STRATEGIC EVALUATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND RISK PREVENTION UNDER STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDS FOR THE PERIOD 2007-2013
Contract No. 2005.CE.16.0.AT.016.
National Evaluation Report for Czech Republic
Main Report
Directorate General Regional Policy
A report submitted by
in association with Dušek Ondrej Ing. Mr. Stijn Vermoote DUIS ECOLAS nv Srbska 21 Lange Nieuwstraat 43, 612 00, Brno 2000 Antwerp Czech Republic Belgium Tel: +420 541.244.197-8 TEL +32/3/233.07.03 [email protected] [email protected] Date: November 10th, 2006 GHK Brussels Rue de la Sablonnière, 25 B-1000 Brussels Tel: +32 (0)2 275 0100; Fax : +32 (2) 2750109
GHK London 526 Fulham Road London, United Kingdom SW6 5NR Tel: +44 20 7471 8000; Fax: +44 20 7736 0784 www.ghkint.com
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY...... 2 2 OVERVIEW AND HORIZONTAL ISSUES...... 4 2.1 Country overview ...... 4 2.2 State of the environment...... 4 2.3 State of the environment infrastructure...... 6 2.4 Implementation status of the European environmental acquis...... 7 2.5 Environmental policy...... 7 2.6 Environmental expenditure (general) ...... 8 2.7 Future Plans (2007-20013) ...... 8 2.8 Relationship of the overall environmental strategy(ies) to wider Objective 1 and 2 Programme Strategies...... 9 3 WATER SUPPLY...... 11 3.1 Current situation...... 11 3.2 Needs ...... 18 4 WASTE WATER ...... 27 4.1 Current situation...... 27 4.2 Needs ...... 34 5 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ...... 43 5.1 Current situation...... 43 5.2 Needs ...... 49 6 RENEWABLE ENERGY...... 61 6.1 Current situation...... 61 6.2 Needs ...... 64 7 NATURAL RISK MANAGEMENT (FIRE, DROUGHT, FLOODS)...... 73 7.1 Current situation...... 73 7.2 Needs ...... 77 8 PRIORITY ASSESSMENT...... 81 8.1 Part 1: summarising the needs assessment ...... 81 8.2 Part 2: Assessing priorities within fields ...... 85 8.3 Part 3: Assessing priorities across Fields ...... 93 9 ANNEXES...... 101 9.1 Summary key figures current situation...... 102 9.2 Unit investment and operating costs...... 122 9.3 Annexes priority assessment ...... 127 10 REFERENCE LIST ...... 143 10.1 Literature, databases and websites consulted...... 143 10.2 Interviews ...... 143
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See separate document.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 1
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
This report is a part of the project “Strategic Evaluation on Environment & Risk Prevention Under Structural & Cohesion Funds for 2007-2013”, European Commission project No. 2005.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 2007-2013. 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 2007 – 2013 period, the project analyses the current situation in each field and the financial allocations during the current programming period (2000-2006). 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 Czech Republic and was prepared by DUIS s.r.o. 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 Czech Republic in each field. The information was drawn from EU information, national reports, field-specific databases, various field specific reports regarding the environmental situation in Czech Republic 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 2007-2013, 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
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
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
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
2 OVERVIEW AND HORIZONTAL ISSUES
2.1 Country overview Latest year Trend Indicator 2004 % Area of country (thousand 78,666 km2 1 square km) GDP per capita (Euro) 16.800 € (2004) +3,7% (2004) Population (thousand) 10.241.138 (July 2005) -0,05% (2005 est.) Number of households 4.271 1 (2005) (thousand) Average household income 3.758,85€ 1 per capita/year (2005) (Euro) 9.013 EUR/household.year (2005)
Unemployment rate (%) 10,6% (2004) (ILO definition) Sector employment total (A-Q)(thousand) - Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing (A,B) 4% (2002) - Industry (C,D,E,F) 38% (2002) - Others (G-O) services: 58% (2002)
2.2 State of the environment The Czech Republic shows both good progress and performance on the emissions of greenhouse gasses, energy consumption, emission of acidifying substances and ozone precursors, municipal waste generation and freshwater use and is on track to maintain and improve the quality of its environment in the future. Fast economic growth is expected following the EU accession and therefore issues which may gain in importance include emissions of acidifying substances; energy intensity and greenhouse gas emissions2.
2.2.1 Main strengths in 2004: Water supply and waste water treatment2,3: - A large proportion of the population uses the public water supply system (ca.90%). - The quality of groundwater was stabilised. - An increase in the quality of surface waters in important water courses - A decrease in withdrawals of surface waters from 1990-2003 by 41.3% and from 2003-2004 by 4.1% (and 4.5% for groundwater).
- In 2004 decrease of discharged load (BOD5 – 13,6 % , COD – 4,1 %, SS – 14,5 %)
1 Czech statistical Office – CSO 2 Activities of the European Union – Summaries of Legislation : Czech Republic – Adoption of the Community Acquis: http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/e15107.htm 3 Ministry of the Environment (2005): “Report on the Environment in the Czech Republic in 2004”
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 4
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Municipal solid waste2 - Since 2002 municipal waste production has slightly decreased (between 2003 and 2004: -4,4 mio tonnes). The amount of recycled (11,7% in 2003) and recovered municipal waste is increasing. Incineration has increased significantly since 1999 (0,5% of overall waste volume in 1999 to almost 10% in 2003) Renewable energy4 - In 2004 slight increase in renewable electricity from 2003
2.2.2 Main weaknesses in 2004: Water supply and waste water treatment3,2: - In the vast majority of cases water from individual wells (serve 10.2% of the population) does not meet the standard for drinking water, especially form the standpoint of the content of nitrates and bacterial pollution - Some of the monitored water courses (especially smaller streams close to pollution sources) remain in the categories of highly and very highly polluted water (Bílina River is the most polluted waterway). - Some sections of important water courses have long exhibited elevated concentrations of specific pollutants, in particular AOX, heavy metals, PAHs, PCB and DDT. - The quality of surface and ground waters continues to be affected by extensive pollution sources; 45% of the area of agricultural land will be classified as “vulnerable areas” - A number of water reservoirs are endangered by eutrophication - A significant portion of the sludge form WWTPs (ca. 50%) does not comply with the requirements for use in agriculture (according to local hygiene standard) Municipal solid waste2: - The production of municipal waste increased form 1995 to 2002 and reached 4,6 mio tonnes in 2002 - Landfilling remains the most usual form of disposal: 67% in 2004 of municipal waste. - 65% of the collected waste can potentially be recycled and reused but there is a serious lack of public willingness to use the provided infrastructure for separation of waste Renewable energy2 - Share renewable electricity remains too low to achieve the national indicative target of 8% of gross electivity consumption form renewable sources by 2010. - High energy demand of economy sectors - Stagnation of utilisation of secondary and renewable sources Natural risk management3: - Catastrophic floods in 2002 caused sharp temporary increase in discharge pollution, especially in the watershed of the Vltava, increase in the microbial levels in water courses, contamination of the soil in the vicinity of flooded industrial plants by pollutants and damage to the flooded parts of the landscape - Accumulation of mine gases in enclosed areas and subsequent eruption on the surface in the Ostrava part of the Upper Silesian Basin continues to represent a considerable risk to human life and property
4 European Environment Agency, 2005. The European environment — State and outlook 2005. Copenhagen, ISBN 92-9167-776-0
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 5
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
- 601 forest fires were recorded (178 ha of the forest stands were destroyed or damaged) which is an increase of 24% compared to 2001. 2.2.3 Major environmental issues in the Czech Republic outside of the selected fields include ambient air quality and climate - Pollution levels by PM10 and PAHs (i.e. benzo(a)pyrene) constitute an extensive problem in some locations (Prague and the Moravia and Silesia region)
- High O3 levels constitute an extensive problem troughout the Czech Republic, both from the standpoint of protection of health and also from the standpoint of protection of vegetation - Elevated concentrations of benzene, Ni, Cd and As in the air occur in some locations
- Specific emissions of the main greenhouse gas, CO2 remain high
2.3 State of the environment infrastructure 2.3.1 Most developed infrastructure (status 2003)3: Waste water: - A continuing increase in the number of inhabitants connected to public sewer systems (77.7% in 2003 which is higher than in other East European countries, yet lower in comparison with the EU-15 average). - All agglomerations with a population of over 10.000 are provided with at least one mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). - A continuing increase in the number of inhabitants supplied with drinking water from public water mains - The quality-related objectives of EU directives on dangerous substances were met within the territory of the Czech Republic. Municipal Solid Waste: - Development of a system of waste separation and recycling of packaging waste: a system of separation of packaging waste has been introduced over 90% of the territory of the Czech Republic, 57% of the population participates in waste separation. In 2002, 31% of the total level of all wastes from packaging is recycled 2.3.2 Infrastructure most in need of improvement (status 2003): Waste water3: - 22.6% of the population still lives in residences that are not connected to public sewers - parts of the sewer systems are not yet connected to WWTPs: 7.4% of waste waters were discharged into sewer systems without any further treatment - a large number of the large WWTPs in operation are not yet equipped with stage 3 treatment for removal of nitrogen and phosphorus - The entire territory of the Czech Republic will be included in the category of sensitive area, indicating an intensification of WWTPs for over 10 000 EI (Government Regulation No. 61/2003 Coll.) - Missing WWTPs in several agglomerations of 5.000 to 10.000 EI and in a higher number of agglomerations of 2.000 to 5.000 EI.
Municipal Solid Waste2,3: - Landfilling remains the most common means of municpal waste disposal: ca. 67% in 2004. Flood protection3: - possible measures are not well co-ordinated (municipal planning, forest industry, river basin planning), floods risk still exists
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 6
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Infrastructure is evenly distributed along the country.
2.4 Implementation status of the European environmental acquis
Water supply and waste water treatment (status 03/2004, plus recent development)5: - Legislation is in place and is in line with the acquis - Co-ordination between the various organisations in the water sector needs to be improved. - Water quality monitoring should be enhanced. - The inventory of and authorisations for discharges of dangerous substances were finalised by accession - A transitional arrangement until December 2010 has been agreed as regards urban waste water. Municipal solid waste (status 03/2004)4: - the necessary legislation is in place and in line with the acquis, including for packaging waste, the financial security of landfills, and the recent acquis on end-of- life vehicles. - Regional waste management plans have yet to be adopted. - The establishment of collection systems and recovery and disposal facilities needs to continue. - The Waste Management Centre needs further strengthening, and co-operation with the Ministry needs to be improved. - A transitional arrangement until December 2005 has been agreed for the implementation of rules on packaging waste Renewable energy2 - Czech Act No. 180/2005 Coll. guarantees the recovery of investments in renewable energy sources following EU directive 2001/77/EC to promote renewable electricity. The Act contributes to achieving the national indicative target of 8% of gross electivity consumption form renewable sources by 2010.
2.5 Environmental policy The State Environmental Policy of the Czech Republic of 2001 is based on the principles of sustainable development, international commitments and recommendations in the framework of UN, OECD, EU and also the requirements of a civic society.3 The State Environmental Policy was approved by Resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic No. 38 of January 10, 2001 on the updated State Environmental Policy of the Czech Republic (SEP CR). Nowadays the State Environmental Policy is being updated again. As a strategy, cross-sectional document, SEP CR is based on the principles of sustainable development, international commitments and recommendations in the framework of UN, OECD, EU and also the requirements of a civic society. The future Strategy of Sustainable Development in the Czech Republic and the SEP CR, as its environmental pillars, will reflect the conclusions of the Helsinki Summit and documents adopted to integrate environmental policy into sector policies {Collected working materials of the ME Consultation Forum for Accession to EU - Documents from the Helsinki Summit (ME, January 2000)}. The new updated SEP CR will also
5 The annual report on “Water-supply and sewerage systems in the Czech Republic in 2004”: http://www.mze.cz
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 7
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
take into account the conclusions of the Global Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the EU Strategy of Sustainable Development and the Lisbon Process, the conclusions of the 5th Ministerial Conference of UN Economic Commission for Europe "An Environment for Europe" and also the 6th Action Plan for the Environment in EU adopted in July 2002.
2.6 Environmental expenditure (general)
Table 2-1 Structural assistance for environmental investment (Czech Republic) Structural assistance (2004-2006), in millions of EUR, at constant prices, state price base) Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Interreg Urban Equal Leader+ Fish Cohesi All structural eries on fund assistance 1454.27 71.30 58.79 68.68 / 32.10 / / 945.30 2630.50 (*) (*) Basic infra: 16%; business comp.: 17,9%; human resources: 21,9%; agriculture, rural development and fisheries: 12%; regional development: 31,2%
In 2004 the Czech Republic has invested 1 billion in environmental issues since 1994, or 2.4 % of GDP5. Overview of potential investment sources in the Czech Republic6: - The state budget: financing or co-financing of expenditure priorities of the Government, financial measures at a central level in the public interest. - Extra-budgetary funds (SEF, NPF): financing of measures in accord with a set strategy, sector priorities, co-financing of international programs (ISPA) - State Programmes (the State Program to support energy savings and the use of renewable energy sources): mainly of initiative importance - Foreign sources: mostly a condition for participation in financing consists in co- financing by the state or local budgets, funds or state guaranteed or soft loans (e.g. Structural and Cohesion Funds) - Banking sources: standard selection of projects based on selection parameters where the key aspects are economic and not environmental parameters - Private sector - Local budgets : budgets of municipalities, regions, regional associations, either fully using their own means or providing a contribution towards complex financing of projects
Major financial source for environmental infrastructure are State Environmental Fund and EU funding. EU funding is quite important for environmental sector in Czech Republic. Each region in the country has available long term plan including list of priorities. The main criteria for project selection (both local and EU funding) are environmental effect and investment cost.
2.7 Future Plans (2007-20013) The Czech Government prepared a document called „Objectives of the Czech Republic in the Framework of the EU for the period 2004 – 2013“. The main aim of this document is to define priorities, which the Czech Republic will promote in the EU, in a complex, systematic and effective way.
6 Czech Republic – National Strategy of the EU Cohesion Fund, Sector of the Environment 2004-2006 (Prague, May 2003)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 8
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
The basic priorities are: sustainable development, cohesion, freedom and security of citizens, external security and co-operation and diversity. They are classified as horizontal and sectoral. In the field of environment the Czech Republic will promote following areas: • Climate change and air protection • Protection of landscape, water, soil and natural resources, • Complex management of chemical substances • Sustainable production and consumption
The priorities in the field of environment have been developed in line with the updated State Environmental Policy (approved by the Government on 17 March 2004).
2.8 Relationship of the overall environmental strategy(ies) to wider Objective 1 and 2 Programme Strategies.
Relationship of the overall environmental strategy(ies) to wider Objective 1 and 2 Programme Strategies is laid down in the “Resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic of March 17, 2004 NO.235 on the State Environmental Policy of the Czech Republic” (SEP). The SEP is a fundamental document for other sectoral and regional policies from the standpoint of the environment. The principle of promoting competitiveness and convergence is followed. The prevailing approach is that every municipal investor, region etc. can qualify with his project if it proves an acceptable cost-benefit analysis. Based on computation of purchasing power and affordability different investors receive different % of subsidy. In past mostly big cities got projects, now more and more regional projects qualify for co-financing, such as “Clean river Bečva”, “Protection of river Dyje” which support also rural and relatively poor areas with limited own funding. This enables the further development of regions and saves funds for other necessary investments. Compared to the previous programme period no extra changes are expected.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 9
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
3 WATER SUPPLY
3.1 Current situation 3.1.1 Current State of Provision Key figures on the current state of provision are presented in chapter 9.1.1. In the year 2004, there was a total withdrawal of 1 626,1 mil. m3 of surface water from rivers and reservoirs and 401,9 mil. m3 of ground water and a discharge of 2 024,0 mil. m3 waste and mining water into the surface waters (only intakes and discharges exceeding 6 000 m3 per year and/or 500 m3 per month are registered). Intakes are distinguished according to sector classification of economic activities (so called OKEČ). In the year 2004 the drop of surface water intake of 4,1 % was monitored. The total quantity of intaked ground water dropped for 4,5 % compared with the year 2003. The quantity of discharged waste and mining waters grew in the year 2004 compared with 2003 for 2,1 %. The growth of discharged waters was caused by energy sector (production and distribution of electricity, gas, steam and hot water) for 1,9 %, and other services (including building sector) for 4,5 %, and in agriculture (including irrigation, forestry, hunting, fishing) for 22 %.2
§ 13 of Act No. 274/2001 Coll., on water mains and sewers for public use and amending some acts, and § 21–23 of its implementing Decree No. 428/2001 Coll. stipulate requirements on the quality of raw water withdrawn for treatment as drinking water. Part 2 of Annex No. 13 of this Decree, Standard Methods of Water Treatment states types of treatment for the individual categories of raw water: - A1 – simple physical treatment and disinfection, e.g. rapid filtration and disinfection or simple sand filtration, chemical deacidification or mechanical deacidification or removal of the gaseous components by aeration. - A2 – normal physical treatment, chemical treatment and disinfection, coagulation filtration, infiltration, slow biological filtration, flocculation, settling, filtration, disinfection (final behaviour), one-step or two-step iron removal and manganese removal. - A3 – intense physical and chemical treatment, extended treatment and disinfection, e.g. chlorination to the break point, coagulation, flocculation, settling, filtration, adsorption (active carbon), disinfection (ozone, final chlorination). Combination of physical chemical, chemical and microbiological and biological treatment. 9
. Category pursuant to Decree of MZe Surface source Ground source No. 428/2001 Coll. % A 1 7,9 77,0 A 2 55,3 8,8 A 3 36,8 14,2
Drinking Water demand 91,8 % population was supplied with water from water-supply system in 2004, which matches the 9,37 million inhabitants of the Czech Republic. The total potable water production was 720,6 mil m3. Of this 543,8 mil m3 was delivered to consumers and thus accounted. Domestic water consumption amounted to 349,8 mil m3, which represents 102.l per day. per capita. The total specific water consumption (paid water) was 159 l
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 11
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
per day. per capita. The specific water consumption has lowered compared to the previous year. 8,04 million inhabitants of the Czech Republic which represent 78,8 % of the population lived in houses connected to public sewerage systems in 2004. In total, 545,9 mil m3 of waste water was discharged into public sewerage networks, of which 512,2 mil m3 was treated. (precipitation water is excluded). 8 The demand is met by current water supply. Demand is relatively constant, it even decreases. In future growth is expected in parallel with growth of standard of living. Supply is able to be increased.
Drinking water quality In the vast majority of cases, water from individual wells (serve 10,2% of the population) does not meet the standard for drinking water, especially form the standpoint of the content of nitrates and bacterial pollution. 2 Comparing the quality indicators for groundwater in 2003 with the requirements for drinking water, above-limit values were most frequently found for the indicators of nitrates (13,6% of above-limit samples), the chemical oxygen demand by permanganate (12,2%), ammonium ions (11,7%), sulphates (8,8%) and Al (7,7%). The limits were exceeded less frequently for the indicators of Ni (3,9%), fluorides (2,4%), chlorides (1,7%), atrazine (1,7%) and desethylatrazine (1,5%). With the exception of fluorides, all these above-limit substances are present in elevated concentrations in the ground waters of shallow boreholes.3 Eutrophication was reported in a number of water reservoirs in 2003 (caused by an increased content of mineral nutrients, particularly the compounds of phosphorus and nitrogen in the water). Overall, there were sufficient capacities available to tackle the deteriorated quality of water in 2003; supplies of water for households were not restricted, the only restrictions concerned water supplies for holiday and leisure-time activities.3 The evaluation of microbial indicators in the profiles of the state network indicates that the microbial pollution of water courses in the Czech Republic remains high, and is derived primarily from municipal sources of pollution. 3
State of infrastructures The current infrastructure is able to supply the overall population. Some water supply systems are over-dimensioned, i.e. not economically efficient, as these were designed according to prognosis of huge growth of specific water consumption - in 1970-1980 the consumption above 500 l/cap.day was predicted for future in 2010. Water supply is good along the country. In the past (period 1950 – 1990), the supply systems were not properly operated a maintained – physical status is sometimes poor or the pipe materials used are not accepted any more at preset. Now regularly reconstructions, upgrading of water works and extensions of supply mains are planned and financed.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 12
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Water prices The evolution of the water prices (supply and disposal) between 1998 and 2004 is presented in following table:
Year Water supply (including technological Waste water disposal-mean charge water)-mean charge EUR/m3 EUR/m3
1998 0,46 0,34 1999 0,50 0,40 2000 0,54 0,44 2001 0,58 0,52 2002 0,64 0,54 2003 0,68 0,57 2004 0,71 0,61
The tariffs are not set to lower the water demand, but they influent it – before 1990 the cost of 1 m3 was only 0,02 EUR. In Czechia all households are equipped with water metering.
Affordability Expenditure is cca 100 EUR/household.year, ie. up to 1,5 % of household income (drinking water plus sewage), appr. 0,8 % for drinking water Act 254/2001 Coll., on waters and the amendments to some other Acts (Water Act), as amended, which came into effect on January 1, 2002, deals with the system of water fees and charges. Therefore, the Water Act imposes fees for withdrawals of both surface and ground water, and for discharge of waste waters into ground and surface waters.16
Fee for the amount of ground water withdrawn: Entities that utilise water from underground sources pay a fee for the amount of ground water withdrawn. The tariff for drinking water is 0,07€/m3 (2003) and the tariff for water for other use is 0,10€/m3 (2003). The income from the fees is divided equally between SEF of the Czech Republic and the national budget.
Fee for administration of waterways and administration of river basins: price paid by organisations withdrawing water from waterways to the administrator thereof. The price is stipulated according to Act 526/1990 Coll., on prices, as amended. Now and in future it is realistic and substantial source of revenue to fund projects or operating costs of water infrastructure.
Private-Public Partnership The basic precondition in the Czech Republic, similar to most countries of Europe, is that the public sector (state, region, city and municipality) is responsible for provision of basic services to the population. The methods employed for planning, creating, operating and supplying these services have changed over the last few years. In most countries, this means increased needs and, for the Czech Republic, the necessity of ensuring that private companies and private capital participate in investments into supplies of public services. The strategy of the Czech Republic in the coming years will consist in an attempt to also utilise private capital for co-financing projects from the Cohesion Fund, in co- operation with the European Commission, which has already issued preliminary manuals for this purpose. However, this co-financing is not expected in the first year -
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 13
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
2004. Investments of the private sector into public services do not, however, mean sale of the infrastructure to private entities, but rather various types of concessionaire agreements. Institutional issues The water sector is governed by the Czech Ministry of Agriculture (Water companies, River basin authorities). The protection of resources is ensured by Ministry of Environment which is the supreme authority for: o protection of water accumulation areas o protection of water resources and protection of ground water and surface water quality o air protection o protection of nature and landscape o protection of agriculture land o performance of geological service o protection of mineral sources and ground water o geological works and ecological monitoring of mining activities o waste management o environmental impact assessment, including abroad o hunting, fishing, forestry in natural protected areas o state environmental policy It is the Czech Government's policy to support the introduction and application of PPP anywhere that can bring any advantages to the public sector in the provision of public services and infrastructure, both at the level of the central government and in regions. In respect of PPP, the Government acts in the capacity of a partner and a customer of the private sector while purchasing services from it. The private sector would provide public infrastructure (services) at its own cost and the Government, in the capacity of its client, would pay regular fee in exchange for such investment until the expiration of their PPP-based contract(s). (Policy of the Government of the Czech Republic concerning Public Private Partnership) Private investing is not developed but private operation is common. Majority of infrastructure is owned by municipalities, either directly or through joint stock operation companies owned by municipalities.
Conclusions Water supply is well developed in densely inhabited areas, but it still needs investments and financial help to connect more inhabitants to sources of safe and good quality water in rural areas. The water works must improve the treatment processes to comply with directives. Particular attention must be paid to quality of water and reliability of water supply. Permanent task is to connect more inhabitants to safe and good quality water sources. Czech Republic is densely inhabited country with developed agriculture (both plant and livestock) and industries. The natural sources of ground and surface water are limited (Czechia is called “roof of Europe”) and must be carefully protected. E.g. the main source of nitrogen in river courses is agriculture. Water supply sector is permanently upgraded and developed. On the other hand it still suffers from wrong management during communist government and therefore it needs investments to ensure good services for all inhabitants.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 14
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
3.1.2 Experience of Previous Investment Programmes All investments are reported and evaluated – how they meet the application criteria. Investments should be done in accordance with regional long term planning. Each region has the development plans for water supply and waste water collection and treatment. These plans involve evaluation of priorities. For more details: see chapter 6.1.6.
General MS funding MS funding is minor source of financing. It amounts order of magnitude of 21 million EUR per year in the period 2004 - 2009. The objective is to support municipal infrastructure. The beneficiary is municipality i.e. population. ISPA programme ISPA funded projects (2000-2002): • Completion of construction of the system of supply of drinking water and treatment of waste waters in the area under Krusne hory (2001/CZ/16/P/PE/004) – total budget 21.569.700€; subsidies from ISPA: 12.870.325€ • Management of waste waters and supply of drinking water in the Jesenicko region (2001/CZ/16/P/PE/010) - total budget 15.975.000€; subsidies from ISPA: 9.145.200€ The ISPA Fund was and continues to be an educational program for preparation of the candidate countries for use of the Cohesion Fund. Council Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 of 21 June 1999 establishing an Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession is the basic document of ISPA instruments of assistance. Three basic priorities were identified for ISPA projects: • protection of waters • air protection • waste management Of these, the main priority is protection of waters. The ISPA Fund is responsible for creation of administrative capacities that will also be used for the Cohesion Fund.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 15
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Over the years 2000 - 2002, the European Commission approved a total of 14 ISPA projects in the area of water supply, waste water and mixed projects in these fields (data in EUR):5
Name of the project Total costs Subsidies from the Registration number in EUR ISPA Fund
Extension of the sewer network in Ostrava 40 720 000 16 644 682 2000/CZ/16/P/PE/001 Construction of a sewer network in Brno 39 270 000 17 841 373 2000/CZ/16/P/PE/002 Completion of construction of the system of supply of 21 569 700 12 870 325 drinking water and treatment of waste waters in the area under Krušné hory 2001/CZ/16/P/PE/004
Intensification and reconstruction of the waste water 15 390 000 9 620 000 treatment plant and sewer network in Jihlava 2001/CZ/16/P/PE/005 Completion and reconstruction of the sewer network in 14 672 000 10 123 400 Olomouc 2001/CZ/16/P/PE/008 Management of waste waters and supply of drinking 15 975 000 9 145 200 water in the Jesenicko region 2001/CZ/16/P/PE/010 Floods 2002 relief: reconstruction of transport and 17 650 000 15 000 000 environment infrastructure damaged or destroyed by floods during August 2002 located in the Czech Republic – part ENV 2002/CZ/16/P/PM/001 Clean Bečva 2001/CZ/16/P/PE/012 : mixed water 51 556 175 32 353 264 Water protection project in the watershed of the Dyje 49 105 700 33 387 320 River 2001/CZ/16/P/PE/009 Žïár n.Sázavou 2002/CZ/16/P/PE/014 : sewer systems 8 135 734 5 590 480 JVS-Jižní Čechy : water company (mixed water: 8 098 278 4 545 278 supply + sewerage) Znojmo: sewer system 23 353 600 16 273 460 Technical Assistance – CF 2 250 000 1 687 500 CHMI: hydrometeorological institute 18 248 467 12 642 450
Cohesion fund The following institutions take part in the management of the Cohesion Fund: - Cohesion Fund Managing Authority (CF MA) - Cohesion Fund National Coordinator: Deputy Minister for Regional Development, supported by the Department of Coordination of the Cohesion Fund of the Ministry for Regional Development; - Paying Authority (PA)- National Authorising Officer (NAO): deputy Minister of Finance, partly delegated to the State Environmental Fund of the Czech Republic - Implementing Body - Sector Authorising Officer (SAO): Deputy Minister of the Environment - Intermediate Bodies (IBs) - Implementing Agency of the Cohesion Fund (IA) : State Environmental Fund of the Czech Republic - Cohesion Fund Monitoring Committee – joint committee of the European Commission and Czech Republic - Cohesion Fund Coordination Committee (CC) – National Coordinator of the Cohesion Fund : Deputy Minister for Regional Development and representatives named by the relevant ministers or deputy ministers, the Department of
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 16
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Coordination of the Cohesion Fund of the Ministry for Regional Development holds the position of the Secretariat of the ISPA Coordination Committee - Cohesion Fund Environmental Working Group – consulting body to the Minster and established on the instruction of the Minister - Final Beneficiary (FB): institution, usually a municipality or federation of municipalities into whose ownership will be transferred the infrastructures co- financed by the Cohesion Fund. Part of the authority of the Implementing Body is transferred to the final recipient.
