STRATEGIC EVALUATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND RISK PREVENTION UNDER STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDS FOR THE PERIOD

Transcription

1 STRATEGIC EVALUATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND RISK PREVENTION UNDER STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDS FOR THE PERIOD Contract No CE.16.0.AT.016. National Evaluation Report for Poland Main Report Directorate General Regional Policy A report submitted by in association with Andrzej Kassenberg Renaat De Sutter Institute for Sustainable Development Ecolas nv Egejska 5 apt. 1 Lange Nieuwstraat 43, Warszawa/Warsaw 2000 Antwerp Poland Belgium TEL TEL 0032/9/ a.kassenberg@ine-isd.org.pl renaat.desutter@ecolas.be Date: November 10th, 2006 GHK Brussels Rue de la Sablonnière, 25 B-1000 Brussels Tel: +32 (0) ; Fax : +32 (2) GHK London 526 Fulham Road London, United Kingdom SW6 5NR Tel: ; Fax:

2 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW AND HORIZONTAL ISSUES General facts of the Country State of the environment State of the environment infrastructure Implementation status of the European environmental acquis Environmental policy Environmental expenditure (general) Future Plans ( ) WATER SUPPLY Current situation Needs WASTE WATER TREATMENT Current situation Needs MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE Current situation Needs RENEWABLE ENERGY Current situation Needs NATURAL RISK MANAGEMENT (FIRE, DROUGHT, FLOODS) Current situation Needs PRIORITY ASSESSMENT Part 1: Summarising the needs assessment Part 2: Assessing priorities within fields Part 3: Assessing Priorities Across Fields ANNEXES Annexes chapter 2 Overview and horizontal issues Annexes chapter 3 Water supply Annexes chapter 4 Waste water treatment Annexes chapter 5 Municipal waste Annexes chapter 6 Renewable energy GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE i

3 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland 9.6 Annexes chapter 7 Natural risk management Reference List Annexes chapter 8 Priority assessment List of contacts GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE ii

4 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland EXECUTIVE SUMMARY See separate document. GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 1

5 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY This report is a part of the project Strategic Evaluation on Environment & Risk Prevention Under Structural & Cohesion Funds for , European Commission project No CE.16.0.AT.016, attributed to GHK in association with Ecolas Environmental Consultancy and Assistance, IEEP Institute for European Environmental Policy, and Cambridge Econometrics. The project s overall aim is to provide the strategic evaluation of the needs and priorities for environmental investment under the structural and cohesion funds for the period It covers 5 fields of environmental investment: water supply, waste water treatment, municipal solid waste, renewable energy sources and natural risk management. In order to identify and evaluate needs in the selected fields, and to select investment priorities for the Structural and Cohesion Funds for the period, the project analyses the current situation in each field and the financial allocations during the current programming period ( ). The regional scope of the project is 15 countries, comprising the 10 new Member States (NMS) plus Bulgaria, Romania and 3 old cohesion Member States (Greece, Portugal and Spain). This report focuses on Poland and was prepared by the Polish Institute for Sustainable Development and Ecolas nv. The methodology implemented for preparing this report consisted in collaboration between a core team, who provided guidelines, and the several national evaluators to guarantee the consistence across the national reports. Each country reported back to the core team at each step in the research project and got feedback on how to proceed with the work. The executive summary is presented in a separate document, as it can be read and will be used as a stand-alone document. There is an initial chapter on horizontal issues, then for each field the following sections are presented: overview and needs. Priority assessment across fields is provided. The overview sections review the available information in Poland in each field. The information was drawn from EU information, national reports, field-specific databases, various field specific reports regarding the environmental situation in Poland and available investment plans. Key stakeholders in each field were also contacted and in some cases provided additional information. Although there are some information asymmetries between the fields, each overview assesses the current state of provision and infrastructures, the institutions involved, the past investment plans and their funding by Community support programmes in the relevant field. The needs chapters assess the needs for environmental investment over the period , taking into account the requirement to ensure compliance with the environmental acquis (the body of environmental regulations and directives), the consistency between environmental and other policies and priorities, and where applicable, the regional development benefits. The needs chapters aim to indicate the main policy objectives and targets for each field and, if possible, to quantify physical investment needs based on legislative environmental requirements, demand estimations and scenarios, the current state of infrastructure and the possibility of complementary flanking measures (such as user charges) which might reduce the need for investment. However, such complete information was rarely available, either GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 2

6 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland because it was not disclosed or because it simply did not exist. Here the information asymmetries between fields are larger. The priority assessment draws on the information gathered about the current situation and the identified needs to provide an independent assessment of the priority needs in each field and across fields. A final chapter contains numerous annexes with, among others, useful data gathered during this study. GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 3

