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 Estonia
Main Report
Directorate General Regional Policy
A report submitted by
in association with Mrs. Evija Brante Mr. Stijn Vermoote ELLE ECOLAS nv Skolas street 10-8 Lange Nieuwstraat 43, Riga, LV-1010 2000 Antwerp Estonia Belgium TEL 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 – Estonia
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY...... 2 2 OVERVIEW AND HORIZONTAL ISSUES...... 4 2.1 Country overview ...... 4 2.2 Status of implementing the EU Environmental Acquis ...... 4 2.3 State of the environment...... 6 2.4 Environmental policy...... 6 2.5 Overview of national environmental expenditure...... 7 2.6 Relationship of the overall environmental strategy(ies) to wider Objective 1 and 2 Programme Strategies...... 8 3 WATER SUPPLY...... 9 3.1 Current situation...... 9 3.2 Needs...... 17 4 WASTE WATER ...... 28 4.1 Current situation...... 28 4.2 Needs...... 33 5 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ...... 39 5.1 Current situation...... 39 5.2 Needs...... 44 6 RENEWABLE ENERGY...... 52 6.1 Current situation...... 52 6.2 Needs...... 55 7 NATURAL RISK MANAGEMENT (FIRE, DROUGHT, FLOODS)...... 62 7.1 Current situation...... 62 7.2 Needs...... 64 8 CROSS FIELDS PRIORITY ASSESSMENT...... 67 8.1 Part 1: summarising the needs assessment...... 67 8.2 Part 2: Assessing priorities within fields...... 74 8.3 Part 3: Assessing priorities across Fields ...... 82 9 ANNEXES...... 91 9.1 Key figures current situation ...... 93 9.2 Unit investment and operating costs...... 103 9.3 Annexes chapter 5 Priority assessment...... 109 10 REFERENCE LIST ...... 125 10.1 Literature and online information ...... 125 10.2 Interviews ...... 127
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See separate document.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 1
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
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 Estonia and was prepared by the ELLE - Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment Ltd. 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 Estonia in each field. The information was drawn from EU information, national reports, field-specific databases, various field specific reports regarding the environmental situation in Estonia 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
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 2
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
need for investment. However, such complete information was rarely available, either 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 – Estonia
2 OVERVIEW AND HORIZONTAL ISSUES
2.1 Country overview
Indicator Latest year (specify) Trend (specify)
Area of country (thousand square km) 45 227 km2
GDP per capita (Euro) 6 703 (2004)1 +6,3% (average annual growth up to 2009)2
Population (thousand) 1 347 510 -0,26% (2005)1 (01.01.2005)1
Number of households (thousand) 582 (2000)1 Slight increase
Disposable income per household member in 2323 (2004)1 Increase a year (Euro)
Unemployment rate (%) (ILO definition) 9,7% (2004) 1 8,5 % (2010)3
Sector employment (thousand) Agriculture: 4%, industry: 36%, services: 60% (2004)1
2.2 Status of implementing the EU Environmental Acquis The process of legal harmonisation is almost completed. In the negotiations of the Accession Partnership Agreement transition period for a number of EU Directives was agreed. In most cases the transition is necessary due to a heavy financial burden, but also lack of adequate infrastructure and human resources. Estonia did see major problems with compliance to the acquis in water sector. Due to the needs for significant investments into the infrastructure five transition periods were agreed with the European Commission for the following directives:
- Urban Waste Water Directive (91/271/EEC): transition period until 2010 for the renovation / construction of sewerage systems and waste water treatment facilities with the following interim deadlines: collection system according to the Art 3 by 31/12/2009 in settlements over 10.000 inhabitants; by 31/12/2010 in settlements with inhabitants between 2.000 and 10.000. According
1 Statistical Office of Estonia 2 Estonian Government prediction of 01/12/2005 3 Ministry of Economy and Communication. Prognosis of Employment . Tallinn, 2005.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 4
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
to the Art 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC 948.849, human equivalent organic matter in all settlements over 10.000 inhabitants until 31/12/2002; and 2.000 human equivalent organic matter in all settlements over 2.000 inhabitants since 31/12/2010.
- Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EEC): transition period until 2013 for the renovation / construction of water supply systems and water treatment facilities.
- VOC Directive (94/63/EEC): transition period until 2007 to install fuel vapours regeneration systems in fuelling stations and terminals, depending on volume turnover.
- Large Combustion Plants Directive (2001/80/EC): transition period until 31/12/2015 in order to achieve limit values set for SO2 and dust content in air emissions of power plants (Narva ja Kohtla-Järve) using oil shale fuel. During the transition period minimum level of desulphurisation of 65% for oil shale fuelled installations should be reached and content of solid dust particles in emissions shall not exceed 3 200 mg/Nm . Estonia makes efforts to ensure that in 2012 emissions of SO2 from oil shale fuelled power plants will not exceed 25.000 tonnes and that this amount will decrease constantly after year 2012. EU has asked Estonia to provide the Commission by 01/01/2008 a detailed conversion plan (including plan of investments) how the power plants in Narva (Eesti and Balti PP) and Kohtla-Järve will be step by step transformed into accordance with the requirements of the Directive between 2010 and 2015.
- Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC): transition period until 2008 since appropriate measures will be taken immediately for new or renewed cattle.
- Dangerous Substances in Surface Water Directive (76/464/EEC) and its “Daughter Directives”: Estonia will implement requirements of the Directive immediately after entrance respectively to the List I substances. In respect of List II substances Estonian will compile programmes of measures for pollution mitigation overwhelming all Estonian territory. In those programmes terms of implementation will be set not extending six years since compilation of the programme of measures.
- Habitat’s Directive (92/43/EEC): Exemptions in implementation of the Directive in respect of several species was agreed. From the Annexes of II and IV of the Directive wolf, lynx and beaver were removed and added to the Annex V. In respect of brown bear The Commission did not agree to exempt it from the Annex IV and add to the Annex V, but agrees that hunting of brown bear is allowed.
- Landfill Directive (99/31/EC): transition period for implementation of Art 5 (a), (b) until 16/07/2009 for closure of existing landfills in order to create network of landfills that do meet the requirements on liquid and corrosive waste; Art 14 d)i) until 16/07/2009, to explore and implement new methods for utilization of oil shale ash from energy production according to the proposed time schedule.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 5
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
2.3 State of the environment 2.3.1 Introduction The most serious environmental problems in Estonia are air and water pollution, concentrated in Tallinn region and the Northeast part of the country. They are mainly caused by the oil-shale burning power plants, chemical plants and cement factories and by municipal sewage pollution and agricultural runoff.4
Gaps between Estonia and EU are mostly related to the quality and coverage of the municipal services to be provided to the people by environmental infrastructure as well as to quality of drinking and bathing waters and ambient air.
2.3.2 Infrastructure Estonian population is in short of central municipal services geographically. For example approximately 77% of the population is connected to the wastewater treatment system, while only 58% of treatment plants are working satisfactory and approximately 77% of the population is connected to the central water supply systems (in the bigger settlements, 80-95% of the population is connected).2 Fortunately the bigger cities and towns are connected to the freshwater and sewage water treatment systems. Treatment systems operate well or at good level. The problem is provision of water and wastewater treatment in more remote, sparsely populated areas. This is also a problem around bigger settlements. Main recent improvements in infrastructure have been in water supply and sewage systems, development of municipal waste collection, treatment and disposal systems and technology to abate air pollution from large point sources.
2.4 Environmental policy The principles of Estonia’s environmental policy are enshrined in a number of laws on nature management and conservation, etc. These include the Act on Sustainable Development, Act on Protected Natural Objects, Act on Pollution Charges, Act on Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Auditing, Water Act, etc. Increased pressure on the environment has raised the importance of the development of a logical, comprehensive and practicable environmental policy.
These considerations led to the development in Estonia of two basic environmental policy tools: National Environmental Strategy (NES) and National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP).
National Environmental Strategy (NES) specifies priority goals of environmental management and protection and defines the main short-term and medium-term tasks to be achieved by 2000 and 2010 respectively.