Table 3-1 Overview of CF projects (eligible costs), 2000-2006
Project title Full cost Cohesion Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%)
Drinking water (collection, 6,993 4,545 65% storage, treatment and distribution): 1 project Mixed water and waste 171,727 130,736 76% water projects: 8 projects Source: EC DG Regio - Note: Technical Assistance projects are not included: 1,310 mio EUR (CF share for the sum of environmental projects : 1,228 mio EUR, national funds: 0,082 mio EUR) 2000- 2006 - Note: Figures do not include other mixed environmental projects: 35,294 mio EUR (CF share 30 mio EUR, national funds 5,294 mio EUR) For more details: see chapter 9.1.6.
Structural funds The following institutions take part in the management of the Cohesion Fund: - Structural Funds Managing Authority (CSF MA) : Ministry for Regional Development - Managing Authority for OP Infrastructure: Ministry of Environment, Department of Integral Financing - Paying Authority: Ministry of Finance - Intermediate Body for Implementation, sector of the Environment: State Environmental Fund (SEF), for implementation of OP Infrastructure (priority 3) Technical Section – Water Protection Department, Air Protection Department, Department of the Renewable Energy Resources, Waste and Nature protection - Beneficaires: • Legal persons established for non-business purposes, particularly public benefit corporations, self-government units (municipalities and regions), civil associations, associations of municipalities, allowance organizations through the state establishment bodies and other entities, whose establishment is allowed by generally binding legal regulations and whose activities are not business activities pursuant to the Commercial Code, • State organizations and river basin agencies.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 17
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Good Practice Lessons or Examples It can be expected that the number of applications for project granting will growth. Still the necessity of waste water collection and treatment projects will probably prevail. It can be observed from the above tables and information that Czech investors and authorities give more priority to waste water sector, as there exists the disproportion between the population connected to water supply systems and to waste water collection systems with further waste water treatment. As the first checking is quite rigorous it is difficult for investors to qualify with drinking water projects. The result is that only good and well prepared and economical projects are accepted. Good example of well prepared and negotiated project is e.g. project submited by VaK Břeclav for CF co-financing. VaK (district water company) is the joint stock company owned by district municipalities. The extent of the project arised from the detail evaluation of present situation and future water needs. The design was prepared by an experienced consultancy group under supervision of technical and economical staff from a water company. The selection of structures involved in the project is based on priority evaluation.
Conclusions The current aids were allocated efficiently. The objectives were met. The aids were allocated proportionally to needs.
3.2 Needs 3.2.1 Review of Policy Objectives and Targets Compliance with the acquis The strategy of improvement of drinking water quality will be fulfilled by reaching compliance with quality requirements according to Directive 98/83/EEC and Czech decree no.252/2004 Coll. which states the hygienic requirements on drinking water. These requirements must be fulfilled continuously to ensure trouble-free drinking water supply to inhabitants in accordance with legislation about quality. Simultaneously it is necessary to realize the measures to improve raw water quality for drinking water purposes in accordance with Directive 75/440/EEC and Czech Decree no.61/2003 Coll. regarding surface water quality for abstraction for drinking purpose. Consistency with other priorities Good drinking water quality must be primarily ensured by protection of surface and ground waters. In past the majority of reservoirs for drinking water purposes was well protected and the quality of water from them is generally good. On the contrary the rivers and ground waters are still being polluted. The agricultural sector is the biggest polluter at present. Regional Development Benefits Drinking Water sector has at present less influence on unequal development of regions and activities in regions compared e.g. with transport sector, especially existing motor way network and its extensions. The percentage of inhabitants supplied from public networks in Czech Republic is at average 91,8 % and varies in regions from 80,9 % to
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 18
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
99,9 %7. The quality of drinking water is in all regions good – health risks do not exist, according to the sources the taste quality of water can vary (surface v. underground sources). The problem for the water sector economy is that a lot of inhabitants do not believe that the drinking water from public network is of good quality and tend to buy bottled water. There still exists the risk of discharging dangerous substances from industry to water environment. There still occur accident discharges of dangerous substances to surface and ground waters. There still exist discharges of untreated or not well treated waste waters into surface waters. There still exist diffused sources of pollution of surface and ground waters especially from agriculture and households. The environmental function of rivers is not good yet. The aim in Czech Republic is to connect more than 95 % of inhabitants to public drinking water supply with good quality in accordance with EU and Czech Republic legislation (water works + distribution system). In small country like Czech Republic with sensitive environment it is a good objective.
3.2.2 Demand Scenarios Demographic and economic trends and projections Population The population is expected to decrease. The number of households will remain stable or will slightly increase. The number of households with only few members will grow (old people, divorced etc.).
Table 3-2: Number of inhabitants in Czech Republic in thousands8:
Scenario 2005 2010 2015 2020 Low 10 201,17 10 098,39 9 960,299 9 759,931 Medium 10 252,46 10 246,7 10 206,04 10 101,51 High 10 296,72 10 382,42 10 437,51 10 461,85 In 2005 in reality according to Czech statistical office: 10 234 092, i.e. between low and medium scenario. According to demographers the population will decrease, only the immigration of some 20 000 people/year could maintain or increase the total number.
Industry The changes of industry activities are difficult to predict. The year growth of industrial production in total is predicted at 5 – 9 % per year. The decrease is predicted in mining and textile industry, by 2 – 4 % per year. The biggest growth is expected in plastics, metal, electronic, optic and car industries (each above 10 % per year) No extra growth of drinking water demand for industry is expected in future.
7 Ministry of Environment (2006). Operation programme for Environment 8 Ministry of Industry and Trade. Actual state energy strategies
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 19
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Regional variations
Table 3-3: Data NUTS 29: Regional GDP Number of Number of per capita EU Region NUTS 2 Expectations inhabitants seats 25 = 100 % in % Prague 1 170 571 1 143,0 fast development Střední Čechy 1 144 071 °1 146 66,4 development Jihozápad 1 175 330 1 124 64,3 development Severozápad 1 126 721 486 59,0 going down Severovýchod 1 480 144 1 116 60,9 low development Jihovýchod 1 640 354 1 376 64,9 low development Střední Morava 1 225 832 701 56,7 delayed Moravskoslezko 1 257 554 299 58,2 going down CZECH 10 220 577 6 249 70,9 ----- REPUBLIC
Urban areas are fast growing (fast development or development), rural areas are delayed and go down.
Unit Water Demand Evolution of the unit water demand The water demand will probably not drop any more as now it is 102 l/cap.day (10), ie. very low (EU average is 150 l/cap.day). Growth can be expected in design period up to 135 l/cap.day. There is no policy to reduce water demand. It is natural process caused by water tariffs, e.g. rain water use goes up as natural reaction of public to tariffs. Water consumption in industry goes permanently down (in 1980 it was 1080 mil. m3, in 1993 it was 640 mil. m3, in 2004 it was 410 mil. m3)10. It can be expected that grow of industry will not bring extra growth of demand. Rain water management and reuse is supported as part of sustainable development. It brings savings in waste water sector – in collection and waste water treatment. In Czech Republic the water sector (drinking and waste) is fully privatised and water is product. Obviously the unit water consumption is higher in urban areas while in rural areas people frequently buy water only for drinking and house hold, and for other purposes they keep in operation their old wells (consumption from public network below 60 l/cap.day). There is no evidence that the water demand is under- or overestimated in the official data. But the official opinion says that the low unit water consumption for cap.day will
9 Government Czech Republic: Czech Republic national development plan for 2007 – 2013 10 Ministry of Agriculture (2006). Water in Czech Republic
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 20
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
last for long period. Probably with growing standard of living and purchasing power of people also water consumption will grow. Only cheaper water could cause changes, but it is not realistic scenario at all.
User Charges In Czech Republic one compound tariff is used. As the water price is quite high (respectively is not extremely high compared with real cost of service, but people think and say that) the computation of costs express the influence of depreciation of over- dimensioned assets and causes further drop of consumption which asks for higher tariff to cover all costs etc. Two compound tariff is discussed but not introduced yet – the idea is to become less dependent on consumption itself, it would maybe lead to increase of consumption due to reduction of price with higher consumption. An increase (2 – 3 % + inflation) of the tariffs/user charges can be expected. This growth can under ordinary investment conditions and assets proportional repairs and reconstructions cover the cost of water. The user charges are estimated to cover for 29% investment cost and for 62%10 the operation and maintenance cost (the profit is cca 9 %). There exist regional differences in the user charges. The regional differences exist – tariffs in 2004 were from 8,93 to 33,50 CZK/m3, ie. from 0,32 to 1,20 EUR/m310 The growth of differences in demand and charges is not expected. The biggest differences of tariffs are caused by the fact that private water companies work and calculate charges according to standard economical rules while the water companies attached to municipalities do not have to involve depreciation of assets which lowers the tariff. There have been new charging / tariff systems introduced to make costs more transparent to users. Each water company must be able to submit cost and price computation to the customer. There a no policy to provide exemptions for households with low incomes or for specific industries. Affordability by households / business / economic sectors For households the affordability should be 2% + 2 % for drinking and waste water respectively, ie.total 4 % of household income. Household income differs along the country in accordance with local economic power.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 21
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Total drinking water need
Table 3-4: Forecast Annual Water Demand in 2013
Low Demand Medium Demand High Demand Scenario Scenario Scenario
Population (-) 10 015 000 10 222 000 10 415 000
Households (-) 4 177 thous. 4 263 thous. 4 344 thous.
Unit water supply (l per inh. per 115 125 135 day)
Total domestic water demand 420,38 466,38 513,20 (million m³ per year)
Economic gross product 132 460 143 104 148 700 (million euro)
Specific water consumption per 0,001 0,001 0,001 gross product (m³/euro)
Total industrial water demand 169 188 207 (million m³ per year)
Total drinking water demand 589,38 654,38 720,20 (million m³ per year)
Remark: above table shows the domestic demand = water metered in house holds. At present the water metered is 381 mil. m3 per year and total drinking water production is 721 mil m3 per year, i.e. factor 1,89 – which involves household and industries supplied with drinking water by water companies. Present water losses are 152 mil. m3/year, i.e. industrial drinking water demand from public network is cca 188 mil. m3/year. We assume that it will remain the same in future for medium scenario. Including losses the High Scenario asks for production of drinking water of cca 850 mil m3/year. In 1990 the total drinking water production was ca 1270 mil. m3/year. The infrastructure is still available.
3.2.3 Drinking Water Quality Key issues are protection of water sources and/or new sources, improvement of water treatment unit operations, and in some cases replacement of old pipelines, especially Pb and asbestos cement pipes.
The protection of water sources involves all kinds of measures to prevent pollution of surface and ground waters and/or connecting the supply systems to new or existing well preserved sources. Reconstructions of existing water works usually involve the upgrading unit operations and especially delivery of new technological sets. Reconstruction of pipelines focuses on dangerous pipe materials. No extra effects of improvement of the drinking water quality are expected as present drinking water quality is good in Czech Republic. The investments solve both the quality improvement and lack of maintenance in past which brings the big risk of failures in operation of water treatment plants with sudden deterioration of water quality below acceptable level.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 22
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
In Czech Republic all main health parameters are followed. The idea for the future is to supply all inhabitants and other consumers with health save and good taste water regardless the region and local conditions. Maintaining good drinking water quality asks for the whole set of measures to be taken, and it must be stressed that big portion of measures is interdisciplinary. To prevent complicated and expensive water treatment the sources must be protected by landscape formation, waste water treatment, agricultural measures and appropriate operation, reduction of transport, etc. Czech Republic has good know-how of these activities and the majority of ground and surface water sources is well protected. Those which failed must be improved by investments. It is expected that the river basin companies will be able by the year 2009 to determine and model the river water quality and simulate all possible measures to optimize the measures from the technical and economical point of view. This will enable to balance water treatment cost with other measures e.g. waste water treatment efficiencies, modifications in farming etc.
3.2.4 State of Infrastructure – Need for Improvement / Replacement of Obsolete or Non- Compliant Infrastructure As the drinking water infrastructure was in past broadly relatively well designed regarding capacity but with less focus on quality of materials, machinery etc., the needs differ in different areas based on local growth, and design and M&O habits in past. It must be stressed that present investors (municipalities) had no influence on designs, materials and quality of works and now face the consequent problems. 75% of the infrastructure is worn-out and 25 % not compliant and 30 % of the population will benefit from the improvement or replacement of the infrastructure.
Future investments are focussing on poor and rural areas. Big municipalities have solved their major problems in past and now solve the financing of improvement of networks according to contracts between assets owner and operation company which usually state that part of water tariff is reserved for infrastructure rehabilitation.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 23
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
3.2.5 Physical investment needs The physical investment needs on water supply are presented in following table:
Table 3-5: : Physical investment needs
Type of Indicators Minimum Average Maximum investment scenario scenario scenario
Reservoirs (to store Extra volume needed in reservoirs (million m³) 2 reservoirs 3reservoirs 4 reservoirs surface water) (*) 20 mil m3 30 mil m3 40 mil m3
Drinking water Plants in need of investment to improve 1.100 1.300 1.490 production drinking water quality, surface water production (number) total 1866 water works (**)
Extra volume needed of groundwater reaching 0 0 0 drinking water quality standards (million m³) (***)
Transport and Long distance drinking water network needed new 150 new 200 new 250 connection (km) – new and renovation (****) 6.940 9.710 11.100
Local drinking water network needed (km) – new 5.000 new 6.500 new 8.200 new and renovation (****) 8.320 10.400 12.480
House connections needed (number) 120.000 130.000 140.000
Monitoring & Extra monitoring points needed (number) 1.500 1.600 1.700 metering House metering needed (number) (only new 120.000 130.000 140.000 connections, existing ones have meters)
(*) Extra volume in reservoirs – additional volume is in fact not needed. New reservoirs would replace the existing ones with deteriorated water quality. The sources can be substituted by other existing sources and water works together with construction of new long distance networks. (**) In past it was believed that water works are in good condition and only small investments were planned. This believe came from the fact that the capacity is obviously surplus and surplus some how indicated “no problems”. Politicians in CR always stressed waste water sector. When water company staff is asked they say that water treatment plants and supply systems ask for big reconstructions as well to ensure good services in future. Investments will go to improvements and to renovations. (***) The not compliant sources are left and other existing sources are used = concentration of business. (****) The needs are bigger than “official” data. General remarks:
• It is not realistic to solve all needs during 2007-2013: ⅓ of the indicated needs would be a realistic target.
• Czech Republic is in general over-sourced • Many networks are from the sixties and made from steel and asbestos-cement pipes
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 24
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
3.2.6 Indicative Investment Requirement and Comparison – Water Supply The total investment cost indicated by the Czech Ministry of Environment (1.200 MEUR), is much lower than the investment needs calculated by the project team (4.867 MEUR). The calculation of the investment needs is based on the indicated physical needs and the national unit costs (cf. chapter 6.2.1), for those issues national unit costs have been provided, and default unit costs otherwise. The difference between the investment cost indicated by the Czech Ministry and the investment costs calculated indicates that the country needs can not be fulfilled by the foreseen budget. The planned investment cost for the period 2007-2013 is lower than the needs investment cost. The Czech government did not plan to fulfil all the indicated needs, but will focus only on the priorities for this period, due to limited financial sources. As already indicated in the chapter related to the physical investment needs, reaching 1/3 of the total indicated physical needs would be a realistic goal. Project team’s calculations based on this target results in a total investment need of 1.588 MEUR.
Table 3-6: Summary of investment cost – water supply
Type of investment Indicative Indicative Investment Cost Investment Calculated by evaluation team based on Cost national and default unit costs Official National Estimate M Euro M Euro
Full target Adapted target
Reservoirs (e.g. to store surface - 45 15 waters)
Drinking water ‘production’ plant - - 1.430 477 ground/surface (quality)
Water transport (long distance) - 1.487 496
Distribution of water (local - 1.879 592 network and house connections)
Monitoring - 19 6
Metering (e.g. households) - 8 3
Total investment 1.200 4.867 1.588
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 25
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
3.2.7 Summary Potentials, objectives and targets : Improvement of water quality in accordance with 98/83/EC. Improvement of raw water quality in accordance with 75/440/EEC.
Country specific insights Czech Republic built good infrastructure in the sixties. Later development and maintenance was deficient. More attention was paid to waste water sector and in the meantime the drinking water sector was ignored and become neglected.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 26
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
4 WASTE WATER
4.1 Current situation 4.1.1 Current State of Provision Key figures about the current state of provision in waste water treatment are presented in chapter 9.1.2. A part of the sewerage system has not been connected to wastewater treatment plants – about 11% of the water is not cleaned. All agglomerations with a population of over 10.000 are provided with at least one mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). In several agglomerations of 5.000 to 10.000 equivalent inhabitants (EI) (Kunovice, Kravaře u Opavy and in Šenov u Havířova) and in a higher number of agglomerations of 2.000 to 5.000 EI WWTPs (suburban areas of Liberec, Ostrava and Bohumín) are still missing in 2003. A large part of the WWTPs is also not equipped with tertiary treatment (nitrogen and phosphorus removal).
Between 1990 and 2003, discharged pollution decreased by 92% in terms of BOD5, by 85.3% in terms of CODCr, by 89.2% in terms of SS (suspended solids) and by 13.6% in terms of DIS (dissolved inorganic salts). A significant portion of the WWTP sludge does not comply with the standards in terms of hazardous substances content.3 Problems persist mainly in the parts of water courses with lower flow rates and high accumulation of pollution sources. The worst water quality was recorded in the Bílina, where this small water course is affected mainly by the industrial sources of Chemopetrol, a.s. Litvínov, and Spolek pro chemickou a hutní výrobu, a.s., Ústí nad Labem (Spolchemie). However, at the present time, an improvement can be expected in the water quality in the section before the confluence with the Labe because waste waters from Spolchemie were connected to the municipal WWTP in Ústí nad Labem in the 4th quarter of 2002. Other water courses in which highly polluted water was identified include the Výrovka, Rakovnický potok, Zákolanský potok (side stream of the Vltava below Prague), Bystřice (side stream of the Bílina), Jičínka, Mandava, Černý potok (Karlovec), Hvozdnice, Haná, Olšava, Litava, Svratka (section below Brno), Kyjovka and Trkmanka 3 In general, almost all surface waters in Czechia still tend to eutrofisation. The source of N is agriculture and municipalities contribute, the main source of P are municipalities.
Surface water quality Classification of surface waters: - 2 % is class 1 (excellent); - 6 % is class 2 (very good); - 47 % is class 3 (good); - 31 % is class 4 (moderate); - 14 % is class 5 (poor); - above data based on data from Morava river authority
In general, water quality in water courses has been significantly improving over the past decade. Since 1991, pollution in water quality class V (very highly polluted water) has been eliminated in the main water courses (the Labe, Vltava, Morava and Odra)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 27
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
and also in a number of important tributaries. In the two years of 2002–2003, these main water courses mostly attained quality class III, except for a part of the Odra below Jičínka, of the Vltava below Prague and Morava before the state border. In smaller courses, the water quality shifted from class V to class IV (Cidlina, Chomutovka, Lužická Nisa, Lomnice, Litavka, Rokytná, Oslava, Valová, etc.), or to class III (parts of the Sázava, parts of the Olše, Střela, Volyňka, Šlapanka, Klejnarka, Ostravice, etc.). The long-term improvement in water quality was caused primarily by the construction or intensification of decisive WWTPs, the shutdown or reduction of production in a number of industrial enterprises and a decrease in the use of fertilisers in farming production. 3 In spite of the improvement achieved, the current conditions cannot be considered fully satisfactory; problems persist mainly in the parts of water courses with lower flow rates and high accumulation of pollution sources.3 - There is a continuing effect of former uranium mining in the profiles below the discharges of mine waters and in sections of water courses affected by seepage from gangue tips and sludge beds. Values corresponding to water quality class IV and V were identified with higher uranium concentrations. - Pollution characterised by the summary indicator AOX (absorbable organic halogens), including particularly more volatile chlorinated substances typical for industrial agglomerations is highest in the Bílina near its entry to the Labe, in the Olše and Ostravice. Of other water courses contaminated by these substances, it is necessary to mention the Divoká Orlice, which is contaminated by trichloroethene (local industry). - In 2002, the average concentration of hexachlorobenzene in the Bílina in the Ústí nad Labem profile exceeded the EU quality target (30 ng.l-1); however, in 2003, this contamination decreased as a consequence of the connection of Spolchemie to the WWTP in Ústí nad Labem. - Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) originate from environmental burdens of the past. PCBs are a problem in the Labe below Pardubice, as well as in the Olšava (Uherský Brod) and the Morava, according to previous information. Contamination by DDT at the confluence of the Bílina with the Labe is caused by polluted soils from the premises of Spolchemia in Ústí nad Labem. - Pollution by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), the most important of which are fluoranthene and benzo(a)pyrene, originates from coal mining, the coke industry, and some production processes, such as impregnation of wood with creosote oil (railway ties, poles). The greatest pollution of water courses was found in the Úhlava and Jizera (water supply withdrawals) and the Odra close to the state border. - The mercury content in the Bílina, which has been quite unsatisfactory in lower sections in recent years, has lately been substantially reduced thanks to the implementation of measures introduced in Spolchemie, by up to two orders of magnitude since 1991; in 2003, it reached satisfactory levels. - Elevated Cd concentrations were identified in the Ostrava region in the Olše and Odra, originating primarily in industrial emissions of the Ostrava agglomeration. Pollution by Cd in the Litavka is derived both from old burdens and mine waters and also from metallurgical plants. - Elevated Pb concentrations were identified in the Svatava at Sokolov, Litavka (metallurgical works, old burdens, mine water) and in the Nisa below Jablonec nad Nisou (as a consequence of industrial emissions), where elevated concentrations of Ni, Cu and Zn were also identified.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 28
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
- The highest As concentrations in the Czech Republic were identified in water courses in the vicinity of Sokolov, in the Bystřice in Ostrov nad Ohří and in the Chodovský stream (Sokolovská uhelná a.s.).
State of infrastructures a) Sewage Treatment Plants (STP): There are 1952 waste water treatment plants of all sizes in operation. The compliance with standards and number of agglomerations defined are mentioned in above tables. The hydraulic design capacity of the newest plants – dry weather flow - is around 125 – 200 l/PE/d, depending on the size of municipality served. The maximum hydraulic design capacity of the newest plants is around 1,5 x Dry Weather Flow (DWF). This factor should be evaluated e.g. according to ATV. All systems should be designed in that way that maximum hydraulic treatment capacity (rain water flow - RWF) is determined in accordance with design of sewerage system – especially overflow quantities and storage capacities such as rain water detention tanks.
b) Sludge treatment Most sewage treatment plant have adequate sludge treatment. The most common final disposal routes for sewage sludge are agriculture and production of soil substrates. Landfilling of sludge is restricted, drying and incineration is not common due to high costs. In some regions, e.g. South Moravia, South Bohemia, hygienisation of sludge is required. Then pasteurisation or lime stabilisation prevails.
c) Sewerage systems 78,8 % of the population is connected to the sewer system of which 93,8 % is connected to a sewer system that is connected to an STP. In total the following lengths of sewers are in place : • 30 771 km km of sewerage networks; • of which approximately 3000 km of collector/trunk sewers
Prices of the waste water service Payments are calculated according to drinking water consumption which is always metered. Price is proportional to costs, new projects are evaluated which regards affordability – payments should not exceed 4 % of family income (sum for water + waste water). Water prices are presented in chapter 3.1.1. Charges for water supply and sewerage services in 2004 (including VAT 5%, as on the 31st of August 2004): Weighted aritmetic average for 0,68 EUR/m3 (Sewerage systems (min value 7,88 CZK/ m3 - max value 30,45 CZK/ m3) 9. The waste water charge (EUR/year) is at present cca 0,8% (3Q2005) of the average household income. Act 254/2001 Coll., on waters and the amendments to some other Acts (Water Act), as amended, which came into effect on January 1, 2002, deals with the system of water fees and charges. Therefore, the Water Act imposes fees for withdrawals of both surface and ground water, and for discharge of waste waters into ground and surface waters.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 29
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Fees for discharge of waste waters into surface waters: Entities that discharge waste waters into surface waters pay fees for these activities. Fees for the discharge of waste waters into surface waters include a payment for pollution and a payment based on volume, and are an income for SEF of the Czech Republic. Fees for discharge of waste water into surface waters reduced by charges deferrals according to water courses in 2003 410.195 thous.CZK(1EUR=31,904CzK Aritmetic average 2004 7)12.857 thous.EUR Fees for discharge of waste waters into groundwaters: Anyone discharging waste waters into ground waters will pay 121€/y to the municipality. The fee is not paid if the waste waters from family homes are adequately treated in a home treatment unit.3 It is a realistic and substantial source of revenue to fund projects or operating costs of infrastructure.
Institutional issues
See chapter 3.1.1. Water Supply
Conclusions a) Conclusions regarding STPs: The most important problem for Czechia in the field of STPs, is: • missing plants still to be built; • obsolete plants have to be replaced; • the quality of older plants is bad, quality of the operation is good when operated by regional water company, sometimes bad when operated by municipality, education system for staff is not good • many plants must be upgraded to comply with the standards of the UWWTD for sensitive areas, and Czech decree 61/2003 Coll. which is very strict especially which regards “emission” standards valid after 2012 • lower attention is paid to compliance with other directives e.g. bathing water, fishing Usually for small municipalities up to 10 000 PE new plants are necessary, while bigger municipalities already have the existing plant designed for BOD, COD an SS removal which must be upgraded for nutrient removal.
b) Conclusion regarding sludge treatment: Sludge treatment and sludge management is future big problem for Czech Republic. The agriculture land is limited, recultivations which use soil substrates are also limited. Now frequently hygienisation is required (pasteurisation or lime is used most frequently). It will become necessary to start with incineration or co-incineration. The sludge handling is expected to raise significantly costs of waste water treatment. The country concept does not exist, regional plans are not complex.
c) Conclusion regarding sewerage: The sewerage systems have been developed in parallel at the same pace as the STP, so the future investments will consist of complete sewage systems: STP in combination
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 30
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
with sewers. It is not allowed to build new sanitary or combined sewers without connection to existing or new sewage treatment plant with sufficient capacity and efficiency. Sewer systems are missing in more rural areas; Sewerage networks are in place in more (urban) areas but are not yet connected to a STP; in most of these cases no STP exists Many existing sewer systems are obsolete and in poor static state, and need to be replaced; The design of Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO) to reduce the pollution by spill events has received insufficient attention in the past and significant investment will be needed to upgrade CSOs. Also low attention was paid to storm detention tanks and other structures ensuring higher degree of surface water protection. The investment needs in sewerage are estimated at 75 % of the total investment in sewage management (= sewerage + sewage treatment + sludge treatment).
4.1.2 Experience of Previous Investment Programmes See chapter Water Supply (3.1.2.) and chapter 9 Annexes (9.1.6.)
General MS funding In 2003, the Ministry of Environment issued 169 decisions concerning the provision of aid on the construction of WWTPs and sewage systems, as well as for the rectification of flood damages. The sum of total expenses on the implementation of individual projects equalled 112.162.442€, with the total subsidies from SEF of the Czech Republic reaching 79.528.973€. 76 projects have been granted in 2003 for the reduction of main pollutants3.
Table 4-1 Financial sources in the Czech Republic related to waste water management expenditures in 20023 Internal sources and budgets 137.727 € Grants and subsidies from public budgets* 38.918 €
Credits and loans (part from international sources) 35.406 € Issues of securities, voluntary conveyance, non-monetary deposits, delimitation, etc. 19.092 € *: national budget, local budgets, state funds and NPF of the Czech Republic
Figures on the overall investments into waste water management (total of 242.897.230€) according to the region where the investor has its registered office and the programme focus in 2002 (not solely State Funds, also international funds) reveals that investments mainly have been made in the Southern Moravia and the Central Bohemia regions, followed by Moravia and Silesia, the Usti nad Labem and the Southern Bohemian regions. Also see chapter 9.1.6 for the overall data tables and chapter Water Supply 3.1.2.
ISPA programme
See chapter Water Supply (chapter 3.1.2)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 31
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Cohesion fund An overview of funds allocated for waste water and mixed water projects from the Cohesion Fund between 2004 and 2006 is presented in following table.
Table 4-2: Overview of CF projects (eligible costs), 2000-2006
Project title Full cost Cohesion Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%)
Sewerage and 338,976 239,070 71% purification : 15 projects Mixed water and 171,727 130,736 76% waste water projects: 8 projects Source: EC DG Regio - Note: Technical Assistance projects are not included: 1,310 mio EUR (CF share for the sum of environmental projects : 1,228 mio EUR, national funds: 0,082 mio EUR) 2000- 2006 - Note: Figures do not include other mixed environmental projects: 35,294 mio EUR (CF share 30 mio EUR, national funds 5,294 mio EUR)
See also chapter 3.2.1. for further details.
Structural funds An overview of funds allocated for waste water projects from the Structural Funds (ERDF) between 2004 and 2006 is presented in following table.