7 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland 2 OVERVIEW AND HORIZONTAL ISSUES 2.1 General facts of the Country The population in Poland (about 38 million people in 2004) is slightly declining, but the number of households is rising; as in most other European countries. The GDP per capita is rising (about euro in 2004). The unemployment rate is about 17 % and declining slightly. More information can be found in annex State of the environment The state of the environment has been consequently improving since early nineties. Environmental monitoring records show evident progress in quality of surface and ground water as well as of air. It does not mean however that a satisfactory level has been already achieved. Concerning the most important areas of environmental protection, i.e. atmospheric air, waters and waste management, the best achievements seem to refer to the first one. A problem still to be treated is suspended dust, which is the issue for around 8% of areas identified. There is also regular progress in water quality, both surface and ground. Nevertheless, this case is still unsatisfactory, in particular concerning surface waters. While significant achievements in wastewater treatment plants are observed, agriculture (non-point) sources are still controlled far insufficiently, mainly in terms of biogenic substances. Recycling and recovery capacity of waste, though increasing, can be evaluated as still unsatisfactory as well as packaging wastes in general (disposal remains the major treatment approach to municipal solid wastes). Successful areas include biodiversity, nature conservation and forests development (country coverage). 2.3 State of the environment infrastructure The biggest progress over last fifteen years has been observed in air pollution from point sources (considering main environmental problems in terms of quality achieved). In terms of infrastructure being developed, wastewater treatment and waste management achievements are also substantial; nevertheless in terms of quality objectives there is still a lot to be done. Air pollution from mobile sources, noise threats and urban environment also require attention and activities. 2.4 Implementation status of the European environmental acquis Poland was able to implement most of the EU environmental acquis before the accession in May, Derogations accepted during accession negotiations covered ten most difficult and costly EU regulations, including municipal wastewater treatment (derogation until 2015), packaging wastes recycling, standards for dump sites and waste transport, fuels (storage, distribution and sulphur concentration) and large combustion plants. Requirements considering derogations are being fulfilled accordingly to Treaty agreements (it must be noted: thanks to highly considerable financial support from EU). Generally after substantial implementation process environmental policy, legal system, institutions and policy instruments are EU GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 4

8 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland compatible and Poland represents good EU average in terms of recent environmental regulation adoption/implementation. 2.5 Environmental policy Poland adopted its first comprehensive environmental policy, based on sustainable development, in The main elements of the current version of Poland s environmental policy (e.g. principles. instruments, priorities) seems in essence comparable to EU and advanced national approaches worldwide. Specific problems include particular objectives and priorities, to some extent related to accession derogations and past failures. Therefore, operational policy priorities are acquis driven to a certain extent: (1) municipal investments, mostly wastewater treatment and sewerage systems, advanced waste treatment, including recycling and recovery (2) environmental (ecological) safety, including risk assessment and control, (3) special environmental hazards monitoring and control systems, (4) renewable energy sources development, (5) environmental improvement in business (support for companies in terms of environmental standards and technologies influencing competitiveness), (6) biodiversity and nature conservation, including environmental education, awareness and approaches development, and NATURA 2000 implementation, (7) institutional and technical support for achieving above objectives within the framework of EU structural support. 2.6 Environmental expenditure (general) The table in annex gives an evolution of total expenditures (about million euro in 2004) and financial investment (about million euro in 2004) in environmental protection for the period General MS funding Poland has a specific institutional system of public financial support for environmental projects. Generally, revenues from environmental taxes and charges are collected by a system of environmental funds. Revenues are earmarked and can be spent for environmental projects only. The system has four levels and includes the following institutions: National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (central institution), 16 voivodeship funds for environmental protection and water management (provincial institutions, two funds of lower administrative level: county and community funds. Revenues do not go to the budget then, however they are still public and rules for public finance still apply. EU public aid restrictions apply as well. National and provincial funds are allowed to generate revenues not from environmental charges only, but also through financial operations (soft loans, capital investments). Environmental funds are the richest source of public resources for environment. It should be clearly noted however, that loans remain the main instrument of support rather, than subsidies. GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 5

