|
Money Spent on Drinking Water
- Is it Good Value for Money ?
The Quality of Drinking Water Seminar
14
March 2002
-
Malta
Benny Borg Bonello
Whether something is good value for
money or not depends on both its price and quality. Prices
are normally easy to compare. As a rule, consumers can
easily judge for themselves if the price that they pay is
good value for the money. Quality can be recognised. But
due to the technological advancement, in most cases, it
would be difficult for the normal consumer to measure
quality.
I contend that with regards to water,
we, consumers find it difficult to judge whether we are
getting good value for money, both in prices and in
quality. The main reasons are the lack of transparency and
accountability, both of which emanate from the lack of
consumer representation, which, by the way, is this year's
theme selected by Consumers' International. For us,
representation means much more than physical
representation. It means information that provides
educated consumers a basis for voicing both demands and
concerns.
But first of all, I believe we must
look at the nature of water. A reliable supply of clean
drinking water is essential to protect the health of
consumers and communities. Both quantity and quality of
supply are important. An adequate supply of water is of
primary importance in public health, since direct transfer
of diseases from person to person or via contaminated food
is higher when poor hygienic practices occur due to
insufficient water. The potential consequences of
microbial pollution are such that control of drinking
water quality must never be compromised. It is because of
this that clean drinking water is considered as a basic
human right and is one of the highest priorities of any
country.
Consumers do require an adequate supply
of good quality water. For consumers, a good supply of
water has the following meaning:
All must have a recognisable (usually
public) water-supply system, which can provide the
quantity needed by consumers for domestic purposes. This
system must provide a continuous supply of good quality
water that is not only safe but pleasant to drink and at
an acceptable price. The piped water-supply system in
Malta is satisfactory as it serves 98% of the population.
This compares well with the 52% of Romania or 58% of
Portugal. With regard to continuity, there has been a
marked improvement but I believe there is still room for
development. We need now consider price and quality, two
factors which are related to each other.
Let's take a look at ‘price’. Price
depends on certain factors, some of which are cultural and
ethical. Due to the fact that we tend to divide goods and
services into essentials and non-essentials, we find that
some prices, which are cheap when compared to those found
in other societies, would still be unacceptable. The
reason is that the belief is still widespread that prices
of essential goods should be relatively cheap and
controlled. That is why such prices continuously form part
of the country's political agenda. Water forms part of
this family of commodities that we consider essential.
If we take the price of water, we see
that, locally, the price we pay for tap water is highly
subsidised. That means that we pay both directly and
indirectly for water. We pay directly the subsidised
price. Indirectly, we pay the difference between what we
pay directly and the real price - the subsidy.
This system does satisfy our social
paradigm but creates certain difficulties. The main
difficulty is that few people know the real price of
producing water. All know that it is highly subsidised.
An estimate that has been published shows that the cost of
production is about 56c per cubic metre of water.
Consumers on the one hand, pay 16c5 per
cubic meter for a consumption of up to 11cubic meters
based on 121 days. Beyond this amount, the charge rises
to Lm1,10 per cubic meter. On the other hand, water for
industry is charged at 85c per cubic meter though a lower
rate is charged for certain sectors of the economy.
The subsidy or indirect price that
consumers pay amounts to more than Lm13 million per year.
I think it is appropriate that we
declare our policy on such an issue. The Consumers'
Association recognises that subsidising water was
essential to guarantee a more widespread use of water
which resulted in an improvement of general health.
However, it is time that consumers are informed of the
cost of producing water. That is why we believe that
consumers should be charged the true cost of water
production. If anything, this would bring about a change
in consumer attitude. At present, though we expect a good
supply of water, we are ready to compromise both supply
and quality for a low price.
If consumers pay the true price of
water, they would become a pressure group. As such, they
would demand a better service, and more information. It is
only through such pressure that administrative monsters
like the Water Services Corporation would become more
transparent and accountable to consumers. There are at
least three things we would expect then. First, consumers
should more frequently be given information about the
quality of the water provided. Secondly, we would require
that the Water Services Corporation be bound by a Customer
Charter so that if quality is compromised, the consumer
can get redress and compensation. Thirdly, we would
require that the customer care be vastly improved both in
the type and quality of service. If anything, we would
require that consumers are given a reply in adequate time.
It is unfortunate that at present such a service is not
provided. I mention only one instance. Last year two
consumers contacted us regarding their water bill. We
asked for information in June and July of last year
respectively. We only succeeded in getting an answer last
month after writing several times to the Chairman of the
Corporation. This is something that is not acceptable.