4 Ministry of Environment 2003
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 6
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
2.5 Overview of national environmental expenditure Domestic funds for environmental protection in Estonia come from four main sources: - The State Budget, - Local budgets (finances allocated to and raised by the municipalities), - The Environmental Investment Centre, - Private capital. The key problem of co-financing the investment projects in Estonia is that the municipalities (who are the final beneficiaries of the projects) are small and not capable to find the financial resources in their budgets. In June 2000 Environmental Investment Centre (EIC) was established. EIC raises funds from fees for the use of natural resources and fines for pollution. Revenues raised by the EIC are earmarked for environmental protection projects (mainly infrastructure). From June 2001 EIC has been acting as an Implementing Agency for ISPA.
When looking at donor support to the entire environmental sector in Estonia, donors have contributed a total of EUR 63,4 million over the nine-year period 1991-2000. However, as studies of the costs of approximation in the environment sector have shown, a lot more money is needed from a variety of sources.
In 2004 more than 60% of the investments in the domain of Ministry of Environment were covered by EU funding and other foreign budgets. In 2005 this number is 68%5. About 10% was covered by EIC.
Needs for funding in environmental sector are largely based on National Environmental Strategy and Environmental Action Plan. Strategy sets goals and priorities. Action plan is composed by special working groups and describes concrete measures with budget to achieve the goals set in the strategy.
Table 2-1: Structural assistance for environmental investment Estonia
Structural assistance, in millions of EUR, at constant prices, state price base)
Obj 1 Obj 2 Obj 3 Interreg Urban Equal Leader+ Fisheries Cohesion All fund structural assistance
2004-2006 371,36 10,60 4,07 309,03 695,06
2004 126,24
2005 (approved 110,4 projects)
5 State budget
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 7
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
2.6 Relationship of the overall environmental strategy(ies) to wider Objective 1 and 2 Programme Strategies. In the state policy document “Reference Framework for the Cohesion Fund 2004-2006 in Environmental Sector” the contribution of environment to regional development was not emphasised. There are some brief statements like “selected environmental projects should encourage co-operation between central government and regional and local authorities” which have mainly political meaning, but relation between environmental investments and wider objectives is not described. It is written in the document that selected environmental projects should have positive impacts on the maximum number of people. This statement prefers bigger projects in bigger settlements, especially in Tallinn.
Contrary to previous strategy, the new strategy stresses the need of balanced regional development. This is also brought out in new draft implementation plan of development of living environment (“Elukeskkonna arendamise rakenduskava”, 17.07.2006) which is additional document to strategy for next financing period and deals with environmental issues. More attention is paid on smaller settlements and rural areas. Relation between environmental goals and wider objectives is handled the strategy. The concentration into urban areas leads to additional pressure on the environment and to new social and economical problems. Because of that the development plan of living environment defines following objectives (in addition to protection of environment):
• regional development in whole Estonia (balance between the district of capital and the rest of the territory)
• equal opportunities • development of society Impact on regional development (and other named objectives) should be assessed. For each project it should be defined whether the project is:
• directly focused on to socio-economic development outside the district of capital • contributes to regional development • or has neutral all few impact on regional development Thus, the settlements outside the district of Tallinn are favoured in new strategy and it is stated in the policy that environmental investments contribute to wider objective to make regions attractive for investors and workers. The link between environmental goals and development of society and equal opportunities is quite weak. Only investments in drinking water supply and waste water systems are directly focused on equal opportunities. Thus, some objectives have often only formal meaning.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 8
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
3 WATER SUPPLY
3.1 Current situation 3.1.1 Current State of Provision An overview of the key-figures related to current state of provision on water supply in Estonia is presented in chapter 9.1.1.