Table 4-3: Overview of ERDF projects, 2000-2006
Measure title Full cost ERDF Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%) Total : Sewerage 70,538 51,493 73% and purification Source: EC DG REGIO - Note: ERDF investments are described by reference to measures, outlined in the ERDF Programmes - Note: Distinguish between actual and planed expenditure. Indicate years if only part of the period covered.
See also chapter 3.2.1. for further details.
Good Practice Lessons or Example The waste water sector asks for big support as the whole country is declared as sensitive area. The high priority is protection of all ground and surface water sources as the total capacity of sources in the country is limited. The projects are selected based on regional water sector plans which state future needs and determine priorities. Always water companies operating the systems are
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 32
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
involved in the design process as advisors. These companies are joint stok companies, or private. From the EU point of view more detail evaluation of needs should be supported. The present determination of allowable overflows from combined sewerage systems and required treatment efficiency in WWTPs is based on effluent standards, only seldom the river quality modelling is performed. River water quality modelling would enable complex evaluation of measures in the river basin and enable optimum designs. Good example of using this kind of modelling is evaluation part of “Water protection project in the watershed of the Dyje River” prepared by Brno Technical University. Also the determination of “agglomeration” should be well clarified. In Directive 91/271/EEC it means an area where the population and/or economic activities are sufficiently concentrated for urban waste water to be collected and conducted to an urban WWTP or to a final discharged point. In Czech Republic it means municipalities with distance up to 200 m from each other. This relatively new Czech explanation has heavily influenced the long term planning of investments and the possibilities of financing. Also the EU Directive term “appropriate treatment” for small municipalities is not well understood by Czech authorities. A lot of Czech experts still believe that the water consumption and waste water production will remain low or even decrease (now it is around 100 l/cap.day). This leads to underestimating hydraulic designs. The same occurs with load. The major part of project deals with upgrading and extensions of existing WWTPs. The existing balances are based on monitoring, which frequently does not take into consideration present overflowed loads, degradation in poor quality sewer systems, mistakes in handling water samples by operation staff and other factors, which can highly influence the data for computations and modelling. It has already happened that just completed WWTPs do not prove the expected treatment results. Both higher load due to rehabilitation of sewerage systems and mistakes in assumptions are guilty. The safe, flexible and reliable process designs should be supported. The designs of sewerage systems should prove not only hydraulic parameters but also positive environmental impacts (reduced number of overflows, reduction of overflowed load by storm detention tanks, etc.). Most water companies focus on quality of treatment, less attention is paid to reliable waste water collection – and these water companies influence municipal decision makers.
Conclusions The current aids were allocated efficiently. The objectives were met. The aids were allocated proportionally to needs.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 33
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
4.2 Needs 4.2.1 State of Infrastructure The state of infrastructure and related requirements for improvements in the future can be summarised as follows: • The gap between the present state of infrastructures and the requirements of the UWWTD (the whole Czech Republic territory is sensitive area): number of missing plants: 46 number of obsolete plants to be replaced: 304 In total some 520 new plants (2007-2013: 400 plants) should be built including category <2000 PE due to sensitivity areas (which goes further than the requirements from the UWWTD). There are 490 plants (2007-2013: 240 plants) where improvements are required to improve the quality of the operation. Usually improvements are related to the monitoring and control system (range 60.000 – 140.000 EUR) plus some minor improvements of M&E part. • All plant must solve sludge treatment and must ensure sludge stabilization. For small plants extended aeration is typical, also with combination with aerated sludge storage tanks. For big plants (over 50 000 PE) mesophilic anaerobic digestion is typical. We do not expect bigger changes in common practice for coming decade. Plants with capacity above cca 5000 PE (in some regions above 2000 PE) are equipped with mechanical dewatering. Problem for coming decade = hygienization. • It is estimated that app. 25 % of existing sewers are in poor structural status. This brings a lot of operational and environmental problems and/or accidents. There are two basic reasons for replacements: o structural status: 7.690 km o lack of hydraulic capacity: 460 km • At present and in coming years the system “sewerage system and STP” has been developed in parallel. In past, many sewerage systems were built without any STP. • Significant investment is needed to upgrade CSO, reconstruct trunk sewers and construct storm water detention tanks. The problem is that investors and even many technicians are not aware of this situation. More attention is obviously paid to waste water treatment compared with up to date waste water collection systems. Based on feasibility studies and master plans, necessity of construction of many storm water detention basins is expected. Note – at the moment this is not known by the policy makers. The volume will be cca 1,5 mil. m3 with a cost of 1,8 bil. EUR – it is out of any Ministry planning. The problem is that authorities are not aware of necessity of detention basins for protection of streams. Probably only small part of volume will be built in period 2007-2013. • Connections of surface water to sewerage systems are not the common practice. In past even very big project were completed to prevent this. If this still happens it is automatically becoming the part of sewer projects to separate surface water from sewage water. Infiltration due to leakage can range widely according to sewer system status and range between 20 and 100% (desired figures = sanitary sewers: 15%, combined sewers: 25 %).
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 34
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
4.2.2 Physical investment needs Physical investment needs are summarized in following tables:
Table 4-4 : Physical investment needs – sewage treatment plants
Number of Total nominal load of the Nominal load of Number of existing STP Organic biodegradable Number of STP Organic Number of Organic Agglomerations agglomerations, the agglomeration, expressed in PE capacity of existing STPs under construction biodegradable Planned biodegradable expressed in PE) (population equivalent) (completion before capacity of STP STPs capacity of Compliant (*) Non- Compliant Non- 31/12/2006) under planned STPs compliant compliant construction
[PE] Number [PE] Number Number [PE] [PE] Number [PE] Number [PE]
2000-10000 423 1 781 226 (according to 350 27 : 1 473 827 113 695 cca 60 253 000 46 new 193 703 Ministry) UWWTD existing 377 (204) (859 030) (728 500) reconstr + new 110 to be 463 000 STPs at present cca 85 % (173 : Czech) upgraded treated 10000-15000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >10000 170 8 590 078 (according to 158 12: UWWTD 7 983 719 606 358 all existing - to be all existing - to to be 3 032 000 Ministry) upgraded be upgraded upgraded existing 170 (85) (85: Czech) (4 295 000) (4 295 000) STPs at present cca 85 % cca 25 1 260 000 cca 60 treated
other existing 1405 PE in rural areas 2 378 1307 98 604 662 45 338 ------134 to be 62 000 STPs (small 696 of which treated cca upgraded 164 000 sizes) 650 000 (Dusek estimate) 354 new
Total 1952 STPs now treated 9 464 748 PE 1 815: 137: 10.062.208 765 391 PE: according to statistics UWWTD UWWTD PE: UWWTD UWWTD Total 12 750 000 PE including unconnected
Total number 1 952: Total 10 827 555: UWWTD capacity UWWTD
Total Organic biodegradable capacity 12 100 000 (existing + under construction + planned) (Dusek estimate) (*) Compliance with UWWTD. Note: Czech legislation is more stringent, i.e. less plants are compliant. (**):to be solved according to ministry by 2010 Remark: We estimate that in future the ratio (inhabitants connected to STP/PE) will remain the same as today Today: 7.670.075 inhabitants connected to STPs: 9.464.748 PE load to STPs Future: 9.737.500 inhabitants connected to STPs: 12.016.000 PE load to STPs , rounded to 12 100 000 PE The total number of PE at present in average cca 75 % is treated
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 35
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Table 4-5 : Design criteria for Sewage Treatment Plants Hydraulic design capacity of planned STPs expressed in l/PE/day [l/PE/day] 125 – 200 Hydraulic design capacity of planned STPs compared to the mean or [ ] 1,5 *peak DWF peak Dry Weather Flow (DWF)11 sometimes more than 1,5 (*) (*) Consultants would go for factor 3 * peak DWF, which is unfortunately more than Czech standard (just peak DWF) and is evaluated as not economical by authorities. Balance between biological stage hydraulic capacity and volume of storm water detention basins is not required as storm water tanks are not still widely supported. Frequently so called “separators” are used instead of detention tanks, in fact these separators are US-like vortex overflow chambers.
Table 4-6 : Physical investment needs – sewers
Type of sewer system Separate [%] 10 only small municipalities and discrete parts of cities Combined [%] 90 sewage connection rate (% of population or households connected) [%] now 79,1 % future 95 % (also treated) Length of trunk current situation [km] 36.233 sewers/collectors Length in need of rehabilitation [km] 9.000 under construction (completion before [km] 200 31/12/2006) Planned new sewers/collectors [km] 19.500 Pumping stations present number [ ] cca 750 Planned [ ] cca 1000
Table 4-7 : Design criteria for Combined Sewer Overflows
Carry on flow of the Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), compared [ ] min. 12 to the mean or peak Dry Weather Flow (DWF) 10 x peak DWF Design spill frequency of CSOs [1/year] 6 – 10 x Critical rain intensity l/s.ha 10 – 25 Storage capacity of the overflows m3/reduced ha [m³/ha] 7 - 15 Other (please specify)
Remark: not all systems in CR are designed according to above criteria
11 Dry Weather Flow = the amount of waste water to be treated during dry weather conditions, expressed in l/PE/day (= unit dry weather flow). E.g. : hydraulic design capacity of planned STPs = 3 * DWF. 12 This criterion refers to the dilution theory, e.g. carry on flow = 5 * DWF
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 37
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Table 4-8 : Physical investment needs – Combined Sewer Overflows
Number of existing Compliant to design criteria % 10 % Combined Sewer Non-compliant to design criteria % 90 % Overflows Planned Combined Sewer Overflows Number 1000 Number of compliant or not compliant CSOs is not fully representative. E.g. in Brno with 400 000 inhabitants there are some 60 COSs , BUT cca 90 % of overflowed quantity and COD load on river is caused by just 5 of them.
Table 4-9 : Physical investment needs – Sewage sludge treatment
Present situation (year 2005) Quantity of sludge produced [tonnes DS/year] 171 888 Type of sludge treatment used Dewatering Capacity [tonnes DS/year] 163 290 Drying Capacity [tonnes DS/year] ~ 0 Digestion = stabilisation (anaerobic/aerobic) Capacity [tonnes DS/year] 171 888 other (specify) Capacity [tonnes DS/year] Disposal or reuse route used Agriculture direct application Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 34 467 Composting Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 88 820 Soil Quantity [tonnes DS/year] Landfill Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 12 027 Incineration Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 20 other (specify) Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 36 554 (*) Planned situation at the end of the design horizon13 Quantity of sludge produced [tonnes DS/year] 207 000 Type of sludge treatment used dewatering Capacity [tonnes DS/year] 201 000 Drying Capacity [tonnes DS/year] ~ 0 Digestion = stabilisation (anaerobic/aerobic) Capacity [tonnes DS/year] 207 000 other (specify) Capacity [tonnes DS/year] Disposal or reuse route used Agriculture after processing Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 82 000 Composting Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 100 000 Soil Quantity [tonnes DS/year] Landfill Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 0 incineration Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 20 000 other (specify) Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 5 000
(*) probably also agriculture without official permit
13 At the time when all the planned STPs presented in Table 4-4 will be built.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 38
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
4.2.3 Demand scenarios Demographic and economic trends Population The population is expected to decrease (see Table 3-2). The number of households will remain stable or will slightly increase. The number of households with only few members will grow (old people, divorced etc.). The change in population does not lead to a change in the number of agglomerations in each of the categories (2.000-10.000; 10.000-100.000; over 100.000) within in the next programming period. Industry The changes of industry activities are difficult to predict. The year growth of industrial production in total is predicted at 5 to 9 % per year. The decrease is predicted in mining and textile industry, by 2 to 4 % per year. The biggest growth is expected in plastics, metal, electronic, optic and car industries (each above 10 % per year). The volume of industrial waste water is expected to change within the next programming period but information is lacking to make an approximate change in volume. In general it may be assumed that the volume of industrial waste water requiring treatment will grow proportionally with inhabitants connected to STPs.
Unit demand for waste water treatment • Policies are in place relating to disconnecting industry from the public sewers, for big industries and special composition of waste waters. • The demand of the industry for public waste water treatment will only face a small influence of these policies as most big manufacturers have their own treatment or pre-treatment before discharging to public network. Manufacturers are aware that cost of treatment is part of their production cost.
Table 4-10 : Unit demand for the wastewater treatment of 1 PE Unit demand In country Benchmark
Present Planned situation (e.g. situation at the year 2005) end of the design horizon Volume 125 – 175 125 – 200 150 l/PE/d Organic biodegradable load 60 60 60 g BOD/PE/d Nitrogen load 11 11 10 g N/PE/d Phosphorous load 2,5 2,5 2 g P/PE/d
Design of the STPs Volumes, oxygenation capacities etc. are designed according to BOD, COD, N load. Detention times and hydraulic surface loads etc. are checked to comply with recommendations. Hydraulic paths are designed according to hydraulic load. Czech standard recommends the maximum RWF to secondary treatment as (1,2 * max.hourly DWF) for plant up to 5000 PE and (2*maximum daily DWF-ground water inflow) for plant above 5000 PE. According to the national evaluator, DUIS, it is not enough and more consultants prefer higher figures.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 39
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
User Charges The waste water fee is collected by operating companies through invoice. It is combined with drinking water invoice. Usually one company supplies both services (drinking and waste water). The tariff and user charges are expected to evolve in the same way as drinking water. Drinking water consumption and waste water production are low in Czech Republic; no extra changes of the demand are expected. Public projects are co-financed by State Environmental Fund, Ministry of Agriculture and EU funds with affordability 4% (drinking + waste water). Operators can charge lower tariff with further financial subsidy from municipal budget. Tariffs can differ largely according to local conditions and production costs, but bigger difference is caused by some kind of subsidizing. Tariffs for public do not account for pollution load. For industry with extra polluted waters, different tariffs can be charged. It is required that calculation of tariff is transparent but in reality this is not the case.
Total need for waste water treatment The share of the industry in the load of STPs is up to 25%. The policy is to keep it below 20%. Especially big industries could solve the waste water treatment themselves based on PPP. Growth of industry is not reason for extension of municipal STPs. There no disproportionate benefit to rich / poor regions or urban / rural areas. The assessment of need indicates that sewage treatment and sewer systems are being developed also in rural areas, especially in areas with water sources and national parks. Special review has not been done, usually very efficient systems are designed to comply with requirements from authorities – separate sewerage systems and biological STPs with N and P removal even for small STPs. Table 4-11: Forecast wastewater treatment demand (year 2013)
Minimum Average Maximum scenario scenario scenario Demand (PE) Permanent Population (PE) 10 015 000 10 222 000 10 415 000 Target connection rate to drinking 93 % 95 % 98 % water supply Target connection rate to sewage 92 % 95 % 98 % treatment Permanent Population connected to 9 213 800 9 710 900 10 206 700 sewage treatment (PE) Seasonal Variations (PE) 100 000 150 000 200 000 Industry and services (PE) 1 379 900 1 533 300 1 686 600 Total demand (PE) 10 693 700 11 394 200 12 093 300 Unit drinking water supply (l/PE/day) 115 125 135 Wastewater by permanent population (1000 1 151,73 1 277,75 1 406,03 volume m³/day) discharged by permanent population connected 1 059,59 1 213,86 1 377,91 (DWF) to sewage treatment (1000 m³/day) Seasonal Variations (1000 m³/day) 20,00 30,00 40,00 Economic growth scenario (%/year) 3 4 4,5
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 40
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Minimum Average Maximum scenario scenario scenario Economic gross product (million 132 460 143 104 148 700 euro)
Specific water consumption per 2,97 3,17 3,48 gross product (m³/1000 euro) Total industrial water demand (1000 413,97 459,99 505,98 m³/day) Total wastewater volume discharged 1 493,56 1 703,85 1 923,89 (1000 m³/day) Total wastewater volume discharged 545,15 621,91 702,22 into public sewer network (mil. m³/year) (Note: without infiltration ground water) Organic Unit load (g BOD/PE/day) 60 60 60 biodegradable Total organic biodegradable load 641,62 683,65 725,60 load (tonnes BOD/day) Nitrogen load Unit load (g N/PE/day) 11 11 11 Total nitrogen load (tonnes N/day) 117,63 125,34 133,03 Phosphorous Unit load (g P/PE/day) 2,5 2,5 2,5 load Total phosphorous load (tonnes 26,73 28,49 30,23 P/day)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 41
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
4.2.4 Indicative Investment Requirement and Comparison The investment requirements on wastewater treatment are presented in following table:
Table 4-12: Summary of investment cost – wastewater treatment
Type of investment Indicative Investment Cost
Official national estimate Evaluation team’s calculation M Euro M Euro
New STPs - 78
Renovation / upgrading of STPs - 73
New sewerage - 13.650
Renovation / upgrading of sewerage - 6.300
Sewage pumping stations - 90
CSO upgrading - 60
Sludge treatment - -
Sludge disposal - -
Total investment 2.400 20.251
Based on the detailed physical needs and national unit costs (see chapter 6.2.2.) the investment needs have been calculated precisely: 20.251 MEUR. The investment cost calculated with the default unit costs is only 10.333 MEUR. The difference between these two calculated costs is only due to the high Czech unit costs (more or less twice the Belgian unit costs) indicated by the national evaluator. The calculated costs are much higher than the total investment cost, indicated by the Czech Ministry of Environment (2.400 MEUR). The huge difference between the investment cost indicated by the Czech Ministry and the investment costs calculated based on the indicated needs and national unit costs indicates that the indicated country needs can not be fulfilled by the foreseen budget or within the next programming period. The planned investment cost for the period 2007- 2013 is lower than the needs investment cost. The Czech government did not plan to fulfil all the indicated needs within this period, but will focus only on the priorities for this period, due to limited financial sources.
4.2.5 Summary, Insights, needs etc. The sector needs are much higher (about ten times) than the investment cost planned by the government.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 42
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
5 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
5.1 Current situation 5.1.1 Current State of Provision Key figures on municipal solid waste provisions are presented in chapter 9.1.3. There is a gradual downward tendency in the production of waste, which is particularly evident in the production of hazardous wastes. In 1995, the amount of produced waste equalled 66,3 mtonnes, compared to 38,7mtonnes in 2001 and 35,9 mtonnes in 2003. The greatest part of this amount consists in wastes from industry, construction industry, agriculture and power engineering. Municipal wastes counts for 4,639 mtonnes in 2003.
Collection Well developed and operated all over the country.
Treatment Facilities for waste disposal have sufficient capacity, especially facilities for waste land- filling, which remains the most usual form of waste disposal. A consistently low percentage of waste is incinerated and used for energy production. In 2003, a total of 545.100 tonnes of waste was used for this purpose. In the Czech Republic, there are three municipal waste incinerators – in Prague, Brno and Liberec. The number of hazardous waste incinerators is higher, even though these mostly have low capacity and a number of them will have to be closed down as they do not meet the requirements of the atmospheric protection legislation.
Recycling and reuse In 2003, 19,7 mtonnes of all wastes were recycled and used as secondary raw materials. Separated collection of usable components of municipal waste increased over the years, especially as regards packaging waste and waste from construction operations. Nonetheless, the recycling and reuse of waste still remains low compared to developed European countries. The recycled waste included in particular scrap metal (both ferrous and non-ferrous) and construction waste, followed by some metallic waste and waste from plastic, glass and paper.
State of infrastructures Collection In general well dimensioned, separate waste collection system should be improved.
Recycling3 The WMIS records include 203 facilities for material use of waste with a total designed capacity of 5.199.204 tonnes per year. Construction wastes are most usually recycled using mobile collection facilities.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 43
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Landfilling3 Landfilling is the most extensively used method of waste disposal, primarily owing to the relatively low charges for depositing wastes on landfills. The number of landfills has shown a downward tendency: of the 8.000 landfills in 1991 ca. 1.000 have been closed before 1996. Most of the landfills currently in operation were established after 1996 and so they should be in full accordance with the current legislation, which has been fully harmonised with the EC legislation, (Council Directive 1999/31/EC). The problems encountered in currently operated landfills are predominantly associated with the requirements concerning insulation and de-gassing. According to a conducted survey, approximately 60% of landfills will not be compliant with the standards laid down in Directive 1999/31/EC by 2009. There are currently 408 landfills in operation, of which 39 have a designed capacity for the storage of hazardous wastes of ca. 12 million m3. The overall capacity of landfills for municipal and other waste, including hazardous waste, is adequate to meet the current demands and the demands of the near future.
Incineration3 Incineration is a more expensive method of waste disposal in comparison with land- filling and therefore only a low percentage of total waste production is disposed of through incineration. In 2003, only 2.4% of overall waste production was incinerated or used for energy production. In the WMIS database, there were 52 hazardous waste incineration plants registered together with 3 municipal waste incineration plants. The 3 municipal waste incineration plants are the SAKO incinerator in Brno, with a capacity of 240.000 t/y, the incinerator of Prague Services in Prague-Malešice with a designed capacity of 310.000 t/y, and the Termizo incinerator in Liberec with a designed capacity of 96.000t/y. In 2003, a total of 442.700t municipal waste was incinerated, i.e. 9.5% of overall production. Hazardous waste incinerators are intended predominantly for the incineration of hazardous industrial waste and waste from medical operations. Most incinerators have a low capacity of up to ca. 1.000 t/y. Since 2001, when the Czech Republic registered 67 incinerators in operation with an overall designed capacity of 113.000 t/y, the number of actively operated incinerators has been decreasing. In 2002, there were 53 and in 2003 52 hazardous waste incinerators in operation. The number of hazardous waste incinerators is expected to decrease further because most of them will be unable to meet the emission limits by December 28, 2004 as well as other conditions for their operation according to the Air Protection Act In 2003, 76.000 tonnes of hazardous waste was incinerated, i.e. 6.2% of the overall quantity of hazardous waste produced. In addition to waste incineration in specialised waste incinerators, waste was also used for energy production in 4 cement plants.
Waste fees/taxes Waste charges: 500 CZK/person.year, i.e. 50 EUR/household.year, ie. 0,6 % of household income.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 44
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
The legal enactments according to Act 185/2001 Coll. (waste) and Act 477/2001 Coll. (packaging) improved the environmental effects in the application of economic instruments.
Fee for municipal waste3 The fee for municipal waste (accumulation, collection, transport, separation, recovery and disposal) was a new local fee collected (in 2003, according to Act of the Czech National Council 565/1990 Coll., on local fees, as amended). The fee is paid to the municipality by every individual with permanent residence and every owner of a recreational object in the municipality. The tariff comprises two components and may attain a maximum of 17€/y. As the fee is subject to the Act on Local Fees, the municipality may adjust its requisites in a generally binding edict according to local conditions, including possible relieves and exemptions. The introduction of this fee turned out to be a positive step in the stimulation of the population towards waste sorting.
Landfills3 The increased rates for waste depositing on landfills represent a stimulating function of this instrument. The tariff for the basic component of the fee applies to all categories of waste (and is differentiated into two levels, one for municipal and other waste and the other for hazardous waste). The risk component of the fee is paid only for hazardous waste. The operator of the landfill transfers collected fees to their recipients, i.e. the municipality in whose cadastre the landfill is located (basic component) and SEF of Czech Republic (risk component).The amount of the compulsory financial reserve for land-filling increased, together with the minimum period of care for landfills (increased to 30 years for all categories). The financial reserve and the fee for waste depositing are a motivation for gradual restriction of land-filling and serve as a support for material and energy-production use of wastes. Every landfill operator is obliged to create a financial reserve for reclaiming, to provide for care for the landfill and for decontamination at the end of operations. Landfill operators set aside finances on a monthly basis at an amount depending on the amount of waste deposited, into a special blocked bank account.
Import/export3 One of the new economic instruments includes the duty to cover the import, export and transit of wastes requiring permission according to the law with a financial security or the corresponding insurance against their re-import or removal. In addition, it is necessary to take out liability insurance with respect to these transactions.
Ecological taxes3 The proposal for ecological taxes is still pending, and it should be linked to the general tax policy currently being prepared by the Ministry of Finance.
Deposits 3 The Act on Packaging lays down a detailed system of returnable packaging for which deposits are made. Government Order 111/2002 Coll., laying down the amount of the deposit for selected types of returnable packages for which a deposit is made, comprises a list of returnable packages for which deposits are paid, together with the
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 45
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
amount of such deposits. The list contains seven types of bottles. The amount of the deposit is identical for all kinds of bottles, i.e.0,10€.
Regional Waste Management Plans3 Regions may obtain subsidies for their processing of Regional Waste Management Plans (WMP) of up to 34.533€ from the SEF of the Czech Republic (programme 4.3.). This opportunity has already been used by 13 regions
Institutional issues Government (national/regional/local) authorities are responsible for the policies on waste, waste collection, recycling, treatment, landfilling, exporting/importing: • Ministry of Environment (Waste Management Plan of CR) • Municipalities Regional Waste Management Plans: responsibilities • Regional governments (regional conceptions)
Implementation Programmes of the Czech Republic3: Aim is to define the tools (economic, legislative and voluntary) for the achievement of the defined targets. In 2003 there were 10 Implementation Programmes of the Czech Republic processed for hazardous waste; medical waste; sludge from waste water treatment plants; disposal of scrap vehicles; packaging and packaging waste; biologically degradable waste; electrical and electronic devices; PVC and PVC- containing waste; decontamination and removal of PCB-containing devices; design of tools for support of increased material use of wastes. The Ministry of the Environment appointed working teams for the processing of Implementation Programmes of the Czech Republic, including 282 top experts from throughout the country. Representatives taking part in individual working teams were appointed by other ministries, regions, unions, associations and societies concerned, as well as non-profit organisations and other entities.
Public-private partnerships and private sector investment3 With waste management, private sector investments are quite common practice.
Conclusions It is necessary to develop long term strategy for waste management which will be acceptable from ecological and economical point of view as well as acceptable for public. Inhabitants and green activities generally reject incineration plants. Reuse and recovery of waste must be widely performed. It asks for much better education of people starting with small children.
5.1.2 Experience of Previous Investment Programmes In Czechia, there are more modern and capacity landfills which sure comply with Czech and EU legislation. The now-how was brought by private companies from EU-15 after 1989. Other installations like incineration plants, composting farms, recycling yards, etc. are not so frequent. The market of waste management is developed; there is big competition between companies for supplying these services to municipalities. See also chapter 6 Annexes (6.1.6) for further details on investments allocated to municipal solid waste management in Czech Republic.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 46
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
General MS funding In the area of waste management and technologies, 134 applications for aid from SEF in the Czech Republic were approved in 2003 for 30.550.556€ comprising subsidies of 11.904.620€ and loans of the amount of 17.439.000 €. The major part of the funding has been spent on aid for decontamination and reclamation of former landfills followed by aid for use of wastes and Investment, aid to environmental training and education and aid for best available techniques.3
Table 5-1: Expenditure and aid in supported projects in the area of waste management and technologies in 2003 (€)3 Number of Programme Overall expenditure events Aid for decontamination and reclamation of former landfills 35 14.717.211 € Aid for use of wastes 19 4.716.935 € Aid for processing of Regional Waste Management Plans 9 626.459 € Aid for best available techniques 3 2.606.292 € Implementation of plant management systems and audits 35 659.783 € from the perspective of the environment Non-investment aid to environmental training and 14 812.556 € education Investment aid to environmental training and education 10 4.141.930 € Processing of regional strategies of sustainable 2 556.806 € development Non-investment aid to environmental training and 2 324.643 € education Investment aid to environmental training and education 3 507.632 € Non-investment aid to local Agendas 21 1 27.315 € Other 1 852.994 € Total 134 30.550.556 €
Table 5-2 Financial sources in the Czech Republic for waste management expenditures in 20023 Internal sources and budgets (public and private) 32.280.000 € Grants and subsidies from public budgets* 6.115.000 €
Credits and loans (partly international sources) 3.603.000 € Issues of securities, voluntary conveyance, non-monetary deposits, delimitation, etc. 432.000 € *: national budget, local budgets, state funds and NPF of the Czech Republic
Figures on the overall investments into waste management (total of 42.686.546€) according to the region where the investor has its registered office and the programme focus in 2002 (not solely State Funds, also international funds) reveals that investments mainly have been made in Prague, followed by the Central Bohemia, Southern Moravia and Moravia and Silesia regions.
ISPA programme Most investments under the ISPA programme relate to waste water or mixed water (drinking water supply and waste water) projects: see chapter 3.1.2. Projects launched within the ISPA programme are presented in following table:
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 47
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Table 5-3: Waste projects launched within the ISPA programme Name of the project Total costs Subsidies from the Registration number in EUR ISPA Fund
Waste management in Brno 70 408 000 47 345 000 Technical Assistance – CF (*) 2 250 000 1 687 500 (*) : (environment in general: see also chapter 9.1.2.)
Cohesion fund An overview of funds allocated for waste water and mixed water projects from the Cohesion Fund between 2004 and 2006 is presented in following table. See also chapter 3.1.2. and chapter 9.1.6.