9 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland The mixed structure of environmental funds allow combining over priorities and achieving different policy objectives in reasonable way and compromise (central/regional/local). Public budgets also support some environmental projects central and/or local. Usually financing is a combination of different sources. In annex 9.1.2, table illustrates the partition in different sources. ISPA programme ( ) Data on the ISPA programme are included in the chapter on Cohesion fund. Projects being processed and/or accepted under ISPA rules have been automatically moved to Cohesion fund scheme. Cohesion fund ( ) State institutions taking part in the management of the Cohesion Fund are : Cohesion Fund Managing Authority (CF MA): Ministry of Regional Development (formerly: Economy, Labour and Social Policy) Paying Authority (PA): Ministry of Finance Intermediate Bodies (IBs): o Ministry of Environment o National Environmental Protection and Water Management Fund (2nd level intermediate body) o Voivodeship Funds for Environment Protection and Water Management (3rd level intermediate bodies) Implementing Bodies and Final Recipients: o Municipalities (local governments) o Municipal enterprises (public), o Regional Water Management Boards Priorities of the environmental protection to be proposed for ISPA/Cohesion Fund financing over the period are: 1. Improvement of the quality of surface water and improvement of the distribution and quality of drinking water 2. Rationalisation of waste management and protection of soils 3. Improvement of air quality 4. Improvement of safety from flooding. In the context of the challenges and strategic goals of the national policy in the accession period and in the context of the goals of the Cohesion Fund (defined in Council Regulation 1164/94/EC), in the period funds under this instrument (including ISPA) will primarily be allocated to these type of interventions, allowing Poland to gradually meet the commitments made during the accession negotiations: Criteria for distribution between the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF: Investments in the area of environmental protection implemented within the frame of the Cohesion Fund will be complemented by investments co-financed by the European Fund for Regional Development within the frame of Integrated Regional Operational GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 6

10 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland Program. Investments of total value of 10 million or more will be implemented within the frame of the Cohesion Fund. The scale of investment will ensure that the projects realised will have a significant impact on the improvement of the environment in Poland. Furthermore, this will rule out the doubling of the investments to be implemented under the Cohesion Fund with the investments made within the frame of measure 1.2. Infrastructure of Environmental Protection of the Integrated Regional Operational Program, whereby infrastructure investments valued below 10 million Euro will be implemented. In the period , about ¾ of the cohesion fund support (about million euro) goes to waste water treatment, as foreseen in the Strategy. The waste sector only receives about 100 million euro, while about 400 million euro was foreseen. Also water supply receives certain funding. The full financial data are given in annex Criteria used for eligibility in the Cohesion fund program 1 : Priority I - ensuring combined sewerage systems and appropriate level of sewage treatment for agglomerations of at least 100,000 p.e. (preferences given to the largest agglomerations) as well as water supply networks and appropriate level of water treatment; Priority II - - ensuring combined sewerage systems and appropriate level of sewage treatment for agglomerations from 15,000 to 100,000 p.e. as well as water supply networks and appropriate level f water treatment; Priority III - ensuring combined sewerage systems and appropriate level of sewage treatment for agglomerations from 2,000 to 15,000 p.e as well as water supply networks and appropriate level of after treatment. Structural funds (European Regional Development Fund) ( ) The National Development Plan anticipates financial support from EU structural funds for as high as 7.635,3 mln euro (67,2% of total EU support for that timeframe). Average expected EU support is estimated at 72,7%. Expected allocation from structural funds for : ERDF (European Regional Development Fund): 4.652,8 mln euro ESF (European Social Fund): 1.748,9 mln euro EAGGF (European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Funds): 1.055,0 mln euro FIFG (Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance): 178,6 mln euro Above allocations include also INTERREG (196,1 mln euro from ERDF) and EQUAL (118,5 mln euro from ESF). Environmental objectives can be supported mainly within two programmes: The Integrated Regional Operational Programme (Polish abbreviation: ZPORR) total 545,2 mln euro for environmental projects (around 14% of total programme allocations); projects up to 10 mln euro are eligible, focused on environmental protection infrastructure, rural development, degraded areas (urban, industrial, military). 1 Priorities respond mainly to derogation statements. GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 7

11 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland Sectoral Operational Programme "Improvement of the Competitiveness of Enterprises (Polish abbreviation: SPO WKP) total 155,4 mln euro for environmental projects (around 12,6% of total programme allocations); supporting companies with environmental protection projects. Institutions that take part in the management of the programmes supported by ERDF: Programme Managing Authority (MA): Ministry of Regional Development (formerly Ministry of Economy and Employment) Intermediate Bodies: Voivodeship Offices (national government representatives in regions) and Marshal Offices (regional authorities) Implementing Bodies and Final Recipients: Regional Government (Voivodeship Board), companies, communities, nongovernmental organisations, public institutions. More financial data on ERDF project can be found in annex Good Practice Lessons or Examples Draft policy documents for the spending programming use of EU funds include sufficient targets and well defined priorities. This was achieved during the programming stage, so this process, that included some consultations was a good and reasonable way to set priorities. 2.7 Future Plans ( ) Expected costs of achieving objectives listed in section 1.3. are estimated as high as million euro for (current prices), where total public aid share is million. EU funding is calculated as million euro (5.072 Cohesion Fund and 681 EFRD). The % breakdown per policy objective is given in annex GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 8