Estonian inhabitants are quite well supplied with drinking water: The total volume of freshwater available per capita is about 8.000 m3. About 75% of people use centralized water supply system, 25% of people have individual water supply. The drinking water supply is based on: groundwater (65% of the inhabitants, in all rural settlements and most of towns) and surface water (35% of the inhabitants, in two large towns, Tallinn and Narva). Groundwater forms 15-20 % of the total water abstraction of Estonia. Groundwater aquifers are mainly in the Devonian, Ordovician, Cambrian and Vendian bedrock. For drinking water purposes the most important aquifers is the Cambrian- Vendian aquifer. Tallinn gets about 80% of water from surface water resources.6
All Estonian cities and many smaller communities have a water supply system. There are a total of 1.377 water works. There are 23 water works, which produce more than 1.000m3 per day; these comprise 2% of all water works and serve 842.440 persons (64% of the population). There are 358 water works, which produce less than 100m3 per day; these comprise 28% of all water works but serve only 3.780 persons (2% of the population).7
Surface water: • Tallinn: Processing capacity 68.000m3 per day; quantity of water in one-year 24.820.000m3; number of persons served 405.000. • Narva: Processing capacity 8.765m3 per day; quantity of water in one-year 3.199.488m3
Groundwater:
There are 21 water works which process groundwater, which have a processing capacity greater than 1.000m3 per day or which serve more than 5.000 persons. Two of these water works are used exclusively for food processing.
Smaller settlements and not connected households are using shallow wells fed mostly from upper layers of groundwater. The households might have also deeper drilled wells.
Drinking water demand In Estonia water demand per inhabitant is 101 litres per day (less than European average). Water consumption started to decrease in the beginning of 1990s, when
6 Water Pricing and Policy in Estonia
7 Report on drinking water quality pursuant to Article 13 of Council Directive 98/83/EC. 2005
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 9
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
many industries stopped in new economic conditions. People reacted to sharp increase of the water price with reduction of the use of water. Water meters have been installed, which gives sense to the saving of water at home. To save water, aged sanitary equipment and pipes inside the buildings are replaced.8
Total abstraction of water in Estonia is higher due to the use of cooling water (surface water) in energy production, and water for mining and fish farming. In 2001 cooling water accounted for 87% of total water consumption (1.104 million m3).
Most of towns and bigger rural settlements have validated safe yield, which allow to use 0,5 mio m3 water per day in total. More than half of this is in Harju, Lääne-Viru and Ida-Viru Counties, where is situated more than half of population and main economic and industrial development of the country. Safe yield is needed (according to Water Act) in intakes where abstraction is bigger than 500 m³ per day. Water abstraction from these intakes was only about 20% of safe yield in 2003.
Drinking water quality Surface water is purified and disinfected before use. Groundwater is usually used without treatment. The Public Health Act and the Water Act guide the work of the Health Protection Inspectorate and its local services, which are responsible of state surveillance of safe drinking water.
According to Health Protection Inspectorate about 30% of Estonian population uses water which doesn’t comply with requirements. (From wells and water bodies used for communal water supply under the supervision of the Health Protection Services: 10%). Approximately 1.700 wells and water bodies are used for communal supply. However, during the last 10 years there have not been any water-borne outbreaks in Estonia. Quality of drinking water has improved in several counties, towns, settlements and villages. The quality requirements for drinking water are divided into three groups: microbiological parameters, chemical parameters, and indicators. Microbiological and chemical requirements deal with direct threats to health. There are no waterworks in Estonia, which consistently fail to meet the requirements for microbiological parameters. Only temporary deviations from the required microbiological parameters have been noted. The major problem of chemical parameters is regional excess of fluoride content (>1.5 mg/L), which derives from the ground water aquifer being used. The content of other chemicals does not consistently exceed limit concentrations set in the directive. Indicators affect the organoleptic characteristics of water and may indicate general contamination of the water. Excessive amounts of these indicators have an adverse effect on the conditions of use and quality of life, but they do not present a direct threat to health. Failure of drinking water to conform to quality requirements is mainly related to excessive content of iron, manganese, ammonia, and chloride. These result mainly from their natural occurrence but often are related to poor condition of the distribution pipes4
8 EEIC 2001
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 10
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
The distribution of population (%) who are using drinking water of different quality4
Microbiological non- Chemical non-compliance Indicators non-compliance Comply with requirements Year compliance (%) (%) (%) (%)
2002 0,02 1,3 35,3 63,4
2003 0,006 2,3 28 69,7
2004 0,004 2,5 29,6 67,9
The main threats to water quality are major point sources (towns with population equivalent greater than 2.000 and settlements in groundwater vulnerable areas including karst areas, inadequate landfill sites, industrial plants, particularly in the north-east) and diffuse sources (agriculture and atmospheric deposition). As a consequence of intensive industrial and agricultural activity, the quality of Estonia’s groundwater has decreased considerably due to pollution of the upper aquifers by
nitrates (NO3). Aquifers are the most affected in South Estonia (Silur Ordovician). Groundwater is also threatened by pesticides, past pollution, deterioration of sewage treatment systems, etc. In North-East Estonia (an oil shale mining area).
