Implementation of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive in France

Transcription

1 Directive 91/271/CE Implementation of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive in France Bruno Rakedjian UWWTD programme manager for the French Ministry of Environment between 2007 and 2013 UWWTD programme manager for the DG ENV of the EC between July 2013 and July 2017

2 It is not strange that health improves when the population gives up using diluted sewage as the principle beverage. Dr. Thurman Rice, Teacher à University of Indiana School of Medicine Why it is important to implement it unclean water and poor sanitation are the world's second biggest killers of children (2011). Inadequate water supply and sanitation cost economies $260 billion worldwide every year (2015). Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General. When Peru had a cholera outbreak in 1991, losses from tourism and agricultural revenue were three times greater than the total money spent on sanitation in the previous decade. Rose George, Journalist and author Avoid pathogen and chemical contaminations to protect the environment and the health of people 2

3 Situation in 2007 UWWTD directive deadlines : 20 % of the treatment plants not compliant In 2007, infringement procedures: France at risk to be sentenced by the European court of justice to pay a fine of about 400 million euros 3

4 Why was France late to comply? Lack of human resources, skill and willingness in some of the water utilities ( water and sanitation utilities) Lack of political support from the highest level of the state Bad coordination between the different levels of the French Government and Basin Agencies Poor knowledge about the real situation Local opposition to some of the projects Underestimation of the costs ( 16 billion estimated in 1994, 90 billion spent from 1990 to 2014) 4

5 Decisions taken Creation of a national database and tools for monitoring and reporting Coercive and financial measures Implementation action plan with indicators Establish a coherent national and local implementation system with strong political support and designated people at each administrative level Comprehensive training program and hotline Hiring of a senior sanitation expert to frequently monitor implementation on the ground 5

6 National financial and technical support River basin agencies RBA (since 1964) 11,6 billions euros subsidies and loans ( ) (60% sanitation, 11% drinking water, 10% management of local policies) 13,3 billions euros subsidies and loans ( ) (50% sanitation) UWWTPs subsidies between 30% and 45% of the total amount Collecting systems Subsidies between 20 and 35% of the total amount Origin of the RBA budget (Exemple of RMC, 9 th programme) 70%households 19% local authorities 7% industries 1% agriculture 3% pesticides 1% other RBA resource on the water bill between 35 and 70 cents/m3 6 Solidarity between urban and rural areas in the same river bassin

7 National financial and technical support The national water agency ONEMA ---> AFB (2017 biodiversity French Agency) The budget comes from the 6 rivers basin agencies 120 millions euros each year Missions of AFB -The financial solidarity to the benefit of Corsica and French ultramarine territories 20 millions euros subsidies each year - Knowledge and national information system - Water Research 7

8 Dashboards Need to set up clear priorities for urban waste water treatment plants (UWWTP) works 8

9 Transparency Creation of a national urban waste water website A European reference: visitors per day A source of knowledge (data, indicators, regulation,...) Created a positive implementation dynamic

10 Sensitive areas Phosphorus removal lakes an fresh waters Nitrogen and phosphorus removal coastal areas Chorophyll a concentration NASA 29 March

11 WWTD Implementation Treatment implemented in

12 Treatment implemented in France in

13 Advice given to French local authorities Training support provided to help design systems: Information on good practices Information on what to study to determine and compare possible solutions 13

14 Advice given to French local authorities Collective or individual sanitation system (IAS)? Distance between houses, urban planning, geological layers, costs, What about IAS? 14

15 Good practice about IAS French does not have accurate information at national level and does not report this information to EU. Ireland has decided to report 5% for each agglomeration IAS in isolated areas does not pollute a lot compared to farm animals and discharge of waste water of collecting systems 1 without treatments. It is difficult at national level to have accurate information on that. It is more difficult at EU level. Reporting more IAS is a way to reduce estimations of discharges without treatment before collection for countries that have reported this information. Better management of IAS have to be implemented in a midterm perspective.

16 Advice given to French local authorities One UWWTP or several UWWTPs? Costs, size of the agglomeration, variation of altitudes, Sanitation system history, water body acceptance Where to build the UWWTP? Take into account proximity of houses (noise, smells), flooding risk, protected areas, slope of the city, 16

17 Advice given to French local authorities Which technology? Performance requested, investment and operation costs, operation complexity, Lots of different technologies with advanges and disadvantages. Has to be compatible with potential futur improvement. 17

18 Advice given to French local authorities Which Design for the UWWTP? Take into account the next ten years and leave possibilities of extension. Peak week has to be treated (tourism activity, rain events, industrial discharges, ) Consider that extending the network and connecting all the buildings will take years, limiting flow to WWTP Take into account the basic measures requested by the UWWTD but also water quality objectives 18

19 French Statistics French statistics about urban waste water 2014 Citizens : 66 million Agglomerations : (3 200 >= 2000 p.e.) Generated load: 78 million p.e. Design capacity: 102 million p.e. Pipe lenght: km Volume of urban waste water: 5 billion m3/year Investment in collecting systems : 2.5 billion Investment in UWWTPs: 1.5 billion Operation costs (with depreciation): 6.6 billion Water bill (in 2013): 3.85/m3 (Water: 2;WW: 1.85) 19

20 Rough estimation of the Sanitation Asset in France About 210 billion euros 30 billion euros for UWWTPs (300 /pe x 100 million p.e) 114 billion euros for the collecting systems (300 /m x km) 30 billion for pipe connection (building to CS) (2000 /connection x 15 million houses) 36 billion for individual sanitation systems (9000 per device x 4 million houses) An investment of /person/50 years (65 /citizen/year) 20

21 Main results in France Geneva Lake Phosphorus from 1955 to 2015 Estuary of Seine Ammonium 1970 to 2015 Fish in Seine river Estuary of Seine Eutrophication risk 1970 to

22 Main results in France and the EU BOD In rivers EEA website 22

23 Preliminary results in Bulgaria Iskar 6 Iskar 7 Iskar

24 Good practice about the deadlines French experience shows that: It took longer than anticipated to reach compliance; Willingness and momentum are needed in the long run (5-6 yrs to build large WWTPs years to achieve the last connections to the network); Mid/long term planning better for the economy and industrial/building sector

25 Conclusion Reasons for France s success to comply with UWWTD: National database and website for information dissemination Implementation action plan and indicators (yearly updated) Clear priorities (biggest agglomerations first) National regulation that does not over-translate EU regulation Financial instruments with clear allocation criteria (e.g. readiness) Coherent national and local organisation in place with support from the highest political level and resource people at each sub-administrative level National manager that is also able to discuss solutions with local authorities Comprehensive capacity-building programme and hotline Documentation and dissemination of best practices For each project studies looking at possible alternatives to determine the most cost efficient solution 25

26 Thank you for your attention 26