Annex X the Vistula

Home , Drwinka, Dunajec, Kamienna (river), Kampinos National Park, Liwa (river), Magura National Park

12th July 2018

Annex X

Application of the bottom- up multicriteria methodology in eight European River Basin District

Task A3 of the BLUE 2 project “Study on EU integrated policy assessment for the freshwater and marine environment, on the economic benefits of EU water policy and on the costs of its non- implementation”

By: Magdalena Trybuch Agnieszka Rogowiec Krzysztof Kochanek

In collaboration with

Disclaimer: The arguments expressed in this report are solely those of the authors, and do not reflect the opinion of any other party.

The report should be cited as follows: Trybuch, Rogowiec, Kochanek (2018). Annex X. Application of the bottom-up multicriteria methodology in eight European River Basin Districts – The Vistula RBD. Deliverable to Task A3 of the BLUE 2 project “Study on EU integrated policy assessment for the freshwater and marine environment, on the economic benefits of EU water policy and on the costs of its non- implementation”. Report to DG ENV. Client: Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission.

Ramboll Group A/S Hannemanns Allé 53 DK-2300 Copenhagen S Denmark Tel: +45 5161 1000 Fax: +45 5161 1001

Institute for European Environmental Policy London Office 11 Belgrave Road IEEP Offices, Floor 3 London, SW1V 1RB Tel: +44 (0) 20 7799 2244 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7799 2600

Brussels Office Rue Joseph II 36-38, 1000 Bruxelles Tel: +32 (0) 2738 7482 Fax: +32 (0) 2732 4004

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... 3 Preface ...... 5 1 Description of the River Basin District Wisła (Vistula) ...... 6 2 The Second River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and the related Programme of Measure (PoM) ...... 10 3 The measures included in the BAU level of effort ...... 13 4 The measures included in the HI level of effort ...... 21 5 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort ...... 24 6 Costs of the measures included in the HI level of effort ...... 27 7 Outcomes of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort ...... 29 8 Benefits of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort (a quarter of a page per measure) ...... 31 9 Biodiversity improvements of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort 33 10 Comparison of the costs and benefits in the two levels of effort ...... 34 11 Challenges and recommendations to improve the methodology ...... 45 12 References ...... 48 13 Annex. Detailed information on costs ...... 50

List of Tables Table 1 Characterisation of the River Basin District of the River Vistula...... 9 Table 2 Measures in the BAU level of effort ...... 14 Table 3 Measures in the HI level of effort ...... 22 Table 4 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – total funding ...... 26 Table 5 Costs of the measures included in the HI level of effort – total funding ...... 28 Table 6 Summary of the costs in the two levels of effort ...... 35 Table 7 Summary of the outcomes in the two levels of effort ...... 37 Table 8 Summary of the benefits in the two levels of effort ...... 41 Table 9 Summary of the biodiversity improvements in the two levels of effort ...... 44 Table 10 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – public funding ...... 50 Table 11 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – private funding ...... 51 Table 12 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – other funding ...... 52

List of Figures Figure 1 Overview of the BLUE2 study ...... 5 Figure 2 The River Vistula Basin District ...... 6

Preface

This annex report is one product of the “Study on European Union (EU) integrated policy assessment for the freshwater and marine environment, on the economic benefits of EU water policy and on the costs of its non-implementation” (BLUE2) commissioned by the European Commission (EC). The overall aim of the BLUE2 study is to support the Commission in building up its analytical capacity and understanding of the economics and effectiveness of the EU water acquis. BLUE2 is comprised of two parts, as shown in Figure 1: Figure 1 Overview of the BLUE2 study

The overall objective of Part A of BLUE2 is to increase the understanding of the full (economic) value that water, and water services generate and how water resources contribute to economic development and citizens' well-being. The findings of BLUE2 will further assist in quantifying how the EU water acquis contributes to this value generation, using the most appropriate valuation techniques. The overall objective of Part B of BLUE2 is to develop a method for the integrated socio- economic assessment of policies affecting the quality of the freshwater and marine environment, to be applied in connection with the water and marine modelling framework held by the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC). The method and accompanying tools will be used to support policy development. In particular, Part B aims to establish an EU pressures inventory and measures database. Additionally, Part B will increase the understanding of the cost-effectiveness of measures and the benefits arising from a reduction of pressures on the freshwater and marine environment through the application of two online modelling tools. A Scenario Generation Tool for defining and generating policy scenarios for JRC modelling and an Evaluation Tool for cost-benefit assessment of the created scenarios. Task A3 of BLUE2 developed a bottom-up multicriteria methodology to compare costs and benefits of water policy at the River Basin District level. This annex summarises the results of the application of the methodology developed in Task A3 to the Vistula RBD.

1 Description of the River Basin District Wisła (Vistula)

Figure 2 The River Vistula Basin District

Overall description of the RBD

The River Vistula (Pol. Wisła) basin district (RVBD) is the largest catchment in Poland with an area of 183,176 km2 (whose 87.5% in Poland). It covers nearly 60% of the whole area of the country. The sources of the main River Vistula are located on the slope of the Barania Góra mountain in Beskid Śląski and the mouth of the river is in the Zatoka Gdańska (Baltic Sea). Due to its large area, the RVBD covers several administrative units in Eastern Poland, these are Voivodships (from south to north – along the River Vistula course): śląskie, małopolskie, podkarpackie, lubelskie, świętokrzyskie, łódzkie, mazowieckie, podlaskie, warmińsko-mazurskie, kujawsko- pomorskie, pomorskie, i.e. 11 out of all 16 Voivodships in Poland. It terms of geographical variability, the RVBD covers three physio-geographical units: Subcarpatian Region, Eastern Europe without Alpian regions and Eastern European lowlands. It means that the RVBD is of mountainous character in its southern part (approximately up to Dunajec tributary), which later changes into highland character (approximately up to the River San tributary) and finally lowland rivers catchment up to the River Vistula mouth. The most important left tributaries of the River Vistula are: Przemsza, Nida, Czarna, Kamienna, Iłżanka, Radomka, Pilica, Bzura, Brda, Wda, and Wierzyca, whereas the right tributaries are: Soła, Skawa, Raba, Dunajec, Wisłoka, San, Wieprz, Świder, Narew, Skrwa, Drwęca, Osa and Liwa. The significant discharges of the River Vistula and frequent inundations lead to the building of several artificial reservoirs that mostly play flow-regulating, fresh-water supplying and power- generating roles; the biggest artificial reservoirs are Wisła-Czarne, Goczałkowice and Włocławek. Within the RVBD there are: 2,660 rivers, 6 near-sea rivers, 5 channels, 484 lakes and 94 groundwater water reservoirs.

The population in the RVBD reaches 24.5 million inhabitants. The most important Polish cities with regards to their cultural heritage and economic significance are located in the area of the River Vistula Catchment, including: Kraków (population: 766,739 in 2017), Katowice (population: 297,177 in 2017), Lublin (population: 340,230 in 2017), Warszawa (population: 1,758,143 in 2017), Białystok (population: 296,628 in 2017), Toruń (population: 202,591 in 2017), Bydgoszcz (population: 353,215 in 2017) and Gdańsk (population: 464,293 in 2017). It is estimated that 64% of the RVBD area is an agricultural area.

Environmental characteristics of the RBD

The significant area occupied by the RVBD catchment and its features, including the geographical, hydromorphological, climatic and administrative variability, influence water management and environment protection policies.

The main pressures on water bodies in the RVBD result directly from water management and economic activities in the catchment. River water is used for intake for municipal and industrial purposes, intake for technologic and cooling purposes, for agriculture and forestry needs, for power plants needs as well as for river transport, fishing and angling, tourism and recreation. The vast area of the RVBD homes almost all types of economic activities performed in Poland, i.e. heavy industry (metallurgy, mining, machinery production), chemical and petrochemical, power-generating (water, gas and coal), intensive agriculture and forestry, municipal activities (connected with transport, sewage production and generation of noise, contamination etc.), leisure (resorts and spas), services and river mass transport. Almost all these activities pose a threat on particular water bodies leading to serious violation of ecological balance. The rivers in the RVBD are mostly regulated (especially when flowing through the cities), overexploited and often contaminated. The most problematic activities are connected with the point discharge of contaminants created by the municipal and industrial activities into the water bodies (mostly rivers and creeks), non-point sources of pollution mostly of agricultural origin, hydromorphological changes (regulation of the channels, levees, inter-catchment junctions), as well as point (and partly non-point) contamination created by the mass tourism and recreation. Within the last few years relatively frequent and violent floods have been observed but also prolonged periods of low water in the RVBD, which negatively influenced the quality of water.

Point pressures. In the RVBD the point pressures result from municipal sewage (mostly treated) discharge to the rivers. In the RVBD there are over 4000 collectors of sewage with outlets directed to the river water bodies. This results in the eutrophication of rivers. There are also over 1000 points of industrial wastewater (industrial contaminants) discharge and over 900 points of discharge of water from river farms. Potentially dangerous are also leakages from the municipal (over 900) and industrial (180) landfills and waters from de-watering of the mines, which increase the salinization of fresh waters in rivers and lakes.