In some places, e.g. surrounding of Tallinn Ida-Viru, Western islands groundwater resources are assumed to be under threat whilst the pumping rate exceed natural rates of regeneration of the groundwater and there is a threat of intrusion of salty seawater to the wells. Investments are required to study the problem in more details and come up with alternative solutions for the water supply in those areas.
State of Infrastructures All Estonian cities and many smaller communities have a water supply system. There are a total of 1.377 water works. There are 23 water works, which produce more than 1.000m3 per day; these comprise 2% of all water works and serve 842.440 persons (64% of the population). There are 358 water works, which produce less than 100m3 per day; these comprise 28% of all water works but serve only 3.780 persons (2% of the population).9
Estonia’s water supply systems are, in general, unsatisfactory. Most pipes are normally made of steel and cast iron and need reconstruction. This is evident in the large extent of water losses (due to leakage), approximately 30-35%. There are 23 water treatment plants in Estonia, most of which are inefficient and worn out. However, there are exceptions; mainly treatment plants which have been recently reconstructed (e.g. Tallinn, Kuressaare, Tartu). In Estonia there are 1.300 bored wells connected to the central water supply system for domestic use, 250 wells need to be reconstructed, and 100 should be tamped. In the cities the number of operational wells in 1997 was 890, and in 1998 it was 876, water consumption per day was respectively 164.306 m3 and 141.824 m3.
9 Report on drinking water quality pursuant to Article 13 of Council Directive 98/83/EC. 2005
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 11
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
The total length of the water supply network of Estonia is about 3.100 km (25% of the network covers Tallinn). There is a link between population density and percentage of households connected to the water supply system.
Surface water:
Tallinn: Processing capacity 68.000m3 per day; quantity of water in one-year 24.820.000m3; number of persons served 405.000.
Narva: Processing capacity 8.765m3 per day; quantity of water in one-year 3.199.488m3
Groundwater:
There are 21 water works which process groundwater, which have a processing capacity greater than 1.000m3 per day or which serve more than 5.000 persons. Two of these water works are used exclusively for food processing.
Smaller settlements and not connected households are using shallow wells fed mostly from upper layers of groundwater. The households might have also deeper drilled wells.
Metering: Water sold for Public Water Supply (PWS) should be measured with water meters if PWS company and the client have not agreed any other way. Discharged wastewater is measured according to PWS and sewerage usage rules. According to the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP), water meters for public water supply consumers will be installed during 1998-2000. Public Water Supply and Sewerage Act (from 10.02.1999), clause 15, says that water sold to a client from a PWS shall be measured by a water meter installed by the water supply facilities of the registered property unless the water provider and the client agree otherwise. The financial responsibility for installation of meters in apartments is on the population. More than 50% of inhabitants in the whole country and approximately 70% of inhabitants in Tallinn had water meters in 1999. 27 water companies belonging to the Estonian Water Works Association have water meters installation in process. 8 companies have already finished this process. 50% of finances needed for this process are covered for the time being.
In practise in larger water supply networks use of water is measured by metering everywhere. According to the Water Act every well which is producing water over 5 m3 per day shall meter the rate of water pumped out from the well and keep the records. This requirement is implemented in practise. In addition to the pumping rates, larger consumers do meter amounts of water supplied (eg block houses, industries etc). In addition to that large number of owners of flats that are connected to the water supply do meter amount of water consumed (often hot and cold water separately).