Our position about prices does not mean
that we should abandon our social values. First of all, we
believe that such a change has got to be undertaken over a
period of time which is socially acceptable. We also feel
that water is a basic right and as such, we must guarantee
that all have an adequate supply. This can only be
guaranteed by providing subsidies to clearly defined
social groups who need such social assistance. It is only
through such a system that we can balance our social and
economic exigencies.
But what about bottled water? The
purchase of bottled water is largely a market phenomenon
governed by societal customs. It may also provide an
indirect indication of poor availability or quality (or
perceived poor quality) of drinking water from other
sources. In some European countries, there is a tradition
of consumption of bottled water, particularly mineral
waters. In these countries there has been a trend of
increasing consumption of bottled waters, and their market
has widened to include other countries where bottled
waters are not traditionally consumed in large
quantities.
In Malta, there is no tradition of
buying bottled water. However, there has been a dramatic
change. Personally, I believe this is due to a variety of
factors. It probably started off because of poor
continuity of supply. Later on, it was because of very
poor quality. It should be noted that perception has a
very important influence. If the quality improved, surely
neither it nor the perception has changed much. But
surely, one cannot deny that marketing has made its mark.
It should also be noted that bottled water is usually
provided in plastic bottles. This has made this commodity
more convenient to be moved around. But one cannot deny
that the impact of plastic bottles on the environment has
been very negative.
The consumption of bottled water is
still small when compared to potable water but it is large
in the Maltese context where virtually there was no market
at all. The latest figure for local production is 41.34
million litres of bottled water over the last year as well
as more than 7 million litres of imported bottled water.
This means that about 133 litres of bottled water is
consumed per capita per year.
However, it is unlikely that the
provision or purchase of bottled water is a cost-effective
way of obtaining high quality drinking water. On an
international level, it is estimated that, for the
individual consumer to drink bottled water raises his/her
private expenses for buying water by a factor of between
two and five; this money could be better spent in ensuring
a safe piped water supply.
The cost to the local consumer of
locally produced bottled water is approximately 9 cents
per litre. The cost of imported bottled water is, however,
about 17c per litre. This is way out of what we pay for
piped water. Locally produced bottled water costs more
than 138 times the cost of producing one litre of piped
water while imported water costs more than 261 times. The
latest figure of the total cost of locally consumed
bottled water, both locally produced and imported, is Lm
5.4 million.
When one remembers that our main
difficulty in improving the quality of piped water is
neither organisational nor human resources but financial,
the statement that money spent on bottled water is better
spent in ensuring a safe and good quality piped water
supply makes sense especially in Malta. It should be
remembered that Lm5.4 million is more than 25% of the
total money needed to run the Water Services Corporation.
This brings us to quality. Quality for
consumers has two meanings. The first is that water must
be safe, while the second aspect is that it is not only
safe but also pleasing in appearance, taste, and odour. I
believe that it is best to treat potable and bottled water
differently. Secondly, we must also treat this subject
from an organisational point of view, including the
surveillance agencies and blend our arguments with aspects
of consumer rights.
Information from the latter quarters
regarding quality is, at best, sparse. With regard to
potable water, several officials admit privately that we
need to improve the quality. However, it is very rare that
anyone is specific and the tendency is to treat the
subject as if it were a state secret.
It is not the first time that studies,
usually student dissertations, surface in the press. It
is only then that there is a sort of discussion and that
figures are flaunted around. The problem is that, even
then, few official figures are published. Thus, such a
discussion would usually treat the problem as a static and
specific problem. Whenever officials intervene they tend
to focus the discussion around the safety of water. They
might admit that both salinity and the nitrate contents
may be high but they tend to assure everyone that there is
nothing to worry about as everything is under control and
the situation is improving. One point that comes out very
loud through its absence, is the setting up of targets.
One understands such a position. Targets change the
situation and make the organisation accountable.
Personally, I believe that such a
situation developed because of two aspects. First,
emphasis has always been given to the safety factor. This
is important but that is the least that consumers expect.
Consumers expect that water must be palatable and has an
accepted taste. Because of the safety factor, monitoring
has always been within the realm of the Health
authorities. If I know anything about this establishment,
it is that it is very difficult to convince them, and here
I am referring especially to the professional classes,
that consumers have a right to information and they must
be constantly consulted. This should occur even though
consumers may not have the same professional background as
themselves. The main excuse given is that these things
should be left in the hands of professionals in the field
and that consumers should trust them blindly. For Health
Authorities, consumers are to be served but not to be
consulted. Such patronising attitude must change.
The second aspect is that information
might give rise to alarm. This would only take place if
the same authorities do not uphold their responsibility of
educating the consumers at large.