Table 5-4 Overview of CF projects (eligible costs), 2004-2006
Project title Full cost Cohesion Fund EU-support (€ million) (€ million) (%)
Urban and industrial 69,625 47,345 68% waste (including hospital and dangerous waste): 1 project Source: EC DG Regio - Note: Technical Assistance projects are not included: 1,310 mio EUR (CF share for the sum of environmental projects : 1,228 mio EUR, national funds: 0,082 mio EUR) 2000- 2006 - Note: Figures do not include other mixed environmental projects: 35,294 mio EUR (CF share 30 mio EUR, national funds 5,294 mio EUR)
Structural funds An overview of funds allocated for waste projects from the Structural Funds (ERDF) between 2004 and 2006 is presented in following table.
Table 5-5: Overview of ERDF projects
Measure title Full cost ERDF Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%) Total : Urban and industrial waste (including hospital 24,737 18,553 75% and dangerous waste) - Source: EC DG REGIO - Note: ERDF investments are described by reference to Measures, outlined in the ERDF Programmes - Note: Distinguish between actual and planed expenditure. Indicate years if only part of the period covered.
See also chapter 3.1.2. and chapter 9.1.6.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 48
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Good and bad practice lessons or examples Good example of big effect with low investment is the education and training of people. Activities connected with information to inhabitants about waste sorting were very successful. E.g. in 2002 some 58 % of adults contributed to waste sorting while in 2001 the share was only 47 % of adults. In 2002 the following rates of recycling of packages were reached: • Plastics 17 % • Paper 50 % • Glass 32 % • Metals 21 % • Overall 31 %
Although the sorting and reuse is well promoted, the Czech family daily practice in household is still far behind from the common practice in e.g. Austria, Germany, Benelux etc.
Conclusions The current aids were allocated efficiently. The objectives were met.
5.2 Needs 5.2.1 Review of Policy Objectives and Targets Compliance with the Acquis EU legislation is implemented
Consistency between environmental and other policies and priorities In Czechia the desirable hierarchy of waste management is not applied yet. Waste disposal prevails compared with reuse and recycling. In the market, the competitiveness of products made of recycled waste is not ensured. Also sorting of waste is not sufficient. Inhabitants understand the problem but still tend to choose cheap solutions due to their purchasing power. Only green parties plan to introduce some kind of eco-taxes, but have low chance to pass in parliament. In 2007 – 2013 the rapid change cannot be expected. Czechia needs waste production prevention programs to prevent high production of wastes. Czechia’s approach for the future is based on prevention of waste and prevention of environmental problems. Specific priorities include:
• improvement of waste management with stress on reuse • removal of old environmental loads : there are app. 10.000 sites, of which 163 are remediated and 741 are in progress of remediation
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 49
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Regional Development Benefits Waste management is strongly influenced by education and local conditions, especially suppression of negative behaviour. It can be observed that humans adapt to environs - preferably they tend easily to go down. E.g. even many visitors from western countries change their manners when they cross border, they do not follow their home high standard rules and as well local traffic rules, environmental rules, etc. – they become anonymous. Social cohesion is not fully understood yet. All investors insist on high percentage of subsidy, the affordability principle is not well understood. Environmental sustainability principle is known and followed until it becomes too expensive. According to latest statistics surveys (2006), Czech population pays less attention to long term environmental costly targets and prefers present economical profit. People generally tend to equal “environment” to air and water pollution, less to other fields e.g. waste, renewable energy sources, risks. As the progress in air and water pollution prevention was in past decade very high, they are generally satisfied with environment as the whole.
5.2.2 State of Infrastructure : Predicted Waste Flows of Municipal Solid Waste
• Landfills will prevail as final waste disposal as this economical activity can be easily run as PPP. • Incineration plants are not accepted by municipalities and inhabitants close to plant, i.e. building and operation permits are difficult to be obtained.
• Integrated systems for waste handling in all regions is the element of the infrastructure most in need of expansion. • Most investments will go to improvement of the system rather than the service extension: o 46 % to construction of integrated systems of waste management, o 16 % to recultivation of old landfills, o 38 % to removal of old environmental loads. • The new systems will serve to the majority of population. It is clearly stated by the government that the funding will go to non-commerce bodies, i.e. municipalities and/or commerce bodies and enterprises if they prove that the environmental old load was not caused by them. Poor and rural areas will probably benefit more as the services are more costly in these regions while the purchasing power of people is lower. The equal prices can be maintained. • Typical current infrastructure status and possible scenarios for improvement:
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 50
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Typical present scenario
Glass
Plastic Transport Recycling
Paper&Card- board
Garden waste Transport Composting
Residual waste Transport Transfer Landfilling station
Notes: • It is not typical for Czech households to separate waste daily. The result is low portion of recycled waste. “Residual” waste is categorised as one of separate collection items. Landfilling is dominating now and landfills accept almost any of the residual waste. • Separate collection or industrial separation of mixed recyclables must be improved/built.
Possible scenario 1
Glass
Plastic Transport Recycling
Paper & Card- board
Metals
Organic
Garden waste Transport Composting
Transfer station Incineration Residual waste Transport MBP
Transfer station Land filling
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 51
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Possible scenario 2
Glass
Mixed dry Transport Sorting recyclables Plastic Recycling
Paper&Card -board
Metals
Organic
Garden waste Transport Composting
Transfer station Incineration Residual waste Transport MBP Transfer station Land filling
Note: As majority of waste is at present collected as “residual” and landfilled, both scenarios are possible and ask for infrastructure – assets, transport means, etc.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 52
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Generation Municipal Solid Waste Generation (CURRENT SITUATION; year: 2004) 4 400 000 tonnes
Collection Residual and Bulky Waste (III) Collection Separate Collection 176.000 tonnes 4 224 000 tonnes (capacity available but not fully used: *)
Sorting Residual Waste Bulky Waste for Recyclables Bio Waste Hazardous 1.578.400 tonnes Landfilling 1.858.560 760.320 waste (I) also from separate 76.000 tonnes tonnes tonnes 126.720 collection tonnes
Disposal & M/B Pre- Thermal Direct Thermal Recovery Treatment Treatment Landfilling Treatment (IV) (V) (IV) 983.287 431.014 50.000 545.113 tonnes tonnes tonnes tonnes (3 installations ) (II)
Landfilling Compost 2.948.000 tonnes (408 landfills) 329.306 tonnes
Figure 5-1: Waste flows - current situation
(*): Most of waste is collected as “residual”. Currently, households do not separate waste, as there is no separate transport from households. They only have chance to carry separated waste to containers placed in streets or in front of shopping centres – the ‘chance’ to separate is not equal to separation. According to statistics the following number of inhabitants is served with separated waste collection, i.e. people have available place or containers for collection somewhere “close” to their dwellings (it does not mean that they separate waste at home and that it is separately collected and transported) :
Paper, cardboard 8.663.808 Textiles 2.053.141 Plastic 9.871.824 Glass 9.852.411 Metal 5.365.025 Organic 2.610.866 Bulky waste 5.480.435
The availability does not mean that people exploit it . Recycled: 558 800 tonnes (out of the 1.858.560 tonnes recyclables). The rest of “recyclabes” is mostly directly landfilled. Only 12,7 % of municipal waste was recycled according to Ministry of Environment in 2004, 67 % was landfilled and 9,1 % of the recyclables was incinerated.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 53
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Notes:
• (I) : Hazardous waste only covers small hazardous waste (paints, batteries, small packaged pesticides and chemicals, etc.)
• (II) : Residues of recyclables to be landfilled only covers small part of total volume of landfilling
• (III) : Residual and Bulky waste
o Bulky waste: white goods, old furniture, mattresses, metals (often collected only a few times a year)
o Residual waste: other waste than bulky waste and waste collected separately (e.g. paper, glass, organic waste etc.)
• (IV): Thermal Treatment = Waste Incineration (incl. secondary thermal recovery)
Generation Municipal Solid Waste Generation (PREDICTION year: 2013) 4 300 000 tonnes
Collection Residual and Bulky Waste (III) Collection Separate Collection 200.000 tonnes 4.100.000 tonnes
Sorting Residual Waste Bulky Waste for Recyclables Bio Waste Hazardous 1.100.000 tonnes Landfilling 2.100.000 900.000 waste (I) also from separate 80.000 tonnes tonnes tonnes 120.000 collection ! tonnes
Disposal & M/B Pre- Thermal Direct Thermal Recovery Treatment Treatment Landfilling Treatment (IV) (V) (IV) 50.000 300.000 450.000 600.000 tonnes tonnes tonnes tonnes (4 installations ) (II)
Landfilling Compost 1 780 000 tonnes (400 landfills) (*) 600 000 tonnes (**)
Figure 5-2: Waste flows - expected future situation
(*): Landfilling will remain in coming years very important. It is good field for PPP system. No large reduction in number of sites is foreseen in the coming 7 years. (**): After local discussion it seems that more composting capacity will be needed. This will be rather a large number of small installations as local landfills for towns and villages will be necessary. Recycled : 1 300 000 tonnes
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 54
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
5.2.3 Review of Future Trends Demographic and economic trends • The official objective is to provide 100% of households with collection services and to separate and reuse the waste at maximum level • The share of dumpsites (non-sanitary landfills) as final disposal will decrease. • The commerce, small business and services sectors relying on the same municipal waste treatment facilities (sorting facilities, incineration, landfill, recycling including composting) evolve in the programme period as following: o Low economic growth scenario: growth average yearly 5,5 % o Medium economic growth scenario: growth average yearly 9,5 % o High economic growth scenario growth average yearly 12,5 % • It is expected that the overall municipal waste production will be proportional to the changes of inhabitants, growth of quantity must be prevented, and separation and reuse must be dominant.
Waste charges • Inhabitants pay municipal charge regardless the volume and weight – per capita. • No new charging /tariff systems are planned to be introduced but charges will probably increase in real terms over the future programme period from current levels as function of service cost. The increase is expected to equal the inflation rate of ca. 5 %/year + recovery of new investments. • People want to pay as low charges as possible; they do not tend to support more expensive BATs. • No effects are expected from higher charges on illegal dumping as penalties are high. • The expected size of the contribution from charges to finance investment in 2007 is estimated at around 20% • There are no important regional differences in levels of arisings and there is no policy to provide exemptions for households on low incomes or for specific industries
Table 5-6: Waste charges (year 2013) Low estimate Medium estimate High estimate
Possible waste 26 EUR/cap.year 40 EUR/cap.year 55 EUR/cap.year charges (EUR/m3)
Unit and total municipal waste generation Unit waste generation will slightly decrease. Present value is 455 kg/year.cap and will drop to 425 kg/year.cap. Rural areas have lower unit production than urban areas – cca minus 30-40 % from average. Also regions with lower incomes have lower unit production – cca minus 10-20 % from average. Problem with rural areas occurs when energy costs grow – people use packages and plastics for heating together with wood and coal which results in serious air pollution14.
14 Air pollution was in past well solved by distribution of natural gas along the country with high volume of governmental subsidies.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 55
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
There are not many policy incentives to reduce the unit municipal waste generation such as waste prevention by training of local authorities or awareness-rising campaigns for consumers. If something has been done in this field, it was then with poor result. There is influence of standard of living and education of people on the unit waste generation volumes, but for overall evaluation it is not significant as the average level of people approach is not good. There is no significant influence of higher incomes on unit waste generation volumes. Higher incomes bring higher consumption; on the other hand also usually belong to higher education with higher standard of environmental manners. There will be no influence of waste charges on illegal dumping practices, because, illegal dumping is punished. Czechia is densely inhabited country and illegal dumping is generally rejected by absolute majority of people.
Table 5-7: Unit and total municipal waste generation (year 2013) Parameter Unit Current Evolution (% change) status (year) Minimum Average Maximum scenario scenario scenario Population15 Urban inh 7570000 - 2,317 % - 0,297 % + 1,585 % (number of Rural inh 2682500 - 2,317 % - 0,297 % + 1,585 % people) Per capita income Euro per 3759 (7) + 41 % + 57 % + 73 % capita Unit municipal waste kg/year per 429,2 -4,62 % -1,99 % -1,57 % generation capita Total municipal waste tonnes/year 4 400 000 (3) - 6,82 % -2,27 % 0 % generation Composition MSW: Share organic waste % 18 + 0 % + 2,90 % + 5 % Share packaging : % 44 + 3 % + 4,5 % + 6 % paper and cardboard+ glass + plastics share hazardous % 3 - 0,5 % - 0,2 % 0 % households waste (batteries, paint, insecticides etc.) Others % 35 -2,5 % - 7,2 % - 11 % Total waste generated by tonnes/year 2 050 000 + 1,5 % + 2,5 % + 4 % households Total waste generated by tonnes/year 1 020 000 - 12,5 % - 5 % -1 % commerce, small businesses and services, Total waste generated by tonnes/year 1 330 000 - 15,3 % - 7,5 % - 5,4 % office buildings and institutions and waste from selected municipal services and street cleaning services
15 It is expected, that the proportion between rural and urban will remain the same due to reciprocal migration.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 56
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
5.2.4 Physical investment needs The physical investment needs are presented in the table below:
Table 5-8: Physical investment needs (programming period 2007-2013) Type of Indicators Minimum Average Maximum investment scenario scenario scenario Waste % of inhabitants to be URBAN 100% 100% 100% collection provided MSW collection facilities service RURAL 100% 100% 100% # of Organic URBAN 100% 100% 100%
inhabitants waste provided RURAL 100% 100% 100% separate MSW Small URBAN 100% 100% 100% collection hazardous services waste RURAL 100% 100% 100%
Others URBAN 100% 100% 100% RURAL 100% 100% 100% Required number of additional waste 40 45 50 transfer stations for transport of collected waste (i.e. islands or isolated areas)
There is not sufficient information about planning available. At present most waste goes directly to landfills – even if it is separately collected as “recyclables”. The recycling and material recovery rate is only 12,7 % of MSW which is very low. To improve it more infrastructure is required. The figures are national evaluator’s estimates Waste sorting Required number of additional 72 80 90 facilities manual/mechanical sorting facilities (#) (as part of planned RWMCs16) Required capacity of additional 2 500 000 3 100 000 3 800 000 manual/mechanical sorting facilities (tonnes/year)
Here we face again the question of reality in selective collection and sorting in Czechia. According to information available the sorting facilities are not well operating. Either new and/or reconstructions must be built or done. The capacity will depend of scenario chosen for receiving separated waste – sorting in source or mechanical sorting after transport – probably both will occur in parallel depending on area. Recovery Required number of additional recycling 72 80 90 facilities yards (as part of planned RWMCs) (#)
Required capacity of additional recycling 700 000 800 000 1 000 000 yards (people/year) We assume just the capacity proportional to growth of recycled MSW. Required number of additional composting 600 incl. 800 incl. 1 000 incl. plants (#) (as part of planned RWMCs) 4 large plants 6 large 8 large plants plants Here we assume construction of big number of composting plants, in all bigger municipalities to process organic and green waste close to source. Required capacity of additional composting 400 000 500 000 600 000 plants (tonnes/year)
We assume both construction of new plants and reconstruction of present plants to get better product.
16 A Regional Waste Management Centre (RWMC) is defined as minimum as a sanitary landfill, a facility for biological treatment and a facility for reuse and recycling. Each RWMC will have associated a number of recycling yards and bring-in sites in local communities and possibly, transfer stations. A thermal treatment facility may also be associated to the RWMC.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 57
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Type of Indicators Minimum Average Maximum investment scenario scenario scenario Disposal Required number of incineration plants for 0 1 1 facilities MSW (#) Required MSW incineration capacity 0 200 000 200 000 (tonnes/year)
Number of existing incineration plants 3 3 3 needing an upgrade to achieve airborne emission ceiling limits (incl. dioxins, mercury, dusts) in future
Required number and overall capacity 30 40 50 (mtonnes) of additional landfills for non- 5,5 mtonnes 7 mtonnes 9 mtonnes hazardous waste (as part of planned RWMC) Number of existing landfills needed to be 200 190 180 upgraded17 to be compliant until new sanitary landfills are assumed to be established and ready for operation (#) Number of landfills needed to be 40 50 60 remediated18 (#)
At present, according to statistics, 91 % of inhabitants are covered with separate collection waste system. This is only a theoretical figure as inhabitants are not utilising the system and the waste paths do not have sufficient capacities to handle separated waste and recover and reuse it. As a result, people abandon the effort to separate waste.
5.2.5 Indicative Investment Requirement and Comparison – Municipal Solid Waste
Estimates on the investment costs have been based on the project team’s calculations and have been based on default unit costs and own estimates of the physical needs that have been cross-checked by Czech waste experts and environmental officials (cf. Table 5-8).
Physical needs related to the required number of composting plants only include the number of large composting plants and not the total number of composting plants, including a large number of small composting plants (with low investment needs). The project team’s calculations result in an estimate of the investment needs for 2007- 2013 on municipal solid waste around 529 million EUR.
Remark: As the official national estimate refers to the total waste investment needs, our estimates could not be compared.
17 Upgrading = e.g. monitoring wells, leachate and gas collection system, fencing, weighting bridge, reception facilities, … 18 Remediation: e.g. final cover of disposal site, excavation and removal of waste deposited, monitoring, drainage of run-off to sewer or treatment plant, hydraulic measures in the aquifer
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 58
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Table 5-9: Summary of investment cost – municipal solid waste
Type of Indicative Investment Cost Indicative Implied investment SF/CF Intervention Official National Calculated by the Requirement Rate Estimate evaluation team M Euro M Euro M Euro %
Waste collection - 79 Waste sorting -
Recovery - 35
Disposal - 414
Total investment 5.152 (*) 529 3.864 75%
(*): Official National Estimate is only available for total solid waste investment needs. Investment needs figures for municipal solid waste could not be provided separately.
5.2.6 Summary, Insights, needs etc. Potentials, objectives and targets Sustainable development principles are not fully followed yet. Prevention of waste production is not sufficient and must be improved. Reuse must prevail against disposal. Products based on recycled waste must become competitive in market conditions. Collection of separated waste must be improved – especially hazardous, biodegradable, returnable packaging and plastics. Drivers of the uptake of technologies Environmental education related to waste is not sufficient, e.g. in Czech Republic there is no educational institution providing pointed training. As result data collection systems, management by municipal authorities, staff and co-ordination are not sufficient. Main drivers to achieve objectives are education and understanding, next to subsidies. Up till now, water and air pollution have been the main topics stressed by the government. Barriers to the technology development As people prefer landfills over incineration plants as a cheaper and a more “environment friendly perceived” solution, it is quite difficult to find sites for new incineration plants. Separation and reuse will have high support if well organized. Costs and needs At present there are not sufficient cost drivers for separation and reuse. Generally people do not accept more expensive waste handling. No politicians except green party are mentioning tax and other economical drivers to force changes in waste management. Country specific insights and insights on regional funding Almost 100 % of inhabitants are served by waste collection. Also separate collection is available but not utilised because the separated processing is not ensured - and people know that. Priority should be a system of RWMCs with associated recycling yards and bring-in sites in local communities and transfer stations.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 59
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
6 RENEWABLE ENERGY
6.1 Current situation 6.1.1 Current State of Provision An overview of the key figures related to the current provisions in the field of renewable energy is presented in chapter 9.1.4. A summary of the structure of present and future consumption of primary energy sources and generation of electricity is presented in following table.
Table 6-1 Consumption of primary energy sources and generation of electricity in accordance with the valid Scenario for Czech Republic Share in the consumption of energy sources. Situation in 2000 2005 2030 Solid fuel: 52.4% 42.5% 30.5% - brown coal 36.6% 29.3% 20.8% - black coal 15.8% 13.2% 9.7% Gas fuel: 18.9% 21.6% 20.6% Liquid fuel: 18.6% 15.7% 11.9% Nuclear fuel: 8.9% 16.5% 20.9% Renewable sources: 2.6% 5.4% 15.7%
Share in generation of electricity Situation in 2000 2005 2030 Solid fuel: 70.5% 55.5% 36.8% - brown coal 58.4% 48.9% 31.9% - black coal 12.1% 6.6% 4.9% Gas fuel: 6.4% 4.7% 7.2% Liquid fuel: 2.2% 1.1% 0.4% Nuclear fuel: 18.4% 33.3% 38.6% Renewable sources: 2.3% 5.3% 16.9%
State of infrastructures The state of infrastructure including the existing installed capacity and annual produced power is presented in following table. Table 6-2: State of infrastructures Renewables Type Existing installed capacity Power/generation/annual (MWth, MWel) production (MWh, MJ, t.o.e., etc) Wind 16,5 MW 9.900 MWh Hydro (>10 MW) 262 MW 1.115.900 MWh 13 Hydro (<10 MW) 753 MW 903.500 MWh 13 Solid biomass 1227 MW 592.704 MWh Liquid biofuels data not found Data not found Geothermal 62 MW 138.800 MWh Solar thermal 35 MW 57.267 GJ 13 ( = 15907 MWh) Solar electric (PV) 0,126 MW 77,3 MWh Other (specify) Biogas e.g. STP, farms, landfills 138.793 MWh Incineration plants municipal waste 10.031 MWh
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 61
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
Table 6-3 Amount and structure of secondary and renewable energy sources consumption PJ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Biomass 18 62 121 146 173 228 242 Secondary heat 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Other renewable sources 6 9 13 14 15 14 13 Waste 0 2 5 7 7 7 8 Total 44 93 159 187 215 269 283
Table 6-4 Generation of electricity from renewable sources (TWh)
TWh 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Biomass 0.01 1.60 4.86 6.32 7.81 10.25 10.96 Small hydro power stations 0.52 0.80 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 Wind 0.01 0.57 0.93 1.01 1.25 1.44 1.44 Photovoltaics 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Biogas 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16
Renewable energy pricing and support issues The renewable energy is supported by pricing and by the fact that all energy distributors are obliged to accept these energies to their networks for the regulated price. Also subsidies for development of renewable sources are available, especially from SEF. Unfortunately the conditions (guaranteed prices and subsidy system) are frequently changed, so the economy of these installations is not safe and predictable.
Institutional and public support issues People generally support the idea of renewable energy utilisation. On the other hand they prefer cheap energy sources, i.e. not renewable. Some people support extra charges for green energy offered by energy (esp. electricity) distributors. Big problem is setting of not typical structures like wind mills in countryside. It is frequently rejected by public and green activities protecting birds. The overall environment is supportive until individual is touched.
Conclusions Probably most promising renewable energy source for Czechia is biomass.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 62
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Czech Republic
6.1.2 Experience of Previous and Other Ongoing Investment Programmes There is not too much experience with big variety of projects. It can be stated that most successful projects are those with biomass use.
Table 6-5 Funding by source – Renewable energy, Million Euro, 2000-2006
Source of funding Funding instrument EUR (million)
National funds Co-financing EU SF 9,925 mio€ (ERDF) 2000-2006: renewable sources energy (solar power, wind power, hydro-electricity, biomass)
Others: EU SF (ERDF) 2000-2006: 23,158 mio€ renewable sources energy (solar power, wind power, hydro-electricity, biomass) Note: Distinguish between actual and planed expenditure. Indicate years if only part of the period covered.
Good Practice Lessons or Examples The Czech republic has clearly grasped the importance of the use of renewable energy sources for the economy and for the quality of life. The year expenditure for energy of average household in CR is 25 500 CZK, ie. 850 EUR, of which major part goes for heating and hot water. This is the main field for effective utilisation of renewable energy sources. Czech Republic is one of countries producing and exporting special hi-tech components for renewable energy generation. Majority of people in Czech Republic are a typical example of dual approach – they understand the necessity of renewable sources utilisation but they still prefer cheaper non-renewable sources. Always only cost of energy generation is mentioned, less the overall environmental, health, social and other aspects. It must be stressed that renewable sources are quite specific and have 4 basic potentials to be evaluated: technical, utility, availability and economy. Based on the evaluations co-ordinated by Ministry of Environment hydro energy, biomass energy and solar thermal energy and partly wind energy are most promising for near future. There are already many municipalities which have switched to biomass based central heating systems instead of coal or natural gas. The experience is positive. The bad experience is with too optimistic cost-benefit and recoverability evaluations when preparing feasibility studies and applications for co-financing which later brings disappointment to investor and public.
Conclusions The experience with more systems is already available. For bigger energy generation probably only biomass and hydro power are economical at present. Also liquid bio fuels are promising in some aspect.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 63
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
6.2 Needs 6.2.1 Review of Policy Objectives and Targets – and supporting instruments19 Main findings of the review of policy objectives and targets is as follows: • Utilisation of RES and savings in energy consumption contribute to sustainable utilisation of natural sources, diversification of energy supply and energy demand of economy and thus to sustainable development • RES is involved in so-called priority 3 (sustainable RES utilisation) which is in accordance with national Lisbon programme 2005-2008 according to Czech government decision no.1200 of 14.09.2005. The target is the maximization of energy and material efficiency and rational source exploitation • Intervention areas are set in accordance with priorities of State Environmental Policy approved by Czech government decision no.38/2001 Coll. and State energy conception approved by Czech government decision no.211 of 10.03.2004, i.e. increased utilisation of RES and secondary energy sources, maximization of energy and electro-energy efficiency and promoting energy savings. • Czech Republic agreed in Accession agreement to increase the share of electricity from RES to 8% of gross electricity consumption by the year 2010 and to increase the share of RES on the TPES – Total Primary Energy Supply to 6% by the year 2010. In 2004 the share of RES on TPES was 2,9%, and the share of electricity production from RES was around 4%. • Targets for 2013 – probably linear growth , i.e. up to 10% of electricity generation from RES and up to 7% generation of TPES from RES • Targets for 2030 (Ministry of Industry and Trade – composition of TPES): solid fuels: 31 – 33 % gas fuels: 19 – 20 % liquid fuels: 12 – 13 % nuclear fuel: 23 – 24 % RES: 12 – 13 % • The new Act no. 180/2005 Coll. on support of electricity production from RES has brought fundamental changes of conditions in support of utilisation of RES for electricity generation. But still the level of purchasing price and green bonuses is in some cases below the level of efficient investment to RES sector. The high investment cost of RES together with insufficient capital sources (especially in municipalities) causes the slow development of RES applications. • Legislation support to RES utilisation for heat production is up to now absent. • Global target for 2007-2013 is sustainable energy sources utilisation, especially RES and promoting energy savings. Long term target is increasing RES for electricity production and especially heat and higher utilisation of waste heat. • Specific targets on sustainable RES utilisation:
19 Operation programme for Environment, Ministry of Environment, 2006
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 64 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
to increase capacity for production of heat and electricity from RES to increase utilisation of waste heat and energy savings to decrease energy consumption for heating replacement of fossil fuels and decrease the load on environment
6.2.2 Strategy for reaching the targets19 At the moment the main problems for reaching the targets include: • Insufficient utilisation of RES and very slow promotion of energy savings in all sectors • System of investment subsidies is not sufficient due to low available financial sources • Low understanding of public about advantages of RES and energy savings Priority 3 (sustainable RES utilisation) will force energy savings and RES utilisation especially in non profit sector (public properties, municipal properties etc.). For reduction of energy demand of Czech republic it is necessary to increase heat reuse and focus on energy savings in non profit sector and housing with high cost recovery potential. In period 1990 – 2000 significant improvements took place as result of a decrease in industrial and agricultural production and in the same time a new legislation that came to power together with a number of practical measures for environment improvement. The new economy growth after 2000 and e.g. fast growth of road transport, increasing production of municipal waste, energy a material demand of DGP lead to slowing down the progress in environment improvement in many cases to stagnation or even deterioration. For Czech economy there is typical high energy demand of DGP production. In 2002 it was 62 % higher then EU-25 average based on purchasing parity. It was 90 % higher than in Austria, 58 % higher than in Germany, 38 % higher than in Hungary, 17 % higher than in Poland. As illustrated in the next table; it can be observed that, in contrast with similar new Member States, in Czech Republic after 1995 only small improvement took place.
Table 6-6: Trend in energy demand in period 1995–2002 (changes in %)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
EU-25 100,0 102,0 98,8 97,3 94,2 91,8 92,4 91,0
EU-15 before extension 100,0 102,0 99,0 98,2 95,6 93,5 94,0 92,7
EU-10 new MS 100,0 99,9 93,6 87,3 81,2 77,1 77,5 75,5
Austria 100,0 103,5 101,6 99,2 95,7 92,1 100,2 98,2
Czech Republic 100,0 98,7 100,0 97,7 89,7 91,8 91,4 90,0
Germany 100,0 102,7 100,3 98,1 94,4 92,3 94,2 92,4
Hungary 100,0 100,9 94,6 89,4 86,7 81,1 79,5 77,6
Poland 100,0 101,1 91,2 82,0 75,5 70,2 69,6 67,6
Source: Eurostat
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 65 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
In 2002 was the contribution of RES to gross electricity consumption 4,6 %, in EU-25 it was 12,7 %. Even lower is the contribution of RES to TPES – in Czechia this amounts to 2,2 % while in EU 25 it is 5,7%. The big potential in Czech Republic is mostly processing of biomass for heat production on contrary to e.g. hydro power or wind plants extension and construction. Utilisation of RES is influenced by power supply of hydro power plants and especially the larger ones, which are too dependent on climatic and geographical conditions.
