow data available –
assumed value used
No flow data was available for the
discharge site. A default flow value
agreed by the NIEA (typically 0.005
Ml/Day) was used in these cases.
38
No flow data available -
population equivalent
used to derive mean
flow
Population Equivalent value multiplied by
0.22 to get a flow in place of observed or
measured flow data
19
39
Discharge locations as supplied were snapped to river reaches14 and hence WFD water
body IDs. In most cases the horizontal difference between originally supplied and
modelled locations was a few tens of metres. This is insignificant if results are to be
reported at RBD level.
Scotland
At time of writing, no data were available for data quality assessment or estimation of net
abstraction for Scotland. It is known that SEPA began a project in October 2013 to better
estimate actual abstraction from their current data holdings in order to report the State and
Quantity of Water Resources (annual reporting obligation EWN-4) to the European
Environment Agency (EEA)15. This reporting obligation overlaps that of the Joint
OECD/Eurostat Questionnaire on Inland Waters (JQ), next due for submission in
December 201416. Countries which report abstractions and discharges under EWN-4 will
have their submission to Eurostat pre-populated and will not have to report to Eurostat
separately. From previous discussions with SEPA, despite on-going data improvement
programmes, coverage is incomplete for abstraction data returns. In keeping with much of
the rest of the UK, data on actual discharge flows are restricted to major wastewater
treatment works and large trade effluent discharges. The remaining discharge flows are
typically modelled using consented values or proportions thereof.
Method for estimating net abstraction by sector
This section sets out a series of stepwise method statements for estimating net abstraction
by sector for three regions of the UK.
England and Wales
Figure 5 presents the challenge in estimating net abstraction by RBD by sector in England
and Wales using existing datasets.
14
The recorded locations may not be directly on a modelled river reach, therefore they are assigned to the closest reach. 15
http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/184 16
http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/645
40
Figure 5 Schematic of current data holdings and estimation method for net abstraction
in England and Wales
The fundamental issue is that there exists at least two primary source datasets of
abstraction and discharge information for England and Wales, each of which has been
designed to monitor compliance with licence conditions, rather than for estimating volumes
by industrial sector.
The left of the diagram relates to abstraction data, the right discharge data. In this
example, we are exploring abstraction and discharges in two water bodies (WB) which
split the diagram into upper (WB1) and lower (WB2) portions. The two water bodies are
wholly contained within a single River Basin District (RBD).
Starting with the left side of the diagram, one abstraction licence is shown (solid ellipse)
which has, in the general case, more than one reported abstraction volume, VA by
abstraction purpose, C. To complicate matters further in the actual NALD dataset studied,
41
not all licence purposes have a uniquely recorded abstraction volume for that purpose.
Importantly, these abstraction volumes by purpose (VAC) are linked to the licence, not the
location of abstraction (marked by ‘X’s).
NALD has its own three-tier sector and purpose coding system which can, with some
effort, be matched to SIC2007. This was carried out by WRc in the present study for all
NALD codes relating to what NALD refers to as ‘Industrial’ abstraction licences17. Where a
one-to-one relationship exists between NALD and SIC2007 Division (2-digit SIC), the
assignment is straightforward (see Appendix B). This assignment process is represented
by the double-headed arrow near the top left of Figure 5 which links the abstraction licence
and its multiple purposes to a NALD/SIC lookup table. Despite the development of this
lookup table, manual screening and allocation of SIC codes was still required for over
3000 individual abstraction records.
Even with the use of web resources to determine the most appropriate SIC code, errors
will have been introduced as a result of the need for manual interpretation. In addition to
errors potentially introduced to the sectorisation of abstraction licences to SIC2007, it is
noted that a small minority of abstraction licences (< 5%) appear to have been coded
originally to the wrong NALD purpose. However, this error rate is probably no more
significant that potential errors introduced in the NALD to SIC mapping exercise, and
estimating volumes abstracted by each NALD purpose where a single reported volume is
reported against a licence within multiple purposes.
Following this coding exercise, a number of complex database queries and a small
number of assumptions were required to elicit a sensible figure for a total abstraction
volume by water body by sector. This is represented in Figure 5 by the solid line linking the
licence reported volume to a split of SIC codes by water body.
The right hand side of the diagram represents the data holdings relating to discharges to
water bodies. Here, a discharge licence with a known volume (measured or consented) is
represented by the dashed bounded area. The dashes have been used to indicate that
WRc did not use the licence information but instead sectorised individual discharge
locations directly using SIMCAT model data. This is indicated by the solid lines connecting
a SIC code to each discharge location (marked with an ‘X’). Again, this was a manual
process for all trade effluent discharges (all records relating to wastewater treatment works
discharges were easily identifiable by name and could be coded directly to SIC 37).
The method used to estimate net abstraction can be summarised in the following steps:
17
Other licences relate to ‘Amenity’ and ‘Environmental’ abstractions. These are asserted to be largely non-consumptive – in other words, much of the water which is abstracted for these purposes is held in the same water body and discharged locally with minimal impact on net abstraction. This may not be the case for all, but a simplification was necessary to ensure that the most important, Industrial, abstractions were prioritised for assessment and coded correctly. The identity of ‘Amenity’ and ‘Environmental’ abstractions as coded by NALD has been retained in the preliminary results of net abstraction reported in this study by use of the codes AM and EN respectively.
42
1. Import licensed and reported abstraction volumes from Environment Agency
dataset into two separate tables in a processing database.
2. Identify the number of unique combinations (“purposes”) of NALD Primary
Description/Secondary Description/Use Description across all recorded data
returns, for each reporting year provided (in this case, 2008-2011).
3. Devise a coding system for this combination of sector and use description fields (a
“purpose code string”).
4. Assign a purpose code string to each record in the data returns table.
5. Identify the subset of licences where there is a reported volume for every purpose.
6. For each purpose code string, calculate the proportional split across purposes for
the subset identified in step 5.
7. Identify those licences which have many abstraction purposes to a single reported
abstracted volume. Where possible, sub-divide the licence volume according to the
proportion split across purposes found in step 6, by matching on purpose code
string.
8. Assume a null data return in year x is zero where the data return in both the
preceding and following years is zero.
9. Import abstraction location data – including the abstraction location to abstraction
licence number lookup table – to a GIS package.
10. Split GIS abstraction location table by geometry type (points, licences, polygons).
11. Project the abstraction points and lines tables in GIS and use a spatial join to assign
one or more water body IDs to each abstraction point or line, allowing for
lines/polygons to cross multiple water bodies.
12. Project abstraction polygons using a custom written script and assign one or more
water body IDs to each abstraction polygon using a spatial join, allowing for the
polygon to cross multiple water bodies.
13. Locate and migrate SIMCAT output discharge tables to single database table
Identify and merge the simulated discharge tables from the SIMCAT model
databases. Columns required are simFlowMean against easting and northing.
14. Assign sector types using SIMCAT discharge type table and SIC codes
Sectors can be assigned using the table of discharge types which is included in the
SIMCAT model databases. Use a discharge type-SIC lookup table (Appendix C) to
assign SIC code.
15. Convert discharge flows in Ml per year to annual discharge volume in m3 per year.
16. Identify the water body in which each discharge point is located
17. Assign RBD to discharge points using RBD to water body lookup table.
18. Calculate net abstraction for each sector in each RBD using:
(∑ ) (∑ )
where:
ΣVAC is the sum of reported abstraction volumes for a sector C in RBD n;
ΣVDC is the sum of discharge volumes for a sector C in RBD n.
43
Northern Ireland
Figure 6 presents the method of estimating net abstraction by RBD by sector for Northern
Ireland using existing datasets.
Figure 6 Schematic of current data holdings and estimation method for net abstraction
in Northern Ireland
Key components of Figure 6 are as described for Figure 5 but with one key difference:
Manual assignment of SIC classifications were required for each abstraction licence
using the limited licence holder information available. Fortunately, data volumes are
relatively low making this a manageable if still cumbersome method.
The method used to estimate net abstraction can be summarised in the following steps:
1. Locate and migrate SIMCAT output discharge flow data.
44
Identify and merge the simulated discharge tables from the SIMCAT model
databases. Data columns required are simFlowMean against easting and northing.
2. Assign sector types using SIMCAT discharge type table and SIC codes.
Sectors can be assigned using the table of discharge types which is included in the
SIMCAT model databases. Use a discharge type to SIC look up table (Appendix C)
to assign SIC code.
3. Identify the water body in which each discharge point is located in using a spatial
join in a GIS package.
4. Convert discharge flows from Ml per day into an annual volume in m3 per year
5. Identify the water body in which each abstraction point is located using a spatial join
in a GIS package.
6. Assign RBD to discharge points using an RBD to water body lookup table
7. Import the UniversalData and MonitoringDataLog tables from the
Final_Compliance-Enforcement database into a central processing database.
8. Calculate the total reported abstraction volume per year for each licence.
9. Assign sector types to abstraction points using discharge type code and SIC code
lookup tables.
10. Identify those licences which relate to hydropower and those which abstract from
costal or estuarine sources using GIS and licence information.
11. Where abstraction points for a licence are located in more than one water body,
assume the volume abstracted from each water body under that licence is
proportional to the proportion of the total number of abstraction points related to the
licence which are located in that water body, i.e.
where:
VWB1,L1 is the volume abstracted from water body WB1 under licence L1;
VL1 is the volume abstracted under licence L1;
NAP,WB1 is the number of abstraction points located in water body WB1;
NAP,L1 is the number of abstraction points related to licence L1.
12. Calculate the average proportion of the licensed volume which is reported to be
used, for each SIC sector, for all of Northern Ireland. Use this to estimate a reported
volume for licences which have not reported a volume.
13. Assign a RBD to each licence using a RBD to water body lookup table.
14. Calculate net abstraction for each sector in each RBD using:
(∑ ) (∑ )
45
where:
ΣVAC is the sum of reported abstraction volumes for a sector C in RBD n;
ΣVDC is the sum of discharge volumes for a sector C in RBD n.
Scotland
WRc has not been able to assess the feasibility of the following proposed method since
data have not been available for testing. However, in discussions with SEPA
representatives and in view of the on-going data improvement exercise at SEPA, WRc
recommends that the following approach be undertaken to estimate the net abstraction by
sector:
1. Confirm with SEPA the top ten sectors which abstract from the freshwater
environment in Scotland. These are likely to include hydropower generation,
aquaculture, spray-irrigated agriculture, distilling, brewing, other food and drink
manufacturing and processing, and leisure and tourism such as golf courses.
2. Identify with SEPA the top ten sectors which discharge to freshwaters. Add to list
generated from step 1 if not already represented.
3. Identify sample water bodies with good data quality as determined by SEPA,
preferably with a high proportion of the most prevalent sectors identified following
step 2.
4. Calculate total abstraction volumes by sector from each water body in the sample
from data returns.
5. Estimate total discharge volumes by sector from each water body in the sample
using a combination of discharge returns (where available) and discharge permit
values.
6. Estimate net abstraction by sector for each sample water body by subtracting (5)
from (4).
7. Identify number of licences in each sector, in each water body and RBD, across
Scotland.
8. Using data from Scottish case study water bodies and/or other RBDs of the UK,
estimate what proportion of the licensed values are abstracted, by sector.
9. Using data from Scottish case study water bodies and/or other RBDs in the UK,
estimate what proportion of the volume of water abstracted by a sector in an RBD is
discharged by that sector to the same RBD.
10. Extrapolate results from Scottish case study water bodies to Scottish RBDs using
statistics generated from steps 7 to 9.
46
Initial estimates of net abstraction by sector
England and Wales: North West RBD
Table 10 to Table 12 report preliminary results for directly abstracted volumes, discharged
volumes and the resultant net abstraction figure, by industrial sector, for one RBD in
England and Wales. The figures are preliminary because of the following reasons which
introduce uncertainty:
Abstraction and discharge volumes are coded to sector using different coding
systems. Although both coding systems were mapped by WRc to SIC2007,
systematic errors both within and between coding systems will be present.
Actual abstraction volumes may not be linked explicitly to one or more purposes in
NALD. A method of apportionment had to be used in the case where a total volume
was abstracted for more than one purpose, but where the split between purposes
was unknown.
Abstraction locations are linked to a licence but not a purpose. There is no direct
link between abstraction location and purpose and hence a link had to be inferred.
Abstraction locations are represented by single points, lines or polygons. Where a
line or polygon intersected two water bodies, the abstraction location was assigned
to both water bodies. This could introduce an error at where one of the water bodies
was in a different RBD to the other, although this source of error is expected to be
small.
Discharge and abstraction volumes exclude the smallest discharges and
abstractions which need not be licensed and/or reported.
Discharge volumes are simulated mean flow values, some of which are based on
maximum permitted discharge flows.
47
Table 10 Estimated volume directly abstracted from and discharged to freshwater
bodies in North West RBD, in 2011, by SIC2007 sector
SIC SIC description
North West RBD
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
01 Crop and animal production, hunting
and related service activities
1.54 0.38 1.16
03 Fishing and aquaculture 5.49 10.51 -5.02
05 Mining of coal and lignite 0 0.29 -0.29
07 Mining of metal ores 5.92 0 5.92
08 Other mining and quarrying 2.60 1.34 1.26
10 Manufacture of food products 1.81 2.38 -0.57
11 Manufacture of beverages 2.37 0 2.37
13 Manufacture of textiles 1.59 0.18 1.41
16
Manufacture of wood and of products of
wood and cork, except furniture;
manufacture of articles of straw and
plaiting materials
0 <0.01 -0.01
17 Manufacture of paper and paper
products
7.23 3.32 3.91
19 Manufacture of coke and refined
petroleum products
3.26 0.88 2.38
20 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical
products
90.29 22.06 68.23
21
Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical
products and pharmaceutical
preparations
1.62 0 1.62
22 Manufacture of rubber and plastic
products
<0.01 0 <0.01
23 Manufacture of other non-metallic
mineral products
3.98 8.43 -4.45
24 Manufacture of basic metals 0.19 <0.01 0.19
48
SIC SIC description
North West RBD
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
25
Manufacture of fabricated metal
products, except machinery and
equipment
<0.01 0 <0.01
26 Manufacture of computer, electronic and
optical products
0.27 0 0.27
27 Manufacture of electrical equipment 0 <0.01 -0.01
28 Manufacture of machinery and
equipment n.e.c.
0.03 0 0.03
29 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers
and semi-trailers
0 0.4 -0.40
30 Manufacture of other transport
equipment
0 0.02 -0.02
32 Other manufacturing 0.07 0.11 -0.04
35 Electricity, gas, steam and air
conditioning supply
276.47 0 276.47
36 Water collection, treatment and supply 389.49 0.37 389.12
37 Sewerage 0 1,145.47 -1145.47
38 Waste collection, treatment and disposal
activities; materials recovery
0.17 0.38 -0.21
39 Remediation activities and other waste
management services.
1.40 0.09 1.31
41 Construction of buildings <0.01 0 <0.01
42 Civil engineering 0 <0.01 -0.01
43 Specialised construction activities <0.01 0 <0.01
46 Wholesale trade, except of motor
vehicles and motorcycles
0.06 0.12 -0.06
47 Retail trade, except of motor vehicles
and motorcycles
0.02 0.04 -0.02
49 Land transport and transport via
pipelines
0.01 0.01 <0.01
50 Water transport 0.89 0 0.89
49
SIC SIC description
North West RBD
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
51 Air transport 0 0.94 -0.94
52 Warehousing and support activities for
transportation
0.47 <0.01 0.47
55 Accommodation <0.01 0.69 -0.69
56 Food and beverage service activities 0.14 0.26 -0.12
62 Computer programming, consultancy
and related activities
1.87 0 1.87
64 Financial service activities, except
insurance and pension funding
<0.01 0 <0.01
68 Real estate activities 0.08 0 0.08
69 Legal and accounting activities 0 0 0
72 Scientific research and development 0.23 0 0.23
81 Services to buildings and landscape
activities
0.07 0 0.07
82 Office administrative, office support and
other business support activities
0.33 0 0.33
84 Public administration and defence;
compulsory social security
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
85 Education 0.12 0.16 -0.04
86 Human health activities 0.24 <0.01 0.23
90 Creative, arts and entertainment
activities
1.45 0 1.45
91 Libraries, archives, museums and other
cultural activities
0.37 0.04 0.33
93 Sports activities and amusement and
recreation activities
0.37 0.12 0.25
96 Other personal service activities 0.19 <0.01 0.18
97 Activities of households as employers of
domestic personnel
0 <0.01 -0.01
50
SIC SIC description
North West RBD
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
98
Undifferentiated goods- and services-
producing activities of private
households for own use
<0.01 69.14 -69.14
Sub-totals by SIC code 802.72 1,268.16 -465.43
Table 11 Additional estimated volume directly abstracted from and discharged to
freshwater bodies in North West RBD, in 2011, by non-SIC sector
Co
de
Code Description (Description Source) North West RBD
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
AM Amenity (NALD Primary Description) 15.05 <0.01 15.05
EN Environmental (NALD Primary
Description) 1.11 <0.01 1.11
TF Domestic Sewerage Discharge
(SIMCAT Discharge Code) <0.01 7.31 -7.31
Sub-totals by other non-SIC code 16.16 7.31 8.76
Table 12 Total estimated volumes directly abstracted from and discharged to
freshwater bodies in North West RBD, in 2011, by non-SIC sector
Statistic for North West RBD Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Volume contribution from all sectors coded to
SIC
915.54 1268.16 -352.62
Volume contribution from all other sectors 28.95 7.31 21.64
Total volume contribution for all sectors 818.88 1,275.47 -456.59
This method estimates that North West RBD has a negative net abstraction of 331 million
cubic metres per year. Investigation at the SIC division level highlights some apparent
anomalies: the total annual sewerage discharge volume (SIC 37) is estimated to be three
times the abstracted volume for water supply (SIC 36). Allowing for the effect of rainfall in
combined sewer systems, one might not expect discharges to exceed public water supply
51
abstractions by more than a factor of two. However, as stated previously, the figure for
water supply abstraction ignores inter-RBD transfers. In addition, there are activities which
are exempt from abstraction licensing which will not have been included in this total. Some
allowance for such activities is made in WRGIS, however.
