Surveillance and inspection — role, reach, and constraints

Paper 6 – Surveillance structure and inspection challenges of small water supplies in the Nordic region

Surveillance structures vary, being placed on a governmental level (Åland, Faroe Islands, Greenland and Norway), or on a municipal level (Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden). Countries that define drinking water as food (Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) have the Food Agency as the main governmental institutes, otherwise it is either the Health Agency (Åland and Finland) or the Environmental Agency (Denmark and Greenland) that serve these supplies.

The size limit for regulated water supplies in legislation in some Nordic countries follows the EU DWD (10 m³per day or serving 50 people or commercial or public activity) with the exceptions of Denmark which regulates all water supplies except for supplies serving one household and Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Norway, all of which regulate all water supplies of all sizes, though sometimes with less surveillance for very small. Finland and Åland have a specific legislation for very small water supplies.

All the Nordic countries have mechanisms for enforcement in legislation in case of non-compliance, such as fines, closures, demanding improvements or calling on police assistance if needed. These mechanisms are very seldom used. The legislation and practice in some countries are unclear on when to involve the health authorities during non-compliance as the Chief Epidemiologist is to be the responsible authorities during pandemics.

In all the countries there is a requirement for valid official approval for regulated water supplies that has to be accepted by the surveillance authority before operation of the water supply. Legal preconditions for licensing are similar in all countries, requiring protection of the water source, evaluation of water quality and the infrastructure, and having an RBA in place. Åland and Finland require supply operators to have a valid working card confirming training, including training in water quality issues and in Denmark all regulated water supply operators are required to take courses and pass exams. Progress with licensing for operational permits or approval has been slow in some countries where many small supplies still lack such licensing.

Figure 7 Surveillance constraints mentioned in the 53 interviews.

The interviews reveal some surveillance constraints that can be classified into ten categories as shown in Fig. 7. Some were mentioned in most countries, while others were only mentioned in few countries such as remoteness (Greenland, Iceland and Norway) and a language barrier (Åland and Greenland), that both translate official documents into the local language whereas training material and guidelines are less likely to be translated. The interviews highlighted interlinked challenges in drinking water surveillance such as national frameworks not working well for the small water supplies and that inspectors play a crucial yet under-resourced role in bridging the gap between regulation and local practice; infrequent inspection and sampling, especially in remote areas; increased costs associated with more frequent monitoring under the EU DWD for small supplies in some countries unless implemented with risk‑based proportionality and targeted support; and insufficient technical support, training and competence requirements for operators.

Suggested solutions include strengthening inspection capacity; providing technical support to small supplies, and developing clear, adapted guidelines and easy to use training materials; improved communication channels from authorities to operators; and the publishing of monitoring results. By strengthening inspectors’ capacity, supporting small supplies and embracing a risk-based approach the Nordic countries can ensure that all benefit equally from safe drinking water.