As for the groundwater bodies, the situation with point pressures is similar to river ones. They are contaminated mostly by industrial and municipal landfills, discharge of industrial and sanitary sewage. As a result, the aquifers from 0 to 15 meters below the ground level (analysed by the environmental protection services) reveal poor water quality especially in terms of low value of pH (caused by mine water discharged to the environment), existence of light hydrocarbons, heavy metals and rise of ions of K, Na, Cl, N, S.

Dispersed pressures. Here the agricultural activity poses the higher risk (and the most influential pressure of all analysed) for the quality of water, but also the non-treated sewage from rural areas, air emissions deposition and related natural processes. The agricultural activity uses both artificial and natural fertilisers, carries out livestock farming leading to the contamination of the soil and field melioration leading to the erosion of soil. The agricultural contaminants (mostly K, N and P) seriously contribute to the eutrophication of the water bodies. Atmospheric (air emissions) deposition increases the concentration of the aromatic hydrocarbons in soil and water.

Similar patterns of contamination can be observed for groundwater bodies. The agricultural activity and atmospheric deposition rises the concentration of the compounds of N and P. Overexploitation of groundwater for municipal and industrial purposes, dewatering of mines, irrigations lead to the drop of the groundwater head in aquifers, which in turn influences quality of water by intrusion of saline waters.

Hydromorphological pressures. The hydromorphological pressures impact river, groundwater and lake water bodies. This kind of pressures are mostly due to the anti-flood regulation of the rivers’ channels, construction of

the reservoirs, sailing, water power plants, sand mining, construction of other hydrologic facility such as dikes, bridges, city promenades, levees, piers, etc., as well as, intakes of waters for communal and industrial purposes. For instance, the intake of water for municipal purposes reaches 10,337,102 thousand of m3/year, for industry 3,729,473 thousand of m3/year, for energy production 929,068 thousand of m3/year, for hydro power plants 13,303,022 thousand of m3/year, for fishing ponds 55,240 thousand of m3/year, for sailing 378,698 thousand of m3/year and for other purposes 59,880,088 thousand of m3/year.

The intensive exploitation of aquifers can be exemplified by the amount of extracted water, which reaches 1,253,376 thousand m3 per year, of which 31.4% is related with dewatering of mines and the rest is used for other purposes (drinking, production, services, agriculture, etc.).

Environmental status of the river water bodies and reservoirs.

According to the latest published classification of the quality of the water bodies in the RVBD (based on the documents by Main Inspectorate of Environment Protection that presented the results of monitoring of water bodies (WBs) in 2010-2015 - Iwaniak, 2016), 848 water bodies (out of the monitored 968) revealed bad environmental status, and 116 WBs revealed bad chemical status (out of 531). As far as the ecological status is concerned: 34 WBs were classified as bad, 131 as poor, 307 as moderate, 118 as good and only 10 as high (the best), out of 600 monitored natural or semi-natural water bodies. Additionally, potentially bad quality was detected in 31 artificial and heavily modified WBs, poor quality in 98, moderate quality in 219, good quality in 178 and high (the best) in 2. Despite the significant improvement of the water quality, there is still risk of non- achieving the good status for most WBs mostly due to the intensive farming in the RVBD. However, the exact impact of the agricultural activity is practically unknown (there is no reliable ways for qualitative assessment of the impact of agriculture on water) and difficult to control.

Environmental status of groundwater bodies

Field investigations revealed that the most endangered groundwater bodies are the shallow ones (up to 5 m below the ground level) within the large city agglomerations (Silesian, Greater Warsaw, Greater Cracow, etc.) and in the area of extensive agricultural cultivation. However, the mining activity poses the greatest threat on groundwater. More than 20% of groundwater bodies within the RVBD are at risk that the good status is not achieved.

Challenges facing the delivery of EU water law for this RBD

To the best of our knowledge, there is are not political or administrative problems in the delivery of the EU water law in the RVBD. We also observe rapid improvement of water status in the district. However not all water bodies registered in the RVBD achieved good status within the provided time period (i.e. until 2015) but they are hoped to improve until 2027.

Table 1 Characterisation of the River Basin District of the River Vistula.

Name of the RBD the River Vistula Basin District Country Poland Population (number of inhabitants) 38,422,346 Total area (km2) 312,679 Population density (inhabitants/km2) 123 GDP per capita (€) 12,315 Unemployment rate 7 Inland waters (km) 10,539.9 Groundwaters (m3) 36 millions m3 per day Lakes (km2) 2,814 Main cities and their population (number Warszawa (1,748,916), Kraków (762,448), Łódź of inhabitants) (698,688), Wrocław (637,075), Poznań (541,561) Water bodies in high status (%, in terms of 17 (out of 1,071 natural water bodies) and 4 (out of 966 surface area, not number) anthropogenically transformed water bodies) Water bodies in good status (%, in terms of 251 (natural), 302 (transformed) surface area, not number) Water bodies in moderate status (%, in 547 (natural), 411 (transformed) terms of surface area, not number) Water bodies in poor status (%, in terms of 189 (natural), 185 (transformed) surface area, not number) Water bodies in bad status (%, in terms of 48 (natural), 57 (transformed) surface area, not number) Biebrza National Park (Biebrza River and Wetlands - water birds, area 59,223), Kampinos National Park (Kampinos Forest - forest fauna and animals including elks, area 38,544), Bieszczady National Park (Bieszczady Mountains - grasslands, area 29,201), Name of the main Protected Areas, their Tatra National Park (Tatra Mountains - high mountains fauna size (ha) and their main biota(s) and flora, area 21,164), Magura National Park (Magura Mountain Range - grasslands, area 19,439), Słowiński National Park (Słowiński dunes - seabirds, area 18,600) Percentage of agricultural surface out of 64.2% total river basin surface (%)

2 The Second River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and the related Programme of Measure (PoM)

The 2nd RBMPs were adopted by the Polish Government on 18th October 2016 and officially published in the Polish Official Journal (Dziennik Ustaw 2016, poz.1911). They have been in force from 13th December 2016 until 22nd December 2021. All the information provided in this section is based on the information currently available at the webpages by the National Water Management - Polish Waters (http://www.apgw.kzgw.gov.pl/pl/dorzecze-wisly) and related legal documents published in Polish Official Journal (Dziennik Ustaw).

The number (and percentage) of surface water bodies in the River Vistula Basin affected by significant pressures is as follows: no pressures – 1,132 (36%), point source – 1,037 (33%), diffuse source – 44 (1.4%), water abstraction – 402 (12.8%), water flow regulations and morphological alterations – 1542 (49%), river management – 49 (1.55%), transitional and coastal water management – 0, other morphological alterations – 0, other pressures – 642 (20.4%).

To address these pressures, the River Basin Management Plan for the River Vistula adopted a number of measures targeted at the river water bodies located in the RVBD. These are measures addressing:

- sustainable management in communes - agriculture - water management and protection of the ecosystems related to water (e.g. morphology, and maintenance of the biological diversity along the river course) - controlling activities - monitoring, - law-related and educational activities For the river water bodies in the RVBD the most important measures consider areas such as: communal management (2,653 WB) and monitoring (126 and 89 WB) – see table below.

River WB Little Upper Middle Lower Water region Vistula Vistula Vistula Vistula Number of WB 2660 Number of endangered WB 1579 Number of basic measures 276 2573 5612 1,766 Costs of the implementation of the basic measures [thousand EUR] 216,010 776,570 1,571,956 799,322 Number of additional measurements in total 148 544 1,418 383 Costs of the implementation of the additional measures [thousand EUR] 33,640 4,903 17,988 8,919 Communal management 85 762 1351 455

Water management and protection of the Number of water ecosystems related to water 1 40 34 51 bodies for which the measures will be Controlling activities 12 284 845 152 applied Law-related and educational activities 76 259 226 83 Monitoring 48 291 1124 211 Agriculture 0 0 81 17 NFOŚiGW*, WFOŚiGW, RPO, PROW, Potential funding sources of basic measures POIiŚ Potential funding sources of additional measures NFOŚiGW, WFOŚiGW, PROW, POIiŚ

* NFOŚiGW – National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Środowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej)

WFOŚiGW - Voivodship Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (Wojewódzki Fundusz Ochrony Środowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej)

RPO – Regional Operational Programme (Regionalny Program Operacyjny)

PROW – Programme of the Rural Area Development (Program Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich)

POIiŚ – Operational Programme – Infrestructure and Environment (Program Operacyjny Infrastruktura i Środowisko)

The catalogue of measures for the lake water bodies is similar to those related to river bodies but instead of the water management and protection measure, there is re-cultivation of the lakes. The most crucial measures for the lake WB are presented in table below.