This exercise also highlights the potential for error when assigning abstractions and
discharges to 2-digit SIC. Given the quality of the data currently available, the systematic
errors introduced in translation between sector coding systems would be reduced if sector
volumes were reported using single-character codes (SIC sections) instead. However, the
requirements of reporting to Eurostat require at least 2-digit mapping for selected sectors.
Northern Ireland
Table 13 and Table 14 report preliminary results for directly abstracted volumes,
discharged volumes and the resultant net abstraction figure, by industrial sector, for each
RBD in Northern Ireland. Table 15 presents total figures for Northern Ireland. Note that,
owing to the absence of location information for some of the licences, it has not been
possible to assign all abstraction volumes to one of the three RBDs in Northern Ireland.
For a similar reason, separate figures are not reported by source type (ground or surface
water) as this is only available where the abstraction location is known. Hence the figures
for all NI presented in Table 15 are more reliable since they do not rely on location data to
assign abstraction volumes to an RBD.
Hydropower abstractions were removed from the analysis due to insufficient information
on discharge flows from such schemes based on the data provided by NIEA. It is
acknowledged that run-off-river schemes can have significant impacts on local river levels
during periods of abstraction. However, from a water body net abstraction perspective it is
considered likely that these schemes will discharge a similar volume as abstracted to the
same water body and thus have minimal effect on water body net abstraction. The total
volumes abstracted and discharged will be underestimated as a result of the exclusion of
hydropower.
In addition to the above comments, the figures are necessarily preliminary owing to the
following sources of uncertainty:
Abstraction and discharge volumes are coded to sector using different coding
systems. Although both coding systems were mapped by WRc to SIC2007,
systematic errors both within and between coding systems will be present.
Reported volumes – where available – are linked to an abstraction point. Although
the locations of most abstraction points are known, the referencing system for
abstraction points in the compliance database does not indicate which XY location
the volume refers to.
52
There is insufficient information on the type of use of water at each point to assign a
SIC sector code to each point. Hence SIC codes have to be applied at the licence
level.
Where abstraction points for a licence are located in more than one water body, the
volume abstracted from each water body under that licence is assumed to be
proportional to the proportion of the total number of abstraction points related to the
licence which are located in that water body, i.e.
where
VWB1,L1 is the volume abstracted from water body WB1 under licence L1;
VL1 is the volume abstracted under licence L1;
NAP,WB1 is the number of abstraction points located in water body WB1;
NAP,L1 is the number of abstraction points related to licence L1.
Discharge and abstraction volumes exclude the smallest discharges and
abstractions which need not be licensed and/or reported.
Discharge volumes are simulated mean flow values, some of which are based on
maximum permitted discharge flows.
Discharge flows are time-averaged over the period 2005-2010; abstraction volumes relate
to the period 2010-2012.
53
Table 13 Estimated volume directly abstracted from and discharged to freshwater bodies in each Northern Ireland RBD, in 2011, by
SIC2007 sector
SIC SIC
description
Neagh Bann RBD North Eastern RBD North Western RBD
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
01 Crop and animal
production,
hunting and
related service
activities
48.06 0.11 47.95 13.71 0 13.71 2.44 0.13 2.30
03 Fishing and
aquaculture 49.53 <0.01 49.53 0.07 0.14 -0.08 0.26 0 0.26
07 Mining of metal
ores <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01
08 Other mining and
quarrying 0.01 1.10 -1.08 0.01 0.06 -0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01
10 Manufacture of
food products 0.65 2.28 -1.63 0.68 0.37 0.31 0.20 1.57 -1.37
11 Manufacture of
beverages 0.11 0 0.11 8.96 0 8.96
12 Manufacture of
tobacco products 0 0.04 -0.04
13 Manufacture of
textiles 0.12 0.89 -0.77 0 0.23 -0.23
54
SIC SIC
description
Neagh Bann RBD North Eastern RBD North Western RBD
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
16 Manufacture of
wood and of
products of wood
and cork, except
furniture;
manufacture of
articles of straw
and plaiting
materials
0 0.02 -0.02 0 0.04 -0.04
20 Manufacture of
chemicals and
chemical
products
0 1.28 -1.28 0.01 0 0.01
22 Manufacture of
rubber and plastic
products
0.09 0 0.09 0.06 0 0.06
23 Manufacture of
other non-metallic
mineral products
0.05 0.89 -0.84 0.01 0.04 -0.03 0.51 0.03 0.48
26 Manufacture of
computer,
electronic and
optical products
0.02 0 0.02
55
SIC SIC
description
Neagh Bann RBD North Eastern RBD North Western RBD
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
28 Manufacture of
machinery and
equipment n.e.c.
0.46 0 0.46 <0.01 0.29 -0.29 0 0.18 -0.18
29 Manufacture of
motor vehicles,
trailers and semi-
trailers
0.05 0 0.05
30 Manufacture of
other transport
equipment
0 1.13 -1.13
36 Water collection,
treatment and
supply
120.00 0 120.00 68.78 0 68.78 59.89 0 59.89
37 Sewerage 0 62.18 -62.00 0 38.28 -38.00 0 17.40 -17.00
38 Waste collection,
treatment and
disposal
activities;
materials
recovery
<0.01 0.09 -0.08 0 <0.01 -0.01
41 Construction of
buildings 0 0.04 -0.04 0 0.15 -0.15
56
SIC SIC
description
Neagh Bann RBD North Eastern RBD North Western RBD
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
42 Civil engineering <0.01 2.89 -2.88 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.19 -0.19
43 Specialised
construction
activities
<0.01 0 <0.01 0.04 0 0.04
46 Wholesale trade,
except of motor
vehicles and
motorcycles
<0.01 0.38 -0.38 0.02 0 0.02
52 Warehousing and
support activities
for transportation
0 0.07 -0.07
55 Accommodation 0.01 0.05 -0.04 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.03 -0.03
68 Real estate
activities 0 0.05 -0.05
85 Education 0.02 0 0.02 0.07 0.09 -0.02 0 0.04 -0.04
86 Human health
activities 0.03 0 0.03 0.12 0 0.12 0 0.34 -0.34
57
SIC SIC
description
Neagh Bann RBD North Eastern RBD North Western RBD
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
91 Libraries,
archives,
museums and
other cultural
activities
0 <0.01 <0.01
93 Sports activities
and amusement
and recreation
activities
0.35 0 0.35 0.02 0 0.02 <0.01 0.02 -0.02
96 Other personal
service activities 0.05 0 0.05
98 Undifferentiated
goods- and
services-
producing
activities of
private
households for
own use
0.55 0.15 0.40 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0.13 -0.13
58
Table 14 Additional estimated volume directly discharged to freshwater bodies in each Northern Ireland RBD, in 2011, by non-SIC
sector
Co
de
Code
description
Neagh Bann RBD North Eastern RBD North Western RBD
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
Discharge
(Mm3/year)
Net
Abstraction
(Mm3/year)
TF Domestic Sewerage
Discharge
(SIMCAT)
0 0.15 -0.15 0 0.78 -0.78 0 0.37 -0.37
Table 15 Estimated volume directly abstracted from and discharged to freshwater bodies in all Northern Ireland, by SIC2007 sector
SIC Code Description SIC
Code
Abstraction
(Mm3 / year)
Discharge (Mm3
/ year)
Net Abstraction (Mm3
/ year)
Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities 01 68.75 0.22 68.50
Forestry and logging 02 0 0 0
Fishing and aquaculture 03 49.85 0.14 49.71
Mining of metal ores 07 <0.01 0 <0.01
Other mining and quarrying 08 0.05 1.17 -1.12
Manufacture of food products 10 1.53 4.23 -2.69
Manufacture of beverages 11 9.07 0 9.07
Manufacture of tobacco products 12 0 0.36 -0.36
Manufacture of textiles 13 0.12 1.12 -1.00
Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except 16 0 0.56 -0.56
59
SIC Code Description SIC
Code
Abstraction
(Mm3 / year)
Discharge (Mm3
/ year)
Net Abstraction (Mm3
/ year)
furniture; manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting materials
Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products 20 0.01 1.28 -1.27
Manufacture of rubber and plastic products 22 0.16 0 -0.16
Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products 23 0.58 0.96 -0.38
Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products 26 0.02 0 -0.02
Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. 28 0.48 0.47 0.01
Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 29 0.05 0 0.05
Manufacture of other transport equipment 30 0 1.13 -1.13
Water collection, treatment and supply 36 249.06 0 249.06
Sewerage 37 0 117.86 -117.86
Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery 38 <0.01 0.09 -0.09
Construction of buildings 41 0 0.19 -0.19
Civil engineering 42 0.05 3.08 -3.03
Specialised construction activities 43 0.04 0 -0.04
Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles 46 0.03 0.38 -0.36
Warehousing and support activities for transportation 52 0 0.07 -0.07
Accommodation 55 0.02 0.09 -0.06
Real estate activities 68 0 0.46 -0.46
60
SIC Code Description SIC
Code
Abstraction
(Mm3 / year)
Discharge (Mm3
/ year)
Net Abstraction (Mm3
/ year)
Education 85 0.09 0.13 -0.04
Human health activities 86 0.15 0.34 -0.19
Libraries, archives, museums and other cultural activities 91 0 <0.01 -0.01
Sports activities and amusement and recreation activities 93 0.37 0.02 0.35
Other personal service activities 96 0.05 0 0.05
Undifferentiated goods- and services-producing activities of private
households for own use
98 0.56 0.28 0.28
Domestic Sewage Discharge TF - 1.30 -1.30
TOTAL VOLUME (ALL SECTORS) 381.10 134.72 246.37
61
In contrast to the results for North West RBD, and despite the major uncertainties inherent
in the calculation of net abstraction outlined above, the discharge figures appear low:
sewerage discharges (including domestic discharges) are estimated at approximately 50%
of the volume abstracted for public water supply.
It is also noted that some discharge sites included in the SIMCAT models for Northern
Ireland are located just over the border in the Republic of Ireland. These were included in
the original SIMCAT models as the river reaches they discharged to flowed into water
bodies in Northern Ireland, and thus had an effect on downstream water quality. For
consistency of reporting figures for Northern Ireland RBDs, these were excluded from the
calculation of net abstraction. Although unlikely, any slight error in reporting of discharge
location would result in possible re-introduction of one or more discharges into Northern
Ireland and reduce the net abstraction figure.
Conclusions
1. Existing datasets which hold abstraction and discharge volumetric data are not well
suited to estimating net direct freshwater abstraction by industrial sector. This is
principally because these datasets were designed to facilitate the operation of
charging schemes and monitor compliance with licence conditions, rather than for
analysis of volumetric data.
2. Attempts to estimate net direct freshwater abstraction by sector by RBD using a
mass balance approach (by using both abstraction and discharge volumetric data)
have proved difficult and have introduced additional unavoidable systematic errors.
3. Data relating to total direct freshwater abstraction by sector (i.e. excluding the
impact of discharges) is reasonably robust for England and Wales and has been
provided in JQ tabular format for all RBDs in these countries.
4. The accuracy of the net abstraction calculation by sector would be improved
significantly if:
a. information on abstraction and discharge licences were co-located and
cross-referenced by licence holder;
b. all abstraction points were assigned a SIC code or NALD purpose by licence
holders;
c. abstraction licensees were required to report volumes abstracted for each
abstraction point;
d. abstraction licence and discharge permit holders were compelled to comply
with their licence reporting requirements and submit a data return annually to
the relevant environmental regulatory body.
e. assumed loss factors were validated for key consumptive sectors.
5. WRGIS is an appropriate vehicle for the calculation of net abstraction by sector.
Additional lookup tables are required to populate WRGIS with the requisite data for
sectoral reporting.
62
Recommendations
At the request of Defra, WRc has provided the following recommendations in order of the
likely ease and timescale for implementation:
Short-term recommendations (0-3 years)
1. The NALD purpose code to SIC2007 mapping completed for this project by
WRc should be reviewed and integrated into WRGIS. This would allow a
SIC2007/NACE2 code to be assigned to most abstraction locations for future use.
2. The discharge site type code to SIC2007 mapping completed for this project
by WRc should be reviewed and integrated into WRGIS. This would allow a
SIC2007/NACE2 code to be assigned to most discharge locations, for possible
future use.
3. Existing loss factor values should be reviewed by carrying out a case study
of key sectors in one region where measured or modelled discharge data are
available and trusted. Sectoral loss factors may then be proposed.
4. Licensees should be encouraged to complete their annual data returns.
Economic incentives or penalties should not be ruled out.
5. Further consultation is required with the relevant Water Management teams at
SEPA and NIEA to take advantage of the ongoing data improvement
programmes in those regions.
Medium-term recommendations (1-5 years)
6. The structure of the abstraction datasets for England and Wales should be
overhauled to permit routine analysis of reported and licensed volumes.
Many-to-many relationships and repetition of volumetric data in database tables
should be avoided. This will be an essential step if data quality is to improve with
the introduction of a new single licence for multiple controlled activities under
revised EPR in the next 3-5 years.
7. Abstraction (discharge) data returns should require the licensee to specify
the volume abstracted (discharged) at each abstraction (discharge) point, and
confirm to which industrial sector the abstraction (discharge) relates. This is
important if net abstraction (and hence water stress) is to be correctly assessed and
validated on a regular basis at a water body or RBD scale. Initial assignments to
SIC using the lookup tables provided by WRc could be presented to, and validated
by, licence holders.
8. Applicants for new abstraction and discharge licences should be asked to
confirm details of any existing abstraction and discharge licences held, and
for what use(s). This would assist in the continual improvement of licence data
holdings and improve the consistency of sectorisation between abstraction and
discharge datasets.
63
9. On the next revision of EPR, consideration should be given to linking all
licence information, using the licensee’s details (including principal economic
activities undertaken) as the common link.
Long-term recommendations (5-10+ years)
10. It is suggested that loss factors be phased out in favour of measured
discharge volumes.
A schematic representation of these recommendations is presented in Figure 7. This
shows how data holdings may be restructured to improve the reliability and accuracy of the
reporting of abstraction and discharge information by RBD and industrial sector.
Nomenclature follows that of Figure 5 and Figure 6 described previously.
64
Figure 7 Schematic of recommended method for estimation of net abstraction with
modified data holdings
65
Appendix A SIC2007 classification system to Division level SIC2007
Section
SIC2007 Section
Description
SIC2007
Division SIC2007 Division Description
A Agriculture, Forestry And
Fishing
01 Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities
02 Forestry and logging
03 Fishing and aquaculture
B Mining And Quarrying
05 Mining of coal and lignite
06 Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas
07 Mining of metal ores
08 Other mining and quarrying
09 Mining support service activities
C Manufacturing
10 Manufacture of food products
11 Manufacture of beverages
12 Manufacture of tobacco products
13 Manufacture of textiles
14 Manufacture of wearing apparel
15 Manufacture of leather and related products
16 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture of articles of straw and
plaiting materials
17 Manufacture of paper and paper products
18 Printing and reproduction of recorded media
19 Manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products
66
SIC2007
Section
SIC2007 Section
Description
SIC2007
Division SIC2007 Division Description
20 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products
21 Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations
C Manufacturing
22 Manufacture of rubber and plastic products
23 Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products
24 Manufacture of basic metals
25 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment
26 Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products
27 Manufacture of electrical equipment
28 Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c.