12 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland 3 WATER SUPPLY 3.1 Current situation Current State of Provision Most of the Polish territory lies in the catchment basins of the country s two main rivers: the Wisła (54% of the country s area) and the Odra (34%). Surface waters in Poland are the economy s basic resources of water and cover over 84% of the total needs. In 2004 the registered withdrawal of water amounts to million m³, with 9 252,2 million m³ being surface water, 1 630,6 million m³ groundwater and 107,3 million m³ from coal mine and construction drainage. Total water withdrawal has slightly decreased during the last decade (from ,5 million m³ in 1995) including decrease in groundwater, while surface water withdrawal has increased. Groundwater resources are only used for providing residents with quality drinking water and some pharmaceutical and food production plants (3% of water withdrawal for industry). Poland has the second smallest water resources per capita in Europe (total m 3 /inh./year), next to Malta and Belgium, and at the same time it has exceptionally small capacities of storage reservoirs compared to average yearly river flows. Drinking Water demand Water consumption structure is as follows: 74,4% by industries, 15,3% by households and 10,3% by agriculture and forestry. Unit water consumption by households is as high as 134 litres per inhabitant per day 2. There is a very limited capacity for further decrease of unit consumption in households (this rate is close to necessary minimum level observed in EU). However total economy demand for drinking water per capita is lower than in EU, thus its level is expected to rise. 1,6% (towns) and 11,9% (rural areas) of the households is not connected to public systems but uses individual installations. Significant developments have been achieved in rural areas where 32,4% in 1990 and 23,8% in 1995 of households were not connected to water supply systems. A programme of rural water supply systems is being continued, including wastewater treatment systems. Drinking water quality As far as public water supply systems are concerned, 18,6% of the population is supplied with drinking water not meeting quality standards (6,2% in towns and 14,7% in rural areas 3 ). Besides, it is estimated that 32% public wells and 45% individual wells provide poor quality water, mostly to rural residents who use their shallow wells. The main reason for this is bad quality of water sources used for supplying water systems. More than 80% of surface water sources do not meet quality standards for drinking water source. Main parameters being exceeded include Fe, Mn, ammonia, nitrates, turbidity, colour and reaction (ph). The second reason is insufficient treatment installation (in terms of technology applied as well as maintenance condition), especially in smaller plants. 2 Estimation made for water supply systems. Individual installations excluded. 3 Country Sanitary Condition in General Sanitary Inspectorate, Warszawa, June 2005 (in Polish). GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 9

13 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland State of infrastructures In terms of infrastructure efficiency, there are two questions: insufficient water supply systems coverage on rural areas and unsatisfactory ratio of drinking water not meeting the quality standards. Mazowieckie and Malopolskie voivodeships have the lowest water supply systems coverage in towns, while Mazowieckie and Podkarpackie on rural areas. In terms of water quality Warminsko-Mazurskie, Pomorskie and Podlaskie have the highest ratio of insufficient water supplied. It should be however noted, that there are high regional variations in both terms and all records are close to the average. The drinking water production can be at risk during flooding events. For instance, the Odra flooding in 1997 resulted in damaging 100 drinking water intake points. Yearly investment in water supply systems are estimated as 277,3 mln Euro, what results in a 3% yearly increase in water systems density (km/km 2 ) and a slightly lower increase in population connected 4. Water prices Drinking water delivered by water supply systems is priced for all users. Prices have been calculated by systems operators on cost recovery basis (maintenance and operation costs), however some regulations apply to control cost estimation and avoid unjustifiable net profits. Such approach meets the requirements of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, nevertheless it has been applied in Poland for the last decade. WFD implementation should result in full cost recovery, including investment, operation costs and environmental/resource costs, what will be achieved through water prices and environmental fees. Analyses developed according to WFD first stage requirements (baseline scenarios) show adequate cost recovery level as far as operation costs in municipal water supply companies are concerned. It should be noted however, that water prices will increase due to modernisation investments. Environmental fees rates are adopted regarding users capacity rather than environmental/resource costs level, however incentive influence is also considered. There is no sufficient data on environmental costs yet. Some increase in environmental fees level could be expected. An average water price for households is 0,50 euro/m 3 (regional variation 0,42-0,75) and 0,55 Euro/m 3 for industry (regional variation 0,44-0,77). Water consumption is billed jointly with wastewater in most cases. Metering water consumption is consequently implemented to cover all water users, however some households (mostly old buildings) are still billed on a lump sum basis. Water consumption costs form 1-2% of the households' income, what is not recognised as a significant issue in terms of affordability. It is observed however that increase in water prices in some cases lead to slight decrease in service fee collection (1-2%) 5. Also fees for water resources withdrawal apply to all users. These fees are included in water prices above described. Basic water fees start from 0,01 EUR/m 3 for surface water and 0,02 EUR/m 3 for ground water. Fees are however differentiated depending on water resources availability, their quality, regional dimension and purpose of water 4 Environmental Protection Central Statistical Office, Warszawa 2005 (in Polish). 5 Based on individual consultation with municipal companies. There is no comprehensive data on such effects. GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 10