Lakes WB Water region Middle Vistula Lower Vistula Number of WB 484 Number of endangered WB 297 Number of basic measures 114 274 Costs of the implementation of the basic measures [thousand EUR] 5,015 7,899 Number of additional measures 388 537 Costs of the implementation of the additional measures [thousand EUR] 1,751 970 Communal management 28 65 Re-cultivation 4 12 Number of water bodies for Controlling activities 115 169 which the measures will be Law-related and educational activities 73 72 applied Monitoring 114 173 Agriculture 1 4 NFOŚiGW, WFOŚiGW, RPO, Potential funding sources of basic measures PROW, POIiŚ national budget, WFOŚiGW, Potential funding sources of additional measures PROW, RPO, LIFE

The table presents the information on the envisaged measures with the most important to be addressed for the groundwater bodies.

Groundwater WB Little Upper Middle Lower Water region Vistula Vistula Vistula Vistula Number of WB 94 Number of endangered WB 22 Number of basic measures 63 86 172 92 Costs of the implementation of the basic measures [thousand EUR] 84,434 Number of additional measures 18 11 18 18

Costs of the implementation of the additional measures [thousand EUR] 1340 Communal management 9 29 34 18 Research and monitoring of the water environments 0 1 0 0 Number of water bodies Controlling activities 1 1 3 3 for which the measures Law-related and educational activities 10 16 27 19 should be applied Monitoring 9 16 27 19 Industry 7 3 2 0 Agriculture 0 0 6 1 national budget, NFOŚiGW, Potential funding sources of basic measures WFOŚiGW, RPO, PROW Potential funding sources of additional measures NFOŚiGW, WFOŚiGW, PROW

Additionally, the River Basin Management Plan envisaged some measures for climate adaptation. They are divided into several categories:

- Communal management – which includes individual and communal sewage treatment plants, modernisation and enlargement of sewage network - Water management and protection of the ecosystems related to water – clearing of the river channels to reconstruct its patency for hydromorphologic continuity - Forming of natural hydrodynamic and hydrologic conditions – re-naturalisation of some parts of the rivers - Re-cultivation of lakes and rivers - Agriculture – reduction of fertilisers - Industry – re-cultivation of open cast mines influencing groundwater, rational management of water used for drinking

3 The measures included in the BAU level of effort

The measures included in the Business as Usual (BAU) level of effort are presented in the table below. The information provided in the tables are acquired from Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 18 October 2016 on the Watershed Management Plan in the Vistula River Basin Area (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 18 października 2016 r. w sprawie Planu gospodarowania wodami na obszarze dorzecza Wisły), Updated Water- Environmental Program for the Country (Aktualizacja programu wodno-środowiskowego kraju) and National programme of the municipal sewage treatment (Krajowy program oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych) - Fifth update of national programme of the municipal sewage treatment (Piąta aktualizacja Krajowego Programu oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych (V AKPOŚK)).

From the catalogue of measures we included in the BAU level of effort the measures which are expected to deliver outcomes that can significantly contribute to address the most important pressures in the water bodies included in the RBDs, i.e. point, distributed and hydromorphological pressures. These are measures related mostly to the improvement of sewage network and construction of new or renovation of municipal and industrial sewage treatment plants. They belong the following Key Type of Measures (KTMs):

- KTM1. Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants – the main KTM, but others may be useful, too: - KTM15. Measures for the phasing‐out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances - KTM16. Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms). - KTM21. Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure The most expensive measures relate mostly to the flood protection activities and adaptation projects and belong to the following KTMs:

- KTM24. Adaptation to climate change and - KTM6. Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity – the main KTM, but others may be useful, too: - KTM5. Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) - KTM7. Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows

For the purpose of the BLUE2 project, we selected over 40 investments concerning sewage treatment system as a whole for cities in the River Vistula District with a Population Equivalent (PE) > 100,000 citizens or more. We chose to focus only on the River Vistula District due to time and budget limits, but this analysis could theoretically be carried out for the entire country.

We also included 100 investments dealing with flood protection and climate adaptation with total costs of more than 1 million Euro narrowed down to the River Vistula District alone.

All the information on these measures is included in the Excel Task A3 spreadsheet. In this report we present only the most representative initiatives and projects (see table 2 below).

Table 2 Measures in the BAU level of effort

Code (1st number: Does the measure target EU legislation of Name of the Individual basic KTM; 2nd number: Location a river, a lake or relevance (WFD, BWD, measure basic measure groundwater? DWD, Flood Directive…) 1.1, (15.1, 16.1, 21.1) Measure to address point pressure Warszawa River+groundwater WFD - municipal sewage for cities 1.2, (15.2, 16.2, 21.2) Measure to address point pressure Kraków River+groundwater WFD - municipal sewage for cities 1.3, (15.3, 16.3, 21.3) Measure to address point pressure Gdańsk River+groundwater WFD - municipal sewage for cities 1.4, (15.4, 16.4, 21.4) Measure to address point pressure Lublin River+groundwater WFD - municipal sewage for cities 1.5, (15.5, 16.5, 21.5) Measure to address point pressure Bydgoszcz River+groundwater WFD - municipal sewage for cities 24.1 Measure to address Jasienica commune River Flood directive hydromorphological pressure 6.1, (7.1) Measure to address Kłaj, Niepołomice, Drwinia, Bochnia communes River Flood directive hydromorphological pressure 6.2, (7.2) Measure to address communes: Słupno, Gąbin (rural commune), city River Flood directive hydromorphological pressure Płock 6.3, (7.3) Measure to address communes: Stegna, Cedry Wielkie, Ostaszewo, Flood directive hydromorphological pressure Suchy Dąb, Lichnowy, Tczew (rural commune), River Pelplin (rural area), Gniew (rural area), Miłoradz, Kwidzyn (rural commune), Grudziądz 6.4, (7.4) Measure to address communes: Świecie (rural area), Chełmno (rural Flood directive hydromorphological pressure area), Aleksandrów Kujawski (rural area), Wielka River Nieszawka, City of Toruń, Zławieś Wielka, Solec Kujawski (city)

1.1 Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Warsaw agglomeration

Related KTM: KTM1, (but also KTM15, KTM16, KTM21)

Location: Communes Warszawa, Izabelin, Legionowo, Marki, Jabłonna, Ząbki, Zielonka, Nieporęt, Stare Babice

Addressed water body: Rivers and groundwater resources within Warsaw agglomeration – the River Vistula and its tributaries (the most important are Bug, Narew, Świder, Wkra)

Main objectives: Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Warsaw agglomeration

Overall budget: 504,555 thousand Euro

Addressed pressures: pollution from urban and rural areas

List of expected outcomes: reduction of the emissions to surface and groundwater bodies, upgrades of industrial and domestic treatment plants, modernisation and development of sewage network

Expected life time: > 40 years

Brief description of the measure: The investment is to improve the access of inhabitants to the sewage system in the agglomeration. It consists in building new sewage treatment plants in the area and connecting communes to the sewage network, unavailable up to now. This will result in the reduction of the number of septic tanks, especially in rural areas and suburbs of the cities. The investment will have impact on over 1.7 million inhabitants.

1.2 Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Cracow agglomeration

Related KTM: KTM1, (but also KTM15, KTM16, KTM21)

Location: Communes Kraków, Biskupice, Kocmyrzów-Luborzyca, Michałowice, Świątniki Górne, Wieliczka, Welka Wieś, Zabierzów, Zielonki

Addressed water body: Rivers and groundwater resources within Kraków agglomeration – the River Vistula and its tributaries (the most important are Raba, Skawa, Dunajec)

Main objectives: Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Cracow agglomeration

Overall budget: 132,940.48 thousand Euro

Addressed pressures: pollution from urban and rural areas

List of expected outcomes: reduction of the emissions to surface and groundwater bodies, upgrades of industrial and domestic treatment plants, modernisation and development of sewage network

Expected life time: > 40 years

Brief description of the measure: The investment is to improve the access of inhabitants to the sewage system in the agglomeration. In consists in building new sewage treatment plants in the area and connecting communes to the sewage network, unavailable up to now. This will result in the reduction of the number of septic tanks, especially in rural areas and suburbs of the cities. The investment will have impact on nearly 1.0 million inhabitants.