3500 3000 2500
h 2000
GW 1500 1000 500 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
VE nad 10 MW MVE Bioplyn Biomasa Vítr Ostatní
VE nad 10 MW = hydro power plants over 10 MW; MVE = small hydro power plants; Bioplyn = biogass; Biomasa = biomass; Vítr = wind; Ostatní = other Source: Statistics of Ministry of industry and trade
Figure 6-1: Electricity production from RES
As indicated in the table below, the present RES utilisation will have problems with fulfilling the national strategy.
Table 6-7: Indicative data – RES utilisation
Target of national Target UNIT 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 programme 2010 2005 Electricity consumption GWh 63 449 65 108 64 961 67 013 68 616 btto Total electricity production from GWh 2 481 2 768 3 183 1 878 2 768 RES Share of electricity % 3,9 4,3 4,9 2,8 4,0 5,1 8,0 production from RES btto TPES PJ 1 655,8 1 693,1 1 704,9 1 812,8 1 829,2 TPES from RES PJ 34,0 36,5 33,6 49,3 55,6 Share of RES on % 2,1 2,2 2,0 2,7 2,9 3,2 6,0 TPES Source: Statistics of Ministry of industry
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 66 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
RES
nuclear
natural gas
coal
Figure 6-2: Electricity production till 2010
Biomass The most promising RES in Czech republic is biomass – both for electricity and heat generation. The utilization of biomass is well managed and does not have problems with unstable supply like e.g. wind, sun shine, water flow. In 2004 some 414 000 tones of biomass were used for electricity production. Energetic utilization of biomass in 2004: • Electricity generation: 414 000 tones • Heat production: 1 778 000 tones • Heating in households: 1 500 000 tones
Remark: Due to growth of natural gas price more households in rural areas switched in 2005 from gas back to wood and which is much worse even to incineration of MSW (plastics, paper etc.). Some people even collect the waste for this purpose with a very bad impact on air pollution.
Co-incineration of biomass with non-RES is quite common practice – but in future will not receive economical support. Before 2010 it is planned to build several plants for pure biomass produced by agriculture The planned capacity of which is 60 MWe. The required agriculture area for the biomass production is cca 250 000 hectares, which is available and the utilizations is also profitable for country side natural restoration. The act no.180/2005 Coll. will help to support production of energetic agro products. The big progress is expected after 2008.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 67 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Hydropower Hydro power is at present the biggest RES for electricity production. The capacity is 8 % of total sources, but the production is cca 2 % depending on actual flow conditions. Capacity: • Hydro power plants – total 1 014 MW • Electricity supply – 1 615 520 MWh • Re- pumping hydro power plants – 1 145 MW • Electricity supply – 543 400 MWh The available hydro energetic potential is cca 500 GWh. The hydrology conditions are not good compared with existing plants, i.e. the economy of new installations will be much worse with low recoverability. The capacity of new hydro power plants would be cca 100 MW – only small plants with only 2 – 5 m gradient.
Wind Wind is used for electricity production supplied to public network. In 2004 there were 48 turbines operated with capacity 16 442 kW. 32 plant have capacity over 100 kW. Electricity supply in 2004 was 9 743 MWh (in 2003 it was only 3 900 MWh). The average utilization is 12% (only). There are planned more plants with capacity 2000 MW. By the year 2010 it is realistic to complete cca 350 plants with capacity 582 MW. With expected utilization factor of 15% some 760 GWh of electricity will be produced.
Biogas Biogas has good tradition in Czech Republic due to many WWTPs with anaerobic digestion. Now also landfills are involved. In 2004 for energy production 95 369 000 m3 of biogas was used (in 2003 only 77 220 000 m3). Electricity was supplied to public network. Number of installations in 2004 was 119 with capacity 32 540 kW and electricity supply 81 900 MWh. The potential of WWTPs is consumed, only landfill sources and agriculture sources can in future increase the capacity. Experiments with digestion of biomass were done with positive results – co-generation of electricity and heat for heating green houses.
Photovoltaic systems Photovoltaic systems are of minor importance- production of electricity in 2004 was 77,3 MWh. Number of installations is 12. This system will be developed mainly for research purposes. Total capacity will be 123 kWp. Solar thermal energy for heat production is more promising.
Incineration of MSW Incineration of MSW for electricity production is done in 2 of 3 Czech incineration plants with total electricity supply of 6 610 MWh in 2004. The growth is not expected, but some projects are in very beginning of preparation phase with possible potential of capacity growth 3 times.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 68 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
6.2.3 Supply and Demand Forecasts Installed capacity and annual production of electricity generation is presented in the following table.
Table 6-8: Existing and future supply: ELECTRICITY
Renewables Type installed capacity (Mwel) Power/generation/annual production (MWh)
Current (date) Future (eg Current (date) Future (eg 2004 2010) 2004 2010)
Wind 14,5 MW 594,5 MW 10 000 996 000
Hydro (>10 MW) 743 MW 743 MW 1 116 000 1 120 000
Hydro (<10 MW) 272 MW 372 MW 904 000 1 304 000
Solid biomass 150 MW 150 MW 265 000 600 000
co-incineration
Solid biomass 1 227 MW 1 377 MW 327 000 1 400 000
Liquid biofuels
Geothermal
Solar thermal
Solar electric (PV) 0,13 MW 0,25 MW 80 500
Other (specify) MSW 5 MW 10 MW 6 600 15 000
Total 2 411,63 MW 3 246,75 MW 2 628 680 5 435 500 MWh MWh
For HEAT PRODUCTION, a similar table is not available. Biomass utilisation will probably grow several times. Heating systems for biomass are more and more popular, especially for houses (heating with wood) and public heating (all kinds of biomass and co-incineration according to local conditions and sources). Companies take into consideration other issues as availability of energy supply system and therefore prefer natural gas which is available everywhere.
6.2.4 Review of Instruments and Support Schemes - Enabling/hampering factors to meet needs The electricity produced from RES must be accepted by distribution companies. There is a legal obligation to purchase electricity from RES at a fixed price. Green bonuses are applied for electricity supplied by manufacturer of RES to distributor. Minimum prices in 2004 were as follows:
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 69 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Minimum prices in 2004:
RES minimum price in EUR/MWh
Small hydro power plants 62
Wind plants started after 1.1.2004 108
Wind plants started before 1.1.2004 120
Biomass incineration 100
Biomass co-incineration with fossil fuels 80
Biogas started after 1.1.2004 96
Biogas started before 1.1.2004 100
Geothermal 120
Solar 240
There are no extra technical barriers.
Local conditions are favourable especially for biomass which would help environment and in the same time agriculture sector. This is the best cost effective solution.
The farmer producing biomass for energy generation can get the subsidy 2000 CZK/ha.year = 70 EUR/ha.year.
Present subsidies:
• State programme for support of energy savings and RES utilization. Grant up to 30 % of investment cost and up to 104 000 EUR.
• EU funding – Grant up to 46 % of investment cost , up to 1 035 000 EUR
ERDF funding for biomass and other RES utilisation – up to 75 % of eligible cost up to 10 000 000 EUR.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 70 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
6.2.5 Investment Calculation and Comparison Detailed information on the investment needs on renewable energy is lacking. Nevertheless we may conclude renewables need support as pure economy is regarded as not convincing. Most promising is biomass especially with regards heat production.
In 2004, 2.768 GWh of electricity has been supplied from RES or 4% of the total electricity production (see table Table 6-9). Assuming electricity demand does not increase substantially, the target of 8% of the electricity production from RES could be reached by doubling the electricity production from RES or by investing in approx. +2.800 GWh/year electricity from RES.
Expected investments to obtain an increase of +2.719 GWh/y electricity supply from RES are provided in the table below.
Table 6-9: Expected investments in RES for electricity supply
Source Electricity capacity Investment cost Electricity CO2 reduction production kW in MEUR tones/year MWh/year
Small hydro power 100.000 200 400.000 468.000 plants Wind plants 580.000 696 986.000 1.153.620 Biomass 150.000 240 1.073.000 1.255.410 Biomass-co-incineration 0 0 230.000 269.100 Biogas 40.000 32 260.000 304.200 Total 870.000 1.168 2.719.000 3.450.330
Indicative investment needs in RES for heat production are not available. Heating capacity and thus also investment needs for biomass are expected to be much higher than for electricity supply. Additonal investments in RES for heat production can contribute in reaching the target of 6% of the TPES from RES in 2010. Investment needs for public heating may be assumed as the only investment fields to be taken into account as investments in heating by households and companies are beared by themselves. In general, heat generation from biomass seems to be more economical with acceptable recoverability but still subsidies are the forcing power. It may be assumed that the required subsidies can be covered by national funds and that additional support from EU on heat generation from biomass is not a priority.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 71
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
7 NATURAL RISK MANAGEMENT (FIRE, DROUGHT, FLOODS)
7.1 Current situation 7.1.1 Current State of Provision An overview of key figures on the current state of provision in the field of natural risk management is presented in chapter 9.1.5.
Floods The territory of the Czech Republic does not belong into risk areas in terms of the occurrence of natural disasters of seismic or volcanic origin, nor disasters originating from climate extremes such as hurricane or tornado, and thus floods represent the highest natural risk. Results of a systematic examination of flood damages in the CR during 1971-1990 show that mean annual flood damages amounted to 500 million CZK (at 1990 price level). However, this period experienced floods, whose damages were several-fold compared to this average, such as the flood in 1991, whose damages exceeded 3 milliard CZK (0,1 bil.EUR). Results of a detailed examination show that damages caused by 1997 July flood reached 62.6 milliard CZK (2,1 bil.EUR) and those of 1998 July flood amounted to 1.8 milliard CZK (0,06 bil EUR). In the Czech Republic there is a growing awareness about integrated water management. Water professionals have adequate tools to motivate water-claims and to use them as a communication-tool towards other authorities and the general public. Firstly, the risk-analysis tool promises to be a powerful tool to assess the economical impact of both preventive and reactive measures to increase safety. Secondly, the risk- analysis tool is also a step towards cost recovery, which is one of the obligations of the EU Water Framework Directive. In fact, in this methodology the water managers can prove that measures are needed to avoid damage to a certain type of land use. Further spatial development that requires further protection can be economically assessed and the cost of possible measures can be transferred to those who want to develop an area. The possibility to look either to preventive (technical and spatial) and reactive solutions makes this tool even more powerful. Methods to determine active zones of floodplains were developed. Although some details are still “under construction”, a big step forward has been made in this field. Fires In 2004, 846 fires with total loss of CZK 31,147,000 occurred in forestry, six persons died and other 23 were injured. Total of 5 major fire cases (with damage of CZK 1 million or more) caused total loss of CZK 17,4 mil., i.e. only 0,6 % of fires caused 54 % of losses. Compared to 2003, the number of fires dropped by 49,5 %, losses dropped by 15,5 %. Fires destroyed or damaged 334.5 hectares of forest growth.
Table 7-1: Fires - survey in branches in 2004 Number of Part Inde Direct loss in Part Inde Fataliti Injur Business branch fires in % x % thous. CZK in % x % es ed Forestry 846 3,99 49 32 146,57 1,93 84 6 23 100,0 100,0 Total 21 191 73 1 669 305,14 91 126 918 0 0
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 73 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Existing risk assessments Flooding Results on the impact assessment of the flooding in 20023: In late 2003, the project entitled Evaluation of the Catastrophic Floods in August 2002 was completed as ordered by the Government in its Resolution 977/2002. The full wording of the Project Final Report is available at the website of the Ministry of the Environment at www.env.cz and of T.G.M. WRI at www.vuv.cz. In addition, all partial findings of individual blocks were confronted with the principles of the Flood Protection Strategy in the Czech Republic. There were some problematic areas identified in which changes should be made in order to improve the system interaction concerning flood prevention processes. In all preventive measures, it is necessary to take better care to ensure the systematic and consistent enforcement of the principles of the strategy mentioned above. Some of these must be implemented under simulated hazardous situations through systematic training attended by public administration bodies, professional organizations and the public (including schoolchildren). Repeated heavy precipitation within a short-time interval of several days is a rather sporadic scenario; however, history provides us with reports of some extreme events of summer regional floods followed by secondary floods (e.g. in 1890 and 1997). The likelihood of extreme floods in the Czech Republic repeated on a scale similar to that in August 2002 cannot be reliably calculated at this point and this situation will remain unchanged for several years to come. In the past there have been several successions of large-scale summer floods reported in the area of the Vltava River (1872, 1890, 1897, 1899). Drought Results of the impact assessment of drought in 20033: During the season, the drought reached several waves with two marked peaks. The first was in June, when the critical drought covered 47% of the Czech Republic and affected most of the important crop growing regions. The second peak was in August, covering 53% of the country and exceeding the scope of the June peak. The drought had an impact on a considerable part of production areas of the Czech Republic, critically spreading during the second half of the summer particularly in Moravia, where – in addition to the lowland regions with agricultural production around Olomouc and Brno – the areas of Opava, Ostrava and Nový Jičín were also affected. In the Czech Republic, all regions were critically affected, except for the border mountain ranges and the Českomoravská vrchovina highland. Even though the descriptions of draught looks like disaster, the impact on economy and inhabitants was low.
Institutional issues Flooding and droughts Ministry of Agriculture Forest fire Ministry of Internal Affairs
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 74 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Conclusions Of highest priorities are floods. Protection on EU-15 level ask for big investments. Fire protection is on good level. Drought is not so dangerous in Czech Republic. The flood damages depend mainly on the following factors: • magnitude and evolution of the flood, which can be described by its maximum flow, shape, and volume of the hydrograph, and the duration of the flood, • conditions and capacity of river channels, extent and effectiveness of preventive technical and non-technical measures for protection against floods, • structure and use of urban areas and mainly their location with respect to flood plain areas, • reliability of the flood forecasting and warning services, • time advance of public notification concerning flood danger, • readiness and ability to organise measures for protection of lives and properties during floods, • readiness to organise flood rescue activities and their promptness.
7.1.2 Experience of Previous Investment Programmes The programme newly established by MoA called the Programme for the Renewal, Dredging and Reconstruction of Fishponds and Water Management Reservoirs is a new support programme shown in the Report about the Performance of Programmes which is linked to the systematically proposed flood prevention programmes. In flood situations in recent years, fishponds and water management reservoirs have proven their not insignificant role in the flood prevention protection of territories, which is one of the most important non-production roles of fishponds and water management reservoirs. For this reason, emphasis is placed in particular on reinforcing the retention function of fishponds.
ISPA programme (2000-2004 Most investments under the ISPA programme relate to waste water or mixed water (drinking water supply and waste water) projects: see chapter 3.1.2.
Table 7-2: ISPA funded investments in the field of natural risk management Name of the project Total costs Subsidies from the Registration number in MEUR ISPA Fund
Floods 2002 relief: reconstruction of transport and 17,65 15 environment infrastructure damaged or destroyed by floods during August 2002 located in the Czech Republic – part ENV 2002/CZ/16/P/PM/001
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 75 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Cohesion fund (2004-2006)
Table 7-3: Overview of CF projects (eligible costs), 2004-2006
Project title Full cost Cohesion Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%)
Environmental protection 16,857 12,642 75% (Flood protection, desertification, affrestration, Natura 2000, etc.): 1 project Source: EC DG Regio - Note: Technical Assistance projects are not included: 1,310 mio EUR (CF share for the sum of environmental projects : 1,228 mio EUR, national funds: 0,082 mio EUR) 2000- 2006 - Note: Figures do not include other mixed environmental projects: 35,294 mio EUR (CF share 30 mio EUR, national funds 5,294 mio EUR)
For further data see chapter 3.1.2. and chapter 9.1.6.
Structural funds (European Regional Development Fund) (2004-2006)
Table 7-4: Overview of EAGGF projects, 2000-2006
Measure title Full cost ERDF Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%) Restoring forestry 3,96 2,899 73% production potential damaged by natural disasters and fire and introducing appropriate prevention instruments Agricultural water 18,478 14,367 78% resources management (*) Restoring agricultural 22,678 17,632 78% production potential damaged by natural disasters and introducing appropriate prevention instruments TOTAL 45,116 34,898 77% Source: EU DG REGIO (*): Presented investments only cover partly investments on natural risk management (flooding, drought) Note : EAGGF= European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund See also chapter 3.1.2. and 9.1.6 for more details on the SF.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 76 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Good Practice Lessons or Examples In general, risk management is well integrated in public awareness and policy development in Czech Republic. There is a growing awareness about integrated water management and water professionals have adequate tools to motivate water-claims and to use them as a communication-tool towards other authorities and the general public. Methods to determine active zones of floodplains were developed in Czech Republic. Although some details are still “under construction”, a big step forward has been made in this field. The programme newly established by MoA called the Programme for the Renewal, Dredging and Reconstruction of Fishponds and Water Management Reservoirs is a new support programme shown in the Report about the Performance of Programmes which is linked to the systematically proposed flood prevention programmes. Because preventive measures are expensive there is a big discussion about the level and technical design of protection. This is observed in many Member States.
Conclusions The most important programme, and the one with the greatest financial burden, is the Flood Prevention Programme managed by the MoA. As of 31.12.2002, it was possible to approve the documentation of the programme by the MoF, to ensure the financing of the programme by co-financing from national and foreign sources, and start the systematic implementation of selected priority measures for flood prevention in the areas of the Czech Republic most at risk. The eventual aim by 2005 was to increase the current level of flood protection in contiguous built up areas which corresponds to the increase in flows from Q20 to min. Q50 and, in justified cases, in non-built up areas from Q5 to Q20. Another no less important aim is to increase the number of designated flood territories along the significant watercourses from the current 51,4 % to an assumed approx. 75 %, which means achieving a level comparable with selected countries of Western Europe. The implementation of this programme requires investments in the amount of approximately CZK 4,15 billion.
There were more successful projects executed after floods in Moravia and Bohemia. The later floods happened, the lower the priority to continue with financing of measures.
7.2 Needs 7.2.1 Review of Policy Objectives and Targets – and supporting instruments In Czech Republic floods and fires are of major risks.
Fires In 2005, compared to 2004, number of fires declined by 4,8 %, and fire damages dropped by 2,1 %. Total of 257 major fire cases (with fire damages of CZK 1 million or more), i.e. 1.3 % of the total number, caused 61 % of the total sum of fire damages. In 2005, the number of fatalities was higher by 10,3 % and number of injured people lower by 0,4 %.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 77 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
In 2005 some 55 fires occurred daily in the Czech Republic, with an average damage of EUR 148.000. Values salvaged by fire units were 4.4 times higher then the direct loss.
Floods Floods occurring on Czech territory can be sorted as follows: a) Natural: • winter and spring floods caused by snow melting, possibly in combination with rain falls. These flood occur mainly in submontane rivers and they continue further to lowland portions of big rivers ( e.g. flood in March 1981 – upper and middle Elbe, catchment Ohře, upper Morava, flood in 2000 – catchment Jizera and upper Elbe) • summer floods caused by long lasting regional rains. They occur usually in all streams in hit area, usually with serious subsequence in middle size and big rivers (e.g. flood in July 1981 – catchment Berounka, Vltava and Elbe, flood in August 1985 – catchment Odra, Morava and Dyje, flood in July 1997 – catchment Morava, Odra and upper Elbe, flood in August 2002 – catchment Vltava, lower Elbe and Dyje) • summer floods caused by short lasting rains with high intensity (frequently over 100 mm in few hours) which hit relatively small areas. They can occur anywhere in small rivers, catastrophic subsequences occur especially if the catchment is slopy and fan-shaped (e.g.flood in June 1979 – Stěnava and upper Metuje, flood in July 1979 and July 1987 – Jílovský brook, flood in July 1987 – Dřevnice and Vsetínská Bečva, flood in July 1998 in Rychnov region) • winter floods caused by ice phenomenon even during relatively low flows. They occur in parts of river predisposed to ice blocking (e.g. ice blocking in January 1982 – Berounka, Cidlina, Ohře, in February 1985 – catchment Morava, Dyje, Sázava) The floods coming from abroad can occur only on rivers Ohře (inflow to Skalka reservoir and on river Dyje (inflow to Vranov reservoir). b) Specific: This category includes flood caused by artificial power, i.e. situations which can occur in structures for accumulation of water. Owners and operators are obliged to ensure qualified technical and safety supervision which has to ensure continuous monitoring of technical status such as static stability, safety, possible accidents and designing measures for improvements. For the purpose of supervision water structures are classified to categories I. – IV. according to value of damage in area below the water structure in case of breakdown. Analysis of specific floods, their consequences and stages of flood activities are indicated in flood plans of regions. Floods cause in Czech Republic big damages (in period 1980 – 1988 it was yearly in average 20 mil. EUR and 10 lives). Frequently costs of the flood damages exceed the value of 40 mil. EUR. – e.g. flood in July 1981 at Berounka, Vltava and Elbe. Approximately 40-50 % of these costs were related to damages in agriculture, 15-20% was damages of river beds and structures and the rest was local damages in the flooded areas (excl. loss of human lives and other non-economic damages).
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 78 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
During the last 10 years the two biggest floods in Czech Republic in last 100 years have occurred. In 1997 in July there were floods in Morava river basin, 60 lives were lost and direct material damages (without losses in production) were 2,5 bil. EUR. In August 2002 catastrophic floods hit Vltava river basin and further also lower Elbe (‘also in Germany). It was the biggest known flood in Czech Republic. The damages were 2,9 bil. EUR and 17 lives were lost. During last years almost every year dangerous floods occur.
7.2.2 Risk Forecasts No data has been provided on this issue.
7.2.3 Instruments and Support Schemes – Enabling/hampering factors to meet needs No data available.
7.2.4 Investment Calculation and Comparison – Natural Risk Management No detailed information on investment needs for natural risk management is available at the moment. Nevertheless, based on the limited information available, following conclusions can be made on the investment needs in this field:
Flood Flood is one of the highest priorities. If protection levels as in the EU-15 countries want to be reached, big investments will be required. One of the aims is to increase the number of designated flood territories along the significant watercourses from the current 51,4 % to an assumed approx. 75 %, which means achieving a level comparable with selected countries of Western Europe. The implementation of this programme requires investments in the amount of approximately 146 MEUR. As big flood disasters occur almost every year, it was stated by the government that additional 800 MEUR should go to the sector to prevent these events. This indicated financial need is not limited to the next programming period. An investment need of approx 100 MEUR (98,6 MEUR) has already been indicated to cover the costs of preventive measures. However, this may be assumed as an underestimation of the real actual investment needs. As no more detailed information is available, we assume these rough estimates as the lower and upper bound of the investment needs on natural risks: 100 - 800 MEUR. We propose to use an investment cost of 450MEUR as best proxy to base the investment needs on natural risks on. Forest fire Fire protection is on good level. We may assume investment needs in this field are negligible. Drought Drought is not so dangerous in Czech Republic. We may assume there are no investment needs in this field.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 79 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 7-5: Summary of investment cost – natural risks Type of Indicative Investment Cost investment MEUR MEUR
Long term planning – preventive Governments long term target to Floods measures cover actual needs in short period after flood events (***)
98,6 (*) 800 (**)
Drought 0 0
Forest fires (Negligible) (Negligible)
Total investment 98,6 800
(*) assumed to be an underestimation by the national evaluator (**): including reserves for big disasters. (***): long term target exceeding the 2007-2013 programming period
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 80 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
8 PRIORITY ASSESSMENT
8.1 Part 1: summarising the needs assessment This part is designed to summarise the needs assessment.
It partly helps to address the difficulties of estimating the total investment needs in all cases by making using of qualitative analysis and physical indicators as well as available financial assessments. The summary consists of three tables:
o Error! Reference source not found.
o Error! Reference source not found.
o Error! Reference source not found.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 81 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Summary of qualitative needs assessment providing context and background to the priority assessment and quantitative key indicators are presented in following two tables:
Table 8-1: : Needs Summary: Qualitative Analysis
CZECH REPUBLIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT TABLE – SUMMARY 1
WATER WASTE WATER WASTE RES NATURAL HAZARDS
Future needs being Extension of current New STPs Remediation of old Biomass Flood protection addressed by current network to rural areas landfill sites initiatives – such as Renovation of existing New sewerage RWMCs existing plans or plants investment Renovation of existing Sludge treatment Training and public network awareness Renovation / upgrading of STPs Future needs requiring Extension of current New STP’s Remediation of old further planning and/or network to rural areas landfills investment in 2007 – 2013 – indicating any Renovation of existing Renovation / upgrading Waste collection changes in the plants of STP’s (separate waste importance and/or size collection) of future needs in the Renovation of existing Renovation / upgrading New RWMCs next period compared to network of sewerage the current one. New sewerage Public awareness raising campaigns Storm water detention Incineration tanks, reconstruction of trunk sewers and upgrade of CSO Limited needs (less Sludge treatment Extension of existing Hydropower (small scale) Forest fires important issues or infrastructure issues already addressed)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 82 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 1-2: Needs Summary - Key Indicators
CZECH REPUBLIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT TABLE – SUMMARY 2 NATURAL WATER WASTE WATER WASTE RES HAZARDS
Future needs Between 80.9% (rural) Gap between present infra Construction of RWMCs: 30 Targets 2010: Flood protection: requiring planning and 99.9% (urban) of and requirements UWWTD: to 50 8% of gross electricity increase current level and/or investment inhabitants is supplied # missing plants: 46 consumption comes from of flood protection: in 2007 – 2013 – with public networks. # obsolete plants: 304. Recultivation of old landfills RES (situation 2004: in build up areas from indicating the type Goal: 95% of inhabitants. Usually for small and removal of old env loads: 4%). Q20 to Q50 and physical Focus needs: rural areas municipalities with <10 6% of the total primary approx 10.000 sites of which In non-built up areas requirement 000PE need new plants. 163 are remediated and 741 energy supply comes Plants in bigger from RES (situation from Q5 to Q20 in progress municipalities need for 2004: 2,9%) upgrading for nutrient Targets 2013: 10% gross removal electricity; 7% TPES
Increase of drinking water Approx. 25% of existing Extension of the separate Most promising: 1. Increase the number quality by reconstruction sewers are in poor condition. MSW collection system to biomass energy (for of designated flood of network (a lot in 9000 km of sewers are in curb site collection facilities heat+ electricity supply). territories from the asbestos cement pipes) need of rehabilitation. 11% current 51,4% to and upgrading of the unit of sewage system are Others: 2. hydro-energy, approx. 75% Composting installations: operations and new currently not connected to 3. solar thermal energy, 600 to 1.000 composting technology sets : approx. STP. New sewer systems 4. partly wind energy sites of which majority small 3.303 km of long distance needed in rural areas. scale (4 to 8 large and 5.633 km of local composting plants) distance network needed Of all infrastructure that Significant investment 1 additional incineration Development of Flood protection: lack need to be upgraded or required to upgrade CSO, plants and 3 existing legislation to support of co-ordination of replaced, 75% of the reconstruction of trunk incineration plants in need RES for heating protective measures infrastructure is worn-out sewers and construction of for upgrading and 25% is not compliant: storm water detention tanks approx. 433 plants in (1,5 million m3) need for renovation Current water loss 21% Sewage connection rate: Target : provide 100% of promotion for energy from 79.1% (now) to 95% households with collection savings for households (future). Now: 11% of services and to separate and economic sectors sewage system are currently and reuse waste at not connected to STP maximum level Transition period UWWTD: 2010
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 83 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Summary of investment needed over the next Programming Period 2007-2013, including the different types of investments or examples when a complete picture is not possible. Key gaps are highlighted so account can be taken of missing data.
Table 1-3: Needs Summary: Indicative Investment Needed
Czech Republic NEEDS ASSESSMENT TABLE – SUMMARY 3 Needs requiring investment in 2007 - 2013 WATER WASTE WATER WASTE RES NATURAL HAZARDS
Indicative level of Best estimate: 1.200 Best estimate: 2.400 Best estimate: 529 Best estimate: 1.168 Best estimate: 450 investment for the Range: 1.200 -1.588 Range: 2.400 - 20.251 Range: 529 - 5.152 Range: 100 - 800 Field (Meuro): Indicative Improvement of water Extension sewers network Waste collection and Best estimate ONLY = purely indicative proxy. examples of the quality (acc. EC 98/83/EC). and new treatment plants sorting : 79 MEUR, i.e. covers investments in types of in rural areas need for improved separate RES for electricity Range is based on investment Improvement of raw water collection system production and not heat estimate of investment needed: quality (acc. EC Renovation of existing Recovery: 35 MEUR, production. need to limit disasters 75/440/EC) sewers network and recycling yards and large from flood based on the upgrading of existing number of small scale Small-scale hydro: 200 probability of flood Investments in new water treatment plants (nutrient composting plants MEUR disasters in the past (800 supply systems in poor and removal) Wind power: 696 MEUR MEUR) and investment rural areas in more urban areas Disposal: 414 MEUR, i.e. Biomass: 240 MEUR needs on preventive recultivation and Biogas: 32 MEUR structures against flood Upgrading of old Construction of storm remediation of old landfills (100 MEUR) infrastructure (infra from water detention Share of investments in sixties, lack of good tanks/basins Remark: upper bound biomass will probably be maintenance, replacement range is official estimate of much higher when of steel and asbestos- Upgrading of CSOs investment need for TOTAL including investments in cement pipes) solid waste management RES for heat production.