29 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers
30 Manufacture of other transport equipment
31 Manufacture of furniture
32 Other manufacturing
33 Repair and installation of machinery and equipment
D Electricity, Gas, Steam And
Air Conditioning Supply 35 Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
E
Water Supply; Sewerage,
Waste Management And
Remediation Activities
36 Water collection, treatment and supply
37 Sewerage
38 Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery
39 Remediation activities and other waste management services.
67
SIC2007
Section
SIC2007 Section
Description
SIC2007
Division SIC2007 Division Description
F Construction
41 Construction of buildings
42 Civil engineering
43 Specialised construction activities
G
Wholesale And Retail Trade;
Repair Of Motor Vehicles And
Motorcycles
45 Wholesale and retail trade and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
46 Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles
47 Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles
H Transportation And Storage
49 Land transport and transport via pipelines
50 Water transport
51 Air transport
52 Warehousing and support activities for transportation
53 Postal and courier activities
I Accommodation And Food
Service Activities
55 Accommodation
56 Food and beverage service activities
J Information And
Communication
58 Publishing activities
59 Motion picture, video and television programme production, sound recording and music publishing activities
60 Programming and broadcasting activities
61 Telecommunications
62 Computer programming, consultancy and related activities
63 Information service activities
K Financial And Insurance
Activities
64 Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding
65 Insurance, reinsurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security
68
SIC2007
Section
SIC2007 Section
Description
SIC2007
Division SIC2007 Division Description
66 Activities auxiliary to financial services and insurance activities
L Real Estate Activities 68 Real estate activities
M Professional, Scientific And
Technical Activities
69 Legal and accounting activities
70 Activities of head offices; management consultancy activities
71 Architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis
72 Scientific research and development
73 Advertising and market research
74 Other professional, scientific and technical activities
75 Veterinary activities
N Administrative And Support
Service Activities
77 Rental and leasing activities
78 Employment activities
79 Travel agency, tour operator and other reservation service and related activities
80 Security and investigation activities
81 Services to buildings and landscape activities
82 Office administrative, office support and other business support activities
O
Public Administration And
Defence; Compulsory Social
Security
84 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security
P Education 85 Education
Q Human Health And Social
Work Activities
86 Human health activities
87 Residential care activities
69
SIC2007
Section
SIC2007 Section
Description
SIC2007
Division SIC2007 Division Description
88 Social work activities without accommodation
R Arts, Entertainment And
Recreation
90 Creative, arts and entertainment activities
91 Libraries, archives, museums and other cultural activities
92 Gambling and betting activities
93 Sports activities and amusement and recreation activities
94 Activities of membership organisations
S Other Service Activities 95 Repair of computers and personal and household goods
96 Other personal service activities
T
Activities Of Households As
Employers; Undifferentiated
Goods- And Services
97 Activities of households as employers of domestic personnel
98 Undifferentiated goods- and services-producing activities of private households for own use
U Activities Of Extraterritorial
Organisations And Bodies 99 Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies
70
Appendix B Abstraction description to SIC2007 NALD Primary
Description(1)
NALD Secondary Description Initial mapping
to SIC Division
Final mapping to
SIC Division
SIC Sector description (non-SIC description and source
of non-SIC description in italics)
Agriculture Aquaculture Fish 03 03 Fishing and aquaculture
Agriculture Aquaculture Plant 03 03 Fishing and aquaculture
Agriculture Forestry 02 02 Forestry and logging
Agriculture General Agriculture 01 01 Crop and animal production, hunting and related service
activities
Agriculture Horticulture And Nurseries 01 01 Crop and animal production, hunting and related service
activities
Agriculture Orchards 01 01 Crop and animal production, hunting and related service
activities
Agriculture Zoos/Kennels/Stables 01 01 Crop and animal production, hunting and related service
activities
Amenity Industrial/Commercial/Energy/Public Services AM AM Amenity (NALD Primary Description)
Amenity Private Non-Industrial AM AM Amenity (NALD Primary Description)
Environmental Non-Remedial River/Wetland Support EN EN Environmental (NALD Primary Description))
Environmental Other Environmental Improvements EN EN Environmental (NALD Primary Description)
Environmental Pump & Treat EN EN Environmental (NALD Primary Description)
Environmental Remedial River/Wetland Support EN EN Environmental (NALD Primary Description)
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Breweries/Wine 11 11 Manufacture of beverages
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Business Parks 82,74,70,71 Manual See individual entries
71
NALD Primary
Description(1)
NALD Secondary Description Initial mapping
to SIC Division
Final mapping to
SIC Division
SIC Sector description (non-SIC description and source
of non-SIC description in italics)
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Chemicals 20 20 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Construction 41,42,43 Manual See individual entries
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Crown And Government 84 84 Public administration and defence; compulsory social
security
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Dairies 10 10 Manufacture of food products
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Extractive 07,08 Manual See individual entries
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Food & Drink 10,11,56 Manual See individual entries
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Golf Courses 93 93 Sports activities and amusement and recreation activities
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Holiday Sites, Camp Sites & Tourist Attractions 55,93 Manual See individual entries
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Hospitals 86,87 Manual See individual entries
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Hotels, Public Houses And Conference Centres 55,56 Manual See individual entries
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Laundry 96 96 Other personal service activities
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Machinery And Electronics 26,27,28,29 Manual See individual entries
72
NALD Primary
Description(1)
NALD Secondary Description Initial mapping
to SIC Division
Final mapping to
SIC Division
SIC Sector description (non-SIC description and source
of non-SIC description in italics)
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Metal 24,25 Manual See individual entries
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Mineral Products 19,21,23 Manual See individual entries
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Municipal Grounds 81 81 Services to buildings and landscape activities
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Navigation 50 50 Water transport
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Other Industrial/Commercial/Public Services Manual See individual entries
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Paper And Printing 17 17 Manufacture of paper and paper products
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Petrochemicals 19,22 Manual See individual entries
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Private Water Undertaking 36 Water collection, treatment and supply
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Public Administration 84 84 Public administration and defence; compulsory social
security
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Racecourses 93 93 Sports activities and amusement and recreation activities
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Refuse And Recycling 38,39 Manual See individual entries
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Research Non- University/College 72 72 Scientific research and development
73
NALD Primary
Description(1)
NALD Secondary Description Initial mapping
to SIC Division
Final mapping to
SIC Division
SIC Sector description (non-SIC description and source
of non-SIC description in italics)
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Retail 45,47 Manual See individual entries
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Rubber 22 22 Manufacture of rubber and plastic products
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Schools And Colleges 85 85 Education
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Slaughtering 10 10 Manufacture of food products
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Sports Grounds/Facilities 93 93 Sports activities and amusement and recreation activities
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Textiles & Leather 13,15 Manual See individual entries
Ind, Comm &
Pub Services
Transport 49,51,52 Manual See individual entries
Production Of
Energy
Electricity 35 35 Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
Production Of
Energy
Mechanical Non Electrical 35 35 Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
Water Supply Private Water Supply 36 36 Water collection, treatment and supply
Water Supply Private Water Undertaking 36 36 Water collection, treatment and supply
Water Supply Public Water Supply 36 36 Water collection, treatment and supply
Water Supply Water Supply Related 36 36 Water collection, treatment and supply
(1) Ind, Comm & Pub Services = Industrial, Commercial and Public Services
74
Appendix C Discharge type to SIC2007
Table C1 Mapping of SIMCAT model discharge site type to SIC2007
Discharge Site
Type Code
Discharge Site Type Description Equivalent SIC2007
Division
AA Livestock Prod. Food Prod. 01
AB Livestock Prod. Non Food Prod. 01
AC Arable Farming 01
AD Horticult. Est. Nursery Gdns. 01
AE Agricultural Ser. Crop Spray 01
AF Mixed Farming 01
AG Forestry 02
AH Commercial Sea Fishing 03
AI Commercial Inland Fishing 03
AJ Fish Farm 03
AK Cress Bed Discharges 03
BA Coal Extraction, Deep Mine 05
BB Coal Extraction, Surface 05
BC Coke Ovens 19
BD Extraction of Mineral Oil 06
BE Mineral Oil Processing 19
BF Nuclear Fuel Production & waste processing 39
BG Production and Distribution of Electricity 35
BH Public Gas Supply 35
BI Coal stacking grounds 09
BJ Petroleum Refining 19
BK Coal Extraction, Deep Mine - abandoned 05
BL Coal Extraction, Surface - abandoned 05
BM Production and distribution of Oil 19,49
BN Gas distribution and compressor stations 35
75
Discharge Site
Type Code
Discharge Site Type Description Equivalent SIC2007
Division
CA Water Treatment Works 36
CB Water Supply Grid 36
CC Reservoir/Borehole Site 36
CD Water Supply Administration 36
DA Extraction of Metal Ores 07
DB Iron and Steel Industries 24,25
DC Steel Tubes 24
DD Drawing, Cold Forming of Steel 25
DE Non-Ferrous Industries 24
DF Extraction of Stone, Gravel, etc 08
DG Salt Extraction 08
DH Extraction of Other Minerals 08
DI Manufacture of Clay Products 23
DJ Manufacture of Cement, Lime Plaster 23
DK Ready Mixed Concrete 23
DL Manufacture of Other Building Materials 23
DM Asbestos Goods 23
DN Working of Stone Not Specified 23
DO Abrasive Products 23
DP Glass and Glassware Industry 23
DQ Refectory Ceramic Goods 23
DR Sanitary Ware 23
DS Basic Ind. Chemicals Inorganic 20
DT Extraction of Metal Ores - abandoned 07
DU Extraction of Stone, Gravel, etc - abandoned 08
DV Salt Extraction - abandoned 08
DW Extraction of Other Minerals - abandoned 08
EA Basic Ind. Chemicals Organic 20
76
Discharge Site
Type Code
Discharge Site Type Description Equivalent SIC2007
Division
EB Fertilisers 20
EC Rubber 22
ED Dyestuffs 20
EF Paints, Varnishes and Inks 20
EG Pesticides 20
EH Pharmaceutical Products 21
EI Soap and Toilet Preparations 20
EJ Special Chemicals, Household Use 20
EK Production of Manmade Fibres 20
EL Ferrous Foundries 24
EM Non Ferrous Foundries 24
EN Forging and Pressing 25
EO Metal Treatment, Bolts, Nuts, etc 25
EP Metal Doors and Windows 25
EQ Hand Tools, Finished Products 25
ER Tableware 25
FA Mech. Ind. Plant Manufacture 28
FB Agri. Machinery and Tractor Manufacture 28
FC Machine Tool Manufacture 28
FD Textile Machinery 28
FE Food Prod. Chem. Ind. Machinery 28
FF Production of Mining Machinery 28
FG Mechanical Power Transmission 28
FH Print. Paper/Wood Ind. Machinery 28
FI Other Machinery and Mechanical Equipment 28
FJ Ordnance, Small Arms and Ammo 25
FK Office/Data Proc. Equip. Manuf. 26
GA Insulated Wires and Cables 27
77
Discharge Site
Type Code
Discharge Site Type Description Equivalent SIC2007
Division
GB Basic Electrical Equipment 27
GC Ind. Elec. Equip. and Batteries 27
GD Telecommunications Equipment 26
GE Other Electronic Equipment 26
GF Domestic Type Elec. Equipment 27
GG Electric Lamps and Lighting 27
GH Elec. Equipment Installation 43
HA Manuf. Motor Vehicles and Engines 29
HB Manuf. Caravans and Trailers 29
HC Motor Vehicle Parts 29
HD Shipbuilding 30
HE Railway and Tram Vehicles 30
HF Cycles and Motor Cycles 29
HG Aerospace 30
HI Other Vehicles 30
HJ Vehicle Washing 52
HK Car storage/stocking site 52
IA Meas. Check. and Precis. Instrument 26
IB Medical and Surgical Equipment 32
IC Optical Precision Equipment 26
ID Clocks, Watches and Time. Devices 32
JA Org. Oils and Fats 10
JB Slaughterhouses 10
JC Bacon Curing, Meat Processing 10
JD Poultry Slaughter 10
JE Animal By-Products 10
JF Prep. of Milk and Milk Products 10
JG Processing of Fruit and Veg. 10
78
Discharge Site
Type Code
Discharge Site Type Description Equivalent SIC2007
Division
JH Fish Processing 10
JI Grain Milling 10
JK Starch 10
JL Bread, Confectionery 10
JM Sugar and Sugar Products 10
JN Ice-cream, Cocoa and Chocolate 10
JO Animal Foodstuffs 10
JP Potato storage 01
JQ Kennels 96
JR Animal incineration 38
JS Garden centres 47
JZ Miscellaneous Foods 10
KA Distilling Spirits 11
KB Wines, Cider and Perry 11
KC Brewing and Malting 11
KD Soft Drinks 11
KE Tobacco Industry 12
LA Woollen and Worsted Industry 13
LB Cotton and Silk Industries 13
LC Spinning and Weaving of Flax 13
LD Jute and polypropylene yarns 13
LE Hosiery and Other Knitted Goods 14
LF Textile Finishing 13
LG Carpet and Other Floor Coverings 13
LH Miscellaneous Textiles 13
LI Leather Tanning and Fellmongery 15
LJ Leather Goods 15
LK Footware 15
79
Discharge Site
Type Code
Discharge Site Type Description Equivalent SIC2007
Division
LL Clothing, Hats and Gloves 14
LM Household Textiles 13
LN Fur Goods 14
MA Sawmilling of Wood 16
MB Semi-finished Wood Products 16
MC Builders Carpentry and Joinery 16
MD Wooden Containers 16
ME Wooden Articles, Not Furniture 16
MF Cork and Plait. Brushes and Brooms 16
MG Pulp, Paper and Board 17
MH Conversion of Paper and Board 17
MI Printing and Publishing 18
MJ Rubber Tyre and Inner Tube Manufacture 22
MK Other Rubber Product Manufacture 22
ML Retreading and Repair of Tyres 45
MM Processing of Plastics 22
MN Jewellery and Coins 32
MO Musical Instruments 32
MP Photographic Laboratories 74
MQ Toys and Sports Goods 32
MR Laboratories other than photographic 71,72,75
NA Ind. Parrs Estates 82
NB General Construction Work 41,42,43
NC Const. and Repair of Buildings 41
ND Civil Engineering 42
NE Installation of Fixtures and Fittings 43
NF Building Completion Work 43
OA Wholesale Dist. Animals and Mats. 46
80
Discharge Site
Type Code
Discharge Site Type Description Equivalent SIC2007
Division
OB Wholesale Dist. Fuels and Metals 46
OC Wholesale Dist. of Timber 46
OD Wholesale Dist. Mach/Ind Eq/Ve 45
OE Wholesale Dist. Household Gds 46
OF Wholesale Dist. Textiles 46
OG Wholesale Dist. Food/Drink/Tobacco 46
OH Wholesale Dist. Pharm/Chem Gds 46
OI Other Wholesale Distribution 46
PA Dealing in Scrap Metals 46
PB Dealing in Other Scrap Materials 46
PW Public Water Supply 36
PX Bottled Water Extraction 11
QA Retail Distribution 52
QB Retail Filling Stations 47
QC Snack Bars, Cafes, etc 56
QD Public Houses and Bars 56
QE Hotel Trade 55
QF Other Tourist/Short Stay Accommodation 55
QG Railways 49
QH Sched. Passenger Trans. Ubn. Rail 49
QI Other Road Passenger Transport 49
QJ Other Transport 49
QK Sea Transport 50
QL Air Transport 51
QM Support Serv. Inland Trans. 52
QN Support Serv. Sea Transport 52
QO Support Serv. Air Transport 52
QP Misc. Trans. Not Specified 49
81
Discharge Site
Type Code
Discharge Site Type Description Equivalent SIC2007
Division
QQ Postal Services and Telecom. 53,61
QR Business Services various
RA Any MOD Establishment 84
RB Industrial estates various
SA Sewage Disposal Works - water company 37
SB Sewerage Network - Sewers - water company 37
SC Sewerage Network - Pumping Station - water
company
37
SD Public Conveniences 37
SE Sewage disposal works - other 37
SF Sewerage Network - Sewers - others 37
SG Sewerage Network - Pumping Station - others 37
TA Education 85
TB Hospitals 86
TC Recreational and Cultural 90,91
TD Laundries, Personal Services 96
TE Domestic Property (Single) HO
TF Domestic Property (Multiple) HO
TZ Trade (Unknown/Other) 98
UA Domestic waste site 38
UB Industrial waste site 38
UC Domestic + industrial waste site 38
UD Inert material waste site 38
UE Spoil Waste Site 38