1.3 Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Gdańsk agglomeration

Related KTM: KTM1, (but also KTM15, KTM16, KTM21)

Location: cities Gdańsk, Sopot, Pruszcz Gdański, communes Pruszcz Gdański, Szemud, Żukowo, Kolbudy, part of the city of Gdynia

Addressed water body: Rivers and groundwater resources within Gdańsk agglomeration and neighbour cities – the River Vistula Delta and Zatoka Gdańska (Baltic Sea)

Main objectives: Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Gdańsk agglomeration

Overall budget: 40,843.38 thousand Euro

Addressed pressures: pollution from urban and rural areas

List of expected outcomes: reduction of the emissions to surface and groundwater bodies, upgrades of industrial and domestic treatment plants, modernisation and development of sewage network

Expected life time: > 40 years

1.4 Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Lublin agglomeration

Related KTM: KTM1, (but also KTM15, KTM16, KTM21)

Location: Communes Lublin, Świdnik, Głusk, Konopnica, Wólka, Jastków, Niemce

Addressed water body: Rivers and groundwater resources within Lublin agglomeration – within the fork of the Rivers Vistula and Wieprz and their tributaries

Main objectives: Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Lublin agglomeration

Overall budget: 41 232.36 thousand Euro

Addressed pressures: pollution from urban and rural areas

List of expected outcomes: reduction of the emissions to surface and groundwater bodies, upgrades of industrial and domestic treatment plants, modernisation and development of sewage network

Expected life time: > 40 years

Brief description of the measure: The investment is to improve the access of inhabitants to the sewage system in the agglomeration. In part it consists in building new sewage treatment plants in the area and connecting communes to the sewage network, unavailable up to now. This will result in reduction of the number of septic tanks, especially in rural areas and suburbs of the cities. The investment will have impact on nearly 0.4 million inhabitants.

1.5 Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Bydgoszcz agglomeration

Related KTM: KTM1, (but also KTM15, KTM16, KTM21)

Location: Communes Bydgoszcz, Białe Błota, Dobrcz, Sicienko, Osielsko, Dąbrowa Chełmińska, Solec Kujawski

Addressed water body: Rivers and groundwater resources within Bydgoszcz agglomeration – affecting the Rivers Vistula and Brda and Bydgoszcz Canal (connecting Vistula and Odra catchments)

Main objectives: Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Bydgoszcz agglomeration

Overall budget: 20 114.29 thousand Euro

Addressed pressures: pollution from urban and rural areas

List of expected outcomes: reduction of the emissions to surface and groundwater bodies, upgrades of industrial and domestic treatment plants, modernisation and development of sewage network

Expected life time: > 40 years

Brief description of the measure: The investment is to improve the access of inhabitants to the sewage system in the agglomeration. It consists in building new sewage treatment plants in the area and connecting communes to the sewage network, unavailable up to now. This will result in reduction of the number of septic tanks, especially in rural areas and suburbs of the cities. The investment will have impact on nearly 0.4 million inhabitants.

24.1 Construction of Międzyrzecze reservoir

Related KTM: KTM24

Location: Communes Międzyrzecze, Jasienica and Czechowice-Dziedzice

Addressed water body: the River Jasienica (Water region Little Vistula)

Main objectives: flood protection

Overall budget: 44,194.51 thousand Euro

Addressed pressures: floods

List of expected outcomes: reduction of peak flows in the river, flood protection, reduction of flood risk, improvement of the safety of inhabitants, reduction of the flood losses

Expected life time: > 50 years

Brief description of the measure: There were two variants of the investment considered: I. construction of the reservoir on the River Jasienica or II. construction of dry inundation polders. Since the potential safety of the variant I is higher (despite its higher costs) it was selected for further implementation. The inhabitants of the communes face annual floods causing serious loss in their property. Some floods were dangerous for life and health. The investment is to reduce the risk of inundations, and as such is indispensable in this area. The investment will lead to a reduction of the negative impacts of the dam or polder on the surrounding environment. The investment will impact on 30 thousand inhabitants.

6.1 Development of a flood safety program in the valley of the Creek Drwinka

Related KTM: KTM6

Location: Communes Kłaj, Niepołomice, Drwinia, Bochnia

Addressed water body: the Creek Drwinka (Water region Upper Vistula)

Main objectives: flood protection

Overall budget: 28,690.48 thousand Euro

Addressed pressures: floods

List of expected outcomes: reduction of peak flows in the river, flood protection, reduction of flood risk, improvement of the safety of inhabitants, reduction of the flood losses

Expected life time: > 50 years

Brief description of the measure: The investments consist in the re-construction of flood-gates in the channel of the creek, levelling of the terrain, construction of the protecting walls, construction of the pumping stations, construction of the dry reservoirs, construction of the weirs, and splitting of the creek channels into two channels. The alternative would be to buy from the current owners grounds prone to floods of return period greater than 100 years (floods that on average occur every 100 years) and leave them not cultivated to avoid losses, however this variant is not possible. The inhabitants of the communes face annual floods, which cause serious losses in their property. Some floods were dangerous for life and health. The investment is to reduce the risk of inundations, and as such is indispensable in this area. The investment is will to a reduction of negative impacts on the surrounding environment. The investment will have impact on nearly 390 buildings (out of 460 endangered).

6.2 The maintenance of the Włocławek Reservoir (levelling of the bed of the lake)

Related KTM: KTM6

Location: Communes Słupno, Gąbin (rural area), city of Płock

Addressed water body: the Włocławek Reservoir (on the River Vistula)

Main objectives: flood protection

Overall budget: 23,809.52 thousand Euro

Addressed pressures: floods

List of expected outcomes: reduction of peak flows in the river, flood protection, reduction of flood risk, improvement of the safety of inhabitants, reduction of the flood losses in Świniary Dobrzyków, Liszyno, Rydzyno, Nowy Troszyn, Rybaki, Borowiczki (ca 84 sq. km)

Expected life time: > 50 years

Brief description of the measure: The investment consists in the excavation of 5 mln. m3 of bottom material within the channel/reservoir and storing it in safe place. The investors claim that the excavated material will be stored far from the Natura 200 area. The investment is to reduce the risk of inundations, and, as such, it is

indispensable in this area. The investment will lead to a reduction of the negative impacts of the dam on the surrounding environment. The investment will have impact on nearly 8,000 inhabitants.

6.3 The anti-flood protection of the lower part of the River Vistula from Włocławek Reservoir to the mouth of the river in Zatoka Gdańska. Re-construction of the dikes in the River Vistula (km 933-847).

Related KTM: KTM6

Location: Communes Stegna, Cedry Wielkie, Ostaszewo, Suchy Dąb, Lichnowy, Tczew (rural commune), Pelplin (rural area), Gniew (rural area), Miłoradz, Kwidzyn (rural commune), Nowe (rural area), city of Grudziądz

Addressed water body: River Vistula

Main objectives: flood protection, sailing

Overall budget: 17,857.14 thousand Euro

Addressed pressures: floods

List of expected outcomes: reduction of peak flows in the river, flood protection, reduction of flood risk, improvement of the safety of inhabitants, reduction of the flood losses

Expected life time: > 50 years

Brief description of the measure: The project consists in the re-novation of the old dikes that are in poor shape. The investment is targeted mostly to diminish the risk of the winter floods caused by the ice jams. It is also to protect the banks of the river against erosion and to concentrate the main stream in the middle part of the channel cross-section. The investment will lead to a reduction of the negative impacts of the hydrologic facility on the surrounding environment. The investment will have impact on nearly 70,000 inhabitants.

Other relevant information:

6.4 The anti-flood protection of the lower part of the River Vistula from Włocławek Reservoir to the mouth of the river in Zatoka Gdańska. Re-construction of the dikes in the River Vistula (km 847-718).

Related KTM: KTM6

Location: Communes Świecie (rural area), Chełmno (rural area), Aleksandrów Kujawski (rural area), Wielka Nieszawka , city of Toruń, Zławieś Wielka, Solec Kujawski (city)

Addressed water body: River Vistula

Main objectives: flood protection, sailing

Overall budget: 16,666.67 thousand Euro

Addressed pressures: floods

List of expected outcomes: reduction of peak flows in the river, flood protection, reduction of flood risk, improvement of the safety of inhabitants, reduction of the flood losses

Expected life time: > 50 years

protect the banks of the river against erosion and to concentrate the main stream in the middle part of the channel cross-section. The project assumes to use of natural materials excavated in neighbourhood area. The investment is to be lead to reduce negative impact of the hydrologic facility on the surrounding environment. The investment will have impact on nearly 35,600 inhabitants.

4 The measures included in the HI level of effort

The HI level effort assumes a quasi-linear reduction of the agricultural area in the Middle River Vistula catchment. Due to the rapid change in the Polish economic structure, a shift from the agricultural activity in favour of industry and services has been observed for the last 50 years. In this report we assume that this trend will continue at least until 2027.

According to the data of the CIRRINE land cover maps, there were 18,859.45 km2 agricultural land in the Middle River Vistula catchment in 2012 (source: Gutry-Korycka et al., 2015) In the HI level of effort, we include a reduction of the agricultural land to 10,000 km2 by 2027 (i.e. a reduction of 47%). This assumption stems from our analysis of the Polish economic situation, trends in economy and expertise knowledge. The reduction in the agricultural area brings positive consequences for the quality of water bodies, resulting mainly from the reduction in the use of fertilisers, i.e. non-point, distributed pressures on water bodies. It is important to add that the fertilisers and the agricultural activity in total are the most impacting activities for the water quality.

Judging by the trends observed now in Poland we assume that in the proposed scenario the agricultural land will be replaced with forests or meadows. Minor part of the agricultural land can be transformed into residential areas.

The measures taken in HI level effort are relevant to the res Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, and the WFD.