I have tackled this problem head on as
I believe that this might have an important influence on
the organisations responsible for monitoring the quality
of water to publish information. It should also be
remembered that to a large extent, consumers have no means
of judging the safety of their drinking-water themselves,
but their attitude towards their water supply and their
water suppliers will be affected to a considerable extent
by the aspects of water quality that they are able to
perceive with their own senses. It is natural, therefore,
for consumers to regard lack of information with grave
suspicion.
The two surveillance organisations are
the Environment Health Unit and the Food Safety Unit. The
first monitors potable water while the latter monitors
bottled water. With regard to the former, we expect that
they should publish both the standards that they use and
the data they obtain. They should also inform the public
about the procedures taken to guarantee a safe supply of
water. However, we also expect them to take into
consideration other parameters, such as taste. It is only
through this system that the supplier would be monitored
not only by the agency, but also by the public. Secondly,
if we succeed in providing good quality water, then
consumers would be willing to pay. This is shown by the
large market that has evolved during the last few years
for bottled water.
With regard to the latter, I believe
that it should be given more powers. The Food Safety Unit
should be given the power not only to inform about the
general situation but should also have the power to
publish names of firms that do not conform to the criteria
established. From our experience this is the biggest
detriment there is for those who abuse. Legal action and
fines are, many a time, a waste of taxpayers' money.
Regarding bottled water, we are
concerned as the level of information given by the
producers has decreased. I am referring here to the local
production of bottled water. When bottled water was first
produced, the bottling firms used to give details of the
impurities which are found in the bottled water. After a
time, one of the Sunday papers sent samples for testing.
It was found out that many did not conform to the
description printed on the label.
One brand which was found to be way off
from the description, stopped the supply for a time and
then started marketing the product under a differently
designed label. Since then, the information on labels is
becoming more scarce.
I quote one example. One popular brand
used to give this information on the Targeted Mean
Compostition in mgm per litre on its label:
Amount of TDS, Chlorine, Sodium,
Potassium, Bicarbonates, Sulphate, Nitrate, Calcium,
Magnesium, Iron and the pH.
Since the brand has been transferred to
another producer, a larger and more renowned producer, the
only information given is simply the pH and the TDS. It
also says that "it is laboratory tested to conform with
stringent chemical and microbiological purity criteria in
line with EU Directives".
I
have also looked at the labels of the five other locally
produced bottled water. Only two gave some details. The
rest were as dry as the Sahara desert.
Regarding quality and safety, I have
been privately informed that a batch of a bottled water of
one particular brand has been withdrawn from the market.
Yet such information never reached the newspapers. One
gets the impression that we are operating within the realm
of the Official Secrets Act.
This is the information that is
supplied to consumers! It should be remembered that
information is a consumers' right as it is fundamental for
the consumers to make an educated choice and also to voice
their opinions. Without such information, not only are
we, as consumers, losing rights and important benchmarks
but also the means of checking that we are being given
what we have paid for. In other words, we are being
cheated out of a fair deal.
Thus things, instead of improving, are
rather deteriorating. More choice is good, but it needs to
be well-informed.
We
believe that agencies involved should become more
proactive. We believe it is their responsibility as
surveillance agencies to generate and summarise
surveillance data, to promote improvements, to publish
information, and educate the consumers.
To say the least, there seems to be no
place for consumers within the local surveillance
framework. Whereas organisations like the WHO tend also to
emphasise this point especially to guarantee water
quality, it seems that the right to participate has been
washed away on its way to Malta. Internationally,
community participation is considered as an essential
component of the surveillance framework.
As primary beneficiaries of improved
water supplies, community members have a right to take
part in decision-making about their own future. They
represent a resource that can be drawn upon for local
knowledge, experience and feedback. They are the people
who are most likely to notice problems in the water supply
first and can, therefore, take immediate remedial action.
Establishing a genuine partnership with the community
creates a climate of trust and understanding, which itself
generates interest and enthusiasm.
I would like to end by pointing out the
importance of establishing a trust relationship.
Authorities and private sector suppliers should remember
that the trust relationship which used to exist between
consumers and themselves, many a time has been based on
scientific credibility. This is more so in areas as
sensitive as food and water. However, both internationally
and locally, the basis of this trust relationship has been
cracked at its basis for several reasons. Consumers are
becoming too suspicious.
We believe that it is essential that
those who take decisions which affect others must learn
how to inform and discuss rather than dismiss these
people's fears. It is only through representation that
this trust relationship is well founded.
One last note: we are not harping on
representation for its own sake. On this issue, ours is
similar to that of the Consumers' International. Our Voice
is for change.
|