UZ Unspecified Waste Site 38
WA Co-disposal landfill sites 38
WB Other landfill sites taking special waste
(inert/defined under swr 96)
38
WC Boreholes 36
82
Discharge Site
Type Code
Discharge Site Type Description Equivalent SIC2007
Division
WD Household, commercial and industrial waste landfills 38
WE Landfills taking non-biodegradable wastes (not
construction)
38
WF Landfills taking other wastes (construction,
demolition, dredgings)
38
WG Industrial waste landfills 38
WH Lagoons 38
WI Special waste transfer stations 38
WJ In-house storage facilities 38
WK Household, commercial and industrial transfer
stations
38
WL Clinical waste transfer stations 38
WM Household Waste Amenity Sites 38
WN Transfer Stations taking Non-biodegradable Wastes 38
WO Material Recycling Treatment Facilities 38
WP Physical Treatment Facilities 38
WQ Physico-chemical Treatment Facilities 38
WR Incinerators 38
WS Metal Recycling Sites (Vehicle Dismantlers) 38
WT Metal Recycling Sites (mixed MRSS) 38
WU Chemical Treatment Facilities 38
WV Composting Facilities 38
WW Biological Treatment Facilities 38
WX Mobile Plant 39
WZ Waste site (unspecified) 38
ZZ Undefined or Other 98
83
Appendix D Direct abstraction statistics for England and Wales
Table D1 Volume directly abstracted from groundwater sources in England and Wales in 2011 by RBD for JQ Table 2 (source: NALD)
JQ Table 2 Category NACE1 SIC2007
(NACE2)
Volume in RBD / Mm3
Anglian Dee Humber North West Northumbria Severn Solway
Tweed
South East South West Thames Western
Wales
Total
Agriculture, forestry,
fishing
01-05 01-03 31.39 0.12 36.58 1.22 0.28 5.53 0.62 35.11 29.66 7.36 0.05 147.91
Mining and quarrying 15-37 05-09 4.50 14.96 0.94 0.11 0.13 <0.01 0.30 3.31 5.07 29.31
Manufacturing industry 10-14 10-33 14.66 0.16 24.35 21.44 1.33 5.65 2.56 6.31 2.54 29.44 0.59 109.02
Production of electricity 40.1 35 0.24 4.42 <0.01 0.67 <0.01 <0.01 1.27 6.62
Public water supply 41 36 246.30 3.04 296.15 46.23 26.70 170.64 8.88 181.52 105.98 626.20 7.46 1719.09
Services 50-93 45-96 1.51 0.23 5.92 2.40 0.06 1.90 0.04 0.26 0.67 13.17 0.06 26.23
Other 37-39; 41-
43; 99
10.90 <0.01 10.93 <0.01 1.43 2.26 0.01 9.50 0.10 0.96 0.09 36.19
Total 309.50 3.55 393.30 72.22 29.91 186.77 12.11 233.01 142.27 683.48 8.26 2,074.38
84
Table D2 Volume directly abstracted from surface freshwater sources in England and Wales in 2011 by RBD for JQ Table 2 (source: NALD)
JQ Table 2 Category NACE1 SIC2007
(NACE2)
Volume in RBD / Mm3
Anglian Dee Humber North West Northumbria Severn Solway
Tweed
South East South West Thames Western
Wales
Grand
Total
Agriculture, forestry,
fishing
01-05 01-03 51.12 0.56 113.94 5.81 3.96 23.93 1.08 381.89 88.83 22.96 36.69 730.76
Mining and quarrying 15-37 05-09 <0.01 <0.01 1.00 7.58 0.01 0.27 <0.01 2.70 0.01 0.18 11.74
Manufacturing industry 10-14 10-33 6.43 0.10 70.86 91.26 2.90 9.68 2.05 0.02 5.50 3.15 181.84 373.79
Production of electricity 40.1 35 1.89 9.20 959.67 276.47 8.41 15.19 2.79 <0.01 115.34 52.59 1089.46 2,531.01
Public water supply 41 36 538.93 228.93 725.54 343.26 307.86 609.95 119.51 108.14 242.54 955.21 185.22 4,365.10
Services 50-93 45-96 0.32 1.11 15.94 4.53 0.06 1.41 <0.01 0.08 0.27 2.24 0.25 26.21
Other 37-39; 41-
43; 99
56.17 0.83 5.20 17.74 0.01 227.66 <0.01 1.34 9.96 20.77 1.61 341.27
Total 654.85 240.73 1,892.15 746.66 323.21 888.09 125.43 491.47 465.13 1,056.93 1,495.25 8,379.89
85
Table D3 Volume directly abstracted from all freshwater sources in England and Wales in 2011 by RBD for JQ Table 2 (source: NALD)
JQ Table 2 Category NACE1 SIC2007
(NACE2)
Volume in RBD / Mm3
Anglian Dee Humber North West Northumbria Severn Solway
Tweed
South East South West Thames Western
Wales
Grand
Total
Agriculture, forestry,
fishing
01-05 01-03 82.51 0.68 150.52 7.03 4.24 29.46 1.70 417.00 118.49 30.32 36.74 878.68
Mining and quarrying 15-37 05-09 4.50 <0.01 15.96 8.52 0.11 0.40 <0.01 0.30 6.01 5.08 0.18 41.05
Manufacturing industry 10-14 10-33 21.09 0.26 95.21 112.70 4.23 15.33 4.61 6.33 8.03 32.60 182.44 482.81
Production of electricity 40.1 35 2.13 9.20 964.10 276.47 8.41 15.86 2.79 <0.01 115.34 53.86 1089.46 2,537.63
Public water supply 41 36 785.23 231.97 1021.68 389.49 334.56 780.58 128.39 289.66 348.53 1581.42 192.68 6,084.19
Services 50-93 45-96 1.83 1.34 21.85 6.93 0.13 3.31 0.04 0.34 0.94 15.41 0.32 52.44
Other 37-39; 41-
43; 99
67.06 0.83 16.13 17.74 1.44 229.92 0.01 10.84 10.06 21.73 1.70 377.47
Total 964.35 244.28 2,285.45 818.88 353.12 1,074.86 137.54 724.48 607.40 1,740.41 1,503.51 10,454.27
86
Table D4 Volume directly abstracted from groundwater sources in England and Wales in 2011 by RBD (source: NALD)
Category NACE1 SIC2007
(NACE2)
Volume in RBD / Mm3
Anglian Dee Humber North West Northumbria Severn Solway
Tweed
South East South West Thames Western
Wales
Grand
Total
Food Processing 15 10; 11 10.55 0.12 10.62 4.18 0.55 4.40 1.81 0.05 2.03 3.10 0.48 37.89
Basic Metals 27 24 0.37 <0.01 2.90 0.19 <0.01 3.46
Transport Equipment 35 29; 30 0.22 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.68 1.07
Textiles 17-19 13-15 0.04 1.24 0.03 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 1.33
Paper and Paper
Products
21 17 0.90 1.35 0.10 0.16 0.56 0.08 17.19 20.34
Chemicals, Refined
Petroleum etc.
23-24 19-21 2.02 0.02 5.35 11.41 0.43 0.08 0.06 2.37 21.74
Other manufacturing 1.68 0.02 3.14 4.27 0.26 1.09 0.60 5.61 0.33 6.09 0.11 23.19
Total manufacturing
Industry
15-37 14.66 0.16 24.35 21.44 1.33 5.65 2.56 6.31 2.54 29.44 0.59 109.02
Mining and Quarrying 10-14 05-09 4.50 14.96 0.94 0.11 0.13 <0.01 0.30 3.31 5.07 29.31
Construction 45 41-43 <0.01 8.01 <0.01 0.06 <0.01 0.10 8.17
Total 19.16 0.16 47.31 22.37 1.44 5.84 2.56 6.61 5.85 34.61 0.59 146.50
87
Table D5 Volume directly abstracted from surface freshwater sources in England and Wales in 2011 by RBD (source: NALD)
Category NACE1 SIC2007
(NACE2)
Volume in RBD / Mm3
Anglian Dee Humber North West Northumbria Severn Solway
Tweed
South East South West Thames Western
Wales
Grand
Total
Food Processing 15 10; 11 0.90 <0.01 2.78 <0.01 1.71 1.01 1.28 0.08 7.77
Basic Metals 27 24 0.10 4.48 0.12 11.12 15.82
Transport Equipment 35 29; 30 <0.01 0.09 <0.01 0.09
Textiles 17-19 13-15 0.83 1.56 0.37 0.43 0.41 3.61
Paper and Paper
Products
21 17 5.32 <0.01 2.57 5.87 2.75 3.28 <0.01 3.77 2.99 26.55
Chemicals, Refined
Petroleum etc.
23-24 19-21 58.55 83.75 0.04 <0.01 0.06 1.76 144.16
Other manufacturing 0.10 0.10 1.66 0.08 0.15 4.16 1.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 168.47 175.80
Total manufacturing
Industry
15-37 6.43 0.10 70.86 91.26 2.90 9.68 2.05 0.02 5.50 3.15 181.84 373.79
Mining and Quarrying 10-14 05-09 <0.01 <0.01 1.00 7.58 0.01 0.27 <0.01 2.70 0.01 0.18 11.74
Construction 45 41-43 <0.01 0.41 <0.01 0.14 0.52 <0.01 1.07
Total 6.43 0.10 72.27 98.85 2.90 10.08 2.05 0.02 8.19 3.68 182.02 386.59
88
Table D6 Volume directly abstracted from all freshwater sources in England and Wales in 2011 by RBD (source: NALD)
Category NACE1 SIC2007
(NACE2)
Volume in RBD / Mm3
Anglian Dee Humber North West Northumbria Severn Solway
Tweed
South East South West Thames Western
Wales
Grand
Total
Food Processing 15 10; 11 11.46 0.12 13.39 4.18 0.55 6.12 2.81 0.05 3.31 3.10 0.57 45.66
Basic Metals 27 24 0.47 <0.01 7.38 0.19 0.12 <0.01 11.12 19.28
Transport Equipment 35 29; 30 0.22 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.77 <0.01 1.16
Textiles 17-19 13-15 0.04 2.07 1.59 0.37 0.02 0.43 <0.01 0.41 4.94
Paper and Paper
Products
21 17 5.32 <0.01 3.46 7.23 2.84 3.44 0.57 3.85 20.17 46.89
Chemicals, Refined
Petroleum etc…
23-24 19-21 2.02 0.02 63.89 95.16 0.43 0.04 0.08 0.06 <0.01 2.43 1.76 165.89
Other manufacturing 1.78 0.12 4.79 4.35 0.41 5.24 1.64 5.63 0.33 6.11 168.58 198.99
Total manufacturing
Industry
15-37 21.09 0.26 95.21 112.70 4.23 15.33 4.61 6.33 8.03 32.60 182.44 482.81
Mining and Quarrying 10-14 05-09 4.50 <0.01 15.96 8.52 0.11 0.40 <0.01 0.30 6.01 5.08 0.18 41.05
Construction 45 41-43 <0.01 8.42 0.01 0.20 <0.01 0.61 <0.01 9.23
Total 25.59 0.26 119.59 121.23 4.34 15.92 4.61 6.63 14.04 38.29 182.61 533.10
89
Part 3 – Non-household water use of public water supply
Introduction
Background
The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is requested by Eurostat
to report UK a variety of statistics on water. WRc was commissioned by Defra to
investigate the availability and quality of the some of these statistics across the UK and to
advise on options for filling any gaps.
This section of the report details the work on use of public water supply.
Objectives
In order for Defra to populate Tables 4a and 4b of the OECD/Eurostat Joint Questionnaire
on Inland Waters (JQ), information on end-uses of the public water supply (PWS) are
required. To support this, a decision tree is laid out in the supporting Data collection
Manual (JQDCM, 2008). In the UK, the public water supply is provided by a number of
water companies, including Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, Scottish Water (and Business
Stream) and Northern Ireland Water. These utilities are indicated in Figure 8.
90
Figure 8 Water Utilities in the UK
Ideally, datasets to populate the statistical tables should be available as a result of direct
measurement of non-household customers by the water utilities accompanied by
supporting meta-data on the industrial sector in which the customer is operating.
91
WRc plc were commissioned to assist Defra in building a view of the data availability for
populating the JQ building on previous work such as the Freshwater Availability and Use in
the UK study (WRAP, 2012). Although a large proportion of non-household customers
across the UK are metered, we know that not all public water supply water use data are
based upon metered readings and that customer records, held by such utilities, frequently
do not include high quality data on industrial classification.
Therefore the objectives of this study were to:
identify how non-household water use information is currently collected and stored;
assess the data quality of available non-household water use information; and
calculate, where possible, non-household water use by industrial sector.
Data gathering approach
Overview
Information from water companies on delivery of tap water to customers in different
commercial and industrial sectors offers the highest level of confidence in the resultant
values to be reported to EUROSTAT.
For the JQ, the categories of water required are detailed using the ‘NACE’ Statistical
Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community which is a European
industry standard classification system consisting of a 6 digit code. The first four of these
six digits are aligned across all European Countries and to the UK’s SIC Standard
Industrial Classification 2007 (SIC2007) categories.
JQ Table 4a requires the following categories of water:
All industrial activities:
o Agriculture, forestry, fishing (NACE 01-03)
o Mining and quarrying (NACE 05-09)
o Total manufacturing industries (NACE 10-33)
o Production and distribution of electricity (NACE 35.11-35.13)
o Private households
o Services (NACE 45-96)
For JQ Table 4b, the categories of water required are:
Total manufacturing industry (NACE 10-33)
o - food processing industry (NACE 10-11)
o - basic metals (NACE 24)
o - transport equipment (NACE 29-30)
o - textiles (NACE 13-15)
92
o - paper and paper products (NACE 17)
o - chemicals, refined petroleum, etc. (NACE 19-21)
o - other manufacturing industry
UK water companies generally hold some, but incomplete, information on the industrial
sector classification of their customers. However, this information is not necessarily by
NACE, or SIC 2007 (or any version of SIC), in fact it may not be by any standard
classification system. It is therefore important to understand the breakdown that is
available from each company, and whether this can be mapped to the NACE classification
system required by Eurostat.
Water Company Contacts
All UK water companies were contacted by WRc to ascertain what information they held
relating to the use of water by their non-household customers. Initial contact was by
telephone, with an email follow-up to confirm the data and information sought to fulfil the
objectives of this study. Examples of the telephone script and follow-up email text can be
found in Appendix A of this report.
Prior to contacting the water companies, WRc reviewed the recently published draft Water
Resource Management Plans (dWRMPs) to extract relevant information regarding non-
household water use baseline data and to expedite the transfer of information other than
that available from public sources. We therefore tailored the content of phone calls and
emails according to information gained from this source. Key information from the
dWRMPs can be found in Appendix B.
Despite allowing almost three months to contact all parties and gain their commitment to
provide data and information for this study, obtaining data proved difficult from some
sources. At the time of writing this report, data or information was still outstanding from
Anglian Water, and Sutton and East Surrey Water.
93
Data Quality and Data Gaps
Assessment of data quality is important due to the number of datasets that are required to
be combined to produce an overall picture of water use by industrial sector. A data quality
assessment framework was devised which could be applied to all datasets and can be
found in Appendix C. This allows a data confidence assessment in line with the JQDCM.
There are three main points which emerged from our data review exercise which should
be noted and considered when looking at the resultant values.
1. Data coverage
Not all companies could provide the information required for this study. The majority
were able to provide at least a headline water consumption figure for 2011/12 for non-
household customers, although not all. We estimate (see Table 16 and Table 17) that
just over 10% of total non-household water use data was not able to be provided to us
for inclusion in this study. We have been advised by the relevant companies that such
data are available, but could not be provided to WRc in the timescales required for
reporting. Obtaining historical data is as difficult, and in some cases more difficult due
to the need to include closed accounts within the data provided.
2. Data completeness
Where companies were able to provide non-household demand figures, the total was
generally comprised of a (large) component of metered consumption, and a (smaller)
component of unmetered consumption. The unmeasured component is usually
estimated based on the sector in which the customer is operating and the size of the
business. To improve the data quality would require 100% meter penetration for non-
household customers, however as it currently stands the proportion of water use
accounted by unmeasured non-household customers is relatively small as these tend
to be smaller customers.
Whilst most companies were able to provide a total non-household demand figure,
there was a lot of variation in the breakdown into industrial sectors. Some companies
were not able to provide this at all; others were able to provide a breakdown but by
their own categorisation that is not easily comparable with those of other companies.
To improve the data quality would require the UK water industry to adopt a standard
approach to the classification of industrial customers. An intermediate step would be to
have clearer definition from the companies of industrial sectors included within each of
their defined sectors that align to SIC. This would increase the confidence in aligning
figures from each company for reporting at a national level.
The JQ requires a number of manufacturing sub-sectors to be separately identified.
With the data available this is not possible for the majority of companies, and therefore
94
would not be possible to estimate at a national level. It is possible to separately identify
the industry sub-sectors.
3. Data comparability
Where data were provided, only in some instances was it possible to accurately identify
whether the data included supply pipe leakage, a meter under-registration allowance,
and a final adjustment for the water balance. In the instances where raw data were
provided it was known that MLE (maximum likelihood estimation) adjustments had not
been included; in instances where we have broken down a total reported demand
figure the MLE adjustment will have been included. Even where this information is
known to be included, it was not possible to separate out these components for
reporting purposes.
Where data for different years is provided the data tends to be broadly comparable,
with limitations as described here. Individual companies may have switched the
classification method used for sector identification e.g. from older SIC to more modern
classifications (SIC2003 or 2007) and therefore there may be some properties for
which data is not comparable.
Context of non-household water use
Non household water use accounts for approximately 21% of public water supply. Around
53% is for supply to households, and approximately 24% is leakage. The final 5% is
accounted for by other uses including water taken unbilled, bulk exports and operational
use by the companies. These figures vary between water companies with non-household
water use accounting for between as little as 10% of total supply, up to a maximum of
39%.
Future Considerations
The introduction of retail competition for non-households may change the way that water
companies consider non-household customers, and the data they hold. In the future the
wholesale business may not know exactly who the customer is using water at a particular
supply point, as the retailer will have the relationship with the customer and will hold that
information.