Table 3 Measures in the HI level of effort

Code (1st number: KTM; 2nd Name of the Individual basic Does the measure target a Location number: basic measure measure river, a lake or groundwater? 2.1, (3.1) Reduction of agricultural areas The Middle Vistula catchment river, lakes and groundwater

2.1. Scenario 1 Measure to address distributed and area pollution sources - reduction of the agricultural area

Related KTM: KTM2, (but also KTM3)

Location: the Middle River Vistula Catchment

Addressed water body: surface water bodies and groundwater water bodies within the Middle River Vistula Catchment and below

Main objectives: reduction of nutrients

Overall budget: 483,191.60 thousand Euro (see Chapter 6)

Addressed pressures: agricultural pressures on water quality and quantity

List of expected outcomes: reduction of P, N, K in water bodies, stabilisation of groundwater resources, re- forestation

Expected life time: > 100 years

Brief description of the measure: Reduction of the agricultural area within the River Vistula District. The area restored can be cultivated in other ways, which are less harmful for the water environment, e.g. conversion to forests.

5 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort

For the purpose of the BLUE2 project we selected over 40 investments concerning sewage treatment system as a whole for cities with a PE > 100,000 and 100 investments dealing with flood protection and adaptation projects with total cost > 1 million Euro. All the information on the costs of these measures are provided in the Excel Task A3 spreadsheet. In this report we present only the most representative initiatives, which were the ones we described in Chapter 3 (see Table 4below).

1.1 Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Warsaw agglomeration

Capital Costs: 504,555.00 thousand Euro (source: National programme of the municipal sewage treatment (Krajowy program oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych). Fifth update of national programme of the municipal sewage treatment (Piąta aktualizacja Krajowego Programu oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych (V AKPOŚK)). Public and private founding).

Operation and Management Costs: According to COWI (2010), the total operational costs (including energy) amount to about 6% of the investment costs the total costs of sewage networks and WWTP. In this case this corresponds to s ca: 30,273.3 thousand Euro. This estimate is based on cost functions that are based on Danish prices (year 2008) and assume 3% of the investment costs plus energy rates of consumption depending on the level of treatment.

1.2 Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Cracow agglomeration

Capital Costs: 132,940.48 thousand Euro (source: National programme of the municipal sewage treatment (Krajowy program oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych). Fifth update of national programme of the municipal sewage treatment (Piąta aktualizacja Krajowego Programu oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych (V AKPOŚK)). Public founding.

Operation and Management Costs: 7,976.43 thousand Euro (source: ‘Compliance Costs of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. Final report’, September 2010, see above for the calculation approach we adopted, based on COWI, 2010)

1.3 Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Gdańsk agglomeration

Capital Costs: 40,843.38 thousand Euro (source: National programme of the municipal sewage treatment (Krajowy program oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych). Fifth update of national programme of the municipal sewage treatment (Piąta aktualizacja Krajowego Programu oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych (V AKPOŚK)). Public founding.

Operation and Management Costs: 2,450.6 thousand Euro (source: ‘Compliance Costs of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. Final report’, September 2010, see above)

1.4 Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Lublin agglomeration

Capital Costs: 41,232.36 thousand Euro (source: National programme of the municipal sewage treatment (Krajowy program oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych). Fifth update of national programme of the municipal sewage treatment (Piąta aktualizacja Krajowego Programu oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych (V AKPOŚK)). Public founding.

Operation and Management Costs: 2,473.94 thousand Euro (source: ‘Compliance Costs of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. Final report’, September 2010, see above)

1.5 Development and modernisation of the sewage system for Bydgoszcz agglomeration

Capital Costs: 20,114.29 thousand Euro (source: National programme of the municipal sewage treatment (Krajowy program oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych). Fifth update of national programme of the municipal sewage treatment (Piąta aktualizacja Krajowego Programu oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych (V AKPOŚK)). Public and private founding.

Operation and Management Costs: 1,206.86 thousand Euro (source: ‘Compliance Costs of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. Final report’, September 2010, see above)

24.1 Construction of Międzyrzecze reservoir

Capital Costs: 44,194.51 thousand Euro (source: Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 18 October 2016 on the Watershed Management Plan in the Vistula River Basin Area (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 18 października 2016 r. w sprawie Planu gospodarowania wodami na obszarze dorzecza Wisły)). Public founding.

Operation and Management Costs: no data

6.1 Development of a flood safety program in the valley of the Creek Drwinka

Capital Costs: 28,690.48 thousand Euro (source: Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 18 October 2016 on the Watershed Management Plan in the Vistula River Basin Area (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 18 października 2016 r. w sprawie Planu gospodarowania wodami na obszarze dorzecza Wisły)). Public founding.

Operation and Management Costs: no data

6.2 The maintenance of the Włocławek Reservoir (levelling of the bed of the lake)

Capital Costs: 23,809.52 thousand Euro (source: Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 18 October 2016 on the Watershed Management Plan in the Vistula River Basin Area (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 18 października 2016 r. w sprawie Planu gospodarowania wodami na obszarze dorzecza Wisły)). Public founding.

Operation and Management Costs: no data

Capital Costs: 17,857.14 thousand Euro (source: Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 18 October 2016 on the Watershed Management Plan in the Vistula River Basin Area (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 18 października 2016 r. w sprawie Planu gospodarowania wodami na obszarze dorzecza Wisły)). Public founding.

Operation and Management Costs: no data

Capital Costs: 16,666.67 thousand Euro (source: Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 18 October 2016 on the Watershed Management Plan in the Vistula River Basin Area (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 18 października 2016 r. w sprawie Planu gospodarowania wodami na obszarze dorzecza Wisły)). Public founding.

Operation and Management Costs: no data

Table 4 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – total funding

Capital CCs in following Year in which Operation & Total costs per Costs in Total CCs (in CCs per year (in Total OMCs (in years (in actual the CCs take Management year (in actual Code of the measure year 0 actual prices) actual prices) actual prices) prices) place Costs per year prices) (thousand (thousand €) (thousand €) (thousand €) (thousand €) (thousand €) (thousand €) (thousand €) €)

1.1, (15.1, 16.1, 21.1) 0 504 555.00 4 439 690.53 10 992.26 7 568.33 3 0273.3 15 196.04 1.2, (15.2, 16.2, 21.2) 0 132 940.48 4 115 849.94 2 896.25 1 994.11 7 976.43 4 022.85 1.3, (15.3, 16.3, 21.3) 0 40 843.38 4 35 592.65 889.82 612.65 2 450.6 1 235.62 1.4, (15.4, 16.4, 21.4) 0 41 232.36 4 35 931.62 898.29 618.49 2 473.9 1 247.71 1.5, (15.5, 16.5, 21.5) 0 20 114.29 3 18 141.93 453.55 402.29 1 206.9 663.17 24.1 0 44 194.51 4 38 512.96 962.82 No data No data 962.82 6.1, (7.1) 0 28 690.48 4 25 002.09 625.05 No data No data 625.05 6.2, (7.2) 0 23 809.52 4 20 748.62 518.72 No data No data 518.72 6.3, (7.3) 0 17 857.14 4 15 561.47 389.04 No data No data 389.04 6.4, (7.4) 0 16 666.67 4 14 524.04 363.10 No data No data 363.10 TOTAL 870 903.83 759 555.85 18 988.9 11 195.87 44 381.13 25 224.12

6 Costs of the measures included in the HI level of effort

Code of the measure. Name of the measure

Capital Costs: 398,849.19 thousand Euro (in actual prices). The costs base on the current average prices of farm land in Poland.

Operation and Management Costs: No data available or likely to be assessed

Table 5 Costs of the measures included in the HI level of effort – total funding

CCs in following Year in which Operation & Total costs per Code of the Capital Costs in All CCs (in actual CCs per year (in Total OMCs (in years (in actual the CCs take Management year (in actual measure year 0 prices) actual prices) actual prices) prices) place Costs per year prices)

2.1, (3.1) 60 398.90 483 191.60 9 398 849.19 7 976.98 No data No data 7 976.98

TOTAL 60 398.90 483 191.60 398 849.19 7 976.98 7 976.98

7 Outcomes of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort

Outcome O1. Reduction of BOD (tonnes/year)

Actual situation: 45,954.2 tonnes/year

BAU Level of Effort: 4,595.4 tonnes/year

HI Level of Effort: difficult to evaluate; no data and approved methodology to assess the load of BOD from the agricultural area

The total number of PE for the five measures mentioned above related to WWTPs (Chapter 5, points 1.1-1.5), i.e. Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk, Lublin, Bydgoszcz, is 5,216,108. Such an amount of people produces ca. 19 821.2 tonnes BOD/year (OSPAR, 2004). According to OSPAR (2004), the decrease of the load entering rivers for tertiary

treatment WWTPs could be assumed to be 90% of BOD5 reduction from baseline, i.e. 17,839.08 tonnes per year.