14 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland consumption, and can be as high as 0,038 EUR/m 3 (surface water) and 0,073 EUR/m 3 (groundwater) 6. It should be pointed out that the consumption of water is considerably lower than that of the 1990s. The decrease has been noted for the last decade in all branches of the national economy, such as: by 26.7 % in industries, by 18.6 % in municipal economies and 21.9 % in farming and forestry. Such components as changes in the size and structure of industries, introduction of water meters for individual consumers and enforcing water charges resulted in the decrease of water consumption. Institutional issues The government agency primarily responsible for the policies on protection of freshwater resources and production of drinking water is the Ministry for Environment. According to the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) a river basin based management is implemented: there are two main river basins (Wisła and Odra), divided into 8 water regions and managed by 7 regional water management boards (RZGWs). Those boards are expected to be responsible for water resources policy development and implementation, with coordination by national water management board (which is planned but not established yet). RZGWs still operate without sufficient competencies. Institutional weaknesses include limited decision competency and insufficient influence on environmental fees policy. Competencies concerning water resources are divided between RZGWs and general administration, what makes policy development and implementation incoherent. The latest are responsible for water resources policy development and implementation. The municipalities (local governments) are responsible for healthy drinking water production and supply. The private sector in Poland is a recipient rather than a creator of water resources management policy. In terms of investment, this sector, which generates over 60% of GDP, is not significant. Conclusions The main challenge regarding water resources is achieving an appropriate level of water quality. While the question of industrial sewage is relatively controlled, municipal wastewater and agriculture non-pointed sources are still the problem. A National Programme of Municipal Wastewater Treatment as well as programmes of good practices in agriculture are being implemented. Complete results of the first one are to be achieved by Efficient outcomes in agricultural impacts will be achieved rather later 7. In terms of institutional framework, an aim of the implementation of Water Framework Directive has been to integrate economics into water resources policy Experience of Previous Investment Programmes For the description of the previous investment programmes, please refer to section 2.6. Full tables of environmental investments in water supply in the past period are given in annex 9.2. Generally most water supply projects are of mixed nature, i.e. include water supply and wastewater treatment installations/activities. Therefore, it is 6 For example, if surface water requires basic treatment only or no treatment, fee rate increases by 2,8. Besides, if water is extracted in Gliwice or Krakow regions, rate increases by 1,2. Moreover, if groundwater water is used for production, basic fee rate is higher by 50%. 7 Expert estimation, but not proved sufficiently. GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 11

15 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland difficult to present data and information separately, especially when public financial support is concerned. It should be noted though that the goals are achieved effectively both in small and larger investments and underlying financial schemes. Practically there is no significant public support to water supply improvement for industry (in terms of installations). Most of public aid is allocated to municipal authorities (communities), responsible for water supply. Considerable numbers of applications create quite reasonable level of efficiency, since there is a competition. Besides qualification criteria as well as procedures applied increase the quality of applications. 3.2 Needs Review of Policy Objectives and Targets Main programme and policy documents, where objectives in question are concerned: National Strategic Reference Framework draft accepted by the Government on 14 February, 2006 (formerly: National Development Plan) Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment draft, Ministry of Regional Development, 14 April, 2006 National Environmental Policy for with Perspective for accepted by the National Government, December 2002 Strategy for Water (Resources) Management Ministry of Environment, 13 September, 2005 Conception for Country Spatial Planning. Updated version Governmental Centre for Strategic Studies, October 2005 The policy objectives regarding water supply are defined in a very general way in these documents; there are no quantitative measures described Demand scenarios Demographic and economic scenarios According to projections developed by Central Statistical Office up to 2030, a slight decrease in total population is expected over the programme period (0,8% between 2007 and 2013). However there is a difference between urban and rural areas. Urban population will decrease by 1,9%, while rural population will increase by 1%. Further projections show this trend will sustain. In the same time the number of households is expected to grow by 5% with decreasing the average number of persons per household. Significant differentiations between regions are not expected. See details in table 3.2.1: Table 3.2.1: Key data of the demographic scenario for Year Population (million) Total Urban areas Rural areas Number of households (million) ,044 23,325 14,719 14,164 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 12

