Implementation of the Urban Waste Water Directive in Romania

Transition from the old system to the new one

Gheorghe Constantin

Belgrade, 18 January 2013

Requirements of the UWWTD• The collection and treatment of waste water in all

agglomerations of >2000 population equivalent (p.e.); • Secondary treatment of all discharges from

agglomerations of > 2000 p.e., and more advanced treatment for agglomerations >10 000 population equivalent in designated sensitive areas and their catchments;

• A requirement for pre-authorisation of all discharges of urban wastewater, of discharges from the food-processing industry and of industrial discharges into urban wastewater collection systems;

• Monitoring of the performance of treatment plants and receiving waters; and

• Controls of sewage sludge disposal and re-use, and treated waste water re-use whenever it is appropriate

Principles of the UWWTD

Four main principles are laid down in the Directive:

• Planning• Regulation• Monitoring• Reporting

Problems of Romania related to the urban wastewater collection and treatment(I)

• Less than 50% of population have access tocentralized water/wastewater services

• Almost 80% of wastewater discharged in naturalreceivers untreated or insufficiently treated

• Most of the existing water infrastructure – in poorstatus due to long term under-investments

• Excessive fragmentation of water sector systemsand services

• Inappropriate maintenance and operatingservices in most small and mediumagglomerations

Problems of Romania related to the urban wastewater collection and treatment(II)

• Lack of capacity to attract substantialfunding for investment needs in majority ofsmall and medium agglomerations

• Private sector – not interested to invest inshort term

• High specific water consumption –morethan 350 l/inhabitant and day

Industrie / Industry

TOTAL0

5

10

15

20

25Vo

lum

mld

mc

Volu

m b

ilion

m3

Evolution of Water Demands in Romania

Populaţie / Population 1.47 2 2.2 2.67 2.25 2.25 2 2.05 2.08 2.11 2.07 2 1.86 1.69 1.42 1.35

Agricultură / Agriculture 3.4 5.75 6.79 8.49 9.1 8.95 5.98 2.98 3.33 3.36 3.03 1.74 1.75 1.86 1.98 2.05

Industrie / Industry 4.72 6.65 9.81 9.34 9.06 8.74 8.02 7.43 7.35 7.18 6.64 6.04 6.17 5.64 4.62 4.4

TOTAL 9.59 14.4 18.8 20.5 20.4 19.9 16 12.46 12.67 12.65 11.74 9.78 9.78 9.19 8.02 7.8

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1993 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Consum specific

Specific water consumptionCountries consumption

• High consumption• Australia, Canada, • Japonia, SUA• Average consumption• Danemarca, Franta, • Corea, Polonia, Olanda,

UK• Low consumption• Cehia, Belgia, Ungaria,• Germania, Portugalia,• Romania

l/cap/d

UWWTD in Romania

• Transposed by a Governmental Decision (which have been changed and modified)

• Responsible authorities-Ministry of Environment and Climate Changes-National Administration “Romanian Waters”-Ministry of Administration and Regional Development-Local authorities-Water and Waste Water Operators

Obligation related to UWWTD

• Designate sensitive areas (sensitive water bodies) in accordance with three specific criteria, and to review their designation every four year –entire Romania is a sensitive area due to the Black Sea

• Identify the relevant hydraulic catchment areas of the sensitive areas and ensure that all discharges from agglomerations with more than 10 000 p.e. located within the catchment shall have more stringent than secondary treatment

• Establish less sensitive areas if relevant- it is not the case; • Establish a technical and financial programme for the implementation of the

Directive for the construction of sewage collecting systems and wastewater treatment plants addressing treatment objectives within the deadlines set up by the Directive and the Accession Treaties

• Establish systems of prior regulation or authorisation for all discharges of urban wastewater

• Establish monitoring programs for both discharges from urban wastewater treatment plants and receiving waters.

• Information and reporting for the European Commission and public

Needed wastewater infrastructure in Romania according with UWWT

Directive

• Building new urban wastewater treatment plants • Upgrading the existing urban wastewater

treatment plants • Upgrading the existing local industry wastewater

treatment plants • Rehabilitation of the existing urban sewerage• Building and/or extension of the urban

sewerage.

Transition periods • Till 31 December 2013 for collection of

wastewater in 263 agglomerations (61,9 % from biodegradable load)

• Till 31 December 2018 for collection in 2346 agglomerations (38,1 % from biodegradable load)

• Till 31 December 2015, for urban wastewater treatment in 263 agglomeration with more than10000 i.e. (including P and N removal)

• • Till 31 December 2018, for urban wastewater treatment for 2346 aglomerations with less 10000 i.e.