In this situation, to gather a complete picture of water use, Defra would need to request
non-household information from all retailers. It is not clear whether detailed non-household
demand information may become commercially sensitive information under this new
environment.
It is possible that the Central Market Agency developed to manage the switching process
may be able to record information on sectoral use. They may be able to supply all of the
95
information required by Defra and could therefore be an important stakeholder in the
future.
Water Use Statistics
Approach
In order to provide a snapshot of non-household water use split by sector, such as
required for the JQ, we have taken a pragmatic approach to water use information from
water companies. In collating and processing the data we have followed a simple
hierarchical process based on the quality and availability of data (Figure 9):
Figure 9 Approach to compilation of water use statistics
Processing steps
A number of data processing steps were followed to collate various elements of raw data,
at different resolutions, provided by the water companies. No data cleansing was carried
out as all data were provided to WRc in a processed form. However, work was required to
align the data to a consistent industrial sector classification (SIC2007, in line with JQ
requirements) and, where relevant, to gap-fill to provide a complete picture of the total use
of public water supply across the UK in 2011/12.
The processes to align the raw data are provided in Figure 10. The processes to align the
raw data and complete the gap-filling exercise are provided in Figure 11. The processing
steps for the gap filling methodology follow the same initial 3 passes as those used in the
compilation of the raw data table. For the initial 3 passes, a single SIC2007 category is
Request ideal data for
calculation of water
use by sector
Review data available
and seek clarification
as appropriate
Use data within final
analysis
Review information in
draft Water Resource
Management Plan
Review data available
and seek clarification
as appropriate
Use data within final
analysis
Review information
available from previous
analysis
Use data within final
gap-filled analysis
No data available
No data available
96
assigned, where possible, to the data available. The SIC2007 category may be assigned
as follows; using a relevant SIC2007 code already attributed by the data provider, mapping
an assigned SIC code to a SIC2007 category or assigning a SIC2007 category based on
the description of a data entry. Entries assigned a single SIC2007 category are then
compiled in an output table according to SIC category and water company.
Pass 4 assigns a combination of SIC2007 categories, where possible, to remaining data
entries. For example, a data entry described as “Electricity, Gas and Water Supply” is
assigned to a combination of SIC2007 categories ‘D’ and ‘E’. SIC2007 categories ‘D’ and
‘E’ are concerned with ‘Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply’ and ‘Water
supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities’ respectively. Entries
with multiple categories are added to the output table on an equal distribution basis. For
example, an entry assigned to combined category ‘DE’ is distributed evenly between
categories ‘D’ and ‘E’.
Where it is not possible to assign a combination of categories as a descriptor, a generic
‘Unallocated’ or other descriptor is assigned in place of a SIC2007 category. Where
appropriate, ‘Unallocated’ entries are distributed proportionally amongst SIC2007
categories based on the distribution of the data compiled to this point. Where this is not
possible, reference is made to the WRAP 2011 report to determine the distribution range
to be used.
Any data gaps remaining at this point, e.g. where data has not been provided, have been
estimated using WRAP 2011 data as a reference. The total non-household water use for a
company has been split between SIC categories based on the proportions from WRAP
2011.
97
Figure 10 Data processing steps for raw data only
98
Figure 11 Data processing steps to produce gap-filled results
Results
Table 16 provides a summary at the UK level of the data provided by companies
specifically for this project, or from dWRMPs published in 2013 (as per Figure 10). Table
17 represents the final compiled table at SIC2007 level from the water company data
provided specifically for this study or from the dWRMPs published in 2013, along with gap-
filling information that allows the breakdown for the UK to be estimated, as indicated in
Figure 9 and Figure 11, using available information from previous studies, or the data sets
themselves, to assign water use to the required sector breakdown.
References WRAP (2011) Freshwater availability and use in the United Kingdom [online] http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/
99
Table 16 Non-household demand from public water supply by SIC 2007 category (2011/12 data available for use in this project only) at UK level
SIC 2007 Sector Code
SIC2007 Code Description Total
Ml/d
A Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 244.25
B Mining and quarrying 71.66
C Manufacturing 451.78
D Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 12.94
E Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
4.74
F Construction 17.87
G Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
147.32
H Transportation and storage 19.00
I Accommodation and food service activities 238.57
J Information and communication 2.85
K Financial and insurance activities 14.10
L Real estate activities 28.21
M Professional, scientific and technical activities 5.21
N Administrative and support service activities 21.24
O Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 157.55
P Education 109.81
Q Human health and social work activities 136.22
R Arts, entertainment and recreation 28.68
S Other service activities 19.02
T Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods- and services-producing activities of households for own use
1.84
U Activities of extraterritorial organizations and bodies 0.08
Sub Total 1732.94
Other Code Other Description
UNALC Unallocated consumption 887.327
OTHS Other Services 179.860
IND Industrial Activity 95.074
GOV Government, Public Sector, Services 57.453
MISC Miscellaneous Consumption 60.564
FIN Finance and Business Activities incl. Misc 64.659
UTIL Utilities Activity 54.578
Sub Total 1399.51
Grand Total 3132.46
100
Table 17 UK Aggregated Non-household demand from public water supply by SIC 2007 category (2011/12 data gap-filled using available information to estimate total demand)
SIC 2007 Sector Code
SIC2007 Code Description
Row Total U
nite
d U
tilit
ies
Po
rtsm
ou
th
Wa
ter
Se
ve
rn T
rent
Wa
ter
Essex &
Su
ffo
lk
No
rth
um
bria
n
So
uth
ern
Wa
ter
Yo
rkshire
Wa
ter
De
e V
alle
y
Wa
ter
We
ssex W
ate
r
No
rth
ern
Ir
ela
nd W
ate
r
Affin
ity W
ate
r
Bo
urn
em
ou
th
Wa
ter
So
uth
Sta
ffs
Wa
ter
So
uth
East
Wa
ter
So
uth
We
st
Wa
ter
We
lsh W
ate
r
Su
tto
n a
nd
Ea
st S
urr
ey
Wa
ter
Cam
brid
ge
Wa
ter
C&
DW
Bristo
l W
ate
r
An
glia
n W
ate
r
Scottis
h W
ate
r
Th
am
es W
ate
r
Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d Ml/d
A Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 369.14 24.654 4.870 33.915 0.124 0.508 4.273 19.800 3.014 23.330 39.038 4.578 2.296 6.382 14.118 17.454 20.783 2.290 2.471 0.098 2.943 57.728 0.000 25.386
B Mining and quarrying 106.22 0.495 0.132 2.849 2.572 3.484 1.221 18.620 0.888 0.000 3.584 0.000 0.122 0.211 0.000 0.284 11.695 0.000 0.840 0.000 0.863 1.121 0.000 37.149
C Manufacturing 742.60 110.360 2.986 82.678 24.303 23.028 12.696 65.118 5.602 13.432 23.009 15.144 0.766 2.786 0.000 11.816 37.737 0.000 5.326 0.000 11.297 76.159 0.000 90.964
D Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
71.96 10.374 0.058 2.492 2.334 0.662 4.378 3.587 0.000 0.354 0.025 0.996 0.000 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.871 0.529 0.000 0.000 4.945 0.000 27.632
E Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
26.35 0.282 0.230 4.096 0.855 0.243 1.603 1.313 0.134 0.130 0.000 0.365 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.319 0.194 0.000 0.000 1.811 0.000 10.119
F Construction 25.89 1.470 0.621 2.829 0.000 0.000 1.465 4.848 0.000 0.195 0.000 2.670 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.782 0.435 0.000 0.186 0.000 0.000 2.606 0.000 3.302
G Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
218.99 22.103 1.847 27.326 1.081 1.347 0.000 17.613 3.054 0.000 20.805 18.522 3.934 0.231 0.000 5.516 9.743 1.390 1.537 0.000 0.000 25.283 0.000 20.896
H Transportation and storage 100.94 8.046 0.436 6.966 0.188 0.570 4.027 5.740 0.000 0.000 3.550 11.937 0.000 0.104 0.000 1.311 18.237 3.750 0.692 0.000 0.000 10.601 0.000 8.234
I Accommodation and food service activities
357.47 41.753 4.067 38.760 4.569 5.385 19.901 31.100 1.972 0.000 9.494 19.649 4.039 0.389 0.000 17.450 26.836 5.360 2.583 0.000 0.000 28.871 0.000 33.501
J Information and communication 17.30 0.689 0.049 2.108 0.028 0.085 0.366 0.860 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.788 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.196 2.732 0.307 0.101 0.000 0.000 4.319 0.000 1.233
K Financial and insurance activities 33.84 2.415 0.130 2.338 0.000 0.000 2.879 1.230 0.077 0.000 0.551 2.691 0.046 0.028 0.000 2.951 0.000 0.679 0.189 0.000 0.000 9.545 0.000 3.576
L Real estate activities 75.16 15.796 1.531 10.830 0.000 0.000 5.759 2.461 0.207 0.000 1.101 9.083 0.091 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.329 0.561 0.000 0.000 4.628 0.000 9.280
M Professional, scientific and technical activities
20.61 2.545 0.158 2.509 0.000 0.000 1.064 0.455 0.029 0.000 0.204 1.678 0.017 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.506 0.104 0.000 0.000 7.127 0.000 1.715
N Administrative and support service activities
83.97 6.115 0.355 6.670 0.000 0.000 4.337 9.953 0.117 0.000 0.829 6.839 0.069 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.064 0.422 0.000 0.000 29.041 0.000 6.987
O Public administration and defence; compulsory social security
233.90 19.138 4.462 20.610 1.558 4.725 11.867 24.800 0.000 16.273 5.906 7.766 0.000 0.264 0.000 6.716 4.940 0.941 1.756 0.000 14.977 13.229 0.000 31.968
P Education 170.74 20.310 1.869 30.270 0.000 0.000 8.271 12.200 0.717 0.000 5.533 16.304 1.155 3.475 0.000 5.182 10.682 1.743 1.232 0.000 0.000 14.848 0.000 7.484
Q Human health and social work activities 220.93 27.900 2.542 28.351 1.347 4.085 10.260 18.400 1.152 0.000 10.408 12.259 1.701 1.798 0.000 6.428 9.941 2.407 1.583 0.000 0.000 20.504 0.000 22.009
R Arts, entertainment and recreation 84.35 10.336 1.907 10.230 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.802 0.582 0.000 1.584 10.640 2.594 1.542 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.531 0.610 0.000 0.000 7.481 0.000 11.921
S Other service activities 55.92 7.814 0.531 8.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.298 0.042 0.000 1.208 7.054 0.000 0.671 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.352 0.405 0.000 0.000 4.960 0.000 7.903
T
Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods- and services-producing activities of households for own use
2.54 1.134 0.521 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.225 0.000 0.000
U Activities of extraterritorial organizations and bodies
0.11 0.067 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000
Unallocated 464.90 10.05 0.28 6.69 51.92 111.55 27.83 0.00 0.56 30.51 9.75 0.00 3.78 25.00 79.55 5.56 9.78 2.47 0.00 0.03 25.64 0.00 63.96 0.00
Total 3483.83 343.85 29.58 330.56 90.88 155.67 122.20 255.20 18.23 84.22 136.57 150.04 20.61 43.20 93.67 81.65 163.54 26.33 21.34 0.13 55.72 325.04 425.22 510.38
101
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
Using the data currently available from water companies JQ Table 4a can be completed
but there is insufficient information available from water companies to provide the
breakdown of manufacturing SICs required in JQ table 4b.
The ideal dataset to compile information on non-household water use by industrial sector
comprises a number of components:
For each customer:
o information on annual water use taken from the billing system and based on
regular meter reads;
o information on the sector in which the customer works against SIC2007
classification at the two digit (division) level.
Information on adjustments that should be made to reflect meter under-registration.
In a situation where all non-households are metered, estimated water usage for
unmeasured customers is not required and hence, in the final water balance MLE
adjustments, the adjustments made to non-household water use would be very small and
lead to high confidence in the raw data.
In reality, the meter penetration for non-household customers is unlikely to alter
dramatically in the short to medium term, therefore the best available information would
comprise the items above, for measured customers, and in addition:
For each customer:
o information on annual water use estimated on the basis of the rateable value
of the property and average water use of measured customers in the same
sector.
o information on the sector in which the customer works against SIC2007
classification at the two digit (division) level.
Information on adjustments that should be made to reflect water balance
calculations. (This is likely to be a positive adjustment, with the total volume applied
across all components being no more than 5% of distribution input.)
The current main barriers to collation of such data are:
Availability of sector information for customers. Customer billing databases appear
generally to have only patchy information on the industrial sector in which the
customer is operating. Some water companies collect this information more
102
routinely than others, and some have undertaken exercises to identify this
information to support their Ofwat annual returns or WRMP activities.
Data confidentiality. Some water companies are unable to provide extracts of their
billing system, even with names and addresses removed, without data
confidentiality or other agreements in place. This varies according to individual
company policies.
Burden on water company resources. To extract information from billing systems
and provide data places a burden on the water company. For this project we were
able to obtain data thanks in large part to a pre-existing positive working
relationship with the companies, the drivers for the project and the relatively flexible
timescales we were able to provide. However, some companies were unable to
respond even within the timeframe available due to competing pressures of water
resources planning and/or preparing Ofwat business plan submissions for PR14.
The data we were requesting is not required to be published or reported and
therefore required effort on the part of water company staff to obtain and compile.
If progress is to be made, consideration should be given to how water company
annual reporting could be standardised further, without loss of necessary
information required by regulators. If good quality public water supply water use
data by industrial sector are required by Defra, then Defra should consider
consulting with the water industry to help provide the information it requires.
Recommendations
To facilitate a smooth data collection process on public water supply in the future there are
two key recommendations which could be considered although it is acknowledged that
they are relatively ambitious.
1. Work with the water industry to populate billing databases with sector level
information about customers in a consistent manner, to SIC 2007 (minimum 4 digits
although a higher level of detail may future proof against changes in the
classification systems) in line with reporting requirements for the JQ.
2. Engage with the Open Water Programme to allow consideration of whether the
requirements for EU reporting should be incorporated into the data held by the
Central Market Agency.
103
Appendix A Communication with water companies
Telephone Script
Script to be used when requesting information from water companies
Industrial Use
Introduction - name, WRc, how we got their number etc.
WRc have been contracted by Defra to undertake a review of the available data
concerning the industrial use public water supplies (PWS) by industry category.
Defra require this as evidence to support the development of water policy and to meet the
EU requirements on the provision of statistics for Eurostat.
What we are seeking is information on ‘Public Water Supply’ use by industry category.
Ideally we would like a range of recent years (2011/12 & 2012/13). This information could
be classified by SIC category, or other sector classification used by “water company
name”.
Following this conversation, I can email you with a summary of work and confirm what
data we are seeking to fulfil this work.
Data Confidentiality
Numbers and data gathered as part of this Defra project will be reported at a water
company resolution for the public water supply element.
Discussion on Sources of Data – Industrial Use
We undertook a project in 2010/11 for WRAP that was similar in nature and at that time we
a) used WRMP data from 2006 to form the basis of our report.
b) Applied a percentage for sectorial usage to available data
I see from your published WRMP that you have calculated a total non-household demand
figure of “XXX Ml” What information was used to generate this figure and is there a more
detailed breakdown available showing how the total was arrived at?
For this project we will categorise the water use by industry according to the latest SIC
(Standard Industrial Classification) codes. What method of categorisation have you used
to breakdown your non-household demand? (If categorisation is different – Why do you
feel that this categorisation is more convenient or appropriate for use in your company?)
104
Where the categories you have used for demand classification result in the merging of
sector categories, perhaps electricity, gas, and water have been combined, is there any
readily available information available that would allow WRc further examination with a
view to classifying these areas separately. Figures that were previously included in June
returns - such as the consumption of the utility companies, would be useful for inclusion in
this section of the project. Are these figures still collected/reported and available to WRc?
Is the information available derived from metered sources or inferred/calculated by other
means? What percentage of industry flow is metered?
Are you confident in these figures or are there areas of uncertainty that you are aware of?
Conclusion
Thank you very much for your help today. I hope I have been clear in explaining the
purpose of this project and the information WRc hope to receive from “Water company
name”. I will follow this call with an email formalising the topic we have just discussed and I
look forward to hearing from you shortly. If you have any questions or comments, please
do not hesitate to contact me on (0)1793 865XXX or [email protected]. Thank you.
Email Outline
Dear XXX
Thank you for your time on the phone earlier. As I mentioned on the phone, we have been
contracted by Defra to compile a report on the non-household demand in the UK across all
the operating water companies.
Defra require this as evidence to support the development of water policy and to meet the
EU requirements on the provision of statistics for Eurostat. Most importantly perhaps,
Defra are looking to identify a potentially repeatable methodology, therefore it is important
for us to understand how companies are currently storing / collecting data, or if they do this
as a one off exercise every 5 years for the purpose of water resource management plans /
business planning. The purpose of this data collection and the key of the project is to
improve the Authority’s water statistics and support policy development by working
collaboratively with policy makers, the Environment Agency, water companies, industry
organisations and other relevant stakeholders.