Key data gaps: / No data gaps Czech unit cost are Data gaps: investments in Detailed data on total missing RES for public heat investment needs is High Czech unit costs production & unit costs missing compared to default unit Official estimate on the costs national investment Source and base of data needs for municipal solid on expected investments waste is not available. to be provided.
Physical needs are based on Czech waste experts’ estimations
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 84 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
8.2 Part 2: Assessing priorities within fields This part describes the types of investments per field ranked according to priority and considers the following three issues in terms of assessing the requirements for investment funding from the ERDF/CF funds (the financial requirement):
This section considers the following three issues in terms of assessing the requirements for investment funding from the ERDF/CF funds (the financial requirement):
• Alternative Funding Sources: The scope to meet investment needs through the market or through national programmes in each Field (but mainly Fields 4 and 5)
• Use of Flanking Measures: The scope to reduce investment needs through the use of flanking or complementary measures – mainly through the use of user charges in each Field (but mainly Fields 1, 2, 3)
• Administrative Capacity: The scope to manage and deliver the indicative investment needs identified taking into account the administrative capacity of the Member State in each Field, (but especially Fields 1, 2, 3)
8.2.1 Priorities within the fields Field 1: water supply Focus should lie upon the improvement of the quality of water and reliability of water supply. Investments in the replacement of existing network and upgrading of the unit operations and new technology sets at drinking water production plants should be the largest priority. Funding should not go to extension of capacity except for the rural areas. There is still a need for investments and financial help to connect more inhabitants to sources of safe and good quality water in rural areas. Investments in rural areas include in the first place the extension of the water supply network and to a lesser extent also new water production plants.
Field 2: waste water treatment Rehabilitation of the existing sewage system and the increase of the connection rate of the sewage should receive high priority. Significant investments are also required for waste water collection systems: CSOs are in need for upgrading, trunk sewers need to be reconstructed and storm water detention tanks should be constructed. Special attention should also go to sludge treatment and sludge management. Next to this, the type of projects to be funded will be mostly a continuation of the previous funding period: new STPs for smaller settlements (<10.000PE), improvement of existing STPs with nutrient removal for larger settlements and new sewer network (focus on rural areas (in general Czech Republic has already one of the highest connection rates of the EU10 MSs) and should be done in combination with building of new STPs). It is to be expected that in the coming period, the scale of the projects will decrease (smaller agglomerations needing adequate water water treatment), hence establishing a greater need for capacity building. This is also valid for field 1.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 85 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Field 3: municipal solid waste There is a clear parallel with field 2. The type of projects to be funded will also be mostly a continuation of the previous funding period. Emphasis will lie on waste management systems, including composting, recycling, sorting, disposal. The biggest financial need goes to disposal (i.e. remediation of existing landfills). Special attention should also go to the improvement of the separate collection system and awareness raising campaigns on waste prevention, reuse and separate collection. Incineration is often opposed to by public because of negative environmental image.
Field 4: RES RES priorities are first of all a function of technical, utilisabibility, availability and economy aspects. This would emphasize the need for relatively more funding of biomass projects and to a lesser extent hydro energy, solar thermal energy and partly wind energy. Next to infrastructure investment needs, there is a need to promote energy savings for households and economic sectors. Potential of additional hydro-energy plants limited to small-scale hydro plants. Wind power energy is often opposed to because of environmental impact. There is a potential from market schemes to cover a substantial part of the financing needs but additional support is necessary seen the insufficient capital sources at local (municipalities) level.
Field 5: Risk Flooding prevention measures are currently seen as the only issue requiring EU funding.
8.2.2 Alternative Funding Sources Existing or planned ways of supporting investment to meet needs through for example market support measures (such as guaranteed prices for renewables) In Field 4 (RES): Electricity RES is supported by feed-in tariffs, with an obligation to accept these energies in the electricity network (see 6.2.4.). Second, subsidies for development of RES projects are available from SEF. Farmers producing biomass for energy generation can get a subsidy of 70€/ha.year. Other present subsidies: see 4.4.6. Unfortunately, conditions (guaranteed prices and subsidy system) are frequently changed which scares off investments. The new act no. 180/2005 Coll. on support of electricity production from RES has brought fundamental change of conditions in support of utilisation of RES for electricity generation. In principle the green bonuses and the feed-in tariffs are probably the main condition for implementation of projects in electricity generation from RES. But still the level of purchasing price and green bonuses is in some cases below the level of efficient investment to RES sector. The high investment cost of RES together with insufficient capital sources (especially in municipalities) causes the slow development of RES applications. Heat Heat generation from biomass seems to be more economical with acceptable recoverability but still subsidies are the forcing power. Without subsidies, fossil fuels
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 86 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
would be cheaper in unit costs. This means pure market conditions wouldn’t be sufficient to stimulate investments in heat generation from biomass.
The extent to which the type of investment needed has previously been funded by the MS; and / or is already part of nationally funded plans; and/or is considered to be a MS responsibility – indicating that the need will be met by the MS and is therefore not dependent on SF support
Field 1 (water supply): external support is expected for investments in poor and rural areas. Big municipalities have solved their major problems in past and now solve the financing of improvements of networks according to contracts between assets owner and operation company which usually state that part of water tariff is reserved for infrastructure rehabilitation.
Field 2 (waste water): Investments in waste water still asks for big support as the whole country is declared as sensitive area. Priority goes to the protection of all ground and surface water sources as the total capacity of sources in the country is limited. To comply with the acquis some important investments still need to be made that local MS funds (user charges) cannot overcome on its own.
Field 3 (waste): Based on the figures provided on the sources of financing in 2002 in the waste sector, one can state that the share of internal sources (public and private) amounts to approx. 76% of total expenditures. Important to note however is that these expenditures include other waste than municipal waste and investments in typical private infrastructure on recycling. Separate collection systems can be expected as to be co-financed by private funding (e.g. compliance schemes based on the producers’ responsibility)
Second, every landfill operator is obliged to create a financial reserve for reclaiming and decontamination at the end of the operations. This does however not cover old landfills and (illegal) waste dumps facing large investment needs on remediation to limit their environmental impacts on groundwater and soil contamination. If commerce bodies and enterprises prove the environmental old load was not caused by them, remediation is financed by public funding. In this sense, one may assume external funding needs are required for the remediation of old landfills.
Field 4 (RES): There is not too much experience with projects in the field of RES, most successful projects are those on biomass use.
Field 5 (risk): The protection against flood is a “traditional” policy field on which MS contribution has been provided in the past and also may be expected in the future. This does not mean a considerable input from external funds isn’t required. Investment needs on flood protection requires large investment which cannot be solved with MS funds only.
8.2.3 Use of Flanking Measures The current application of user charges and the associated revenue at current rates in the given fields over the period 2007-2013. Field 1 (water supply): Part of water tariff revenues is reserved for infrastructure rehabilitation. The user charges are estimated to finance 29% of the investment costs
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 87 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
and 62% of the operation and maintenance cost (+ca. 9% profit). Revenues have not been included in indicated total investment needs in this field.
Field 2 (waste water): User charges evolve in the same way as water supply tariffs. Revenues have not been included in indicated total investment needs in this field.
Field 3 (waste): user charges are assumed to cover 20% if the investment needs. Landfill charges should cover the investment needs to remediate the landfill at the end of operations. Revenues have not been included in indicated total investment needs in this field.
The scope to raise additional revenue through higher rates of existing charges or from new charges where none yet exist to contribute to the financing requirement. Field 1 and 2: An increase of 2 to 3% (+inflation) of the user charges can be expected. This growth is regarded to be needed to cover the costs of water supply & treatment, taking into account normal investment conditions and proportional assets repair and reconstruction.
Field 3: No new charging /tariff systems are planned to be introduced. Charges will increase to the same extent as the service costs. The increase is expected to equal the inflation rate of ca. 5%/y + recovery of new investments. Higher user charges could be a stimulation for people to separate waste and reuse but in general people do not accept more expensive waste handling.
Revenues raised assuming that domestic water/WWT/waste user charges (taken together) account for 5% of average household income (after tax). Field 1-2-3: see previous question. For waste the current charge equals to 0,6% of an average household income. For water this amounts to 1,5% (approx. 0,8% for water supply and 0,7% for waste water) The affordability should be 4% (2%+2%) for drinking and waste water. The total share of domestic water/WWT/waste user charges on the average household income equals to 2,1% which means the affordability level of 5% is far from being reached for an average household.
PPP’s and other measures with effect on need for investment Field 1-2: For water supply we may assume user charge can cover a certain part of the investment needs. Data is lacking to calculate the total revenues from the user charges for 2007-2013, but based on the share of the user charges that goes to investment (29%), a tariff of 0,32 to 120 EUR/m3 and a forecasted total drinking water demand of 589 - 720 million m3 a year (in 2013), we may assume user charges will have a medium effect on the investment needs for water supply.
At the moment private investing is not developed. The majority of infrastructure is owned by municipalities either directly or through joint stock operation companies owned by municipalities. A large hampering factor is the limited possibility to increase water tariffs to economical level which makes recovery of these private investments too risky. However, the strategy of the Czech Republic in the coming years will consist in an attempt to also utilise private capital for co-financing projects from the CF, in co- operation with the EC, which has already issued preliminary manuals for this purpose.
Field 3: In Czech Republic the private market of waste management is well developed with big competitions between companies for supplying their services to municipalities.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 88 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
PPPs is quite common practice. We may assume the involvement of private sector in MSW has a substantial effect on the investment needed. (Cf also 1.1.1.2).
Field 1-2-3-4: Government accepts the use of PPP in Czech Republic. A new Act, setting the rules for PPP has been signed by the Czech President on April 5, 2006. The Act focus on transport infrastructure, education, heath, etc. Environment as such is not mentioned but can be regarded as “public infrastructure” which is also mentioned in the text. In general, the environmental sector is not assumed to be attractive for PPP in the nearby future for the reasons already mentioned for fields 1-2: limited possibility to increase water tariffs to economical level in order to make investment recovery possible. Next to this, public opinion need more time after the Communist period to get used to the economic approach of PPP. Public acceptance is low as basic human needs should not be the source of revenues for private companies.
8.2.4 Assessing the Capacity to Deliver Investment Programmes The relevant capacity comprises:
• The MS administrative capacity to prepare an agreed operational programme within the national strategic reference frameworks and the time required to achieve this
• The MS administrative capacity to plan and permit programmes in each of the fields and the time required to achieve this taking into account the current state of the project pipeline (number and quality of relevant investment projects)
• The capacity of municipalities and utilities to contract and implement investment programmes in each of the fields Field 1-2-3: In these fields, there is already experience with CF and SF funding in the previous years and different projects are still on-going. We may expect administrative capacity is largely in place to absorb the investments. However, most important institutional challenge is the fact that the planned programmes affect a lot of settlements and service providers (and more and more smaller settlements) especially in the field of water supply, waste water, and municipal waste. Therefore the following urgent tasks have to be fulfilled: • Improvement of project preparation (planning phase); • Improvement of project adsorption capacity at beneficiaries (local experts at municipalities); • Avoidance of the over planning by capacities; • Ensure substantial role for inspection of affordability and willingness to pay issues during planning process.
Field 4: There is limited experience with SF funding in the past but strong support in the field of RES is expected as reaching the targets based on pure economy is difficult. The new act no. 180/2005 Coll. on support of electricity production from RES has brought fundamental change of conditions in support of utilisation of RES for electricity generation. But still the level of purchasing price and green bonuses is in some cases below the level of efficient investment to RES sector. The high investment cost of RES
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 89 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
together with insufficient capital sources (especially in municipalities) causes the slow development of RES applications. Absorption capacity at local level should be increased.
Field 5: Flood protection is a “traditional” policy field for which considerable national budget was available in the past and with strong engineering know-how from experts in water management. Furthermore, for each project and certainly for the more technical solutions, the risk of opposition for both the agricultural and the green lobby should be anticipated.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 90 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 1-4: Estimate of the Financial Requirement for all fields, 2007-2013 Stage in the Field Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 Assessment Water supply Waste Water Waste RES Risk A: Indicative Total Investment Needs (Meuro) 1.200 2.400 529 1.168 (*) 450 (*) – from Table 3 B: Investments likely to be covered by market schemes Negligible (ia) Negligible (ia) Negligible (ia) 779 (ib) - (eg purchasing of renewables) C: Amount recovered from existing user charges not 850 (iia) 850 (iib) 106 (iic) - - included in investment need D: Further amount that could be recovered from higher rates for existing or (iii) (iii) (iii) - - new charges to fund investment E: Financing Requirement Before Absorption Review 350 1.550 423 389 450 (A-B-C-D) (Meuro) F: Absorptive Capacity (% of Financing Requirement 80 % (iv) 80% (iv) 80 % (iv) 80% (iv) 80 % (iv) (E)) G: Financing Requirement After Absorption Review 280 1.240 338 311 360 (Meuro)
(*) Rough proxies. More detailed information is required to make a real assessment on the investment needs in these fields. Investment needs for RES only cover those for electricity production and not those for heat production.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 91 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
(ia) Government accepts the use of PPP in Czech Republic. A new Act, setting the rules for PPP has been signed by the Czech President on April 5, 2006. But, in general the environmental sector is not assumed to be attractive for PPP in the nearby future (ib) Even without taking into account subsidies for investments in RES, the purchasing of electricity from RES at a minimum electricity price (2004), the expected investments needs identified for small hydropower, wind, biomass and biogas could be fully covered (revenues from selling electricity from RES amounts to 265 MEUR/year or 1.852 MEUR over 7 years). This is in contrast with the indicated deficiency of the purchasing prices in some cases to have cost-efficient investments in RES. The determination of the role of the market schemes in stimulating investments in RES is complex. Market schemes may not be assumed as a strong driver if market fluctuations, uncertainty, public resistance and other factors hampering investments in RES are taken into account. However, we may assume that market schemes may have a substantial role in covering the investment needs in Czech Republic (cf. new act. No 180/2005). Therefore, we assume 2/3rd of the investment needs can be covered by market schemes. This is an indicative proxy. A justified estimate of investments likely to be covered by market schemes need to be determined. (iia) Proxy based on current average user charge (0,713 EUR/m3), a share of 29% of the user charge that goes to investments and a minimal total drinking water demand (situation 2013: 589 million m3/year) (iib) Current average user charge is 0,68 EUR/m3. Revenue is an indicative figure based on proxy (iia) (iic) Assumed contribution from charges to finance investments in MSW of approx. 20% (iii) Effect of increased user charges on the amount that could be recovered can’t be determined based on the available information. It is not expected to largely influence the financial requirements. (iv) Absorption capacity is based on the expenditures absorbed in the previous investment period including expert judgement related to an expected change in the absorption capacity for the investment period to come.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 92 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
8.3 Part 3: Assessing priorities across Fields This Part assesses the priorities across the five fields depending on the criteria, taken into account the total estimated need (see Table 1-4 above) and the contribution of the different types of investment per field for each criterion. Hence this part creates the possibility, by describing different scenarios, to quantify the financial impact of a policy decision of the weight of a criterion. 8.3.1 Financial requirement This table gives a) the financial requirement (absolute and relative) for all 5 fields, as determined in Table 1-4 above; b) the absolute and relative structural assistance in the previous period (see chapter 2).
Table 1-5: Overview of funding in past period and total financial need estimated in next planning period
Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 TOTAL DWS WW MSW RES RISK Past period funding (2000-2006) in Meuro 188 719 165 33 80 1.184 Past period funding (2000-2006) in % 16% 61% 14% 3% 7% 100%
280 1.240 338 311 360 2.529 Total financial need (2007-2013) in Meuro 11% 49% 13% 12% 14% 100% Total financial need (2007-2013) in %
This table already indicates 2 major changes from the previous period to the next planning period: • The total need is approx. 2 times larger; • Although the “traditional acquis compliance” fields (waste water and waste) still predominate, a substantial financial need is identified for the fields renewable energy supply and natural risk management. The increased share for these latter fields compensate the drop in the share of investment needs for drinking water and waste water
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 93 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
8.3.2 Multi-criteria Analysis (MCA) Each of the different types of investment should be assessed for their contribution to specific criteria. These criteria (Box A) reflect different benefits that the investment might be expected to contribute to.
Box A: Criteria for Scoring the Potential Impact of Different Types of Investment
Contribution of investment to:
1. securing compliance with the acquis (e.g. because of replacement of non-compliant treatment plant)
2. avoiding economic and social damages (e.g. because of reduced natural risks of flooding, fire or because of improved environmental quality, or because of increased security of supply)
3. encouraging new technology and market development (e.g. priming the development of local PV or passive solar market) with the potential to replace imports or generate exports
4. generating employment opportunities in line with national and regional employment goals (e.g. for employment in lagging regions, or in particular cities or in rural areas - because of improvements in environmental quality in particular areas or because of the location of utilities and construction firms)
5. providing employment and training opportunities for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups (e.g. ethnic minorities, women, older workers)
6. promoting cross-border co-operation (e.g. management of cross-border flooding)
7. delivering national and regional environmental strategies and plans which are well integrated with wider development strategies and plans (e.g. where environmental priorities are well linked to economic or social objectives)
8. promoting more cost-effective programme design and delivery (e.g. encouraging the use of public-private partnerships, or more effective procurement, or through use of well developed technologies which take account of subsequent maintenance arrangements)
Annex 9.3.1 provides an overview of the potential scale of contribution that different types of investment can make to the various criteria. These can be seen as a ‘default set’ of assumptions, and are revised in the table underneath to reflect the particular conditions in the MS. For example in MS with a particular problem with water shortages it is expected that this type of investment will make a greater contribution to avoiding future economic and social loss. In MS where there is little problem with water resources perhaps a lower contribution can be expected. Similar argumentation exists for other fields.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 94 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 1-6: Multi-Criteria Assessment for Czech Republic
Impact Score Very good contribution 10 Good contribution 7 Limited contribution 3 Negligble contribution 0 Criteria Field Type of Investment 12345678 Water SupplyReservoirs 00000000 Drinking water production plant 10 10 3 3 3 0 7 10 Transport (inc leakage) - long 10 10 3 3 3 7 7 0 Transport (inc leakage) - local 10 10 7 3 3 0 7 0 Metering 00000000 Waste WaterNew STPs 107333373 Renovation / upgrade STPs 10 10 7 7 3 0 7 3 New Sewerage 77333373 Renovation / upgrade sewerage 7 7 3 3 3 3 7 3 Sewage pumping stations 7 7 3 3 0 0 7 3 CSO upgrading 3 7 3 3 0 0 7 3 Sludge treatment 7 7 7 3 0 0 7 3 Sludge disposal 77030073 MSWWaste collection 77777077 Waste sorting 33777037 Recovery 73733037 Disposal - new disposal facilities 10 7 7 3 0 0 7 7 Disposal - remediation of existing disposal facilities 7 10 3 3 3 0 3 3 RenewablesWind 37733077 Hydro (>15 MW) 00000000 Hydro (<15 MW) 37773373 Solid biomass 37773377 Liquid biofuels 3 7 7 3 3 3 7 7 Geothermal 00000000 Solar thermal 00000000 Solar electric (PV) 00000000 Natural hazards Drought 00000000 Fire 00000000 Flood 3103 7 310710 Heatwave 00000000 Storm 00000000
Specific remarks: The following type of investments are not an issue for funding in Czech Republic (and hence are given a zero for all criteria): reservoirs, metering, hydro (>15 MW), solar thermal, solar electric, geothermal, drought, heatwave and storm.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 95 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
8.3.3 Elaboration of the economic and regional development implications of the identified investment priorities An indicative distribution of the identified investment priorities according to region is presented in chapter 9.3.2. The investment priorities taken as a whole contribute to each of the MCA criteria 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (cf. box A). In order to understand the wider impacts of investment, particular investments that will contribute to the criteria are covered as follows: Criterion 2 The whole country must pay attention to water management as there are no areas without agriculture and industries. This brings possible risks in water and waste sectors. All risky sources are close to intakes with just several hours or at max. days of direct impact. RES are accepted as future necessity but they are expensive and at present majority of inhabitants prefer cheap sources. This asks for education and permanent publicity. People of course appreciate cleaner rivers and clean air by when the environment friendly technologies become too expensive then some of them (rural areas) switch back to unsuitable sources – even brown coal or incineration of wastes (pet bottles) with serious air pollution. Czech Republic is permanently endangered by floods. As the country is small the regions influence each other. This sector must work according to river basin principle to find real effective measures. Economic and social consequences of flood are very negative. New damages occur every year even if prevention measures are taken. Criterion 3 It is expected that new projects will bring new know how – in technologies but also in way of thinking and solving problems. Czech Republic has generally good standard in drinking and waste water sector. Also the flood prediction and prevention is on good level, but still lot of investments must be done to have the system which will protect all inhabited areas and assets on the EU-15 level. RES sector needs technologies and know-how how to use them with good efficiency – both technically and economically. The technology background for manufacturing of RES technologies is well established in Czech Republic. Criterion 4 It is expected that direct employment opportunities through environmental investments are relatively limited in water sector. Waste sector, RES and risk prevention have big potential both in manufacturing, construction and M&O. A better employment status can be reached in general if the environment brings sources for new activities and reduces the negative impact on environment which enables the development of all regions where projects were implemented and will be implemented in future. The present experience is very good. More and more people appreciate a good environment and are attracted to such locations. Criterion 5 Generally all projects bring lots of training and experience to all personnel and staff involved. Modern infrastructure also asks for better M&O practice. At present, training is not on good level in Czech Republic. The whole process of project identification, implementation and operation would need more skill and professionalism. Criterion 6 Czech Repubic is a small country which results in many cross-border impacts. Typical is river pollution as all rivers and streams leave to other countries which monitor the quality, and floods crossing the borders. It seems that different problems do not have the same priorities in border countries. E.g. in 2006 river Dyje region was flooded more times and Czech Republic thinks that the source of problem is located in Austria.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 96 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
8.3.4 Scenarios and priorities It is likely that the total financial need (as given in 8.3.1) will be substantially higher than the available structural funds, necessitating a priority assessment in allocation across the fields. If we were to assume, purely hypothetical, that the available funding would be 2.300 MEUR, then we could divide this amount according to three scenarios: • Scenario 1: The available amount is divided relative to the needs; • Scenario 2. More weight is given to compliance with the Acquis; • Scenario 3: More weight is given to Regional Development. Although much more (intermediate) scenarios are possible, these three scenarios, further concretised, would give already an idea about the consequences of priority setting on allocation of funds across the fields.
Scenario 1 This relative clear point of view would give the following allocation:
Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 TOTAL DWS WW MSW RES RISK Total financial need (2007-2013) in % 11% 49% 13% 12% 14% 100% Allocation of available funding (2007-2013) in Meuro 255 1.128 307 283 327 2.300
Scenario 2 This scenario 2 is translated in giving different weighting to each of the 8 criteria mentioned in 8.3.2.
1. securing compliance with the acquis: 60 points
2. avoiding economic and social damages: 3 points
3. encouraging new technology and market development: 3 points
4. generating employment opportunities in line with national and regional employment goals: 3 points
5. providing employment and training opportunities for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups: 3 points
6. promoting cross-border co-operation: 3 points
7. delivering national and regional environmental strategies and plans which are well integrated with wider development strategies and plans: 3 points
8. promoting more cost-effective programme design and delivery: 2 points
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 97 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
This weighting exercise, using the scores for each type of investment mentioned in Table 7 and the relative financial needs estimate, results in the following:
Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 TOTAL DWS WW MSW RES RISK Total financial need (2007-2013) in % 16% 53% 14% 7% 10% 100% Allocation of available funding (2007-2013) in Meuro 372 1.217 321 170 220 2.300
Scenario 3 This scenario 3 is translated in giving different weighting to each of the 8 criteria mentioned in 8.3.2.