16 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland ,741 22,873 14,868 14,926 (Source: Central Statistical Office, Warsaw 2006) In the period growth in industrial sector was as high as 106% (real terms). Further projections are even more optimistic. Unit water demand Unit water demand has been decreasing over last years as far as households connected to water supply systems are concerned. There are no reliable projections for unit water demand regarding households. However analysis of municipal companies shows that current unit water demand in households fluctuates between 110 and 180 l/inh/day. It is expected that most of households connected to systems will achieve the level close to l/inh/day over the programme period. Such forecast might be justified by current trends and considering new investments and modernisation of water supply installations, resulting with losses reduction, and also by efficient sanitary equipment in households. Further decrease in households seems to be unfeasible because of the minimum water demand necessary to meet human needs. There are still some households with private wells. These are practically uncontrolled (only technical specification and capacity of installation is subject of control).the influence of water prices is difficult to be precisely assessed. Poland has a long practice in applying environmental charges (taxes) and water prices for users. The only impact comes from modernisation of installations, what consequently might cause increase in prices. However, considering joint effect of all factors influencing water demand it is difficult to specify price impact. Thus, while questionable, it does not seem to be significant. Regarding industrial unit water demand, relatively considerable decrease in unit water demand is observed, even when comprehensive data are not available (see 2.1.1). Application of water prices as well as regulation and soft policy incentives results in decreasing unit industrial water demand. Total drinking water need Availability of long-term projections regarding water demand and supply is highly insufficient. Forecasts here presented are own calculations based on trends investigations. Economic projections are more reliable. The main reference was made to Macroeconomic forecast for developed by Ministry of Finance (in Polish), however compared to some independent rough estimations. Household water demand will be slightly decreasing or stable. Total industrial water demand will be relatively stable or slightly increasing over the programme period (compensation of decreasing unit water demand with higher economic activity). Total water demand seems to be relatively stable (about million m³ per year). Evidence shows even slight decrease for last years, which is caused mostly by increase in water use efficiency. We estimate however slight increase in drinking water, not exceeding very few % (no specific figure for 2013). Drinking Water Quality It is expected that the quality of surface water used for the drinking water production will improve after: GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 13

17 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland completion of the building, expansion and modernisation of sewage treatment plants and sewage systems in the largest agglomerations, by the end of 2010 (according to directive 91/271/EC); eliminating or minimising highly harmful substances disposed in industrial waste to aquatic environment; completion of investment into fermented and unfermented liquid manure reservoirs and manure plates, in the first instance in areas at risk for farmgenerated nitrogen pollution, and by year 2008 in the rest of Poland, together with distribution of the Code of Good Agricultural Practice. Regarding improvement of water resources one of the most significant programmes is National Programme of Municipal Wastewater Treatment. More information on waste water treatment will be provided in chapter 4. At the same time, activities aimed at building, expansion and modernisation of drinking water treatment plants and water supply networks will be carried out in order to improve the quality of water distributed to the public. State of Infrastructures Practically there is no comprehensive reference to state of water supply infrastructure in national dimension. While water supply companies make their own estimations, an extra investigation would be needed to have national information on need for replacement of water supply infrastructure. Physical investment needs Policy documents do not define clear and accurate investment needs concerning water supply systems (there are no comprehensive data in national dimension). Nevertheless such needs are unquestionable, what could be gathered from observation of measures undertaken at local level as well as observation of the share of applications concerning water supply projects Unit Investment & Operating Costs Unit investment costs are available in annex and could be used to estimate, based on expert judgment regarding the physical investment need, the total financial investment need User charges Poland has a long practice in applying environmental charges (taxes) and water prices for users. Concerning existing water supply systems, % operating costs are recovered (research for Middle Wisla River Basin made by Regional Water Management Board). Therefore increase in tariffs is expected only where new investments and/or modernisation are to be implemented. Possible increase of tariffs does not seem to be significant in terms of affordability. Environmental charges (taxes) applied to water users are not well related to environmental costs, since there are not reliable estimations. They are rather incentive focused policy measures. It is not expected that these charges increase in real terms, also because of social reasons. Nevertheless increase might be expected in long term perspective, since WFD requires environmental cost recovery to be achieved. Environmental cost estimation is first necessary. GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 14

