The truth about water through ten questions and answers eseeks to restore the Ministry of Environment and Energy with relevant information, following the strong reactions caused by the relevant bill that is up for vote in the Parliament. The Ministry of Internal Affairs clarifies that “there is no privatization”, as it emphasizes, water “is and will remain under public control” while the aim of the bill is “more and better water for citizens”.

1- The opposition complains that you want to privatize water. Does such a thing apply?

• It’s another lie. There is no privatization. Water was, is and will remain under public control. There is no intention and it is not right to privatize water. Water is not a marketable commodity. The jurisprudence of the SC determines the public character of water service providers.

• But for the first time in the law brought by the government with article 1 of the explanatory report and article 3 of the bill, the public character of water providers is shielded.

• We do not delegate any water policy authority to a Regulatory Authority. It is expressly stated that the Ministry of Environment and Energy is the competent body that draws up the policy for the protection and management of water.

• In article 1 of the bill, it is expressly stated that only the competence of “supervision and control” is transferred.

2- So, why is there a need for legislation?

Because we need to ensure transparency and accountability, especially since water providers are public monopolies. We must ensure low prices and that the pricing of water is done in accordance with the law, while its quality must be measured systematically and in accordance with European directives.

3- What are the pathogens that must disappear?

• They are enough. Examples include: High fragmentation of water services across multiple providers (currently 295).

• Inadequate control of financial data of water service providers and key cost centers.

• Insufficient data: Only 42% of organizations systematically submit the data required by law to the system platform.

• Inequality regarding the rate of recovery of the costs of water supply and sewerage services. The cost recovery level of water supply and sewerage service providers, except EYDAP-EYATH which are more organized, ranges from 21% to 202%.

• In 2019, the overall loss rate of providers reaches up to 62%, and on average we have losses reaching 35.6%, when it comes to drinking water. There are TWO that claim to have 65% water losses.

• Lack of systematic mapping of the state of the water supply and sewerage network, in order to prioritize the required projects.

• Lack of penalties in case of non-compliance with the rules of costing and pricing of water services.

• Additional element: 2015 – 2019, Tsipras Government, SYRIZA-ANEL: A total of 9 fines were imposed on DEYA. On the contrary, in the last three years, during the governance of the country by the Mitsotakis government, 62 fines have been imposed.

4- Since water management in Greece is done by public providers, what do we want from the Regulatory Authority?

In many European countries where water is managed by public bodies, there are Independent Regulatory Authorities. Market regulation is not only needed to regulate competition between individuals. We need and are building strong public water management agencies.

5- Given that you also say that the providers are natural monopolies, why is regulation required?

We are proceeding with a structural reform to change the bad texts, for the benefit of the citizens and the public interest. Everything comes to light, the quality, the losses and the over-recovery of water costs whenever it happens. The government believes that only a strong, public and independent authority can decisively exercise control over the safety and quality of water especially when we have public monopolies!

6- So it is not possible for the public control of water management to remain in the General Directorate of Environment of the ministry?

We give oversight to an Independent Public Regulatory Authority. And this is a public audit. Independent Authorities are what their name says: Independent! They are not subject to hierarchical control by the competent minister. Their members have functional independence. After all, the Regulatory Authority has NO invoicing authority, only supervision and control, nothing else.

7- Which authorities control the safety of drinking water, how and when?

The Ministry of Health is responsible for the control of the quality of drinking water, with the corresponding legislation on drinking water in application of the corresponding EU one, from which we have requested that penalties be added in cases of non-compliance.

Now, through the data and indicators that we oblige the providers to submit to the Authority, order is brought in and transparency and control is ensured regarding compliance with the obligations of systematic monitoring by the providers of drinking water quality.

8- What penalties are provided for non-compliance with existing legislation?

At the moment there is not even a system of penalties for non-compliance with the existing legislation. During the days of SYRIZA, in 2017, the pricing regulation was established, which does not contain any penalties.

Today, we are filling this gap, with Article 18 establishing specific direct and indirect sanctions, with the aim of protecting the rights of Greek citizens to a natural asset. We defend the state’s control over water services in order to protect the health of citizens and protect the environment. At the same time, the rational use of financial resources is ensured and the costs for the citizen are contained, in accordance with the rules set by the State.

9- What changes in all of the above with the new Regulatory Authority?

The new National Water Regulatory Authority aims to effectively address the problems and administrative gaps that exist.

The new National Regulatory Authority aims at 3 main axes:

1. Increasing the accountability of public and municipal Water Service Providers, promoting the efficiency and transparency of services.

2. Strengthening the supervision of public and municipal Water Service Providers, with a view to efficient and economically beneficial management for citizens.

3. Compliance of public and municipal Water Service Providers with the relevant legislation, and the imposition of fines, where violations are found.

Guaranteed:

• The quality of services, taking into account the cost-effectiveness relationship.

• The definition of a clear and transparent costing and pricing system, based on predetermined criteria, for the benefit of consumers.

• Increasing the efficiency of services, through the obligation to draw up five-year operational plans, and annual planning.

10- What is achieved with these changes?

• Functional and modern governance system through a National Strategy for the protection and management of surface and underground water.

• The promotion of conditions of equal access, security of supply and water conservation. In short, more and better water for citizens.