• Estimated cost:9.5 billions Euro

Water sector – top priorityThe most demanding environmental sector • 19 billions Euro – total estimated investment costs

for compliance with EU Water Directives• App. 8.6 billions Euro needed by 2013 for water

and wastewater, only 4 bil. Available within SOP framework

• App. 9.5 billions Euro needed for implementation of Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive

Cost assessment - Romanian environmental sector

1

54

19

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

€ B illio n

Water

Waste

Air

Other sectors

Approach for Definition of Agglomerations

• Definition in the Implementation Plan• Definition in the Master Plan • Detailed boundaries in the Feasibility

Study

17

Principles

• Sound technical and economic assessment of boundaries and options

• Intensive stakeholder involvement• Quality assurance by MECC

18

Agglomerations in theImplementation Plan

• Preliminary definition• Mainly based on administrative borders• Rough estimate of investment costs• Inventory of agglomerations( annexes of

Implementation Plan)

19

Definition of agglomerations in the Master Plan

• Identification of all settlements at thecounty level (maps and data base)

• Defining of agglomerations based on techno-economic assessment

• Option Analysis (central/de-central)• Discussion with stakeholders• Preparation of Long-term investment plan

20

Final Definition of Agglomerations in the Feasibility Study

• More detailed definition of boundaries for selected agglomerations (priority investments) based on technical and economic cost analysis

• Detailed option analysis• Preparation of final/detailed maps and

data base on agglomerations

21

Scenarios “Definitions of UWWTD”

22

Analysis of an agglomeration

23

Border Line

Cluster Line

Agglomeration

WWTP Interconnection

Defining of a agglomeration

24

Example Roman

page 25

Example for Agglomerations –Detailed Definition of Boundaries

NEED TO COORDINATE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DRINKING WATER

DIRECTIVE AND WFD• Aplying a river basin approach concerning water

supply and waste water treatment • Investment prioritization according with the

pressure and impact on waters and aquatic environment

• Maximizing available funds effectiveness by carying out regional systems for water supply and waste water treatment

• Promoting integrated projects for water and waste water

Constraints

• Limited financial resources high investmentneed;

• Limited period of time (2007-2018)

Conclusion:

• Need for investment prioritization;

• Optimisation of investment cost at macro level –a must

• Regionalisation – part of the solution (economies of scale)

Regionalisation

• Regionalisation of water services - mainly driven by pre-accession programmes (FOPIP and ISPA)

• Slightly different approach, but the same final objective

• Intend to best use of available resources

Targets of Regionalization

• Limitation of political involvment in the supply of waterand wastewater services

• Regional Operator as the mechanism for provision ofservice to small communities

• Availability of more similar companies for benchmarkingcomparisons

Overall target – to provide that 2600 localities of more than2000 p.e. meet 2018 targets

Advantages of regionalization

Improved technical capacityImproved financial capacityImproved lending capabilityImproved investment planningOptimization of available resources Capacity to operate of existing regional systemsCapability to meet EU W & WW DirectiveTariffs leverage around the region

Regional Operators for water and waste water

• Specialized in integrated services for water and wastewater

• The establishment of the Regional Operators started in 2005 and finalized in 2010

• There are 123 licensed operators out of which 38 are regional operators

• Most of Regional Operators have implemented ISO 9001 and ISO 14001

Water and Wastewater Operators

Majority WWO recording positive financial results, the average rate of covering the costs is about 1,15

Period of payment the bills has decreased between 2000-2009 from 145 la 73 days

Financial challenges

Evolutia consumului domestic de apa potabila, perioadei de colectare si a tarifelor 2000 - 2004

Studiu de caz: IASI

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Con

sum

ul s

peci

fic d

omes

tic d

e ap

a (l

/per

s/zi

) /

Perio

ada

med

ie d

e co

lect

are

(in z

ile)

1.0

1.1

1.3

1.4

1.6

1.7

1.9

2.0

Indi

cele

de

cres

tere

al t

arifu

lui (

Anu

l 200

0 =

1,0)

Consum rezidential l/pers/zi Perioada de colectare (Zile) Indicele de crestere al tarifului (2000 = 1,0

Tariff and Affordability Analysis: Water Demand Development of Water and Sewerage Tariffs in Romania, 2001 - 2005

weighted average of 25 towns (w/o VAT, 2006 prices)Sources: UNDP, EBRD

1.05

1.46

0.32

0.52

1.37

1.98

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

2001 2005

RO

N /

m3

(200

6 pr

ices

)

Water Supply

Wastewater

WS + WW TOTAL: + 45%(avg.: + 10%)

p.a.)WATER: + 40%(avg.: + 9% p.a.)

WASTEWATER: + 65% (avg.: + 13% p.a.)