18 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland Indicative Investment Requirement Water Supply Prior explanations show that a detailed forecast of investment cost per investment type is unfeasible, since there is no comprehensive programme concerning water supply investments. So it was also not possible to calculate the financial need by multiplying physical investment needs with unit costs (e.g. length of network to be renovated * euro per km network). Hence the following proxies are used. Table 3.2.2: Summary of investment cost water supply Type of investment Indicative Investment Cost Indicative SF/CF Requirement Implied Intervention Rate M Euro M Euro % Total investment 295 M Euro (*) 1100 M Euro (**) 250 M Euro 85% (*) This nationally available figure does not include some regional investment needs (unavailable at the moment, will be covered by 16 regional operational programmes) but only covers big investments (> 5 M Euro). (**) This figure comes from a rough estimation by experts for the total investment required to comply with EU and national standards and companies development forecasts since 2004 (no deadline defined). Thorough estimation for the total figure requires a comprehensive research, since water supply companies make their own investment assessments and plans.. GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 15

19 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland 4 WASTE WATER TREATMENT 4.1 Current situation Current State of Provision Total wastewater production in 2004 amounted to 2.134,9 millions m 3 wastewater requiring treatment; cooling waters excluded), of which: (refers to industrial wastewater 841,3 millions m 3 (39,4%) municipal wastewater 1 293,6 millions m 3 (60,6%) The total amount of wastewater treated amounted to 1.943,1 millions m 3, (91%) of which: mechanical treatment 581,5 millions m 3 (27,2%) chemical treatment 107,5 millions m 3 (5%) two-step biological treatment 585,5 millions m 3 (27,5%) advanced treatment (high nitrogen and phosphorus removal) 668,5 millions m 3 (31,3%) Hence the amount of wastewater untreated equals 191,8 millions m 3 (9%). Most of the untreated wastewater originates from municipal sources. It generates some environmental impacts, however not highly dangerous. Wastewater specifics may impose some threats and extra treatment costs for other water users. Warszawa, the capital and the country biggest city still does not treat properly about 80% of its waste water, nevertheless a improvement and development programme is being implemented with expected 100% wastewater advanced treatment. Surface water quality The poor quality of surface waters has a negative aspect on the quality of the the Baltic Sea. In terms of UWWTD sensitivity criteria, 100% of the country surface area has been classified as sensitive area (due to significant impact on Baltic Sea). As far as surface water resources used for drinking purposes are concerned, a recent evaluation shows the following 8 : there is no surface water with high quality (A1); 5,3% is A2 class (very good); 13,7% is A3 class (good); 80,9% has bad quality (off scale). State of infrastructures a) Sewage Treatment Plants (STP): 8 It should be noted, that this evaluation does not reflect general country structure of water quality, since imited samples of currently utilised water sources have been analysed. GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 16

20 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland In 2004, 59% of the population discharged their wastewater to public wastewater treatment plants, while the same figure for the EU is 70% on the average. There is a large disparity between urban and rural areas, and between smaller and larger settlements. In 2004, the percentage of urban population with access to a wastewater treatment plant was 84,5%. At the same time wastewater treatment plants served only 18,4% of the rural population. The situation of sewage treatment plants (STP) in the country is the following. Out of agglomerations that have been defined: 683 have a STP in place that complies with the UWWTD standards; 588 have a STP that is not fully compliant; The total biodegradable capacity of the above plants is 18,8 mln PE9. The hydraulic capacity of the existing plants is around 210 l/pe/d (8,96 mln m 3 /d or 2550 Mg/d). b) Sludge treatment: Most sewage treatment plants have adequate sludge treatment. The most common final disposal routes for sewage sludge are: landfilling (41,7%) and utilisation for land recultivation (25%). It should be noted however, that such an approach to sludge treatment comprises some restrictions due to biological safety and land availability (for example agriculture must be excluded). Besides a low share of advanced treatment methods is noticeable. c) Sewerage systems: The percentage of urban population connected to the sewerage system was 84 % in the year The rural situation looked worse: in the year 2004 the percentage of rural population connected to sewerage was 17,3%. The water and sewage infrastructure is best-developed in large and medium size towns, i.e. towns in excess of residents. The smaller the town, the poorer its infrastructure. It should be noted however, that some wastewater is treated regardless sewerage collection systems (mobile transport of wastewater). 58,3 % of the population is connected to the sewer system. 59 % of the population deliver wastewater to STP. In total the following lengths of sewers are in place : km of sewerage networks (including collectors) Prices of the waste water service An average price 10 for wastewater treatment (including sewage collection) for households is 0,64 euro/m 3 (regional variation 0,58-0,73) and 0,75 EUR/m 3 for industry (regional variation 0,64-0,90). Wastewater is usually is billed jointly with water consumption. Metering water consumption makes basis for wastewater metering.. Wastewater treatment consumption costs contribute at 1,2-2,5% of households' income, what is not recognised as a significant issue in terms of affordability. It should be noted however, that prices are higher in smaller WTPs (typical economic effect of 9 1 PE = 60 gbod/day 10 Here we define price as service fee applied by companies providing such service (wastewater collection and treatment). Prices include capital and operation costs (with environmental fees/taxes included). GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 17