Information Required – Non-Household Demand by Category
We are seeking the data used to build the non-domestic water demand figure for <water
company name>.
Concerning this data, we wish to know:
1. How these figures were arrived at (water meters, unmeasured assumptions etc.)
105
2. What classifications were used? Is this data in the billing system or post processed
periodically?
3. Why these particular classifications were used.
4. The frequency of data collection and reporting. Would you be happy/in a position to
report these demand figures on a more regular basis?
5. Areas of large assumptions/uncertainties in the data (e.g. assigning of categories)
6. Availability of further, detailed information that may be available. (e.g. where
gas/elec/water are split, is more granular information available.)
7. Any other data/information collected or personal views that may be applicable to
this section of the Defra project.
Your assistance in this project is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or
comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you don’t mind, I shall call again in 2
weeks to have a catch up conversation.
Regards,
106
Appendix B Key information from draft Water Resource Management Plans Company Relevant information and comments from the dWRMP
United Utilities 2011/12 is used as a base year for demand. Non household demand
has reduced substantially in recent decades. In 2011/12 it was 412 Ml/d,
of which 397 Ml was used by measured households, and 15 Ml/d by
unmeasured non-households.
Separate demand forecasts have been prepared for different industrial
sectors.
Essex and
Suffolk
ESW estimate for unmeasured non-household is based on the review
reported 8 years ago, in which unmetered customers were compared
with metered properties of the same type. Small numbers involved:
1.7% of total non-households in Essex and 0.04% of total non-
households in Suffolk
The customer base is split into 2 groups, identified customers who use
more than 10,000 m3 per year and for whom individual forecasts have
been generated for each customer, and , non-identified customers who
use less than 10,000 m3 of water and for whom an average volume per
property is forecast.
Demand has not been classified by Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC). It is described that this is because the methodology of looking at
smaller customers as a group means it is not necessary to look at
different types of smaller customers. Small customers who use
<10,000 m3 make up approximately 55% of measured non-household
demand. Each of the larger customers have been allocated to one of 10
broad sectors; the drivers of demand are considered to be similar for
each sector.
Pg 173/4 Table shows the industry classification used.
Pg 179 Figure 22 - measured non-household demand in Essex by
sector.
Pg 185 Figure 31 - measured non household demand in Suffolk by
Sector.
107
Company Relevant information and comments from the dWRMP
Severn Trent
Water
Experian produced forecasts of non-household water demand to 2040.
The models were constructed on an industry sector basis using SIC
codes. Data made available by STW for the modelling showed: Unique
ID, Location, Water Usage, Industry (SIC), Consumption Band, Tariff
Group. The industry groupings are aggregated to the 30 sector
classifications with Experian UK’s regional economic forecasting
models. This groups more detailed SIC industries with similar
characteristics, outputs etc.
Table B3.1 non household demand by EA sectors - 2011/12 is 510.7
Ml/Day.
Thames Water The vast majority of non household demand is measured. Unmeasured
non household demand usage is estimated using the average usage
measured in non household by type (e.g. SIC Codes).
Total non household demand for 2011/12 is reported in Table 3-4.
Measured - 480.79 Ml/d, Unmeasured - 20.79 Ml/d.
Southern Water Non household demand is 122 Ml/d in 2011/12. Cambridge
Econometrics (CE) were engaged to provide a non-household demand
forecast. CE divided non household water use into 9 broad sectors and
42 subsectors based on SIC codes.
Figure 6.8 gives pie chart breakdown of non-household 2011/12
demand.
Northumbrian
Water
(excluding
Essex &
Suffolk)
NW estimate of unmeasured non household consumption is based on
the review reported 8 years ago in which unmeasured customers were
compared with metered properties of the same type. Unmetered non
households only account for 3.7% of the Northumbrian non household
demand.
Individual forecasts are made for non-household customers who use
over 10,000 m3 per year and non identified customers who use less
than 10,000 m3 per year have an average volume per property
assigned.
SIC not used. The larger customers allocated to one of 10 broad
sectors, each sector having similar drivers of demand.
Measured non household demand 2011/12 was 148.7 Ml/d.
108
Company Relevant information and comments from the dWRMP
Yorkshire Water The 25 year demand forecast for non-household demand was carried
out by Experian. The demand forecasting used 2011/12 as a base year.
Table 4.2 outlines non household demand for the base year.
Measured non-household demand (before adjustment) - Consumption
258.31 Ml/d - Supply pipe leakage 4.63 Ml/d - Meter under registration
(MUR) 12.12 Ml/d. Unmeasured non-household demand (before
adjustment) - Consumption 1.81 Ml/d - Supply pipe leakage 0.629 Ml/d
Supply pipe leakage defined as the leakage of pipes located within the
property boundary. MUR accounts for meters under-registering and is at
4.7% for non-households as reported in the annual report to Ofwat.
Other analysis, to look at dry year uplift, showed that industries were
classified according to SIC codes. Some are singled out within the
dWRMP including: Animal/dairy/vegetable processing; Manufacturing of
food/drink; Pubs/clubs- sport/recreation; and Agriculture, forestry,
fishing.
For unmeasured non-households, to derive a 2011/12 baseline figure
for the demand forecast, an estimate was determined from a re-
assessment of the different components of unmeasured non household
use in 2008/09.
South
Staffordshire
Water
Non household demand has fallen by approximately 14Ml/d since the
2009 WRMP, largely due to economic factors. In 2009 a model was
completed with Deloitte, the model was updated with post 2009 data as
the basis of non-household demand forecasts in the dWRMP. The
model uses 80 of the top users to represent 12 industrial sectors based
on the company’s own classifications that are similar to SIC codes.
Dwr Cymru
Welsh Water
Base year for forecasting is 2011/12. Measured non-household demand
is 180.414 Ml/d, and unmeasured non-household demand is estimated
at 4.943 Ml/d.
Dee Valley
Water
Approximately 12 Ml/d non-household demand in 2011/12, on a
downward trend. Broadly grouped into sectors (e.g. energy,
manufacturing, health).
Anglian Water 32% of delivered supplies were to measured non-household customers.
Average per property consumption for this segment is 2,550
l/property/day. Less than 1% of delivered supplies were to unmeasured
non-households – there is practically 100% meter penetration for non-
household customers.
109
Company Relevant information and comments from the dWRMP
Affinity Water Assessed non-household demand in relation to regional gross value-
added (GVA) output. This analysis has been repeated (used in previous
WRMP) with actual data to 2011/12 (base year). Figure 16 shows
industry sectors which comprise the non-household customers. The
non-household consumption total was 177.37 ML/d.
Cambridge
Water
Metered non-household demand was below average. Use billing
records to calculate consumption in non-household metered properties.
20.7 Ml/d base year non-household metered demand. Cambridge water
assumes 800l per property per day based on historic survey for
unmetered non-household properties. Unmetered non-households
account for a small percentage (<2%) of distribution input. Total
estimated unmetered non-household demand is 0.64 Ml/d.
Bristol Water Over the last 10 years the average daily distribution input has fallen
from 282 Ml/d to 265 Ml/d. This is due to a number of factors such as
reduction in non-household demand for water, influence of significantly
cooler and wetter years, effect of appeals for customer restraint within
drought periods, leakage reduction and poor national economic
performance. Approximately 95% of all non-households are metered.
The remaining non-household units are small premises or farm troughs.
Measured non-household consumption was 59 Ml/d in 2011/12.
Consumption data were extracted from the billing record for the non-
household customers and provided by Bristol Wessex Billing Services.
Unmetered non-household consumption was 2.6 M/d in 2011/12. This is
estimated by assigning to the identified properties the average
consumption for the equivalent SIC code for small metered non-
households.
Cholderton &
District Water
Commercial consumption 9,793 m3 in 2011/12.
South West
Water
Table 3.1 includes the baseline estimate for non-household
consumption including the adjustment for water balance. Use of high
level SIC groups is indicated in the demand forecast table 3.9.
Sembcorp
Bournemouth
Water
Non-household demand uses outturn values for measured and
unmeasured non-household demand are taken from the Annual Return
water balance for the base year 2011/2012. This is forecast ahead using
econometric forecasts of non-household properties broken down by
property type from the company billing system.
Non-household usage continues to decline. Most non-household use is
in the business services, agricultural, public administration and hotels
and leisure sectors.
110
Company Relevant information and comments from the dWRMP
South East
Water
Most non-household customers are metered. Historic usage of
commercial customers against industrial sectors (SIC) has been
analysed to derive the baseline non-household consumption.
The 2011/12 non-household water delivered is 111 Ml/d split by SIC.
The final “Other” segment is a collation of approximately 50 smaller use
sectors in the SEW region.
Wessex Water Each sector is an aggregation of several industry codes used to classify
non-household customer types in the billing system. The codes used
are similar but not identical to SSIC. There are eight sectors in total.
2011/2012 total non-household water demand was 102 Ml/d.
Portsmouth
Water
Over the past 40 years, Portsmouth Water has seen a decline in overall
non-household demand within its supply area. There are several
contributions to this reduction which include:
The transition of the local economy from manufacturing towards
service orientated industries.
Initiatives by larger commercial customers to reduce water
consumption.
The promotion of water efficiency initiatives and leakage
reduction services in commercial businesses by Portsmouth
Water
The total non-household consumption has fallen from 80.4 Ml/d in
1971/2 to 37.4 Ml/d in 2011/12. This total includes supply pipe leakage.
Sutton & East
Surrey Water
SESW monitors the consumption of metered non-household properties
within each of its WRZs. Meter readings during the period 2000 to 2012
have been examined and used to estimate average daily consumption.
Figure 13 shows the percentage contribution of different categories of
user to non-household consumption within the SESW supply area. The
greatest proportion of non-household consumption (29%) can be
attributed to airports (including Gatwick), with residential
accommodation (business and service) also making a large contribution
(23%). The remaining 48% is split into a number of groups, the largest
of which is residential healthcare (10%), non-boarding school/ college
(7%), offices (5%), sports facilities (5%), shops (5%) and boarding
school/college (5%).
The Company has used total metered consumption figures from its
billing database for 2011/12 as the base year estimate of non-household
consumption in its demand forecast.
111
112
Appendix C Data quality assessment framework
The data quality assessment framework was developed to offer a consistent approach to
review of data on public water supply, direct abstraction and freshwater resources.
Data Quality
Attribute
Definition Guidance
Relevance
Relevance is the degree to
which statistics meet current
and potential users’ needs. It
refers to whether all
statistics that are needed are
produced and the extent to
which concepts used
(definitions, classifications
etc.) reflect user needs.
Do the data provide the type of
information that is required for
reporting? Do data have to be provided
for a standard area or classification
(e.g. by RBD, Standard Industrial
Classification)? do the statistics reflect
this?
Is the statistic exactly what is requested
or is it a surrogate measure?
Completeness
Completeness is the extent
to which all statistics that are
needed are available. It is
usually described as a
measure of the amount of
available data from a
statistical system compared
to the amount that was
expected to be obtained.
Does the dataset or sample cover the
entire the population of interest? Are
certain parts of the population missing
(causing under-coverage), or out-of-
scope parts of the population
mistakenly included (causing over-
coverage)? Are there any data gaps or
missing values? Could there be any
double-counting? Has a weighting
method been used to adjust for over- or
under-representation of particular
groups within the sample?
Accuracy
Accuracy in the general
statistical sense denotes the
closeness of computations
or estimates to the exact or
true values.
Have all data fields been completed
correctly and consistently? Are there
any systematic errors that might bias
the data? Are random errors known and
quantified (i.e. what is the level of
precision and confidence)?
113
Data Quality
Attribute
Definition Guidance
Timeliness
Timeliness of information
reflects the length of time
between its availability and
the event or phenomenon it
describes.
Are the data current and up-to-date?
How frequently are the data updated?
Many data generation processes (e.g.
water company business plans and
river basin management plans) operate
on a cyclical rather than on-going basis.
Comparability
Comparability is the extent
to which differences
between statistics from
different geographical areas,
non-geographical domains,
or over time, can be
attributed to differences
between the true values of
the statistics.
Are the data comparable between
different geographical areas, through
time, and between domains? For
example, it can be difficult to
legitimately aggregate, compare and
interpret data between the four UK
nations due to differences in regulatory
reporting requirements.
Accessibility
Accessibility refers to the
physical conditions in which
users can obtain data: where
to go, how to order, delivery
time, clear pricing policy,
convenient marketing
conditions (copyright, etc.),
availability of micro or macro
data, various formats (paper,
files, CD-ROM, Internet
etc.), etc.
Who owns the data? Are the data
commercially sensitive or confidential?
What format is the data held in? Is there
a fee or are the data available free of
charge? Are there any licencing or data
protection restrictions or other legal
barriers to using the data?
114
Part 4 - Water Efficiency
Introduction
Background
Under Section 93A of the Water Industry Act, water companies have a statutory duty to
promote the efficient use of water by their customers.
Further to this, water efficiency targets for 2010-2015 have been set out for each of the
England and Wales water utilities. These targets provide a framework for Ofwat to assess
company performance qualitatively along with highlighting the work that companies are
doing to ensure that their customers (both household and non-household) use their water
more wisely. The targets indicate the level of water efficient activities that each company
should be carrying out, in terms of savings to be achieved, and this is what they are
measured against.
The targets are in two parts:
base service water efficiency (BSWE) which is the minimum level of activity
expected by all water companies; and
the sustainable level of water efficiency (SELWE).
The base service water efficiency comprises requires water companies to:
achieve a volumetric target year on year equivalent to one litre of water per
household per day to 2015. This can be achieved through both household and non-
household water efficiency activity.
provide information to customers on how to use water more wisely; and
continue towards improving the evidence base for water efficiency.
In addition, since April 2012, companies have been able to contribute to a
collaborative evidence base fund which counts against a small proportion of their
volumetric target.
Further to the requirements of the base service water efficiency the sustainable level of
water efficiency requires water companies who have a proven business case for additional
water efficiency activities to implement these as agreed by Ofwat. These activities would
have been included within the preferred option during the last water resources
management and business planning round in 2009 where the water efficiency activity
would have been demonstrated to be more cost effective than alternative supply-demand
balance measures such as leakage reduction.
115
As part of a wider study on water use statistics, WRc were asked by Defra to identify data
sources and information on the level of water efficiency activity in England and to identify
how our understanding of the impact of measures has changed over the last 5 years.
Objectives
The objectives of this study were to:
identify what data sources are available on water efficient activities for five main
water companies and where it is currently collected and stored;
assess the data quality of the data provided and identify any gaps; and
calculate, where possible, the impact of the water efficiency devices that were
installed using historic, and more up-to-date assumptions on the water savings
associated with device installation to demonstrate the evolution of our
understanding.
Data gathering approach
Overview
It was agreed with Defra that WRc would collate the available data/information on activities
undertaken by five water companies (to get as much coverage of the UK population as
possible) to promote water efficiency. The five companies WRc approached were agreed
with Defra at the outset of the project. WRc discussed and obtained data concerning the
number and method of distributed water saving devices. As well as obtaining the data,
WRc discussed device selection, distribution channels, uptake rates and demand
reduction with the water company representatives. The purpose of the subsequent
discussion was to understand the context of the data provided.
Water company contacts
The initial contact was by telephone with each of the five main companies, with an email
follow up to confirm the data and information items that we were seeking for the purpose of
this study. Examples of the telephone script and follow up email text can be found in
Appendix A of this report. Prior to contact WRc reviewed the recently published draft water
resource management plans to extract relevant information regarding water efficiency
activities and prevent our company contacts needing to tell us about publically available
information. We therefore tailored the phone calls and emails according to information
gained from this source.
116
Savings values
Ofwat published guidance for water companies when the water efficiency targets were
introduced, which set out estimated savings and uptake rates of water efficient devices to
indicate the level of water efficiency activity that companies should be carrying out. This
ensured that there is consistency of the values used across all water companies.
Since this time, the water industry has continued to measure and monitor the effectiveness
of water efficiency activities. This continual learning process has allowed the assumed
savings values to evolve to be more accurate and reflecting the latest research.
Evidence collated in recent years from measured data indicated different savings values to
those estimated by Ofwat. Evidence from three studies that had high quality quantitative
evidence of savings (Waterwise (2010), WRc (2010) and Environment Agency (2012)
reporting on Essex & Suffolk’s H2Eco project) were used to generate an alternative, but
perhaps, more genuine, set of values that should reflect the real savings achieved which
were published in the green deal guidance. Comparison between the assumed savings
using these two sets of values gives an indication of how our understanding of water
efficiency devices has changed and improved based on evidence and trials over the last
five years.
Water use statistics
The water efficiency data received was generally of good quality. The data collected was
in line with regulatory reporting requirements to Ofwat (Annual Return Table 1 Lines 1 –
18).
Of the five selected companies, data from the year 2011/12 was obtained for 3 of the
companies. The returned data for two of these companies was a spreadsheet containing
the completed Table 1 of the Annual Return. The information for the third company was
collated from the current WRMP. The data of the two remaining companies was extracted
from Table 1 of their respective Annual Return 2010/11 data.