1. securing compliance with the acquis: 10 points
2. avoiding economic and social damages: 15 points
3. encouraging new technology and market development: 15 points
4. generating employment opportunities in line with national and regional employment goals: 15 points
5. providing employment and training opportunities for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups: 10 points
6. promoting cross-border co-operation: 5 points
7. delivering national and regional environmental strategies and plans which are well integrated with wider development strategies and plans: 5 points
8. promoting more cost-effective programme design and delivery: 5 points
This weighting exercise, using the scores for each type of investment mentioned in Table 7 and the relative financial needs estimate, results in the following: Result:
Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 TOTAL DWS WW MSW RES RISK Total financial need (2007-2013) in % 12% 44% 14% 13% 17% 100% Allocation of available funding (2007-2013) in Meuro 285 1.005 315 294 401 2.300
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 98 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Conclusions Combining the three scenarios above, the following range of allocations can be expected:
Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 TOTAL DWS WW MSW RES RISK minimum allocation (%) 11% 44% 13% 7% 10% maximum allocation (%) 16% 53% 14% 13% 17% allocation range (%) 11-16 44-53 13-14 7-13 10-17
The following conclusions are proposed: • less % allocation in the next programming period should go to waste water treatment (44-53%) in comparison to the previous programming period (61%). Notwithstanding this, waste water treatment still covers half of the total investment needs; • Water supply (11-16%) and municipal solid waste (13-14%) should more or less remain at the same allocation level (respectively 16% and 14% in previous programming period); • in the fields of water supply, waste water and waste, projects are very much “acquis driven” and the type of projects to be funded will be mostly a continuation of the previous funding period with more focus on replacement of worn-out infrastructure and extension of infrastructure to smaller settlements in rural areas; with this latter establishing a greater need for capacity building. • The drop needs in water projects will create more room for funding of projects in the field of renewable energy and natural risk management, with an allocation estimate of about 7-13% and 10-17% respectively. The high needs on natural risk management is driven by increasing flooding problems in Czech Republic and the high investment needs to bring back risks to an acceptable level. A minor contribution can go to renewable energy projects with a great potential such as solid biomass as RES for electricity and heat production. For both these fields, there are however still a lot of question marks regarding the total financial need, the extent to which market schemes can cover part of the investment needs (for RES) and other possible funding mechanisms. This should first be cleared out.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 99
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9 ANNEXES
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 101 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1 Summary key figures current situation 9.1.1 Summary Data Table Water supply
Type of Physical Indicators investment Water supply Connection rate to drinking water supply (%) 91,6 (2004)7 (general issues) Unit water supply (lts /inh/day) Specific water production 211 8 (2004) specific household consumption 102 8 (2004) Total drinking water demand households (million m³) 349,4577 Total drinking water demand industry (million m³) 543,4727 Water price (EURO/lt) Weighted aritmetic average for 1EUR=31,904CzK Aritmetic average 2004 7 CR 0,713 EUR/ m3(2004)8 Reservoirs (eg Volume in reservoirs (million m³) total to store 3 364,1 10 surface waters water supply and/or 822,9 10 groundwater) Associated period of water reserve (days) cca 67 Drinking water Drinking water production capacity -by source (million Water production 721 million ‘production’ m³/year) (groundwater, surface water, other) m³/year8 plant - Capacity of groundwater ground/surface resources 22,9m3/s in unit8 (quality) 720,196 groundwater, 344,487 (2004) surface water 7 % of samples meeting standards 98,9 2 Water Area / pop of the country self-sufficient in drinking approx. 15 % of population transport - water (%) Distribution of Shows dependency of the area on water transport water (includes Connection rate to drinking water supply (% 91,6% house population or households connected to systems) connections) Geographical variation (min % - max %) min Plzeňský region 80,8%, max Prague city 99,9% (2004) 7 Continuity of supply (hours/day) 24 Water loss Water losses (% of volume and million m³) 21,2% minimisation 152,083 million m³(2004) 7 Monitoring Drinking water sampling points – meeting drinking Majority water quality standards (%) Metering (eg Households with metering public water supply (%) 100% households) Households with metering own (ground)water supply cca 0 (%)
102 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1.2 Summary Data Table Waste water
Type of Indicators investment Sewage networks Sewage connection rates (% of population or 78,8% in 20048 and connections households connected); (eg households, small industry)
Km of sewer networks 30 771 km (2004) 8 Trunk sewers / Km of trunk sewers/collectors Not avaible (cca 10% of total) collectors Treatment plant % of country surface area classified as sensitive 100%3 area for the UWWTD Share of population or households connected to 93.8% of sewage STPs connection rates in 20048 (i.e. 93,8 % of those connected to sewerage system) Number of agglomerations that have been 36 11 defined for the implementation of the UWWTD above 10000 PE to be solved by 2006 127 11 above 10000 PE to be solved by 2010 415 11 2000 - 10000 PE to be solved by 2010 Number of STP in place that comply with the 93,1 % 11 UWWTD standards (y) of 1952 municipal plants 8 Number of STP in place that are not fully 6,9 % compliant (z) of 1952 municipal plants Total biodegradable capacity of the above (y + z) cca 7,4 mil plants in PE20 municipal plants hydraulic design capacity of the newest plants 125 – 200 expressed in l/PE/d Sludge Quantity of sludge produced [tons DS/year]; cca 135 000 management Type of sludge treatment used (dewatering, digestion (waste) digestion; drying; other); dewatering Disposal or reuse route used (agriculture; soil; agriculture landfill; incineration; other) soil substrate Storm drains and Design criteria for Combined Sewer Overflows critical rain intensity 10 – 20 reservoirs (CSO) l/s.ha minimum dilution factor 1+10 number of overflows per year 6 – 10 x N° of compliant CSOs 25 % N° of non-compliant CSOs 75 %
20 1 PE = 60 gBOD/day
103 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1.3 Summary Data Table Municipal Waste
Type of investment Physical Indicators Municipal Total waste generated (mt/year and kg/year per 4,4mt (2004)4 3 Waste capita) 455kg/cap. (2003) (general issues) Waste Waste collection Coverage of waste collection system - % of almost collection equipment (e.g. population covered in urban/rural areas 100 % transport Composition of municipal waste (%) (incl. % by weight: vehicles) share of packaging) 22 % paper 13 % plastics 9 % glass 3 % hazardous 18 % organic 35 % others from household total cca 200 kg/cap.year Amount of selectively collected waste per 96 % 2 household (tonnes per waste stream) in 2004 Recycling points Availability of on street facilities and more major available in all towns for non- collection points (rural/urban areas) hazardous municipal waste (e.g. paper & cardboard, glass, metals, batteries, textile, construction waste) Recycling / Current amount and capacity of recycling/ 211.000 tonnes in deposit deposit system controlled deposit of hazardous waste (2003)3 for hazardous municipal waste (e.g. batteries, waste oil products, fluorescent lamps) Import/export of Amount (mt) of compliant import/export of export 28 mt 11 waste collected municipal waste (e.g. for recycling) Waste Sorting facilities Capacity of manual/mechanical sorting facilities data not found Treatment (tonnes/year) Availability of physical-chemical equipment for 243.000 tonnes (in 2003) 3 management of hazardous waste Waste Recycling plant Amount (mt) and share of municipal waste 218.081tonnes (in 2003) recycling recycled (detail if available e.g. packaging) 11,7% recycled (2003)4 Capacity of recycling facilities (t/year) 4.429.892 (2003) 9 Composting Amount (mt) of biodegradable municipal waste 152,9 kg (2003) 3 produced (current + 1995 level) 148 kg (1995) 3 Amount (mt) and share of biodegradable 329.306 tonnes (in 2003)3 municipal waste composted Capacity of composting facilities (t/year) 429.661 (2003) 9
104 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Waste Incineration plant Number of incineration facilities 3 (2003)3 (Final) (for MSW) (municipal) disposal Capacity (tonnes/year and GJ/year) and 96.000, 240.000 and activity/availability of incinerators 310.000 tonnes per year (2003)3
Equipment of plants to achieve emission yes ceilings (incl. dioxins and furans) Amount of municipal waste incinerated with 545.113 tonnes (2003)3 energy recovery Landfill sites Number of sanitary landfills 408 (2003) 3 (Municipal) – general and Number of non compliant landfills 60% by 2009 (Directive hazardous 1999/31/EC) (2003)3 % of recyclable/reusable waste that is landfilled above EU-15 reuse rate is 37,5 % 11 Number of (illegal) waste dumps in use/not in exceptional use Closed waste dumps (to be) recultivated data not found Municipal waste landfilled (mt/year) 2.842.511 tonnes (2003)3 municipal waste landfilled without treatment detail data not found (mt/year) landfilling biodegradable municipal waste landfilled 54,11 % of total (mt/year) munic.waste (2003) 9
Hazardous waste (mt/year) 200.000 tonnes (2003)3 Collection of leachate and biogas new installations yes
105 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1.4 Summary Data Table Renewable Energy
Type of Investment Physical Indicators investment (EUR/year) Wind No. of wind turbines 48 13 total approx. in 2004 6 mio/year capacity of wind turbines (MW) and % 16,5 13 over total energy production Output of wind turbines (MWh) and % over 9900 13 total energy production 0,06 % of renewable
0,0117 % of electr.prod. Areas and energy potential (E.g. wind see map in annex speeds above 5m/s) Biomass MWh/ GJ/ ToE produced and % 42094784 GJ 13 75,3 % of renewable
592704 MWh 13 0,7028 % of electr.prod. suitable assessment of potential based on possible growth land area and suitable crops. Solar thermal GJ capacity installed (MW) and % 35 13
m2 installed 50000 13 PV Capacity installed(MW) and % 0,126 13
GWh produced and % 0,0773 13 0,0001 % m2 installed not available number of homes/roofs only for testing Hydro Capacity (MW) and % 1014,4 13 plus pumping hydro- power plants 1145 MW Energy production (MWh) and % 2019400 13 13 % of renewable
2,39 % of electr.prod. Sites 1330 distinction among sizes – to see < 1 MW 120 MW progression to small/large hydro; 1-10 MW 142 MW > 10 MW 753 MW percent of available capacity exploited cca 100 Geothermal Capacity (MW) and % 62 Energy production (MWh) and % 138800 0,03 % Sites exploited 5000
106 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1.5 Summary Data Table Natural Risk Management
Type of investment Physical Indicators Flooding Natural protection – At risk population data not found flood plains/zones etc Total areas (ha) of data not found flood plains – recently flooded area Flood barriers – Total km of flood 20.906 km of regulated rivers constructed (dykes) barriers (km) Other types of action None – too diverse - (water retention (expenditure only) areas, managed coastal realignment, etc) Forest/ Fire fighting At risk population forest and land fire are not main fire risk land fire equipment; Forest in CR management; area and assets at see tables Training; Water risk availability Drought Water availability – At risk population very low risks, extremely dry years with reservoirs and other and assets negative impact on e.g. crops and water infrastructure; new supply occur only exceptionally connections?; Water use per head Improved irrigation of population techniques; Water minimisation (eg households)
107 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1.6 Overview Environmental expenditures National expenditures in the environmental field Expenditures for environmental protection between 1997-2002 in billion CZK (in 2003 prices)3 Year National* Local
1997 9.062 12.9 1998 9.185 12.4 1999 9.918 14.4 2000 10.066 14.9 2001 10.752 15.6 2002 12.317 17.3** * : State budget, State Environmental Fund of Czech Republic, National Property Fund of Czech Republic **: 5.4 bil CZK in the area of waste management; 6.8 bil. CZK in the area of water protection Next tables show the consequences of CF Allocation and estimated co-financing projects by Czech side (all water sector).
Financing projects of the Cohesion Fund - Environment
CF Allocation / Total Budget (in MEUR) 2004 2005 2006 2004-2006 Gross CF allocation - ENV 158,45 133,044 181,151 472,645 Estimated Total budget 197 - 226,35 166 - 190,06 226 - 258,8 589 - 675,21 corresponding to the Gross CF allocation - ENV (CF grant 70 - 80 %)
Financing CF Projects (in MEUR; 2004 2005 2006 exchange rate 32 CZK/Euro) Net CF allocation – ENV 119,5 106,044 148,151 MoE 9,68 (ISPA and PHARE 13,3 = 10 % of 14,8 = 10 % of commitments incl.) y. 2005 Gross CF y. 2006 Net CF allocation - ENV allocation - ENV SEF 10,94 = nearly the * 16,6 = 10 % of * 14,8 = 10 % of y. 2006 amount of 10 % of y. y. 2005 Total CF budget Net CF allocation - ENV 2004 Net CF allocation corresponding to the - ENV Gross CF allocation - ENV (CF grant 80 %) FB + MoA, EIB loan incl. 56,88 - 86,23 31,056 - 55,12 48,249 – 81,05 (CF grant 70 - 80 %) Construction Contractor ** 1,97 - 2,264 = 1 % of y. 1,66 - 1,9 = 1 % of y. 2,26 - 2,59 = 1 % of y. 2004 Total CF budget - 2005 Total CF budget - 2006 Total CF budget – ENV ENV ENV Estimated Total budget 197 - 226,35 166 - 190,06 226 - 258,8 corresponding to the Gross CF allocation - ENV (CF grant 70 - 80 %) * Based on SEF estimation: the yearly (from the year 2005) amount of 31,25 MEUR for CF and SF co-financing. **Corresponds to extra costs of the construction in cases where the contractor is at fault.
108 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Overview of CF Projects, 2000-2006 Projects submitted under ISPA transferred to CF projects No Name of Type of CF project No./Title Place of Type of Description of Measure Total Budget Municipal Others Subject Subject of Measure Realisation Project Budget- from Budget (%, eligible ISPA/CF (%,MEUR) MEUR) cost (%,MEUR) (MEUR) WWTP, sewerage system projects 1 Water Associat 2004/CZ/16/C/PE/005 NUTS II - group of reconstruction of WWTP 8,966 70 % 15,8 % 14,8 % Management ion Regional Urban Waste NW, NUTS projects Ostrov, Merklin, construction of (elig.cos 6,218 1,421 1,326 Association of Water Management IV - Karlovy WWTP Horni Slavkov, t 8,884) (IFI loan) Municipalities Project Karlovy Vary Vary, reconstruction of sewerate of Western Sokolov systém Bohemia 2 City Karviná City 2004/CZ/16/C/PE/001 North Single main sewer, extension of 20,18 70 % 30% - Karviná - Sewerage Moravia and Project sewage system 12,865 extension Silesia, City Karviná 3 City of City 2004/CZ/16/C/PE/002 NUTS II - Single reconstruction of WWTP 9,44 5,6 69 % 2,93 27 % 0,40 4 Příbram Reconstruction of Central Project (elig.cos % (wasnt WWTP of City of Bohemia t 8,86) specified Příbram yet) 4 City of Beroun City 2004/CZ/16/C/PE/008 NUTS II - group of construction of SS in 26 ts p.e. 9,173 65 % 35 % Sewerage System Central projects aglomeration - Beroun, Králův (8,776 5,704 3,072 Extension in Beroun Bohemia, Dvůr elig.cost (regional Agglomeration NUTS IV - ) budget Beroun 1,83, local budget 1,372) TOTAL for waste water management projects 47,76 30,39 (el.cost 46,7) Combined Waste Water and Drinking Water Projects
109 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
5 City of City 2004/CZ/16/C/PE/007 NUTS II - Single reconstruction and extension of 10,031 6,812 70 2,914 30 Klatovy Reconstruction and SW, NUTS Project sewerage syst., substitute of (9,713 % % Expansion of Sewer IV-Klatovy local water source by elig.cost and Water connection with central source ) Infrastructure in the Klatovy Town of Klatovy 6 City of Pilsen City 2004/CZ/16/C/PE/003 NUTS II - group of construction of the sewage 49,3 30,00 65 9,57 19 9,76 20 Expansion of the SW projects systém and WWTP, (46,164 % % % Water Distribution and construction of water lines, elig.cost (EBRD, Sewer Infrastructure of 5342 p.e. ) SEF+loa the City of Pilsen n) 7 North Joint 2004/CZ/16/C/PE/004 NUTS II - group of reconstruction of WP Bedřichov 31,322 65 % 35 % Bohemia Stock Reconstruction of WTP NE, NUTS projects and Souš, construction of SS (elig.cos 19,364 (SVS own Water Compan and WWTP, IV - Liberec, Liberec and Jablonec n/N, t 29,791) sources) Company y Reconstruction and Jablonec reconstruction of WWTP Completion of n/N. Liberec + sludge management Sewerage System within the Lužická Nisa river basin TOTAL for Combined Waste Water and Drinking Water Projects 90,653 56,20 (el.cost 85,67) TOTAL for Water Projects 138,413 86,59 (el.cost 132,37) Waste Managements Projects, Ecological Burdens 8 Association of Associat 2004/CZ/16/C/PE/009 NUTS II - Single recultivation of defecation area 41,18 75 % 25 % 9,42 - Municipalities ion Recultivation and SW Project (elig.cos 28,26 "Blata" clearance of ecological t 37,68) burden after exploitation of uranium in the region of "Blata" Air quality projects
110 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9 Labe Associat 2004/CZ/16/C/PE/006 NUTS II - group of plynofication: Brná, Střekov, 9,35 65 % 25 % of 0,867 Association ion Implementation of NW, NUTS projects Nová Ves, Svádov - Olešnice, (elig.cos 5,63 elig.cost + wasnt Precautions for Air and IV - Ústí nad Neštěmice, Církvice, Sebuzín, t 8,666) non specified Climate Conditions Labem, Hostovice, Velemín, elig.cost yet Quality Improvement in Litoměřice Ploskovice, Maškovice, the River Labe Valley plynofication of objects: Vaňov, Krásné Březno TOTAL 188,94 120,48 (el.cost 178,72)
Cohesion Fund Projects no Name of Type of Title of Place of Type of Description of Measure Total Budget Municipal Others Subject Subject Measure Realisatio Project Budget from Budget (%, n (MEUR) CF (%,MEUR MEUR) (%,ME ) UR) Waste Water Projects 1 VaK Břeclav stock VaK Břeclav NUTS II - group of reconstruction and extension of 38,31 31,03 - - comp. SE, NUTS projects water distribution syst., IV - construction, reconstruction and Břeclav extension of WWTP, reconstruction of sewerage syst. 2 Association Association Sewerage NUTS II group of sewerage systém:Bělá nad 25,06 20,55 - - of systém and W,Plzeň projects Radbuzou,Dobřany,Holýšov,Horšo munipalities Waste Water region vský of Radbuza Treatment Týn,Líně,Zbůch;sewerage+WWTP: region Plant in the Chotěšov,Staňkov,Stod Radbuza region
111 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
3 City of city Olomouc- NUTS II - group of reconstruction and completion of H 26,96 21,57 2,70 2,696 Olomouc reconstruction central projects collector, extention of AII collector, SEF and Moravia, sewerage systém Topolany, completing of City of Nedvězí, Chomoutov; sewers in sewerage Olomouc collector E basin, G and F systém - II collectors basin and BXIX collector stage basin, sewers in Dolní Novosadská 4 VHZ stock Upper Morava NUTS II - group of reconstruction of sewers in 26,84 21,48 2,69 2,684 Šumperk comp. river basin central projects Šumperk-J.z Poděbrad Street, SEF stock comp. quality Moravia, reconstruction and extention of improving - Olomouc sewers in Staré Město, extention of stage I Region sewers in Vikýřovice, Sobotín, Bludov, WWTP Šumperk reconstruction finishing, construction of WWTP Bludov, WWTP Staré Město reconstruction, construction of 2 rainwater reservoirs on main sewers before WWTP Šumperk TOTAL for 4 projects approved by CF Working Group 117,17 94,63 5 Ostrava city city Construction NUTS II- group of extension of main sewer B to 18,688 14,95 1,869 1,869 of surface Moravskosl projects Radvanice, construction of sewer 80% 10% 10% sewerage ezsko system Ostrava-Přívoz, Petřkovice, systém in Michálkovice, Nová ves-jih, Plesná, Ostrava- construction of trunk sewer T in project I Petřkovice 6 City of city Construction NUTS II- single Construction of the sewerage 15,391 12,313 0,77 2,309 Kravaře of public Moravskosl project system and waste water treatment 85% 5% (loan) sewerage ezsko plant in the Karaře city systém and construction of waste treatment plant
112 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
7 Association Association Revitalisation NUTS II- group of Construction of the sewerage 21,75 16,313 2,175 1,875 + for Czech- of Olše basin - Moravskosl projects network and waste water treatment 75% 10% loan Polish co- I.stage ezsko plant 1,338 operation of Těšín Silesia 8 Water Association Clean NUTS II- group of Construction of the sewerage 13,63 10,427 3,206 24% managent Berounka - 1. SW projects system and Reconstruction and 76% Association stage intensification of waste water of West treatment plant within the Bohemia municipalities above 2000 PE, region 9 VaK Mladá stock Mladá NUTS II - group of Intensification of WWTP - Mladá 20,227 15,941 3 1,00 Boleslav comp. Boleslav Central projects Boleslav, Benátky n. Jizerou, 80 % 15% region Bohemia comleting of sewerage systém - Mladá Boleslav, Kosmonosy, Benátky n. Jizerou, Bělá p. Bezdězem, Bakov n. Jizerou Combined Waste Water and Drinking Water Projects 10 South Czech Association Solution of the NUTS II- group of Construction and reconstruction of 25,47 17,831 2,321 3,821 + water selected water SW projects sewerage network, Construction 70% 9% loan 1,5 industry management and intensification of WWTP, association infrastucture Intensification and construction of problems in water treatment, Reconstruction of the basin of Long distance Mains water the upper distribution Vltava 11 VaK Hodonín stock Middle Morava NUTS II- group of Construction and reconstruction of 16,632 13,306 1,255 1,663 + comp. river basin SE projects water infrastructure in the Morava, 80% 7,4 % loan Kyjovka and Velička river basin, 1,663 wastewater treatment in 6 minicipalities, drinking water intake and treatment (Bzenec, Moravská Nová Ves) Drinking Water Projects
113 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
12 SVK Žďársko Association Providing NUTS III- group of Reconstruction and addition 19,67 14,75 1,96 + quality of Vysočina projects technologies water treatmennt plant 75% 2,96 drinking water in Mostiště and Vír EIB for water loan supply system of southwest Moravia – Žďár region 13 VaK Association Providing NUTS III- group of Reconstruction and addition 9,58 7,19 0,96 + association of quality of Vysočina projects technologies water treatmennt plant 75% 1,44 muniicipalitie drinking water in Štítary, reconstruction of water EIB s of Třebíč for water supply line Štítary- Třebíč, Ovčírna loan region supply system - Třebíč, Heraltice-Třebíč of southwest Moravia - Třebíč region TOTAL for 9 new Project Intentions 161,04 123,02 TOTAL 278,21 217,65 Potential Cohesion Fund Projects (Project are being discussed at Regional Working Groups level, will be submitted to CF Working Group) (Indicative list of projects - budget is likely to be updated during the second stage of project preparation) (33 CZK/EURO)orientational exchange rate; projects without VAT No. Name of subject Title of Measure Place of Realisation Total Budget (MEUR) CF Grant (MEUR) Water Projects 1 SVS, a.s.- Teplice Reconstruction of WP´s, construction of sewers, reconstruction of WWTP´s in 16,68 13,5 Liberecký region
2 SVS, a.s. Reconstruction of WP´s, construction of sewers, reconstruction of WWTP´s in 51 40,8 Ústecký region 3 Vak Zlín, a.s. Liquidation of waste water in Zlínsko region 20,625 16,5
4 SVKMO Dyje II NUTS II - Central Moravia 48,25 38,6
114 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
5 Vodohospodářské stavby Kladno NUTS II - Central Bohemia 11,46 9,1
6 Olomouc-Přerovsko Water quality at the confluence of Morava and Bečva 18,9 14,5
7 Water Comp.Vrchlice Kutnohorsko-Čáslavsko NUTS II - Central Bohemia 13,6 10,2 8 Association of Municipalities NUTS II - NE 13,7 (20,6) 10,5 (15,5) 9 Water Comp. Tábor Táborsko-sewers reconstruction NUTS II - South Bohemia 12 8 10 Písek region-water management NUTS II - South Bohemia wasnt specified yet 11 VaK Hradec Králové,a.s. Hradec Králový Region 21 14,5 12 VOS Jičín, a.s. Cidlina Hradec Králový Region 14,5 9,5 13 CHEVAK Cheb a.s. West Bohemia SPA region-ENV protection 11 8
TOTAL for Water Projects 252,1 (259,1) 193,2 (198,2)
115 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Financial table for OP Infrastructure for the years 2004 – 2006 in total by priorities in current prices (EUR)
Public financial resources Public resources Co-financing by the EU National co-financing Priorities in total Regional Municipal Other (state 21 In total ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG In total State budget Priority 1 is co-financed from STIF except for Measure 1.3 Modernization of Airports of Inter-Regional Importance, wherebudgets co-fi nancingbudgets from the regionalfunds)* Priority 121budgets is assumed. 2004 26 639 383 19 594 655 19 594 655 7 044 728 653 102 6 391 626 2005 38 156 101 28 065 801 28 065 801 10 090 300 935 451 9 154 849 2006 49 499 908 36 409 762 36 409 762 13 090 146 1 213 560 11 876 586 In total 114 295 392 84 070 218 84 070 218 30 225 174 2 802 113 27 423 061 Priority 222 2004 4 610 363 3 457 772 3 457 772 1 152 591 172 875 979 716 2005 6 603 510 4 952 633 4 952 633 1 650 877 247 614 1 403 263 2006 8 566 733 6 425 050 6 425 050 2 141 683 321 229 1 820 454 In total 19 780 606 14 835 455 14 835 455 4 945 151 741 718 4 203 433 Priority 323 2004 45 096 065 33 118 250 33 118 250 11 977 815 6 585 617 5 392 198 2005 64 591 960 47 435 906 47 435 906 17 156 054 9 432 705 7 723 349 2006 83 795 146 61 538 598 61 538 598 22 256 548 12 237 047 10 019 501 In total 193 483 171 142 092 754 142 092 754 51 390 417 28 255 369 23 135 048 Priority 424 2004 1 666 308 1 249 731 1 249 731 416 577 416 577 2005 2 386 684 1 790 013 1 790 013 596 671 596 671 2006 3 096 245 2 322 184 2 322 184 774 061 774 061 In total 7 149 237 5 361 928 5 361 928 1 787 309 1 787 309 In total 2004 78 012 119 57 420 408 57 420 408 20 591 711 589 452 653 102 6 585 617 12 763 540 2005 111 738 255 82 244 353 82 244 353 29 493 902 844 285 935 451 9 432 705 18 281 461 2006 144 958 032 106 695 594 106 695 594 38 262 438 1 095 290 1 213 560 12 237 047 23 716 541 In total 334 708 406 246 360 355 246 360 355 88 348 051 2 529 027 2 802 113 28 255 369 54 761 542
116 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
22 Priority 2 is co-financed from STIF and the State Budget. State Budget funds will be provided from Chapter 327 of MoT in accordance with Act No. 218/2000 (Budgetary Rules) and in accordance with MoF Decree No. 40/2001 Coll. dated 19.1.2001 on State Budget participation in property reproduction financing programmes. 23 Priority 3 will be co-financed from SEF, applicant´s own resources (mostly municipal budgets), and the Measure 3.2 is assumed to be co-financed from the State Budget through the programmes of the Ministry of Agriculture. The rules for potential drawing of funds will be established in the discussions of Inter-Departmental Coordination Group for the field of water management (see Chapter 3.5). 24 Funds for co-financing of Priority 4 will be provided from the State Budget from Chapter 315 of MoE and Chapter 327 of MoT in accordance with Act No. 218/2000 (Budgetary Rules) and in accordance with MoF Decree No. 40/2001 Coll. dated 19.1.2001 on State Budget participation in property reproduction financing programmes. In case that the final beneficiary will be SEF, the projects will be co-financed from the SEF budget.
117 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Indicative financial framework of the measure 3.1 (in EUR) Public financial resources Priority 3 Public National co-financing Measure 3.1 resources ERDF Regional Municipal Other State budget In total budgets budgets (state funds) 2004 3 941 876 3 153 500 0 0 394 188 394 188 2005 5 646 022 4 516 818 0 0 564 602 564 602 2006 7 324 586 5 859 668 0 0 732 459 732 459 2004 – 2006 16 912 484 13 529 986 0 0 1 691 249 1 691 249 Note: financial resources are presented in current prices
Indicative financial framework of the measure 3.2 (in EUR) Public financial resources Priority 3 Public National co-financing Measure 3.2 resources ERDF Regional Municipal Other State budget In total budgets budgets (state funds) 2004 19 342 045 14 119 693 0 0 2 611 176 2 611 176 2005 27 703 983 20 223 907 0 0 3 740 038 3 740 038 2006 35 940 373 26 236 473 0 0 4 851 950 4 851 950 2004 – 2006 82 986 401 60 580 073 0 0 11 203 164 11 203 164 Note: financial resources are presented in current prices.
Indicative financial framework of the measure 3.3 (in EUR) Public financial resources Priority 3 Public National co-financing Measure 3.3 resources ERDF Regional Municipal Other State budget In total budgets budgets (state funds) 2004 10 281 020 7 196 714 0 0 1 850 584 1 233 722 2005 14 725 703 10 307 992 0 0 2 650 627 1 767 084 2006 19 103 655 13 372 558 0 0 3 438 658 2 292 439 2004 – 2006 44 110 378 30 877 264 0 0 7 939 869 5 293 245 Note: financial resources are presented in current prices.
Indicative financial framework of the measure 3.4 (in EUR) Public financial resources Priority 3 Public National co-financing Measure 3.4 resources ERDF Regional Municipal Other State budget In total budgets budgets (state funds) 2004 11 531 124 8 648 343 0 0 1 729 669 1 153 112 2005 16 516 252 12 387 189 0 0 2 477 438 1 651 625 2006 21 426 532 16 069 899 0 0 3 213 980 2 142 653 2004 – 2006 49 473 908 37 105 431 0 0 7 421 087 4 947 390 Note: financial resources are presented in current prices.
Distribution of ERDF sources to the individual OP Infrastructure priorities according to weights Priority 2004 - 2006 Share in % Priority 1: Modernisation and Development of Transport 84,070,218 Infrastructure of Nation-wide Importance 34,12 Priority 2: Reducing the Negative Environmental Impacts of 14,835,455 Transport 6,02 Priority 3: Environmental Infrastructure Improvement 142,092,754 57,68 Priority 4: Technical Assistance for OP Infrastructure 5,361,928 2,18 Total 246,360,355 100,0
118 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Programme indicators and objectives Priority 3 – Environmental Infrastructure Improvement
Priority Measure Level Indicator Source number number 3 Increase of retention capacity of the landscape MoE Impact Increase of biodiversity of watercourses and their MoE surroundings 2 1 Acreage of revitalized area (km ) MoE Result Length of revitalized watercourse (km) MoE
Output Number of implemented projects MoE Improvement of purity of watercourses MoE Proportion and quantity of utilized waste water treatment Impact MoE plant sludge (%, t/year)
Amount of eliminated pollution in discharged waste water: Chemical oxygen demand (COD , t/year) Cr MoE Amount of undissolved compounds (t/ year) 2 Biological oxygen demand (BOD5, t/ year ) Result Length of new sewerage networks (m) MoE Number of the population equivalent (PE) newly connected MoE to the sewerage system and waste water treatment plant) Number of the population newly connected to the water MoE mains Output Number of implemented projects MoE Improvement of the health condition of the population at a MoE local level (NUTS III) 3 Reduction of emissions to meet the emission ceilings MoE (t/year)
Improvement of air quality in the area of the project
implementation for the monitored limits of ground level
concentrations of pollutants – in relation to the former MoE pollution in the area of the project implementation (%)
Reduction of the area with exceeded ground level MoE concentrations of the pollutants incl. tolerance limits (km2)
Improvement of air quality – ground level concentrations of the pollutants load in the area of the project implementation MoE Impact (µg/m3) Energy savings in comparison with the previous state in the MoE area of the project implementation (%) Increase in the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources of energy in the area of the project MoE implementation (%) Contribution to meeting the EC Directives (e.g. framework directive No. 96/62/EC and its daughter directives, Directive No. 2001/81/EC on emission ceilings, Directive No. 2000/80/EC on the reduction of emissions from large MoE combustion plants, Directive No. 2000/76/EC on waste incineration and Directive No. 1999/13/EC on the reduction of emissions of VOC), and other international commitments Extent of reduction of emissions of the relevant pollutants in Result a given area (such as solid compounds – PM10, PM25, SO2, MoE NOx, CO, VOC, etc.) (t /year)
119 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Extent of reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases MoE (greenhouse gases expressed as CO2 equiv.) Energy savings (GJ, %) MoE
Energy generated from renewable sources (GJt, GJe) MoE Change of installed heat capacity in relation to the original MoE capacity (MW, %) Output Number of implemented projects MoE Reduction in the quantity of waste deposited in landfills and MoE its proportion in the total waste production (%, t/year) Proportion and quantity of processed (recycled) and utilized Impact MoE waste (%, t/year) Establishment of integrated systems of waste management MoE (number) 4 Acreage and number of rehabilitated areas ( (m2, pcs) Number of rehabilitated areas MoE Result Proportion and quantity of assorted waste (%, t/year) MoE Waste collection yards area (m2) MoE Output Number of implemented projects MoE
Local and other financing – not listed above
The following data were collected from different sources of Ministry of Agriculture and State Environmental Fund
Investment financial subsidies in mil. CZK . (1 EUR = 30 CZK)
Source of funding 2001 2002 2003 2004
Waste water Ministry of Agriculture 278,208 564,262 578,837 377,100 Ministry of Environment 329,076 187,052 -- -- SEF 1604,330 1962,900 2678,300 2003,000
Drinking water Ministry of Agriculture 421,861 751,559 734,108 476,876
Waste SEF 361,730 303,200 574,200 524,400 management
Air protection SEF 1551,820 1157,500 673,900 1024,900
Revitalisation of Ministry of Environment 239,759 194,727 538,762 429,543 river system
Nature SEF 180,150 323,500 256,300 493,900 protection
Flood prevention SEF 10,545 291,916 and restoration of damaged ISPA 475,000 structures and (tot.value infrastructure 552,800) after floods in Ministry of Agriculture 378,783 1088,238 223,976 712,757 21,812 64,995 669,159 794,691 1997, 2000 and 1098,000 1138,021 2002 509,770 95,137
120 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Renewable SEF 361,700 441,400 476,600 energy sources
Dredging of Ministry of Agriculture 176,822 522,397 444,046 fishponds
Miscellaneous Other – Phare 307,000 761,200 324,000 202,000 (CBC, LSIF, …) 37,090 Other – EIB 3000,000 ** floods Other – e.g. regional cca 1000,000 authorities SEF = State Environmental Fund ** loan from EIB probably partly used for financing above investments
It can be roughly estimated that the subsidy is approximately 80 % of the total investment value, of which 40 % is grant and 40 % cheap loan.
