Water charges are a widely used economic instrument implied mainly by federal governments to better control water use and water pollution by imposing a price on the use of the environment. The goal of such measures is to internalise negative externalities related to water use. Charges can be placed on emissions, users, the product, or on administrative services. Apart from influencing the amount of consumption, water charges can also activate innovation processes.
A charge can be defined as a ‘price’ paid on the use of the environment (HELMER & HESPANHOL 1997). As a type of water pricing, water charges can be related to both the use as well as the pollution of water. Besides their cost recovery element, they may also include demand management (see also water resources assessment, water balance estimation, demand creation, water allocation, tradable water rights, subsidies, and water pricing) to stimulate certain behaviour (SAVENIJE & VAN DER ZANG 2002). The outcome of water charges is a higher price, which (following market forces) reduces the demand for water or water pollution.
The Economic Model
Charge systems are one of the most frequently used economic tools to reduce the negative effects of over-consumption of water as a resource (other widely used economic measures are: subsidies, tradable water rights and water pricing).
The aim of charges is to reduce the demand for or the pollution of water by imposing a fee or tax on the consumer (opposed to subsidies, which create an incentive for innovation by promoting money for a defined action or inaction of the consumer). Firms will reduce the consumption or pollution of water if behavioural change is less expensive than paying the charge. To reduce the amount of consumption, firms can either produce less or develop and improve new, more efficient production technologies. Charge systems therefore also place incentives for innovation. Furthermore, with the collection of charges, the government can raise increased revenue to redistribute (STAVINS & WHITEHEAD 1992).
Types of Charges
(Adapted from HELMER & HESPANHOL 1997)
Four main types of charges can be identified:
- Emission/effluent charges: Based upon the quantity or quality of the discharged pollutant.
- User charges: Include for example fees paid for the use of drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities. They may be variable (e.g. increasing, decreasing or uniform volumetric), fixed or a combination of the two (see also water pricing).
- Product charges: Charges levied on products that are harmful to surface or ground water (e.g. pathogens, fertilisers, pesticides, lubricant oils, see also pathogens and contaminants).
- Administrative charges: Fees paid to authorities for such purposes as chemical registration or financing licensing and pollution control activities.
(Adapted from ANDERSON 2002)
The implementation of charges on water use and pollution imposes several requirements on regulators and the regulated community:
- Emissions or effluents need to be measured.
- An appropriate fee level needs to be set.
- The due amounts need to be collected.
- The collected amounts need to be allocated.
There are several factors hindering or facilitating an enabling environment for the implementation of charges. They contain amongst other the creation of policies and a legal framework, building an institutional framework, as well as strengthening enforcement bodies.
Implementation Differences to Tradable Water Rights
(Adapted from STAVINS & WHITEHEAD 1992)
The applicability of economic measures depends on both the specific environmental problem as well as the particular objectives of public policy. Differences in the implementation effects of charges to tradable water rights are:
- Charges do not impose a fixed level of consumption/pollution, but rather create an incentive for less consumption or pollution by providing an economic benefit.
- The monetary resource transfer is private-to-public because the charges are levied by the state (opposed to private-to-private between tradable water rights).
- The costs on public and industry are more explicit compared to tradable water rights, because the user does not perceive them as being rights to pollute or use, but rather as restrictions.
- Charges do not adjust automatically for inflation.
Charges are less susceptible to strategic behaviour of firms: If one firm holds a great part of the available permits in a water rights system, its activities may distort the price of permits.
Water treatment and collection charges as well as charges on pollution of water have been applied in most industrialised countries, having produced positive outcomes in terms of revenue raising and pollution control (HELMER & HESPANHOL 1997). The effectiveness and efficiency of their applicability depends strongly on the given circumstances and can be enhanced in combination with other market-based instruments (such as tradable water rights and subsidies). Implementation problems presumably occur if the institutional capacity is weak, if there is inadequate institutional co-ordination, economic instability, and government or polluter resistance or inertia.
This document is rather old, but its publication was a milestone as it demonstrates WSSCCs capacity to bring together water and sanitation professionals from industrialised and developing countries to formulate practical guidance on a key issue of the day. Mainly regulatory, financial and technical aspects are discussed and illustrated with an extensive collection of case studies from the developing world.HELMER, R. ; HESPANHOL, I. (1997): World Health Organization (WHO), Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) URL [Accessed: 21.04.2010]
In this report, functions of and experiences with several economic instruments are documented. The paper follows the II Meeting of the Environment Network of the Regional Policy Dialogue in Washington, D.C., held on February 11 and 12 2003, where policy makers focused on the application of economic instruments for environmental management.KRAEMER, R. ; CASTRO, Z. ; SEROA DA MOTTA, R. ; RUSSEL, C. ; (2003): Experiences from Europe and Implications for Latin America and the Caribbean. (= (=Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the Environment Network of the Regional Policy Dialogue, 11th to 12th February 2003) ). Washington D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank, Regional Policy Dialogue Series URL [Accessed: 18.06.2012]
Economic Instruments for Water Demand Management in an Integrated Water Resources Management Framework
This report is a synthesis paper based in part on an Experts Symposium held in June 2004. It reviews the use of economic instruments for water demand management, such as pricing and markets. Available in English and French.PRI (2005): (= (=Synthesis Report based in part on an Experts Symposium by the Policy Research Initiative, 14th to 15th June 2004) ). Ottawa: Policy Research Initiative (PRI) URL [Accessed: 19.06.2012]
Sanitation surcharges collected through water bills: a way forward for financing pro-poor sanitation?
This discussion paper is a situation review of sanitation surcharge systems in African cities, focusing on systems designed to raise revenues for improving sanitation in low-income districts. The review considers existing pro-poor surcharge systems in Lusaka and Ouagadougou; systems that cannot currently be considered pro-poor, in Dakar, Beira, and Antananarivo; and the special case of Maputo, where there is ongoing debate about how a surcharge might be introduced.WSUP (2012): Discussion paper. London: Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP) URL [Accessed: 15.01.2013]
Case study on the implementation of water abstraction charges in Baden-Württemberg, Germany conducted by the Ecologic Institute of the EU. The focus lies on the policy mix of economic and regulatory instruments (Regulation on Protected Areas and Compensatory Payments (SchALVO), water abstraction charges, and Market Relief and Cultural Landscape Compensation for farmers (MEKA)).MOELLER-GUILLAND, J. ; LAGO, M. ; (2011): Ecologic Institute EU URL [Accessed: 18.06.2012]
This Sustainable Sanitation Practice (SSP) issue contains the following contributions: 1. Mushroom Production in Bolivia, 2. Community Human Waste Management, 3. Austria vs. East Africa - Analysis of Solid Waste and Wastewater Sector, 4. Financing the Invisible Entrepreneur, 5. Establishing a World Trade Hub for the Urban Poor.MUELLEGGER, E. ; LANGEGRABER, G. ; LECHNER, M. (2010): (= Sustainable Sanitation Practice , 5 ). Vienna: Ecosan Club URL [Accessed: 01.07.2013]
Taking urban sanitation to scale requires ‘scaling out’ models that work for poorer communities, and at the same time ‘scaling up’ sustainable management processes. This short note reports scale-out and scale-up experience from Maputo and Antananarivo.WSUP ; (2013): (= Practice Note , 10 ). London: Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP) URL [Accessed: 07.08.2013]
Training guide, which delivers an overview on possible economic and financial tools for water management. The application ranges from water resources, through water supply and sanitation. Further training material as well as supporting PowerPoint’s are available on the website (in English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese).CAP-NET ; (2008): Training Manual and Facilitator's Guide. URL [Accessed: 18.06.2012]