Companies measure their performance against their water efficiency targets by multiplying
their water efficiency activities by assumptions about the savings that those activities will
deliver. The water companies calculate the uptake and subsequent water savings
associated with water efficiency device installation and distribution.
Processing the data
Companies were asked to provide information concerning the quantities and types of
water efficiency devices selected for distribution. These devices were generally derived
from a list of unconstrained options and were considered by the companies to be effective
water saving measures.
117
To process this information into meaningful results, WRc developed two excel-based
calculation sheets, the “Ofwat Calculator” and the “Green Deal Calculator” to generate the
expected water savings results in ML/day. Both of the calculations rely on inputted data
concerning the number and type of devices installed and a set of key assumptions.
The primary difference between the two calculators is the expected water savings
attributable to each installed device. The “Ofwat Calculator” is based on the “Estimated
savings and uptake rate table”, (Ofwat 2012) and the “Green Deal Calculator” is based on
the device attributes reported in the “Green Deal guidance for the water sector”,
(Waterwise and EST, 2012). This latter report reflects the latest understanding of the
water industry and is based on quantitative evidence. The earlier Ofwat guidance values
were based on the knowledge available at the time of publishing, when quantitative
analysis of savings from programmes of water efficiency were in their infancy.
The water efficiency devices to be processed have been allocated to one of three
categories in line with regulatory reporting: cistern displacement devices, retrofit devices
and outdoors.
Cistern Displacement Devices (CDD)
Cistern displacement devices include the ‘save a flush’, ‘Hippo’ and ‘water widget’ devices.
Water companies have information on the number of devices distributed, a percentage
value based on best available knowledge is applied to calculate the number of devices
installed therefore WRc used the number of assumed installed devices (rather than the
certain number of devise installed) to calculate the resulting estimated savings. The
savings calculated were based on information provided in Table 18.
Table 18 Cistern displacement devices – water savings (litres per flush)
Device Description Ofwat Guidance Value Green Deal Guidance Value18
Save a flush 1 0.52 to 2.06 (notional saving
of 1 l/flush) Hippo 2
Water widget 1.2
Retrofit Devices
Retrofit devices include shower, tap and WC devices fitted to existing household
hardware, e.g. tap inserts, or as a direct replacement for an existing household item, e.g.
replacement shower head. Savings values are provided in Table 19.
18
Devices which save cold water only are not included on the Green Deal list of measures, but can be
designed into partnership offers as they would have little or no disruption to the parent programme's objectives which may be delivered in partnership with the water industry and hence are included in the green deal guidance.
118
Table 19 Retrofit devices – water savings
Device Description Ofwat Guidance Value Green Deal Guidance Value1
WC – Interruptible 47 litres/property/day 1.52 – 2.5 litres/flush
(notional saving of 2
litres/flush) WC – Dual flush 30 litres/property/day
Tap - Inserts/restrictors 18 litres/tap/day – 36 max
saving litres/property/day
0 – 5 litres/property/day
(notional saving of 1
litres/property/day) Tap – Re-washering 12 litres/tap/day - 24 max
saving litres/property/day
Showers – Aerated/low flow 30 litres/property/day 5 – 10.5 litres/person/day
(notional saving of 7.95
litres/person/day) Showers – Flow restrictor 30 litres/property/day
Outdoors
Outdoor devices are concerned with the reduction of water demand associated with
outdoor activities. Devices can be varied but generally include water butts, water saving
crystals and water hose trigger guns to reduce the demand from garden watering and
vehicle washing.
Table 20 Outdoor devices – water savings
Device Description Ofwat Guidance Value Green Deal Guidance Value
Water butts (Water butt volume x
fills per year) / 365
No specific saving value
given, although it is
acknowledged they may
reduce consumption and
bills and could be offered to
help reinforce water
efficiency messages.
Water saving crystals 0.5 litres/property/day
Hose trigger guns 2 litres/property/day
Other Assumptions
In order to calculate the water savings achieved, WRc made several general assumptions
to be applied in calculations. These assumptions are listed in Table 21.
119
Table 21 General Assumption
Description Value Comment
WC flushes/person/day 4.42 (DCLG, 2009)
Avg. household occupancy 2.4 National average occupancy
(DCLG, 2012)
Avg. water butt volume 150 litres WRc assumption19
Water butt fills per year 6.9 Ofwat guidance value
(Ofwat, 2012)
Data limitations
For most companies information on the number of a specific (named) device installed was
not available. Therefore, for instance, we were unable to determine if the cistern
replacement devices installed by a given company were hippos (e.g. assumed 2 litre
saving), or a save-a-flush (e.g. assumed 1 litre saving). We therefore calculate a maximum
and a minimum assumed saving for each category of device to reflect this uncertainty.
A second limitation is in the use of assumptions around per person / per household usage.
In reality, there may be more than one appliance of each type installed in any given home.
In these instances, the likelihood is that the water company would install retrofit devices on
all appliances where savings could be achieved (if devices are installed by the water
company). This could result in savings being over-estimated as it is assumed that each
device installed results in the same impact; in homes where two of the device are installed
then each device would only achieve half of the savings.
Results
We have compared the range in assumed savings that exists within the separate Ofwat
and Green Deal calculations. These ranges highlight the variability that exists within the
older set of water saving assumptions and within the more up to date knowledge.
When comparing between the savings calculated by Ofwat values and the Green Deal
guidance, we have identified the “worst case” and “best case” scenario, reflecting the
potential differences in real savings achieved through installation of devices using older
knowledge and the more up-to-date savings information. General assumptions were not
altered by this exercise.
This value was subsequently expressed as a percentage of the original (Ofwat)
assumptions to produce a maximum percentage variation from this knowledge as is shown
19
This is based on a moderately sized water butt currently on the market.
120
in Table 22 to Table 26.It is likely that the mid-point for these differences represents a
reasonable picture of the likely real savings achieved – currently there is no real evidence
to support or dispute this assumption.
A worked example of how the values were derived in Table 23 to 27 is provided below:
For the purposes of this example 10000 cistern displacement devices were installed
To calculate the both the Green Deal Savings and the Ofwat savings the following formula
should be used:
Devices installed * occupancy * flushes per occupant * water savings per flush
Note: the values used in these calculations have been taken from Table 23 and Table 27 of
this report. Green Deal Savings
Minimum Ml/day savings: Maximum Ml/day savings:
10000*2.4*4.4 0.52 = 55161.6 l/day 10000*2.4 *4.42*2.06 = 218524.8 l/day
55161.6 / 1000000 = 0.06 Ml/day 218524.8 / 1000000 = 0.22 Ml/day
Ofwat savings
Minimum Ml/day savings: Maximum Ml/day savings
10000*2.4*4.4*1 = 106080 l/day 10000* 2.4*4.42*2 = 212160 l/day
106080 / 1000000 = 0.11Ml/day 212160 / 1000000 = 0.21 Ml/day
So to calculate the maximum Ml/day difference and the maximum % difference the following
steps should be carried out:
The formula for the Ml/day difference is:
Maximum of [Abs {Ofwat min – Green deal max} OR Abs {Ofwat max – Green deal min}}
0.11 – 0.22 = 0.11 OR 0.21 – 0.06 = 0.15 Ml/day
As 0.15 is the highest number we will take this forward.
To calculate the maximum % difference you use the following formula
Max difference / {Ofwat min OR Ofwat Max} **
0.15 / 0.21 = 0.71 which is 71%
** The use of the Ofwat min or max is dependent on the Ofwat value use in the Max
difference calculation.
121
Table 22 Water Company 1 devices and savings
Water Company 1 – Water Efficiency Devices installed in 2011-12
Description Number replaced (nr)
Ofwat savings (original knowledge)
Range in Ofwat savings
Green Deal Savings (up-to-date knowledge)
Range in Green Deal Savings
Max Ml/d Difference
Max % Difference
Min (Ml/d) Max (Ml/d) (Ml/d) Min (Ml/d) Max (Ml/d) (Ml/d)
Household and non-household cistern displacement devices
Cistern displacement devices installed
13169 0.16 0.32 0.16 0.08 0.33 0.24 0.23 74%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) - 0.16 0.32 0.16 0.08 0.33 0.24 0.23 74%
Retrofit devices
WC devices installed 2008 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.06 61%
Tap devices installed 2458 0.03 0.04 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 >100%
Shower devices 12147 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.22 60%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) - 0.45 0.50 0.05 0.18 0.38 0.38 0.32 64%
Outdoors
Water butts 3265 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 0.00 0.01 >100%
Trigger guns/crystal packs distributed
10109 0.01 0.02 0.02 0 0 0.00 0.02 >100%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) - 0.01 0.03 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0.03 >100%
Totals
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) - 0.62 0.85 0.23 0.26 0.70 0.44 0.59 69%
122
Table 23 Water Company 2 devices and savings
Water Company 2 – Water Efficiency Devices replaced in 2011-12
Description Number replaced (nr)
Ofwat savings (original knowledge)
Range in Ofwat savings
Green Deal Savings (up-to-date knowledge)
Range in Green Deal Savings
Max Ml/d Difference
Max % Difference
Min (Ml/d) Max (Ml/d) (Ml/d) Min (Ml/d) Max (Ml/d) (Ml/d)
Household and non-household cistern displacement devices
Cistern displacement devices installed
210350 2.52 5.05 2.52 1.31 5.20 3.89 3.74 74%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) 2.52 5.05 2.52 1.31 5.20 3.89 3.74 74%
Retrofit devices
WC devices installed 743 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 61%
Tap devices installed 14018 0.17 0.25 0.08 <0.01 0.07 0.07 0.25 >100%
Shower devices 37155 1.11 1.11 0.00 0.45 0.94 0.94 0.67 60%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) 1.31 1.40 0.10 0.46 1.03 1.03 0.94 67%
Outdoors
Water butts 628 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0 0 0.00 <0.01 >100%
Trigger guns/crystal packs distributed
64 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0 0 0.00 <0.01 >100%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 >100%
Totals
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) 3.83 6.45 2.62 1.77 6.23 4.46 4.68 73%
123
Table 24 Water Company 3 devices and savings
Water Company 3 – Water Efficiency Devices replaced in 2011-12
Description Number replaced
(nr)
Ofwat savings (original knowledge)
Range in Ofwat savings
Green Deal Savings (up-to-date knowledge)
Range in Green Deal Savings
Max Ml/d Difference
Max % Difference
Min (Ml/d) Max (Ml/d) (Ml/d) Min (Ml/d) Max (Ml/d) (Ml/d)
Household and non-household cistern displacement devices
Cistern displacement devices installed
9942 0.12 0.24 0.12 0.06 0.25 0.18 0.18 74%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) 0.12 0.24 0.12 0.06 0.25 0.18 0.18 74%
Retrofit devices
WC devices installed 0 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 0%
Tap devices installed 218 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 >100%
Shower devices 728 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 60%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 66%
Outdoors
Water butts 28 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0 0 0.00 <0.01 >100%
Trigger guns/crystal packs distributed
353 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0 0 0.00 <0.01 >100%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 >100%
Totals
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) 0.14 0.27 0.12 0.07 0.27 0.19 0.19 73%
124
Table 25 Water Company 4 devices and savings
Water Company 4 – Water Efficiency Devices replaced in 2010-11
Description Number replaced
(nr)
Ofwat savings (original knowledge)
Range in Ofwat savings
Green Deal Savings (up-to-date knowledge)
Range in Green Deal Savings
Max Ml/d Difference
Max % Difference
Min (Ml/d) Max (Ml/d) (Ml/d) Min (Ml/d) Max (Ml/d) (Ml/d)
Household and non-household cistern displacement devices
Cistern displacement devices installed
40698 0.49 0.98 0.49 0.25 1.01 0.75 0.72 74%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) 0.49 0.98 0.49 0.25 1.01 0.75 0.72 74%
Retrofit devices
WC devices installed 230 0.01 0.01 0.00 <0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 61%
Tap devices installed 32992 0.40 0.59 0.20 <0.01 0.16 0.16 0.59 >100%
Shower devices 78426 2.35 2.35 0.00 0.94 1.98 1.04 1.41 60%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) 2.76 2.96 0.20 0.95 2.15 1.20 2.01 68%
Outdoors
Water butts 1072 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0 0 0.00 <0.01 >100%
Trigger guns/crystal packs distributed
45482 0.02 0.09 0.07 0 0 0.00 0.09 >100%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) 0.02 0.10 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0.10 >100%
Totals
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) 3.27 4.03 0.76 1.20 3.15 1.95 2.83 70%
125
Table 26 Water Company 5 devices and savings
Water Company 5 – Water Efficiency Devices replaced in 2010-11
Description Number replaced (nr)
Ofwat savings (original knowledge)
Range in Ofwat savings
Green Deal Savings (up-to-date knowledge)
Range in Green Deal Savings
Max Ml/d Difference
Max % Difference
Min (Ml/d) Max (Ml/d) (Ml/d) Min (Ml/d) Max
(Ml/d) (Ml/d)
Household and non-household cistern displacement devices
Cistern displacement devices installed
30699 0.37 0.74 0.37 0.19 0.76 0.57 0.55 74%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) 0.37 0.74 0.37 0.19 0.76 0.57 0.55 74%
Retrofit devices
WC devices installed 0 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 0%
Tap devices installed 3273 0.04 0.06 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.06 >100%
Shower devices 60996 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.73 1.54 0.81 1.10 60%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) 1.87 1.89 0.02 0.73 1.55 0.82 1.16 61%
Outdoors
Water butts 379 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0 0 0.00 <0.01 >100%
Trigger guns/crystal packs distributed
2207 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0 0 0.00 <0.01 >100%
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) <0.01 0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0.01 >100%
Totals
Total savings assumed (Ml/d) 2.24 2.63 0.39 0.92 2.31 1.39 1.71 65%
126
Key observations from the data
The calculations show that the savings estimated using the most up-to-date
knowledge from the water industry are, generally, lower than the estimates from 5
years ago when water efficiency targets were introduced by Ofwat.
Savings from taps are less significant than other devices when water efficient
devices are installed. This is due in part to a smaller number of devices being
installed than for other devices, and the low savings values attributed to each
device.
Outdoor water use savings could be under estimated as savings allowances for
these are not included within the green deal guidance. There is limited quantitative
evidence for savings associated with these. A sensitivity analysis has been carried
out and has confirmed that the exclusion of outdoor water use from our calculations
does not affect the overall conclusions drawn.
Shower devices are estimated to have the biggest savings along with cistern
displacement devices. The potential impact of CDDs is wide ranging – it appears
that in the right circumstances these can be very effective; however there is a risk
that they are very ineffective.
There is no real evidence on longevity of effectiveness of water efficiency devices. It
is not known if the savings achieved upon installation last beyond the first week,
month or year, or if the customers remove these devices.
Water efficient devices selection
We asked the water efficiency managers at the sample companies how they go about
selecting the devices to be included within their water efficiency schemes. It is apparent
from the savings values that some devices are likely to achieve higher savings volumes
than others; however there are also always new products coming onto the market that may
offer a more cost-effective way of achieving savings. Most devices are provided free of
charge in order to encourage customers to install them; some higher value devices are
offered at a discounted price. Advice and support was also offered when the devices were
distributed to ensure that a support network was there if the customer required it.
The responses were varied, with some companies following advice from other companies
and others undertaking a more detailed level of product assessment. Some key points
raised were:
One company selected devices that were not linked to white goods (washing
machines and dishwashers), as they believed the water company had less
influence over these and could not so easily modify associated behaviours. These
included cistern replacement devices and shower devices.
127
One company, as well as distributing water butts, had undertaken a series of
rainwater harvesting schemes trialled on domestic properties to reduce water
consumption.
EcoBeta devices (which convert a standard single-flush siphon valve into a dual
flush) were often chosen because of their considerable water saving potential and
the lack of expertise required to install them. They were accompanied by an
informational sticker which explained to the user how they could use the shorter
flush to help ensure that the device was installed correctly.
Save-a-flush devices were often used where EcoBeta was not compatible. These
were chosen as they are a very cheap product which can be installed with minimal
effort.
Tap aerators were generally considered effective provided that a number of
different types of device were available to suit different taps, and where the correct
device was selected. Therefore in order for these devices to be effective – and
reduce excess water used for simple activities such as washing hands – they
should be installed by a professional.
Water Butt are considered to act more as an incentive for participation, as opposed
to a device to save substantial quantities of water.
Shower timers are used as a behaviour change tool. Shower timers are low-cost
devices.
Education is key to most companies water efficiency work. To support this, one
company had developed a ‘children’s kit’ consisting of a selection of products to
help encourage children to partake in water efficiency. It includes a singing
toothbrush, pencil case, water bottle and water efficiency top trump cards.
Distribution and uptake
One of the most debated topics in recent years has been the method of device distribution
to get the best uptake and therefore achieve savings in the most cost-effective manner.
Companies can distribute their water efficient devices via a number or routes, these could
include:
advertising them on each company’s website and allowing customers to sign up
and send for the devices that they would want installed;
advertising them during their call centres when they have contact with customers
and then send them directly to the customer;
hand out water efficient devices in local shops and supermarkets;
hand out devices as part of education visits to schools etc.;
hand out devices as events the company attends e.g. conferences, seminars,
community events etc.; or
advertising through local media outlets.