For all the WWTPs in the BAU Excel spreadsheet (above 100,000 PE) the total number of PE equals to 12,093,212 and the load of BOD5 to 45,954.2 tonnes/year and can be reduced to 4,595.4 tonnes/year.

Outcome O2. Reduction of nitrogen (tonnes/year)

Actual situation: 52,968.3 tonnes/year

BAU Level of Effort: 13,242.1 tonnes/year

HI Level of Effort: difficult to evaluate; no data and approved methodology to assess the load of N from the agricultural area

The five WWTPs mentioned in Chapter 5 (Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk, Lublin, Bydgoszcz) are estimated to receive the load of 22,846.6 tonnes N/year, which can be reduced to 5,711.64 tonnes N/year (by 75%, see OSPAR, 2004) thanks to the measures included in the BAU level of effort.

Assuming a similar reduction for all the WWTPs in the BAU Excel spreadsheet (above 100,000 PE), we calculate the total actual annual load at N = 52,968.3 tonnes/year and we estimate that it can be reduced to 13,242.1 tonnes/year.

Outcome O3. Reduction of phosphorus (tonnes/year)

Actual situation: 4,595.4 tonnes/year

BAU Level of Effort: 2,200.96 tonnes/year

HI Level of Effort: difficult to evaluate; no data and approved methodology to assess the load of P from the agricultural area

The five WWTPs mentioned in Chapter 5 (Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk, Lublin, Bydgoszcz) are estimated to receive the load of 4,746.7 tonnes P/year, which can be reduced to 949.33 tonnes P/year (by 80%, see OSPAR, 2004) thanks to the measures included in the BAU level of effort.

Assuming a similar reduction for all the WWTPs in the BAU Excel spreadsheet (above 100 000 PE), we calculate the total annual load of at P = 4,595.4 tonnes and we estimate that it can be reduced to 2,200.96 tonnes/year.

Comment. The construction and re-construction of the urban sewage treatment systems involves more outcomes positive for the water quality, such as O6. Reduced concentration of priority substances (PS) or river basin specific pollutants (RBSP) (of most problematic substances) (mg/l) and O14. Reduced concentrations of substances controlled by GWD (mg/l). However, we are unable to assess these outcomes due to the lack of base data.

Outcome O19. Reduced area subject to flooding (ha)

BAU Level of Effort: more than 20 thousand hectares

HI Level of Effort: not relevant:

Practically every year (mostly in spring and summer) the cities and villages located by the rivers are flooded. However, information on the reduction of the flooded area due to the flood measures included in the BAU level of effort is not available. For some projects the estimated number of the local citizens that will be (better) protected against floods, when the construction of anti-flood facility is finished. However, one has to bear in mind that the anti-flood facility protects the people and property only locally (its spatial impact is limited), and high water, if is not reduced by the reservoir, will cause damages elsewhere

8 Benefits of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort (a quarter of a page per measure)

Benefits:

B1. Reduced need for drinking water treatment, B2.Reduced need for waste water treatment, B3. Reduced health risks from exposure to microbial contaminants, nitrates, pesticides, and other contaminants including priority hazardous substances B4. Improved availability of fish in rivers/lakes for professional fishers B5. Improved availability of fish in rivers/lakes for recreational fishers B6. Improved recreational experience (not fishers) B11. Improved water availability for water users, e.g. navigation, power sector, water utilities, bottled water sector, agriculture B12. Reduced expenditures due to water use for industry, water utilities/domestic users, agriculture

BAU Level of Effort: Value of the benefit Unit of measurement: Considering Measurements 1.1-1.5.

The quantitative estimation of the financial benefits stemming from the reduction of contaminants because of sewage treatment is practically impossible within the range of the River Vistula catchment. As far as we know, Polish institutions are not entitled to calculate or estimate the potential benefit resulting from (in the very broad sense) the use of cleaner water (benefits B1-B6, B11-B12). We are not able to provide such information to any of the measurements in this report and spreadsheet A2 tables, simply because the projects are pending, and their results will be visible a few years after the start of operation. Private companies that use cleaner water for various purposes, municipal water support companies (both public and private), fishermen, health system which treats less diseases caused by dirty water, and other users of water do not share such information with others (even though if they have such information). Of course, it does not mean that the benefits are not noticeable by the companies’ managers, but they are not collecting or analysing them in their financial reports. Bearing in mind the high costs of the construction and development of the sewage treatment system and sewage network at this scale observed in the Vistula RBD, at the moment the total benefits (meant as the whole financial balance of all institutions in the RBD) may as well revolve around zero. However, the high benefits in the future, are imminent and cannot be overestimated.

Benefits:

B7. Protection against floods B8. Increased navigation opportunities B9. Reduced need for dredging and maintenance works to improve bank stability B10. Improved hydropower generation

BAU Level of Effort: Value of the benefit Unit of measurement: Considering Measurements 1.6-1.10.

All the benefits mentioned above (B7-B10) consider deep intervention in the morphology of the rivers and lakes. The main benefit stemming from the flood protection is saving people’s lives. The information on the potential costs of saving people and goods from floods is scarce and only rough. It is based mostly on avoidance of the loss costs, if the flood occurred. For instance, the realisation of the project 1.3 (The anti-flood protection of the lower part of the River Vistula from Włocławek Reservoir to the mouth of the river in Zatoka Gdańska. Re- construction of the dikes in the River Vistula (km 933-847).) can potentially save nearly 2 billion euro and the project 1.4 (The anti-flood protection of the lower part of the River Vistula from Włocławek Reservoir to the mouth of the river in Zatoka Gdańska. Re-construction of the dikes in the River Vistula (km 847-718)) is estimated

to potentially save nearly 9.5 billion euro. These costs, however, consider situation of catastrophic floods, that rarely occur.

The benefits related to the increased navigation opportunities, reduced need for dredging and maintenance works to improve bank stability and improved hydropower generation can be assessed after years from the operation start of the projects.

Benefits:

B11. Improved water availability for water users, e.g. navigation, power sector, water utilities, bottled water sector, agriculture B12. Reduced expenditures due to water use for industry, water utilities/domestic users, agriculture B13. Reduced expenditures due to fertilisers and/or pesticides B14. Increased yields

HI Level of Effort: Value of the benefit Unit of measurement: We do not have basis to quantify the benefits for the HI level of effort. We are aware, however, that the most important benefits resulting from the reduction of agricultural area are the benefits B11-B14. As in the case of BAU level of effort, the benefits will be quantifiable after some time from the project realisation (year 2027)

Explanation on how this benefit has been assessed for the two levels of effort

As one can see from the above short analysis, the quantitative benefits cannot be assessed at the moment neither in BAU, nor HI level of effort due the lack of financial reports where such data could be stored. The only analysis of the benefits we can carry out at the current stage of the projects’ implementation is the assessment based on our experience in other similar projects, literature, reports and common sense. We assumed that the implementation of the particular measures will lead to the improvement of the water environment in its qualitative and quantitative dimensions. Also, the basic mechanisms and the results of particular measurements (or similar), their expected impact on water bodies are relatively well described in the scientific and industry literature. However, the lack of the numerical data makes it impossible to carry out any quantitative calculations.

9 Biodiversity improvements of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort

Biodiversity Improvement BIx. Name of the biodiversity improvement

BAU Level of Effort: Value of the biodiversity improvement Unit of measurement:

HI Level of Effort: Value of the biodiversity improvement Unit of measurement:

We have no information to include in this part of the report. In available sources of information biodiversity issue is presented in descriptive way and no unit values of improvement measures have been introduced in the Polish RBMPs 2nd.

10 Comparison of the costs and benefits in the two levels of effort

Table 6 Summary of the costs in the two levels of effort

Capital Costs in Operation & Total costs per Capital Costs in All CCs (in actual CCs per year (in Total OMCs (in following years (in Management year (in actual year 0 prices) actual prices) actual prices) actual prices) Costs per year prices) (thousand €) (thousand €) (thousand €) (thousand €) (thousand €) (thousand €) (thousand €) BAU LEVEL OF 870 903.83 759 555.85 18 988.9 11 195.87 44 381.13 25 224.12 EFFORT HI LEVEL OF 60 398.90 483 191.60 398 849.19 7 976.98 7 976.98 EFFORT DIFFERENCE -60 398.90 387 712.23 360 706.66 11 011.92 11 195.87 44 381.13 17 247.14

The total costs considering the BAU level of effort consider 10 selected measurements from all 144 measurements in the spreadsheet A2 table.