21 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland scale), where average households incomes are lower, thus affordability impact is more significant in smaller agglomerations. Besides, environmental fees for wastewater emission apply to all users, households, public institutions and industry. These fees are included in service prices described above. Fees are identified as an environmental policy instrument with special focus on their incentive utility. Basic wastewater emission fees are: 0,71 EUR/kg (BOD), 0,28 EUR/kg (COD), 20,8 EUR/kg (heavy metals and selected dangerous organic substances). Institutional issues Municipal wastewater treatment is a responsibility of local authorities. Local government is obliged to provide treatment services for the community. Services might be contracted to private companies, however almost all operators are fully owned by local authorities (most frequently as public enterprises). Regulations allow local authorities to develop public-private partnerships, however this form is not popular in municipal wastewater collection and treatment services (there are very few individual cases, where private operators provide treatment). Most investments are financed from local budgets (often through financial instruments like soft loans, credits) and public subsidies (EU and national). Conclusions The most important problem for Poland in the field of STPs, is : 259 missing plants still to be built; 909 existing plants need modernisation and/or development (to comply with the standards of the UWWTD for sensitive areas); the quality of the plants is still unsatisfactory, but improving consequently; Around 5% of STPs require modernisation of sludge treatment only, while next 35% require wider modernisation with sludge installations included. Sewer systems are missing in rural areas, only 17,3% of rural population is connected to systems. Some households in rural areas have individual treatment systems (there is no detailed data, however their share is estimated as low). State of affairs in urban areas is much better but still far from satisfactory 16% of population is not connected to sewerage networks. Objectives in wastewater treatment sector are relatively successfully being achieved. According to priorities outline (significantly influenced by EU requirements) investments in bigger agglomerations must be realized firstly, than smaller towns. Current progress is satisfactory, however weaker capacities of the smaller towns should be carefully considered Experience of Previous Investment Programmes For the description of the previous investment programmes, please refer to section 2.6. Full tables of environmental investments in water supply in the past period are given in annex Information on general MS funding, the ISPA programme, the Cohesion fund and the Structural funds is described in The full list of past and ongoing Cohesion fund projects is given in annex GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 18

22 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention Country Report Poland Good Practice Lessons or Examples Wastewater investments seem to be the most important investment type in the environmental sector regarding EU accession, especially those in local communities sphere. Wastewater projects are the most dynamically developing projects. Due to appropriate objective setting as well as prioritising during the programming stage, wastewater projects give the most visible impacts (this refers especially to large scale projects, but also to smaller). The Warsaw mixed water/wastewater project is one of the most spectacular projectts. Comprehensive water supply and wastewater treatment system development and implementation in greater Warsaw area is worth 397 million euro with 248 million euro support from Cohesion Fund. Conclusions Wastewater treatment objectives in Poland are very clearly. Regarding municipal sewage there is a National Programme of Municipal Wastewater Treatment (KPOSK), adopted by the Government and prioritising objective in this sphere. KPOSK is strongly based on Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EC) as well as on accession treaty commitments. Therefore only the most effective and well prepared/advanced projects have chance to receive financial support leading to high efficiency. It should be noted however that expected results are allocated through time till Since this area is still highly underinvested and money consuming, appropriate focus should be placed here. In terms of the scale of financial needs wastewater treatment remains the highest priority. Possibly, some attention should be placed to smaller agglomerations (or better: not so wealthy). Most of successful projects refer to bigger and/or affluent ones. Certainly, many small projects have been implemented as well. However, there are some opinions, that a certain number of agglomerations will have some difficulties with generating resources to balance external financial support expected. Projects development processes are quite intense and unfortunately there are no accurate records illustrating this problem. 4.2 Needs Review of policy objectives and targets Main programme and policy documents, where objectives in question are concerned: National Strategic Reference Framework draft accepted by the Government on 14 February, 2006 (formerly: National Development Plan) Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment draft, Ministry of Regional Development, 14 April, 2006 National Environmental Policy for with Perspective for accepted by the National Government, December 2002 Conception for Country Spatial Planning. Updated version Governmental Centre for Strategic Studies, October 2005 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 19