128
The method of distribution affects the company’s estimations of savings achieved from
their water efficiency activities. No company was able to provide any bespoke uptake
figures based on the method of distribution, with the values presented in Table 27, for the
example of cistern displacement devices, being considered the best available knowledge.
Table 27 Distribution uptake rates
Cistern Displacement Devices - Distribution/Installation Coefficients
By the company or its agent 1
Requested by customer 0.7
Welcome pack with meters 0.5
Distributed at events 0.3
One company told us that they had involved the local councils in their water efficient
retrofit schemes, and that water efficient devices were fitted in council owned properties.
As many water efficient devices are fitted as possible to maximise the potential savings.
The properties are individually examined to determine the suitability of devices before they
are installed. This increased the number of devices that were taken up.
Likewise, another company told us they are moving away from distribution of devices to
working on install projects with social housing, meter teams and homeserve in order that
they have more certainty in the installation rates.
One retrofit scheme by a company has seen thousands of household water audits being
carried out for both measured and unmeasured customers. Customer’s feedback as part
of these audits played a key part in the delivery of the scheme. Customer were given three
opportunities to comment: a satisfaction survey was left when the devices were installed, a
telephone survey was followed up a few days later and a follow up survey was sent 6-8
weeks later. This helped the company identify the take up rates of the devices and which
were favoured and which were disliked which enabled them to modify their approach in the
future with other customers.
A series of engagement techniques have been used by companies to encourage the
uptake of the efficient devices. These include:
a pre-mailer postcard to increase the customers awareness of water efficiency
techniques;
a variety of ways for customers to apply including phone, post, web and text
messages;
bus shelter advertisements to increase customer awareness;
van decals to advertise the water efficient project as an additional way to tell
customers about the work in their local area;
129
a ‘quick response’ (QR) code on any letter correspondence which the customer can
scan and then visit the website for more detailed information; and
incentives provided through a ‘recommend a friend’ scheme to encourage
participation.
It was also observed by one company that product take up and fit rates increased in the
later stages of a scheme as a wider variety of products were offered so customer
satisfaction increased.
A number of initiatives have also been introduced to encourage the uptake of devices by
plumbers being used to carry out retrofit schemes. Plumbers underwent training on the
water efficient products which meant that many more were fitted correctly and the
customer had confidence in what work the plumber was carrying out so they were more
likely to have a device fitted. In the later stages, contractors introduced the element of
competition between the plumbers. A league table was set up to illustrate the litres saved
per property against each plumber which encouraged them to fit more water saving
devices.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
The calculations carried out provide an estimation of by how water savings delivered by
industry water efficiency initiates may differ from previously assumed impacts due to a
process of continuous monitoring and measurement of the results of water efficiency work
over the last 5 years. We have provided a range of values based on ‘best case’ and ‘worst
case’ scenarios which show that, in the majority of cases, real savings are lower than the
older estimates by approximately 50%, although this does vary by device. The most
uncertainty around savings is in relation to cistern displacement devices, whilst all other
devices are estimated to have real savings lower than the estimated savings used in
calculation of performance against water efficiency targets. If CDDs are excluded from our
calculations, we estimate that the real savings seen may be between 20 and 66% lower
than originally anticipated from the level of water efficiency activity that has been carried
out. The mid point, or best estimate of the real savings is around 40% lower than were
originally anticipated – this will vary depending on the exact combination of devices
installed by particular companies.
At the same time it is clear that water companies have been continually improving their
engagement and approach to distribution of water efficiency devices and hence should be
better positioned in the future to understand how to maximise effectiveness from their
activities.
130
Quantitative evidence has shown the savings achieved from tap inserts are very low. This
may be due to complexities in installation (there are many types and shape of tap, and
getting a device that fits may be difficult) which result in low uptake rates once devices are
distributed. Ensuring a variety of devices are available and having these installed by a
plumber, or qualified installer may increase the effectiveness of these devices. Taps
however, by their nature, are highly behaviour dependent and savings will not be achieved
where taps are used for vessel filling activities, or where they are run to allow hot water to
reach the tap.
The biggest savings, according to available evidence, can be made from toilets and
showers. However, the effectiveness will again by affected by the method of installation.
Distribution of devices cannot ensure that, for instance, a shower head will not be
inappropriately installed on an electric shower or that a cistern displacement device will not
be placed in a low flush (6 litre or less) toilet. Again, schemes whereby a plumber or
qualified installer installs the device will ensure that devices are not inappropriately
installed and that real savings are achieved without customer dissatisfaction. WRc’s study
on water efficiency devices in 2010 showed that shower heads were only effective where
the pre-installation flow rate was higher than 8 litres per minute. Water companies have
estimated installation rates based on the method of distribution and these are reflected in
calculations of savings.
It is clear that the more avenues that are used to promote water efficiency, the more likely
it is that you will reduce household consumption and the greater the variety of devices
installed, the more likely that savings are made. Involving other stakeholders (e.g.
councils, plumbers, schools etc.) can increase the uptake of water efficient devices.
However, three questions that are unanswered are:
1. the longevity of savings, as there is still very little evidence on how long devices
remain installed for;
2. the proportion of devices that are installed in second/third appliances in homes, and
therefore the extent by which devices are either individually not achieving maximum
savings because other less efficient appliances are still installed in homes, or the
extent to which devices are offering an incremental saving over existing devices
installed in a home; and
3. the level of saturation of homes with water efficiency devices. Because there are a
number of avenues through which households may request water efficiency devices
or be exposed to them, there is no clear way to tell exactly how many homes have
devices installed and hence the total market saturation.
4. The genuine installation rate resulting from different distribution methods. Estimates
of these exist from company research however some uncertainty remains.
It is difficult to comment on the effectiveness of outdoor water use devices – perceived by
some companies to be an incentive to install other measures and a key behaviour change
tool rather than offering genuine savings. There is currently very little evidence available
131
on the real effectiveness of devices such as water butts and trigger guns for hoses and we
would recommend that more evidence is gathered on the effectiveness of these.
Recommendations
In order to carry out a regular assessment of water efficiency activity, the following
information should be sought from water companies:
The number of devices installed including details of the device type (e.g. hippo save
a flush) rather than grouped categories.
Agree savings values based on best available knowledge and up to date research
to apply.
o Better evidence of savings achieved from outdoor water using devices
required.
Over time, work with water companies to improve knowledge on uptake
(installation) rates through different distribution routes such that cost effectiveness
of water efficiency measures can be maximised. In addition, work with companies to
identify longevity of savings through follow-up with homes where devices are
installed on a routine basis.
Engage with other distributors of water efficiency devices such as retailers and
builders merchants to ensure a full picture of water efficiency is achieved.
The data that WRc received for this project was processed for use by water companies in
their regulatory reporting. In order to assess the quality of the data in future years, an audit
of each company’s data management process for collating water efficiency information
would be required. This would require a level of co-operation from water companies to
explain the confidence in their statistics to Defra, such as the accuracy of numbers of
water efficiency devices issued to consumers by distribution method.
References Ofwat (2012) Estimated savings and uptake rate table [online] http://www.waterwise.org.uk/data/resources/55/Green-Deal-Guidance-for-the-Water-Sector-EST-and-Waterwise-November-2012.pdf Waterwise and EST (2012) Green Deal Guidance for the Water Sector [online] http://www.waterwise.org.uk/data/resources/55/Green-Deal-Guidance-for-the-Water-Sector-EST-and-Waterwise-November-2012.pdf WRc (2010) CP359 Water Efficiency Devices Savings Assessment DCLG (2009) The Water Efficiency Calculator for New Dwellings [online] http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/water_efficiency_calculator.pdf
132
DCLG (2012) 2011 Census - Population and Household Estimates for England and Wales [online] http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_270487.pdf
133
Appendix A Communication with water companies
Telephone script
Script to be used when requesting information from water companies
Introduction - name, WRc, how we got their number etc.
WRc have been tasked by Defra to undertake a review of the use of water efficient
devices. We are seeking information you may have on the number, and method, of
distributed devices. If we could discuss the estimated uptake rates of these devices at a
later date, we hope to assess the resulting demand reduction expected using the guidance
values published in the green deal guidance.
Data Confidentiality
Numbers and data gathered as part of this Defra project will be reported anonymously.
Discuss Sources of Data – Water Efficiency
June returns previously reported similar statistics to those we are looking for. We are
looking to report both quantitatively and qualitatively on the use and penetration of water
efficiency measures.
We are particularly interested in the take up of water saving devices that have been
offered and what, in your experience, has been the reception to these offerings. We are
interested in how the take up may have varied by promotion/distribution routes. Has this
take up been measured and if so how?
What devices were included as part of these water savings initiatives? How was this list of
devices arrived at?
Concerning the effectiveness of these initiatives, what methods have “Water Company
Name” used to measure participation and outcomes. Is the data from these
surveys/studies etc. available to WRc.
What has been the level of consumer interest in water metering recently, and is there data
available which may be used to expand on this topic?
In your experience what has been the reception to and take up of the devices offered.
How have these devices been promoted to customers?
134
How has the effectiveness of these initiatives been measured? Are results from marketing
campaigns, surveys and studies conducted by “Water Company Name”?
Is there information available the level of consumer interest in water metering?
Conclusion
Thank you very much for your help today. I will follow this call with an email formalising the
topic we have just discussed and I look forward to hearing from you shortly. If you have
any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me on (0)1793 865XXX or
[email protected]. Thank you.
Email Outline
Dear XXX
Please find below the data request email for a project we are undertaking for Defra. We
have been contracted by Defra to compile a report concerning the promotion, distribution
and take up of water efficiency measures provided by the water companies. To this end,
we are seeking available data concerning the promotion, distribution and take up of water
efficiency measures provided by the water companies.
Information Required – Use of Water Efficiency Devices
The objective of this project section is to identify data sources and information on how
effective water efficiency targets are, and to understand the demand management issues
which underpin them.
Concerning this data, we wish to know:
2.1 List of water efficiency device types offered and why these were selected
2.2 Data on the distribution and take up of these offered devices.
2.3 How have the devices and subsequent take ups varied by promotion and distribution
routes.
2.4 What metrics were used to measure the effectiveness of these water savings
initiatives and is the pre-post initiative data available.
2.5 What is the level of consumer interest in water metering at <water company name>.
Is there data to show any increase/decrease with possible explanations for such changes.
2.6 Any other data/information collected by <water company name> that may be
applicable to this section of the Defra project.
135
Your assistance in this project is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or
comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you don’t mind, I shall call on Friday to
discuss this project.
Regards, XXX
136
Glossary Acronym Description
BGS British Geological Survey
BSWE Base Service Water Efficiency.
This is the minimum level of activity expected by all
water companies as part of the water efficiency targets.
CDD Cistern Displacement Device.
This can be inserted into a toilet cistern and takes up
space which otherwise would be filled with water which
means that less water is available per toilet flush.
Devices that fit into this category include ‘Hippo’, ‘Save-
a-flush’ and ‘water widgets’.
CEH Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
CAMS Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy.
Introduced by the Environment Agency in 2001, CAMS
assesses how much water is available for abstraction
from water bodies on a catchment by catchment basis,
determines the appropriate abstraction licensing
strategy based on this assessment of raw water
resources, and sets out which measures are required to
restore or maintain sustainable abstraction.
[d]WRMP [Draft] Water Resource Management Plan.
Every five years, water companies in England and
Wales are required to produce a Water Resources
Management Plan that sets out how they aim to
maintain water supplies over a 25-year period. Plans are
produced and published in both Draft and subsequently
Final editions.
EEA European Environment Agency.
JQ Joint Questionnaire on Inland Waters.
The OECD/Eurostat joint questionnaire on Inland
Waters includes the whole water cycle from abstraction
to use and then discharge, and additional tables on
quality of some rivers and lakes only used by OECD.
137
JQDCM Joint Questionnaire Data Collection Manual.
The Data Collection Manual for the OECD/Eurostat Joint
Questionnaire on Inland Waters was established in
order to provide guidance, best practices and standards
in collecting, estimating and compiling the data required
by the Joint Questionnaire.
MLE adjustment Maximum Likelihood Estimation adjustment.
Maximum-likelihood estimation is used as a method of
reconciliation within the water balance by providing
estimates for water use parameters based upon levels
of uncertainty in the underlying data.
NACE Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the
European Community (Fr: Nomenclature statistique des
activités économiques dans la Communauté
européenne).
Enacted in the UK as SIC (see below). Two versions are
currently in use: revision 1.1 (identical to SIC2003) and
revision 2 (identical to SIC2007).
NALD National Abstraction Licensing Database.
A historical name for the Environment Agency database
used to operate and manage the Abstraction Charges
Scheme in England and Wales. NALD also contains
information on actual abstraction volumes reported by
licence holders to the Environment Agency on an annual
basis.
NIEA Northern Ireland Environment Agency.
An agency of the Department of Environment, its remit is
to advise on, and implement, UK Government policy and
strategy on environmental matters in Northern Ireland.
This includes monitoring and protecting raw water
resources from over-abstraction and pollution by
operating and managing the system for abstraction
licensing and environmental discharge consenting in
Northern Ireland.
NHMP National Hydrological Monitoring Program
This cooperative program between Environment
138
Agencies aims to provide an authoritative voice on
hydrological conditions throughout the UK, to place them
in a historical context and, over time, identify and
interpret any emerging hydrological trends.
NUTS Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics
A hierarchy of three NUTS levels is established by
Eurostat referencing the subdivisions of countries for
statistical purposes. NUTS2 corresponds approximately
to counties in the UK
PWS Public Water Supply.
In the UK, the public water supply is provided by a
number of water companies, including Dŵr Cymru
Welsh Water, Scottish Water (and Business Stream)
and Northern Ireland Water.
QR Quick response code.
This is a code that can be put on any letter
correspondence which the customer can scan and then
visit the relevant website for more detailed information.
RBD River Basin District.
The area of land and sea, made up of one or more
neighbouring river basins together with their associated
groundwaters and coastal waters, which is identified
under Article 3(1) of the Water Framework Directive as
the main unit for management of river basins. Coastal
waters are defined as one nautical mile from the
coastline and extending, where appropriate, up to the
outer limit of transitional waters. Transitional waters are
defined as bodies of surface water in the vicinity of river
mouths which are partly saline in character as a result of
their proximity to coastal waters but which are
substantially influenced by freshwater flows
[EEA].
SDMX Statistical Data and Metadata Exchange
SDMX is an initiative to foster standards for the
exchange of statistical information.
139
SELWE Sustainable Level of Water Efficiency.
This level of water efficiency requires water companies
who have a proven business case for additional water
efficiency activities to implement these as agreed by
Ofwat as part of the water efficiency targets.
SEPA Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.
A non-departmental public body, accountable to
Ministers of the Scottish Parliament, responsible for
regulating activities which may have a detrimental
impact on Scotland’s land, air or water resources,
including abstraction and pollution control.
SIC, SIC2003, SIC2007 [UK} Standard Industrial Classification (of Economic
Activities].
A hierarchical numeric classification system for
economic activities in the UK consisting of up to six
numeric digits for each sector/sub-sector. Historically
available in multiple variants, the most up-to-date
version was produced in 2007 (SIC2007) and is identical
to NACE revision 2. The previous edition, SIC2003, is
identical to NACE revision 1.1.
SIMCAT Environment Agency simulation software for modelling
of river catchment flow and environmental water quality
parameters
WFD Water Framework Directive.
This Directive establishes a legal framework to protect
and restore clean water across Europe and ensure its
long-term and sustainable use. (Its official title is
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a
framework for Community action in the field of water
policy.)
The directive establishes an innovative approach for
water management based on river basins, the natural
geographical and hydrological units, and sets specific
deadlines for Member States to achieve ambitious
environmental objectives for aquatic ecosystems. The
directive addresses inland surface waters, transitional
140
waters, coastal waters and groundwater. Article 10
details the directive’s “combined approach for point and
diffuse sources” and refers to several related directives.
The list in Annex VI, Part A includes inter alia the
directives on: Bathing Water; Drinking Water; Urban
Wastewater Treatment; Nitrates; Integrated Pollution
Prevention & Control; and Sewage Sludge. The directive
regards implementation of these other directives as a
minimum requirement. The measures to implement
them must be integrated into river basin management
planning (Article 11.3(a)).
[EC DG Environment]
WIMS Water Information Management System.
A central Environment Agency repository which includes
environmental permit data relating to environmental
wastewater discharges.
WISE Water Information System for Europe
A website portal comprising a wide range of data and
information collected by EU institutions to serve several
stakeholders. Available at http://water.europa.eu/
WISKI The name given to the Environment Agency’s raw water
resources monitoring database, which also holds
reported data on monitored discharges.
WRGIS Water Resources Geographic Information System.
Environment Agency GIS software developed and used,
amongst other applications, to assist with abstraction
reform in England And Wales and produce statistics on
net abstraction and water stress, by water body.