Real variation:

Tariffs of sewerage and wastewater treatment operators

Tariffs vary very much

0,00 lei

0,50 lei

1,00 lei

1,50 lei

2,00 lei

2,50 lei

3,00 lei

AB CTTA ALBA IULIA

AD COMPANIA DE APA ARAD

AG APA CANAL 2000 SA PITESTI

BC APA SERV BACAU

BH COMP DE APA ORADEA

BN AQUASIB BISTRITA NASAUD

BT APA GRUP BOTOSANI

BR COMPANIA DE UTILITATI BRAILA

BV COMPANIA DE APA BRASOV

B APA NOVA BUCURESTI

BZ COMPANIA DE APA BUZAU

CL ECOAQUA CALARASI

CS AQUACARAS SA RESITA

CL COMPANIA DE APA SOMES SA CLUJ

CT RAJA SA CONSTANTA

DB COMP DE APA TIRGOVISTE

DJ COMP DE APA OLTENIA CRAIOVA

GL APA CANAL GALATI

GR APA SERVICE SA GIURGIU

GJ APAREGIO GORJ TG JIU

HD APA PROD SA DEVA

HD APA SERV VALEA JIULUI PETROSANI

IS APAVITAL SA IASI

IS DIRECTIA DE APA-CANAL PASCANI

MM VITAL SA BAIA MARE

MH SECOM SA TN SEVERIN

MS AQUASERV TG MURES

NT COMP JUD APASERV PIATRA NEAMT

PH APA NOVA PLOIESTI

SM APA SERV SATU MARE

SB APA CANAL SA SIBIU

SV ACET SA SUCEAVA

TM AQUATIM SA TIMISOARA

VL APAVIL SA VILCEA

VN COMP DE UTIL IT PUBLICE FOCSANI

APA CANAL

Implementing financing strategy• Ensure EU funds adsorbtion

• Linking the strategy to the budgetary decision making process

• Ensuring that tariff policies are sustainable from economic and social point of view

• Increase the collection rate for water bills

• Rehabilitate and rationalize infrastructure by adjusting its capacity to present and future

• Optimizing capital and operational expenditure

Financing Strategy(1)

• Total amount needed 9.5 billions Euro• Financing sources:

-EU funds 40%-National and local budget 30%-Loans and PPP 20%-Environmental Fund 3%-Consumers (Operators) 7%

Financing Strategy(2)

• 2004-2006 ~ 175 millions Euro yearly

• 2007-2009 ~ 400 millions Euro yearly

• 2010-2015 ~ 900 millions Euro yearly

• 2016-2018 ~ 800 millions Euro yearly

National financing

• Foreseen in the implementation plan for 2004-2009 -838 millions Euro

• Provided in the period 2000-2009-809 millions Euro

out of which:-local and national budget -346 millions Euro-loans -275 millions Euro-operators budget -188 millions Euro

458214

329

3,2661,167

173

Water/w aste w ater Waste management and historically polluted sites

Urban heating Biodiversity

Floods and coastal erosion Technical Assistance

Distribution of total financial contribution per Priority Axes -Community funding + national counterpart - (in million Euro)

Total allocation SOP ENV:

Euro 5.610 million

Specific objectives of the EU investments

– Provide adequate water and sewerage services, at accessible tariffs

– Provide adequate drinking water quality in all urban agglomerations

– Improvement in aquatic environment of the watercourses

– Improvement of the level of WWTP sludge management

Priority for EU investments

• Investments in order of priority:– WWTPs in major agglomerations (sludge treatment

facilities included)– Wastewater network in major agglomerations

(extensions first, rehabilitation where critically important)

– DWTPs (new or rehabilitation) where justified by insufficient quality and/or quantity)

– Distribution networks (extensions and/or rehabilitation where critically important)

– Stormwater management facilities, where appropriate

Selection of priority investments

Two step approach: Step 1: Mandatory criteria

– Compliance date– Association agreement

Step 2: Ranking– Size of agglomeration (highest weight)– Health improvement– Environmental improvement– Efficiency improvement

46

Existing financing of the water infrastructure

• Total 3.145,958 millions Euro out of which:

2.000,998 mil. Euro (63,61%) from EU funds through:– FEADR - 258,209 mil. Euro– Coezion Fund - 878,895 mil. Euro;– ISPA, Banca Mondiala, BERD, BEI, SAPARD - 863,894 mil. Euro746, 776 mil Euro (23,74%) from the State Budget

through:– Environmental Fund - 146,682 mil. Euro – State Budget through the MECC - 462,298 mil. Euro– State Budget through the MARD 137,796 mil. Euro367,899 mil. Euro (11,69%) from the local budgets30,286 mil. Euro from Operator / Public-Private

Partnership

Lessons learned

• Need to improve planning• Good project preparation takes time• Shortcuts in project preparation are paid at the

implementation phase• Addressing the co-financing is part of project

preparation• Adequate institutional mechanism in place - key

– Need to define clear roles and responsibilities of various actors

Conclusions

• Development of the wastewater infrastructure requires important financial resources

• Securing the financial resources requires a a mixture of instruments provided by EU, national and local budget, IFIs and operators

• A careful planning could lead to a better ratio cost/benefits

• Tariff policy is a key issue for a sound investment

• Regionalization facilitate the investment

Thank you for attention!

www.mmediu.ro