Table 7 Summary of the outcomes in the two levels of effort

Expected Difference in the Improvement Expected Improvement Unit of Actual value BAU improvement Indicator BAU level of value HI level HI level of Related measures measurement situation level of between BAU and HI effort (%) of effort effort (%) effort level of effort O1 Reduction of BOD tonnes/year 19 821.2 1982.12 90% O2 Reduction of nitrogen tonnes/year 22846.6 5711.64 75% Reduction of O3 tonnes/year 4746.7 949.33 80% phosphorus Decrease in the urban O4 areas with sewage ha overflows Reduced concentration O5 mg/l of pesticides in water Reduced concentration of priority substances (PS) or river basin O6 mg/l specific pollutants (RBSP) (of most problematic substances) Reduced contaminated sites or abandoned O7 industrial sites affecting number the achievement of objectives Reduced number of dams, barriers and locks for hydropower purposes, flood O8 protection, drinking Number water, irrigation, recreation, industry, navigation and other purposes not compatible

with achievement of GES or GEP Reduced water bodies affected by alterations O9 for flood protection, Number agriculture, navigation and other purposes Reduced water abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture, O10 public water supply, m3 industry, cooling water, hydropower, fish farms or others Number of O11 Reduced hydropeaking occurrences per year Increase in the number % of total O12 of rivers meeting river length environmental flows % of the number of GW water Improved groundwater bodies where O13 levels abstraction does not exceed recharge Reduced concentrations O14 of substances controlled mg/l by GWD O15 Reduction of sediments Kg/m3 Reduced water bodies where the O16 number exploitation/removal of plants/animals is

preventing the achievement of GES and GEP Reduced microbial O17 contamination of surface mg/l and GWs Reduced acidity of O18 pH surface waters (pH) Reduced area subject to O19 ha flooding

The data for BAU Level of Effort consider 5 selected measurements. Data for HI level of effort are unavailable.

Table 8 Summary of the benefits in the two levels of effort

Difference in Category of Expected Improvem Expected Improvem the Related related Unit of Actual value - ent - BAU value HI ent HI improvement N. Indicator Methodology outcomes ecosystem measurement situation BAU level level of level of level of between BAU (codes) services of effort effort (%) effort effort (%) and HI level of effort Reduced need for B1 drinking water Regulating Avoided costs Thousand € treatment Reduced need for B2 waste water Regulating Avoided costs Thousand € treatment Reduced health risks Number of from exposure to people that microbial may contaminants, experience Number of B3 nitrates, pesticides, Regulating health people and other problems contaminants related to including priority contaminated hazardous substances water Increased Improved availability added value or of fish in rivers/lakes turnover of B4 Provisioning Thousand € for professional the fishers fishery/aquac ulture sector Increased expenditures Improved availability related to of fish in rivers/lakes B5 Cultural recreational Thousand € for recreational activities (e.g. fishers hotels, restaurants,

tourist operators, lettings)

Improvement Qualitative Cultural in recreational scoring (scale: experience 0-5) Increased expenditures related to recreational activities (e.g. Improved Cultural Thousand € hotels, recreational B6 restaurants, experience (not tourist fishers) operators, lettings) Improvement Qualitative Cultural in recreational scoring (scale: experience 0-5) Avoided costs Protection against and/or change B7 Regulating Thousand € floods in the property value Added value Increased navigation of the B8 Multiple Thousand € opportunities navigation sector Reduced need for dredging and B9 maintenance works Regulating Avoided costs Thousand € to improve bank stability

Improved Increase in the B10 hydropower Provisioning generated MW generation electricity Improved water availability for water users, e.g. navigation, Reduced B11 power sector, water Multiple water m3 utilities, bottled abstraction water sector, agriculture Reduced expenditures due to water use for B12 Multiple Avoided costs Thousand € industry, water utilities/domestic users, agriculture Reduced expenditures due to B13 Provisioning Avoided costs Thousand € fertilisers and/or pesticides Annual B14 Increased yields Provisioning increase in % revenue

Table 9 Summary of the biodiversity improvements in the two levels of effort

Expected Expected Difference in the ecological Unit of ecological biodiversity Actual status in N. Indicator Methodology measureme status in the improvement situation the HI nt BAU level of between BAU and level of effort HI level of effort effort Improvement Assessment of in the Qualitative BI1 the ecological populations (1-5) status of fish Improvement in the Assessment of Qualitative BI2 populations the ecological (1-5) of benthic status invertebrates Improvement in the Assessment of Qualitative BI3 populations the ecological (1-5) of status macrophytes

11 Challenges and recommendations to improve the methodology

The main difficulties we faced while carrying out the project were related to the problems with collecting data required by the Task A3 tables and this report. Most of the data required by the project are not collected by the managing institutions (they are not required to store such data) and had to been estimated, assumed or averaged for the sake of project, based on the little information available. Some data are impossible to estimate due to the complete lack of information on the related issues. This, of course, creates high levels of uncertainty and makes the results and conclusions of this analysis unreliable.

The summary of the data acquired for the project are briefly described in the table below.

Value for Contacting Form of the Date(s) Link to materials What was in the materials the Comment person/people contact project The Republic of Poland, Ministry of Environment: Report for the Vistula River Basin implementation of art. 5 and 6, for 1st-4th stages of implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60 / EC Personal Common Implementation Strategy Despite large volume of information http://www.kzgw. July – Magdalena Trybuch, meetings, For The Water Framework Directive (e.g. the Report has 389 pages), it gov.pl/files/raport September Agnieszka Rogowiec, phonecalls, (2000/60/EC) And The Floods Directive low does not contain valuable data for y/Raport_2005_W 2017 Krzysztof Kochanek teleconferences, (2007/60/EC) the tables. Mostly overall descriptive isla.pdf e-mails Moreover, various information on water information. management and implementation of water aquis freely available in the Internet. Information provided by Polish institutions to the EU Commission in the form of annual water management reports The document contain a lot of interesting information on all water http://www.kzgw. Regulation of the Council of Ministers of management bodies in Poland. It has gov.pl/index.php/ 18 October 2016 on the Watershed 10633 (!) pages, mainly tables on pl/ramowa- Management Plan in the Vistula River protected water bodies, dyrektywa-wodna- Basin Area Environmental objective for the Daniel Kociołek plany- 4th Sept. e-mail (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia moderate protected area, current and future (KZGW*) gospodarowania- 18 października 2016 r. w sprawie Planu investments in water management wodami gospodarowania wodami na obszarze of water bodies with detailed http://www.dzien dorzecza Wisły) descriptions. However the data are nikustaw.gov.pl/D descriptive, not quantitative. There U/2016/1911 is no information about costs of the investments, KTMs, etc. The representatives of Environ Ramboll Małgorzata Bogucka- Poland informed the experts from the The experts from the Ministry of Szymalska (DZW MŚ**) Ministry of Environment and National Environment and National Board of Anna Goszczyńska-Zając meeting in the Board of Water Management about the Water Management were not sure 12th Sept. (KZGW), Ministry of - requirements of the BLUE2 projects, what moderate whether the information in the Olga Sadowska (KZGW) Environment data are needed to fill in the task A3 database proves useful for BLUE2 Agnieszka Rogowiec, tables. The experts promised to provide project. Krzysztof Kochanek the access to the database and geobase to update river basin management plans. The database on all river catchments in Complexity of the database, number www.kzgw.gov.pl/ Poland. The application in MS Access of information unnecessary within 12th Sept. Olga Sadowska (KZGW) e-mail files/rdw/aPGW_b low “Updated Water-Environmental Program the context of the BLUE2 project aza_danych.zip for the Country” (Aktualizacja programu significantly diminishes the value of 45

Value for Contacting Form of the Date(s) Link to materials What was in the materials the Comment person/people contact project wodno-środowiskowego kraju) collecting the material. No data for task A3 the most important information on all tables was found. The SQL quarries water bodies in Poland. The information applied to the database provide the in the database’s tables contain inter alia results of law value for the BLUE2 simplified data that are available in the project “Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 18”. The expert promised to provide us with the updated and refined version of the MS Access database - the database was narrowed down to the tables on the River Vistula Catchment only. Also, they informed us that they do not collect We informed the experts from the data that would be used to fill in the Małgorzata Bogucka- Ministry of Environment and National tables of task A3, because the Szymalska (DZW MŚ) meeting in the Board of Water Management that the MA Ministry and National Board of Anna Goszczyńska-Zając National Board of Access “Updated Water-Environmental Water Management is not entitled 16th Oct. (KZGW), - moderate Water Program for the Country” database does to collect such data. They also Olga Sadowska (KZGW) Management not provide information we require to the noticed that data in the form Agnieszka Rogowiec, BLUE2 project. required by the tables do not exist. Krzysztof Kochanek We also asked the experts to prepare official letter to the Main Inspectorate of Environmental Protection to provide the information about ecological state of water bodies within the River Vistula Catchment. We haven’t got the answer to this letter. We selected and processed tables “Groudwater Body” and “Surface Water Body” added to the Task A3 Poland – Vistula 13_11_17.xls Excel spreadsheet. We decided that these Małgorzata Bogucka- Refined “Updated Water-Environmental 18th Oct. e-mail - moderate tables contain information that is Szymalska (DZW MŚ) Program for the Country” the closest to the Task A3 tables, but they cannot be put in the tables. The tables provided by the BLUE2 remain unfilled due to the lack of proper data (see above) Book: “The analysis of the and Information on packages and main programme of policy for the areas specific measures to protect rural particularly prone to agricultural areas against agricultural sources of azotines...” (Analiza istniejących azotines. The table was added to the dokumentów i materiałów oraz Magdalena Trybuch, meeting in Environ Task A3 Poland – Vistula 6th Nov. - opracowanie programu działań dla low Krzysztof Kochanek Ramboll Poland 13_11_17.xls Excel spreadsheet: obszarów szczególnie narażonych (na “Protection against azotines”. This azotany pochodzenia rolniczego), które table considers the whole Poland będą znaczone na lata 2008-2012 zgodnie not the Vistula River Catchment z wymogami Dyrektywy Azotanowej only. 91/676/EWG) http://www.kzgw. Information on some selected costs “National programme of the municipal Małgorzata Bogucka- gov.pl/index.php/ of investments in the sewage 8th Nov. e-mail sewage treatment” (Krajowy program moderate Szymalska (DZW MŚ) pl/materialy- treatment plants and sewage oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych). informacyjne/prog system. The table was added to the