121 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.2 Unit investment and operating costs
9.2.1 Drinking water supply
Unit investment and operating costs are based on the national evaluator realistic estimates.
Table 90-1: Unit investment & operating costs drinking water supply Type of investment Indicators Investment cost Operating and maintenance cost
Range Average Range Average value value
Reservoirs (to store Cost per volume needed in reservoirs the last reservoir in CR was built in 1980, use EU10 surface water (Euro per million m³) unit prices
Drinking water Cost to provide drinking water quality 32000 – 40000 0,32 – 0,40 0,36 production from surface water (Euro per production 64000 EUR/ 1l/s EUR/m3 EUR/m3 plant)
EUR/ 1l/s based on cost for Cost for the treatment of groundwater to 29600 – 37000 0,24 – 0,28 0,26 capacity 1 l/s drinking water quality (Euro per million 59200 EUR/ 1l/s EUR/m3 EUR/m3 m³) EUR/ 1l/s
Transport and Cost for the installation of a long 140000 – 150000 2000 - 2250 connection distance drinking water network (Euro 160000 EUR/km 2400 EUR/km per km) EUR/km EUR/km
Cost for the installation of a local 80000 – 105000 1650 – 1700 drinking water network (Euro per km) 120000 EUR/km 1750 EUR/km EUR/km EUR/km
Cost of a house connection (Euro per 700 – 800 owned by property connection) 1200 owner EUR/pcs EUR/pcs
Monitoring & metering Cost for monitoring (Euro per monitoring 10000 – 12000 500 - 800 600 point) 16000 EUR EUR
Cost for house metering (Euro per --- 60 EUR owned by property house) owner
122 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.2.2 Waste water treatment Unit investment and operating costs are based on national evaluator own estimates.
Table 10-2: Unit investment & operating costs waste water treatment Operating and maintenance Investment cost cost Type of investment Indicators Average Average Range Range value value
New STP with a capacity between [Euro per PE]25 not not not not 2,000-10,000 PE for non-sensitive applicable applicable applicable applicable areas
New STP with a capacity between [Euro per PE] not not not not 10.000-100.000 PE for non-sensitive applicable applicable applicable applicable areas
New STP with a capacity above [Euro per PE] not not not not 100.000 PE for non-sensitive areas applicable applicable applicable applicable
New STP with a capacity between [Euro per PE] 320 - 480 400 16 - 24 20 2,000-10,000 PE for sensitive areas
New STP with a capacity between [Euro per PE] 200 – 300 250 10 – 15 12,50 10.000-100.000 PE for sensitive areas
New STP with a capacity above [Euro per PE] 160 – 200 180 8 – 10 9 100.000 PE for sensitive areas
Collector / trunk sewer [Euro per km]26 600 000 – 700 000* 3 000 – 3 200 760 000 3 800
Sewage pumping station [Euro per unit]27 80 000 – 90 000 2 400 – 2 500 100 000 3 000
CSO [Euro per unit]28 50 000 – 60 000** 500 – 700 550 70 000
Sludge treatment [Euro per PE] involved in plant cost
Sludge disposal or re-use [Euro per PE] involved in plant cost
*: Very high unit cost. Default unit cost is only 345.000 Euro; **: Very high unit costs. Default unit cost is only 24.000 Euro while Czech unit costs are expected to be lower.
25 Inclusive of all associated costs, such as access road, fence, service buildings (if needed), utilities supply, etc. 26 For a gravitational concrete pipe with a diameter of 80 cm.at 3 m depth, inclusive of manholes, road repair over 50% of the length, house connections (200 per km.), street gully connections (40 per km) 27 For a flow of 100 l/s, head of 15 m, entering collector at a depth of 4 m. 28 For an overflow discharge of 1000 l/s.
123 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.2.3 Municipal Solid Waste
Presented unit costs are default unit investment costs (2003 prices) in municipal solid waste.
Table 1-3: Unit investment costs municipal solid waste
Type of Indicators INVESTMENT COST investment Range Average value (**)
Average cost for waste collection service29 per Waste inhabitant (in €) 38 € collection facilities Unit cost of an average sized waste transfer station30 for transport of collected waste (€/transfer 998.220 € station)
Unit cost of an average sized manual/mechanical Party included Waste sorting sorting facility (€/sorting facility) in waste facilities collection facilities
Party included Unit cost per volume of waste to be sorted by in waste means of manual/mechanical sorting facilities collection (€/tonne) facilities
31 Recovery Unit cost for an average sized recycling yard (€ 294.600 € facilities per yard as part of the RWMCs)
Unit cost per volume of waste to be recycled 0,6 € (€/person)
Unit cost for an average composting plant32 as part 987.550 € (*) of a RWMC (€/plant)
Unit cost per tonne organic waste to be composted 66 € (€/tonne)
29 Unit cost collection service includes: • curbside collection : vehicles, bins, containers, trucks and equipment for separate collection, … • municipal bring-in sites: site clearing and preparation, containers, … 30 Unit cost transfer station includes: transfer and service vehicles, transfer station and maintenance tools, containers,… 31 Approximately for 50.000 people. Unit cost includes: land acquisition, clearing and preparation (pavement), fencing, petrol and oil separation, containers,…. 32 Average size: assume ca; 12.000 tonnes/year. Unit cost for a simple windrow composting plant include: land acquisition and preparation (pavement), storage area for compost (shelter), windrow area preparation, equipment (crusher, windrow turnover machine, laboratory equipment, sieves), … Note: Make distinction with unit cost for biogas plants if necessary.
124 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Type of Indicators INVESTMENT COST investment Range Average value (**)
Disposal Unit cost for an average incineration plant for MSW 100.000.000 € facilities (€/incineration plant)
Unit cost per volume of waste to be incinerated 60 € (€/tonne)
Average unit cost for upgrade (€ per average 33 8.216.900 € combination of techniques ) Unit cost per average new sanitary landfill 34 (incl. storage for small hazardous waste) (EUR/landfill) 2,1 €
Unit cost per volume waste to be landfilled 041.400 € (EUR/tonne)
Unit cost for a remediation35 of an average sized 635.564 € landfill (€/landfill)
(*) Unit cost for composting installations as presented in the physical needs table are smaller as they refer to small scale biowaste collection sides. Investment costs will be limited to reinforcement of ground, rainwater infiltration measures, disposer machine and operational costs.
(**): Default unit costs
9.2.4 Renewable energy sources Costs of Infrastructure / Technologies in Czech Republic are comparable to those in the EU15 countries. Most of the Czech installations are supplied from EU-15 or Czech companies are owned by EU-15 companies. If local companies have hi-tech technology they charge the comparable prices like EU-15. Operation cost can be some 20 % lower due to lower wages in Czech Republic.
33 Equipment : e.g. filters, monitoring, adaptations to incineration process 34 Unit cost of average new sanitary landfill includes: land acquisition, clearance and earth works, access road, receiving area incl. weighbridge, landfill liner and drainage layer, leachate and gas collection facilities, monitoring wells, fencing, landfill rolling stock and equipment (bulldozers, containers, excavators, compactors etc.), power and water supply, final cover per section of landfill, reception and storage of small hazardous waste components to be treaded elsewhere (il, batteries, pesticides etc), … 35 Unit price composition : see remediation techniques in table 4B
125 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.2.5 Natural risk management Only limited information is available on natural risk management. Unit costs are hard to determine as it depends on multiple factors.
Unit investment & operating costs (in EURO) Type of Indicators INVESTMENT COST OPERATING & investment MAINTENANCE COST
Range Average value Range Average value
98,60 MEUR 1 MEUR Flood Prevention structures (*)
(*): from government planning.
126 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.3 Annexes priority assessment 9.3.1 Criteria for Scoring the Potential Impact of Different Types of Investment – Default Assessments The following assessment is provided by the core team as an initial and generic overview of the main types of investment and the ways in which they contribute to each of the different criteria. The assessment is based on a consideration of the contribution that a fixed sum (say 1 Meuro) would make to each criteria, ranking the contribution from very strong (10 points), strong (7 points), limited (3 points), to negligible (0 points). National evaluators are asked to review this and to revise the scoring and argumentation to reflect the national conditions and circumstances. In some cases it may be difficult to judge in the absence of available information – in which case, please indicate where the default value is taken because there is no national data.
Water supply:
Contribution of investment to:
1. securing compliance with the acquis (e.g. because of replacement of non-compliant treatment plant)
Reservoirs 3 Assuring availability of drinking water is not a requirement of the Directive
drinking water production plant 10 The parametric values set in the Directive on Drinking Water Quality are to be complied with at the point where it emerges Transport & leakage long 10 from the tap. distance
Transport & leakage local 10
Metering 0 Measuring of water volumes is not a part of the Directive, monitoring of drinking water quality is
2. avoiding economic and social damages (e.g. because of reduced natural risks of flooding, fire or because of improved environmental quality)
Reservoirs 7 Provision of enough drinking water with sufficient quality – even in remote areas – is essential both from a social point of Drinking water production plant 7 view as well as from an economical point of view
Transport & leakage long distance 7
Transport & leakage local 7
Metering 3 Less important
127 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
3. encouraging new technology and market development (e.g. priming the development of local PV or passive solar market) with the potential to replace imports or generate exports
Reservoirs 3 The construction of reservoirs, pipes and meters is a well established market with worldwide players, some room for Drinking water production plant 3 local development
Transport & leakage long 3 distance
Transport & leakage local 7
Metering 7
4. generating employment opportunities in line with national and regional employment goals (e.g. for employment in lagging regions, or in particular cities or in rural areas - because of improvements in environmental quality in particular areas or because of the location of utilities and construction firms)
Reservoirs 3 If employment opportunities are created by the improvements in environmental quality, the employment effect should be Drinking water production plant 3 proportionate with criterion 2. Anyhow the effect is rather limited, since most water companies are overstaffed and can take on extra work without additional staff. The projects will Transport & leakage long 3 distance generate work in the construction sector.
Transport & leakage local 3
Metering 3
5. providing employment and training opportunities for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups (e.g. ethnic minorities, women, older workers)
Reservoirs 3 Employment and training opportunities for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups in the water supply sector are limited Drinking water production plant 3 and no distinction can be made among investment types
Transport & leakage long 3 distance
Transport & leakage local 3
Metering 3
128 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
6. promoting cross-border co-operation (e.g. management of cross-border flooding)
Reservoirs The construction of big reservoirs can necessitate cross- 7 border cooperation and agreements on the multi-sector use of the surface water.
Drinking water production plant 0 Promotion effect negligible
Transport & leakage long Long distance water transport can necessitate cross-border distance 7 cooperation and agreements e.g. drinking water produced in one country transported to another country
Transport & leakage local 0 Promotion effect negligible
Metering 0 Promotion effect negligible
7. delivering national and regional environmental strategies and plans which are well integrated with wider development strategies and plans (e.g. where environmental priorities are well linked to economic or social objectives)
Reservoirs 7 Provision of sufficient drinking water is well anchored in the Water Framework Directive. E.g. economic considerations Drinking water production plant 7 (sustainable water use) are considered; improvement of surface water quality; etc. It is also essential towards Sustainable Development, Lisbon agenda, etc. Transport & leakage long 7 distance
Transport & leakage local 7
Metering 7
8. promoting more cost-effective programme design and delivery (e.g. encouraging the use of public-private partnerships, or more effective procurement)
Reservoirs 3 Limited effect, sometimes reduction of leakage more cost- effective (but not visible) than reservoir construction
Drinking water production plant 7 Some possibilities for PPP’s, as well for construction, operation as for maintenance of production plants and Transport & leakage long 7 network. On the other hand often still seen as a governmental distance task (base provision, social charges, etc.);
Transport & leakage local 7
Metering 10 Typical service to be provided by private companies, controlled by public authority
129 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Waste Water:
Contribution of investment to:
1. securing compliance with the acquis (e.g. because of replacement of non-compliant treatment plant)
New STPs : 7 Required by the UWWT Directive for all agglomerations > 2.000 PE
Renovation / upgrade STPs 7 Has the same priority for compliance as new STP
New Sewerage 7 Has the same priority for compliance as STP : both are required by the UWWTD
Renovation / upgrade sewerage 3 Not really a compliance requirement. Rather a way of guaranteeing better environmental quality and avoiding more expensive damage costs
Sewage pumping stations 7 Part of sewers.
CSO upgrading 3 Not really a strict compliance requirement. Rather a way of guaranteeing better environmental quality
Sludge treatment 7 Has the same priority for compliance as STP : both are required by the UWWTD. Sludge treatment consists about half of the sewage treatment problem.
Sludge disposal 7 Has the same priority for compliance as STP : both are required by the UWWTD. Sludge treatment consists about half of the sewage treatment problem.
2. avoiding economic and social damages (e.g. because of reduced natural risks of flooding, fire or because of improved environmental quality)
New STPs : 7 All components of the sewage management system are about equally important for the improvement of environmental quality. Renovation / upgrade STPs 10 Renovation of STP relatively contributes more, because it can be very cost effective. The effect of CSO upgrading should not New Sewerage 7 be under estimated, even if it is not explicitly required by the acquis. Renovation / upgrade sewerage 7
Sewage pumping stations 7
CSO upgrading 7
Sludge treatment 7
Sludge disposal 7
130 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
3. encouraging new technology and market development (e.g. priming the development of local PV or passive solar market) with the potential to replace imports or generate exports
New STPs : 3 Municipal waste water management is not a high tech business. The types of investment which are most innovative are Renovation / upgrade STPs 7 renovation/upgrading of STP (using process modelling and pilot plants) and sludge treatment (mechanical dewatering, anaerobic New Sewerage 3 digestion, sludge drying).
Renovation / upgrade sewerage 3
Sewage pumping stations 3
CSO upgrading 3
Sludge treatment 7
Sludge disposal 0
4. generating employment opportunities in line with national and regional employment goals (e.g. for employment in lagging regions, or in particular cities or in rural areas - because of improvements in environmental quality in particular areas or because of the location of utilities and construction firms)
New STPs : 3 If employment opportunities are created by the improvements in environmental quality, the employment effect should be Renovation /upgrade STPs 7 proportionate with criterion 2. Anyhow the effect is rather limited, since most water companies are overstaffed and can take on New Sewerage 3 extra work without additional staff. The projects will generate work in the construction sector. Renovation / upgrade sewerage 3
Sewage pumping stations 3
CSO upgrading 3
Sludge treatment 3
Sludge disposal 3
131 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
5. providing employment and training opportunities for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups (e.g. ethnic minorities, women, older workers)
New STPs : 3 Employment and training opportunities for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups in the waste water sector are limited and Renovation / upgrade STPs 3 no distinction can be made among investment types
New Sewerage 3
Renovation / upgrade sewerage 3
Sewage pumping stations 3
CSO upgrading 3
Sludge treatment 3
Sludge disposal 3
6. promoting cross-border co-operation (e.g. management of cross-border flooding)
New STPs : 3 Cross border consultation and co-operation will take place in case of the construction of STP (new or renovation) that have a Renovation / upgrade STPs 3 transboundary impact on water quality. The projects themselves will probably not be of transboundary nature, but the planning New Sewerage 3 process will (through the elaboration of River Basin Management Plans). Renovation / upgrade sewerage 3
Sewage pumping stations 0
CSO upgrading 0
Sludge treatment 0
Sludge disposal 0
132 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
7. delivering national and regional environmental strategies and plans which are well integrated with wider development strategies and plans (e.g. where environmental priorities are well linked to economic or social objectives)
New STPs : 7 The planning process in the (waste) water field is well elaborated through the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. Renovation / upgrade STPs 7 Economic considerations are an integral part of this.
New Sewerage 7
Renovation / upgrade sewerage 7
Sewage pumping stations 7
CSO upgrading 7
Sludge treatment 7
Sludge disposal 7
8. promoting more cost-effective programme design and delivery (e.g. encouraging the use of public-private partnerships, or more effective procurement)
New STPs : 3 The waste water sector is not very suitable for PPP constructions and there are not many successful examples. It is difficult for the Renovation / upgrade STPs 3 service provider to convince the client that he needs his service. Drinking water may be indispensable for a client, but he may be New Sewerage 3 able to discharge his waste water untreated. In addition the charges are set by public authorities, which is a risk for the Renovation / upgrade sewerage 3 investor.
Sewage pumping stations 3
CSO upgrading 3
Sludge treatment 3
Sludge disposal 3
133 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Municipal Solid Waste
Contribution of investment to:
1. securing compliance with the acquis (e.g. because of replacement of non-compliant treatment plant)
Waste collection 7 Pre-condition to meet requirements in different EU acquis
Waste sorting 3
Recovery Meeting requirements as laid down in Landfill Directive (99/31/EC)° 7 related to reduction of biodegradable municipal waste in waste landfilled.
Disposal - new disposal facilities Meeting requirements as laid down in Framework Directive on waste disposal (75/442/EC + amen.) 10 Meeting requirements as laid down in Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) and Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC)
Disposal - remediation of existing 7 Meeting requirements as laid down in Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) disposal facilities
2. avoiding economic and social damages (e.g. because of reduced natural risks of flooding, fire or because of improved environmental quality)
Waste collection 7 Improved environmental quality (hygiene, visual aspects, etc.)
Waste sorting 3 Limited: precondition for optimal recovery and disposal
Recovery 3 Limited: precondition for optimal final disposal
Disposal - new disposal facilities Improved environmental quality (quality drinking water sources, 7 reduced air emission, soil contamination)
Disposal - remediation of existing Improved environmental quality (quality drinking water sources, 10 disposal facilities reduced air emission, soil contamination)
134 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
3. encouraging new technology and market development (e.g. priming the development of local PV or passive solar market) with the potential to replace imports or generate exports
Waste collection 7 producers (green image - marketing), reduction of waste by end-of pipeline and process adaptations, implementation new packaging techniques, triggers investments of private companies
Waste sorting 7 triggers investments of private companies, research on new, more efficient sorting technologies
Recovery 7 New composting technologies with biogas recuperation, technologies to recover energy from landfills, new recovery/extraction techniques of recyclables
Disposal - new disposal facilities 7 Incineration plants: New atmospheric emission reduction technologies & energy recuperation techniques
Disposal - remediation of existing 3 Limited to new monitoring, control and remediation techniques disposal facilities
4. generating employment opportunities in line with national and regional employment goals (e.g. for employment in lagging regions, or in particular cities or in rural areas - because of improvements in environmental quality in particular areas or because of the location of utilities and construction firms)
Waste collection 7 Directly: Generation of local employment opportunities as labour intensive
Indirectly: employment in product innovation (national level)
Waste sorting 7 Directly: Generation of local employment opportunities as labour intensive
Recovery 3 Directly: Little impacts on generation of local employment opportunities
Indirectly: employment in R&D (national level)
Disposal - new disposal facilities 3 Directly: Little impacts on local employment opportunities
Indirectly: employment in R&D (national level)
Disposal - remediation of existing 3 Directly: Little impacts on local employment opportunities, employment disposal facilities opportunities in environmental sector specialised in remediation techniques (national level)
135 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
5. providing employment and training opportunities for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups (e.g. ethnic minorities, women, older workers)
Waste collection 7 Directly: High need for low skilled workers
Waste sorting 7 Directly: High need for low skilled workers
Recovery 3 Training opportunities on new recovery techniques
Disposal - new disposal facilities 0 Little need for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups
Disposal - remediation of existing 3 Training opportunities: Monitoring activities disposal facilities
6. promoting cross-border co-operation (e.g. management of cross-border flooding)
Waste collection 0 No Cross-border co-operation promotion (*)
Waste sorting 0 No Cross-border co-operation promotion
Recovery 0 No Cross-border co-operation promotion
Disposal - new disposal facilities 0 No Cross-border co-operation promotion (*)
Disposal - remediation of existing No Cross-border co-operation promotion 0 disposal facilities
* : although link to cross-border aspect: Own recovery facilities enables to meet the EU “proximity principle” (waste management where it is generated, e.g. limiting import-export of waste)
7. delivering national and regional environmental strategies and plans which are well integrated with wider development strategies and plans (e.g. where environmental priorities are well linked to economic or social objectives)
Waste collection 7 Waste collection services are often integrated in regional and national development strategies and plans as an overall ‘first order’ environmental need.
Waste sorting 3 Little integration with wider development strategies and plans
Recovery 3 Little integration with wider development strategies and plans
Disposal - new disposal facilities 7 New disposal facilities are often integrated in regional and national development strategies and plans as an overall ‘first order’ environmental need.
Disposal - remediation of existing 3 Little integration with wider development strategies and plans disposal facilities
136 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
8. promoting more cost-effective programme design and delivery (e.g. encouraging the use of public-private partnerships, or more effective procurement)
Waste collection 7 public-private partnerships are encouraged
Waste sorting 7
Recovery 7
Disposal - new disposal facilities 7
Disposal - remediation of existing Limited scope 3 disposal facilities
137 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Renewable Energy:
Contribution of investment to:
• securing compliance with the acquis (e.g. because of replacement of non-compliant treatment plant)
Wind 3 All renewable energy sources will assist countries in achieving aspects of the acquis such as the RES directive and the biomass Hydro (>15 MW) 3 action plan. The degree to which they are of assistance will Hydro (<15 MW) 3 depend on site-specific factors. Solid biomass 3 Liquid biofuels 3 Geothermal 3 Solar thermal 3 Solar electric (PV) 3 Other (specify) -
• avoiding economic and social damages (e.g. because of reduced natural risks of flooding, fire or because of improved environmental quality)
Wind 7 All renewable energy sources contribute to the important goal of avoiding global warming, which would have economic and social Hydro (>15 MW) 3 impacts. Larger hydro projects are more problematic, however, Hydro (<15 MW) 7 given their potential for impacting the landscape. Solid biomass 7 Liquid biofuels 7 Geothermal 7 Solar thermal 7 Solar electric (PV) 7 Other (specify) -
138 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
• encouraging new technology and market development (e.g. priming the development of local PV or passive solar market) with the potential to replace imports or generate exports
Wind 7 Wind is an important emerging market Hydro (>15 MW) 3 This is a more developed technology than others Hydro (<15 MW) 7 Solid biomass 7 Biomass and biofuels can replace imported solid and liquid fossil fuels and are among the sources slated for the greatest growth in 7 Liquid biofuels Europe Geothermal 3 Geothermal is largely a special case Solar thermal 7 10 PV is the technology with perhaps the biggest gap between Solar electric (PV) current use and future potential Other (specify) -
• generating employment opportunities in line with national and regional employment goals (e.g. for employment in lagging regions, or in particular cities or in rural areas - because of improvements in environmental quality in particular areas or because of the location of utilities and construction firms)
Wind 3 Employment impacts are very hard to quantify. These results are based on a study by U. Bremen in Germany – note that while Hydro (>15 MW) 3 solar provides jobs for installers, for example, the amount Hydro (<15 MW) 7 installed for a given amount of investment is so low that the impacts are negligible in comparison to other sources. Solid biomass 7 Liquid biofuels 3 Geothermal 3 Solar thermal 0 Solar electric (PV) 0 Other (specify) -
139 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
• providing employment and training opportunities for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups (e.g. ethnic minorities, women, older workers)
Wind 3 There is no reason to expect RES to provide opportunities to these workers in particular; all of them have a rural element that Hydro (>15 MW) 3 can be useful – whether in terms of agriculture for biomass, or Hydro (<15 MW) 3 siting of wind mills. Solid biomass 3 Liquid biofuels 3 Geothermal 3 Solar thermal 3 Solar electric (PV) 3 Other (specify) -
• promoting cross-border co-operation (e.g. management of cross-border flooding) Wind 0 Hydro (>15 MW) 7 Hydro projects may have an element of cooperation, given impacts on water flows, etc., with larger project more likely Hydro (<15 MW) 3 Solid biomass 3 Sourcing biomass and biofuels may involve a range around a facility that crosses borders Liquid biofuels 3 Geothermal 0 Solar thermal 0 Solar electric (PV) 0 Other (specify) -
140 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
• delivering national and regional environmental strategies and plans which are well integrated with wider development strategies and plans (e.g. where environmental priorities are well linked to economic or social objectives) Wind 7 Renewable energy projects link well with efforts to diversify energy supply, create new market for agricultural products, Hydro (>15 MW) 3 etc. Large hydro has potential downsides for communities. Hydro (<15 MW) 7 Solid biomass 7 Liquid biofuels 7 Geothermal 7 Solar thermal 7 Solar electric (PV) 7 Other (specify) -
• promoting more cost-effective programme design and delivery (e.g. encouraging the use of public-private partnerships, or more effective procurement)
Wind 7 Wind is a cost effective source of RES Hydro (>15 MW) 7 Large hydro is generally cost effective Hydro (<15 MW) 3 Solid biomass 7 Biomass and biofuels are among the less expensive source of RES Liquid biofuels 7 Geothermal 3 Solar thermal 3 Solar electric (PV) 3 Other (specify) -
141 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.3.2 Indicative distribution of the identified investment priorities according to region Share (%) of investment by regions in Czech Republic
REGION (specify WS WWT MSW RES NRM regions for the MS)
Region 01 8,8 13,0 11,5 3,8 11,8 Praha Region 02 8,6 7,6 11,2 7,4 11,6 Stredni Cechy Region 03 14,9 13,1 11,5 11,6 14,9 Jihozapad Region 04 11,3 7,5 11,0 14,6 5,7 Severozapad Region 05 14,9 13,1 14,5 14,4 11,2 Severovychod Region 06 16,5 18,2 16,0 16,0 16,6 Jihovychod Region 07 12,3 13,6 12,0 15,9 15,5 Stredni Morava Region 08 12,7 13,9 12,3 16,3 12,7 Ostravsko, renamed to Moravskoslezko
All Regions 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
142 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
10 REFERENCE LIST
10.1 Literature, databases and websites consulted • Activities of the European Union – Summaries of Legislation : Czech Republic – Adoption of the Community Acquis http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/e15107.htm • Agriculture And Rural Development Operative Programme (ARDOP) • Czech Republic – National Strategy of the EU Cohesion Fund, Sector of the Environment 2004-2006 (Prague, May 2003) • Environment and Infrastructure Operational Programme (EIOP) • European Environment Agency, 2005. The European environment — State and outlook 2005. Copenhagen, ISBN 92-9167-776-0 • Government Czech Republic Czech Republic national development plan for 2007 – 2013 • http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/country/prordn/details.cfm?gv_PA Y=HU&gv_reg=ALL&gv_PGM=2003HU161PO003&LAN=6 • http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/007/y5507e/y5507e 03.htm • Ministry of Agriculture (2006). Water in Czech Republic • Ministry of Environment (2006). Operation programme for Environment • Ministry of Industry and Trade. Actual state energy strategies • Ministry of the Environment (2005): “Report on the Environment in the Czech Republic in 2004” • Parliament Decision, Report on rural development processes and implementation of rural development policy 97/2005.(XII.25.) • The annual report on “Water-supply and sewerage systems in the Czech Republic in 2004”: http://www.mze.cz • United Nations, Freshwater country profile CR, 2004. • United Nations, Sanitation country profile CR, 2004. 10.2 Interviews Private consultants that have been contacted in the scope of the project are:
• Mr. Petr Baranek - drinking water
• Mr. Antonin Vach - waste water
• Mr. Oldrich Pazdera - municipality waste
• Mr. Jaromir Kudlik – natural risks
• Mr. Ondrej Dusek - waste water and RES
143 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE