EU accession the process: before, during, after. Gheorghe Constantin

Transcription

1 EU accession the process: before, during, after Gheorghe Constantin Bucharest, 24 September 2013

2 Problems of Romania related to the urban wastewater collection and treatment(i) Less than 50% of population have access to centralized water/wastewater services Almost 80% of wastewater discharged in natural receivers untreated or insufficiently treated Most of the existing water infrastructure in poor status due to long term under-investments Excessive fragmentation of water sector systems and services Inappropriate maintenance and operating services in most small and medium agglomerations

3 Problems of Romania related to the drinking waterurban wastewater collection and treatment(ii) Lack of capacity to attract substantial funding for investment needs in majority of small and medium agglomerations Private sector not interested to invest in short term High specific water consumption more than 350 l/inhabitant and day

4

5

6

7 Specific water consumption Countries 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 Consum specific

8 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

9 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.

10 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 than i.e. (including P and N removal) Till 31 December 2018, for urban wastewater treatment for 2346 aglomerations with less i.e. Estimated cost:9.5 billions Euro

11 Water sector top priority The 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

12 Cost assessment - Romanian environmental sector Water 4 B illio n Waste Air Other sectors

13 Approach for Definition of Agglomerations Definition in the Implementation Plan Definition in the Master Plan Detailed boundaries in the Feasibility Study 13

14 Principles Sound technical and economic assessment of boundaries and options Intensive stakeholder involvement Quality assurance by MECC 14

15 Agglomerations in the Implementation Plan Preliminary definition Mainly based on administrative borders Rough estimate of investment costs Inventory of agglomerations( annexes of Implementation Plan) 15

16 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 16

17 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 17

18 Scenarios Definitions of UWWTD 18

19 Analysis of an agglomeration 19

20 Defining of a agglomeration Agglomeration Border Line WWTP Cluster Line Interconnection 20

21 Example for Agglomerations Detailed Definition of Boundaries Example Roman page 21

22 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

23 Constraints Limited financial resources high investment need; Limited period of time ( ) Conclusion: Need for investment prioritization; Optimisation of investment cost at macro level a must Regionalisation part of the solution (economies of scale)

24 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

25 Targets of Regionalization Limitation of political involvment in the supply of water and wastewater services Regional Operator as the mechanism for provision of service to small communities Availability of more similar companies for benchmarking comparisons Overall target to provide that 2600 localities of more than 2000 p.e. meet 2018 targets

26 Advantages of regionalization Improved technical capacity Improved financial capacity Improved lending capability Improved investment planning Optimization of available resources Capacity to operate of existing regional systems Capability to meet EU W & WW Directive Tariffs leverage around the region

27 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

28

29 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 from 145 la 73 days

30 Consumul specific domestic de apa (l/pers/zi) / Perioada medie de colectare (in zile) Indicele de crestere al tarifului (Anul 2000 = 1,0) 350 Evolutia consumului domestic de apa potabila, perioadei de colectare si a tarifelor Studiu de caz: IASI Financial challenges Consum rezidential l/pers/zi Perioada de colectare (Zile) Indicele de crestere al tarifului (2000 = 1,0

31 RON / m3 (2006 prices) 2.50 Tariff and Affordability Analysis: Water Demand Development of Water and Sewerage Tariffs in Romania, weighted average of 25 towns (w/o VAT, 2006 prices) Sources: UNDP, EBRD 2.00 Water Supply Wastewater Real variation: WS + WW 1.37 TOTAL: + 45% (avg.: + 10%) p.a.) WATER: + 40% (avg.: + 9% p.a.) WASTEWATER: + 65% (avg.: + 13% p.a.)

32 Tariffs of sewerage and wastewater treatment operators Tariffs vary very much DISTRIBUTIA OPERATORILOR IN FUNCTIE DE TARIFUL PRACTICAT PENTRU ANUL 2009 APA CANAL 3,00 lei 2,50 lei 2,00 lei 1,50 lei 1,00 lei 0,50 lei 0,00 lei VN COMP DE UTILIT PUBLICE FOCSAN VL APAVIL SA VILCEA TM AQUATIM SA TIMISOARA SV ACET SA SUCEAVA SB APA CANAL SA SIBIU SM APA SERV SATU MARE PH APA NOVA PLOIESTI NT COMP JUD APASERV PIATRA NEAMT MS AQUASERV TG MURES MH SECOM SA TN SEVERIN MM VITAL SA BAIA MARE IS DIRECTIA DE APA-CANAL PASCANI IS APAVITAL SA IASI HD APA SERV VALEA JIULUI PETROSANI HD APA PROD SA DEVA GJ APAREGIO GORJ TG JIU GR APA SERVICE SA GIURGIU GL APA CANAL GALATI DJ COMP DE APA OLTENIA CRAIOVA DB COMP DE APA TIRGOVISTE CT RAJA SA CONSTANTA CL COMPANIA DE APA SOMES SA CLUJ CS AQUACARAS SA RESITA CL ECOAQUA CALARASI BZ COMPANIA DE APA BUZAU B APA NOVA BUCURESTI BV COMPANIA DE APA BRASOV BR COMPANIA DE UTILITATI BRAILA BT APA GRUP BOTOSANI BN AQUASIB BISTRITA NASAUD BH COMP DE APA ORADEA BC APA SERV BACAU AG APA CANAL 2000 SA PITESTI AD COMPANIA DE APA ARAD AB CTTA ALBA IULIA

33

34

35 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

36 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%

37 Financing Strategy(2) ~ 175 millions Euro yearly ~ 400 millions Euro yearly ~ 900 millions Euro yearly ~ 800 millions Euro yearly

38 National financing Foreseen in the implementation plan for millions Euro Provided in the period out of which: -809 millions Euro -local and national budget -346 millions Euro -loans -operators budget -275 millions Euro -188 millions Euro

39 Distribution of total financial contribution per Priority Axes - Community funding + national counterpart - (in million Euro) Total allocation SOP ENV: Euro million 1,167 3,266 Water/w aste w ater Urban heating Floods and coastal erosion Waste management and historically polluted sites Biodiversity Technical Assistance

40 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

41 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

42 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 42

43 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. Euro 746, 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. Euro 367,899 mil. Euro (11,69%) from the local budgets 30,286 mil. Euro from Operator / Public-Private Partnership

44 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

45 Conclusions Development of the water and 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

46 Thank you for attention!