Value for Contacting Form of the Date(s) Link to materials What was in the materials the Comment person/people contact project ramy/krajowy- Fifth update of national programme of Task A3 Poland – Vistula program- the municipal sewage treatment” (Piąta 13_11_17.xls Excel spreadsheet: oczyszczania- aktualizacja Krajowego Programu “Sewage”. sciekow- oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych (V komunalnych AKPOŚK))

*KZGW – Krajowy Zarząd Gospodarki Wodnej – National Board of Water Management **DZW MŚ – Departament Zasobów Wodnych Ministerstwo Środowiska – Water Resources Department, Ministry of Environment

In our opinion the task leaders should tailor the analysis more precisely, based on the data available in the every member states. The project team should enquire (with the help of local team members) what data can be provided by the Member States.

12 References

M. Gutry-Korycka, Mirończuk A., Hościło A. (2015) Land Cover Change in the Middle River Vistula Catchment” in: Stochastic Flood Forecasting System, The Middle River Vistula Case Study, Springer Verlag, 2015, ISBN: 978-3-319- 18853-9 (Print) Edited book - Editor/s (as before) (year). Title, publisher, location

“The analysis of the programme of policy for the areas particularly prone to agricultural azotines...” (Analiza istniejących dokumentów i materiałów oraz opracowanie programu działań dla obszarów szczególnie narażonych (na azotany pochodzenia rolniczego), które będą znaczone na lata 2008-2012 zgodnie z wymogami Dyrektywy Azotanowej 91/676/EWG)

Reports / generic – Author/s (as before ) (year).Title. Institution publisher, location.

COWI (2010), Compliance Costs of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/info/pdf/Cost%20of%20UWWTD- Final%20report_2010.pdf The Republic of Poland, Ministry of Environment: Report for the Vistula River Basin implementation of art. 5 and 6, for 1st-4th stages of implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60 / EC Common Implementation Strategy For The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) And The Floods Directive (2007/60/EC), http://www.kzgw.gov.pl/files/raporty/Raport_2005_Wisla.pdf Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 18 October 2016 on the Watershed Management Plan in the Vistula River Basin Area (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 18 października 2016 r. w sprawie Planu gospodarowania wodami na obszarze dorzecza Wisły), http://www.kzgw.gov.pl/index.php/pl/ramowa-dyrektywa-wodna-plany- gospodarowania-wodami, http://www.dziennikustaw.gov.pl/DU/2016/1911 The database on all river catchments in Poland. The application in MS Access “Updated Water-Environmental Program for the Country” (Aktualizacja programu wodno-środowiskowego kraju) collecting the most important information on all water bodies in Poland. The information in the database’s tables contain inter alia simplified data that are available in the “Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 18”. www.kzgw.gov.pl/files/rdw/aPGW_baza_danych.zip 'Area and population in teritorial profile in 2015' ("Powierzchnia i ludność w przekroju terytorialnym w 2015 r.") ‘National programme of the municipal sewage treatment’ (Krajowy program oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych). Fifth update of national programme of the municipal sewage treatment” (Piąta aktualizacja Krajowego Programu oczyszczania ścieków komunalnych (V AKPOŚK)), http://www.kzgw.gov.pl/index.php/pl/materialy- informacyjne/programy/krajowy-program-oczyszczania-sciekow-komunalnych Iwaniak M. (2016) Study No. 8 INSTITUTE OF METEOROLOGY AND WATER MANAGEMENT National Research Institute Maritime Department in Gdynia. PROCESSING OF DATA OF NATIONAL MONITORING OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE AREA OF SURFACE WATERS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITION OF THE STATE OF SOLID WATER PARTS IN THE CIRCULAR SYSTEM YEARS 2013-2015. Preparation of information on the website of the Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection concerning the results of the assessment of the condition of water bodies (including dam reservoirs) and the state of uniform parts of flowing waters (including dam reservoirs) located in protected areas, referred to in Article 113 paragraph 4 of the Act - Water Law; years 2010- 2015 (in Polish and English) (Opracowanie nr 8 INSTYTUT METEOROLOGII I GOSPODARKI WODNEJ Państwowy Instytut Badawczy Oddział Morski w Gdyni PRZETWORZENIE DANYCH PAŃSTWOWEGO MONITORINGU ŚRODOWISKA W ZAKRESIE WÓD POWIERZCHNIOWYCH I OPRACOWANIE OCENY STANU JEDNOLITYCH CZĘŚCI WÓD RZECZNYCH W UKŁADZIE DORZECZY W LATACH 2013-2015. Opracowanie informacji na stronę internetową Głównego Inspektoratu Ochrony Środowiska dotyczący wyników oceny stanu jednolitych części wód płynących (w tym zbiorników zaporowych) oraz stanu jednolitych części wód płynących (w tym zbiorników zaporowych) znajdujących się na obszarach chronionych, o których mowa w art.. 113 ust. 4 ustawy — Prawo wodne za lata 2010- 2015 (w języku polskim i angielskim)); http://www.gios.gov.pl/images/dokumenty/pms/monitoring_wod/ocena_jcwp_rzek_2010-2015.pdf

OSPAR (2004) Guidelines for Harmonised Quantification and Reporting Procedures for Nutrients (HARP-NUT) (reference number: 2004-2). Guideline 4: Quantification and reporting of nitrogen and phosphorus discharges from waste water treatment plants and sewerage.

13 Annex. Detailed information on costs

If possible, please prepare a separate table for each of these categories of payers: a) Public funding; b) Private funding and c) Other. If further detail on the source of financing can be given, please specify the type of funder (e.g. national governments; EU funds; local municipality; private companies; farmers; private citizens).

Table 10 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – public funding

615.67 1.2 132 940 4 115 2 896.25 1 994.11 1 126.60 4 022.85

849.94 1.3 40 833 4 35 583.54 889.59 612.49 346.04 1 235.62 1.4 41 232 4 35 931.62 898.29 618.49 349.42 1 247.71 1.5 19 593 3 17 671.42 441.79 391.85 221.38 663.17 24.1 0.00 44 195 4 38 512.96 962.82 0.00 0.00 962.82 6.1 0.00 28 690 4 25 002.09 625.05 0.00 0.00 625.05 6.2 0.00 23 810 4 20 748.62 518.72 0.00 0.00 518.72 6.3 0.00 17 857 4 15 561.47 389.04 0.00 0.00 389.04 6.4 0.00 16 667 4 14 524.04 363.10 0.00 0.00 363.10 319385. 10028.0 TOTAL 0 365817 7 7984.65 3616.94 2043.44 8

Table 11 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – private funding

CCs in Year in Total CCs per Total Capital following which Total CCs Operation & costs per Code of year (in OMCs (in Costs in years (in the CCs (in actual Managemen year (in the actual actual year 0 actual take prices) t Costs per actual measur prices) prices) (thousan prices) place (thousan year prices e (thousan (thousan d €) (thousan (thousan d €) (thousand €) (thousan d €) d €) d €) d €) d €) 1.1 2 380.95 4 2 074.86 51.87 35.71 20.18 72.05 1.2 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.3 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.4 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.5 521.67 3 470.51 11.76 10.43 5.89 17.66 24.1 4 6.1 4 6.2 4 6.3 4 6.4 4 TOTAL 0 521.67 470.51 11.76 10.43 5.89 17.66

Table 12 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – other funding

CCs in Year in Total CCs per Total Capital following which Total CCs Operation & costs per Code of year (in OMCs (in Costs in years (in the CCs (in actual Managemen year (in the actual actual year 0 actual take prices) t Costs per actual measur prices) prices) (thousan prices) place (thousan year prices e (thousan (thousan d €) (thousan (thousan d €) (thousand €) (thousan d €) d €) d €) d €) d €) 1.1 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.2 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.3 0.00 10.45 4 9.11 0.23 0.16 0.09 0.32 1.4 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.5 0.00 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.1 4 6.1 4 6.2 4 6.3 4 6.4 4 TOTAL 0.00 10.45 9.11 0.23 0.16 0.09 0.32