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 12
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Water prices and price of the wastewater services In Estonia local government establishes rates for water, wastewater as well as the price for connection to public water system. PWS Company guarantees water supply and discharge and treatment of wastewater. The local government chose the PWS enterprise through the competition among the PWS companies. Service of water supply and discharge of wastewater is sold based on an agreement between the customer (water user) and the PWS Company. Thus the tariffs on water depend on municipality and vary largely. Between 1992 and 2002 the average water price in the country increased almost 25 times. The prices for industry are 2-3 time higher than for private persons, thus cross- sector subsidizing exists. Also direct transfers from municipality to the operators are in place. A lot of renovations are still needed, which means that additional money is needed.7 The level of the recovered costs is different in different places. Recovery of costs depends a lot on how local government or municipality is able to find investments and what is the technical shape of supply system and sewerage, how much investments and reconstruction are needed. Two kinds of water tariffs exist in Estonia - flat for inhabitants without water meters and uniform volumetric for those having water meters. Public Water Supply and Sewerage Act says that water sold to a client from a PWS shall be measured by a water meter unless the water provider and the client agree otherwise. The financial responsibility for installation of meters in apartments is on the population. More than 50% of inhabitants in the whole country and approximately 70% of inhabitants in Tallinn had water meters in 1999. By now this share has increased.
Water price (EEK) in different municipalities in 200410: Sõmeru - 6,50; Tallinn - 10,08; Rakvere - 11,70; Narva – 11,46. Water supply and sewerage system rates will increase in Estonia on average 15 - 20% per year, but the increase will slow down in time.
Institutional issues In Estonia quality of drinking water is under the Ministry of Social Affairs, but the protection of freshwater resources is under management of Ministry of the Environment. According to Water Act a local government has the authority to grant permission for special use of water, organise administration of the water bodies belonging to the local government, organise elimination of the consequences of water accidents and sudden water pollution and establish temporary restrictions concerning public water bodies.
A public water supply and sewerage system may be in the ownership of a person in public law or a person in private law. Mostly are investments in water supply covered by local municipalities with the help of different funds. Investments in water supply system can be also made by water companies.
10 Estonian Consumer Protection Board
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 13
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Conclusions Three main problems affect drinking water in Estonia2:
• In several areas the quality of raw water abstracted from surface and/or groundwater sources for drinking water does not achieve Estonian drinking water standards (which are based on EU standards);
• Pollution of groundwater with either oil products or nitrates;
• Decline of water supply systems and a lack of drinking water treatment in several places.
In order to transpose the water quality indicators to the EU requirements, considerable investments are necessary for renovation and reconstruction of drinking water systems in Estonia. The Ministry of the Environment has developed a plan for improvement of water facilities. According to the plan, approximately 268 million EUR should be invested in water supply systems between 2000 and 2013. From the year 2004 these projects will continue as the Cohesion Fund projects.
The plan gives priority to the following issues in 67 larger settlements: reconstruction of 500 km of water supply pipelines, renovation of 900 km of water supply pipelines, renovation and/or reconstruction of 60 pumping stations, reconstruction of 50 treatment plants or water treatment equipment, renovation of 130 bore wells.2
Progress has started and many investments are already made.
3.1.2 Experience of previous Investment Programmes
Table 3-1: Funding by source – Water supply (Million Euro, 2000 – 2006)
Source of funding Funding instrument EUR (million)
EU PHARE 17,83 11
ISPA and Cohesion Fund 51,11
Structural Fund
Cohesion Fund See CF paragraph
National funds See CF and SF paragraphs
Others See remark Remark: Large investments into water supply and sewage treatment did start in 1990-ies. Share of bilateral assistance from e.g. Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland has been
11 Some projects include waste water systems
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 14
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
remarkable. Also co-financing of the projects from financial institutions like World Bank, EBRD, NIB etc enabled to execute the projects. In 2000-ies the co-financing has reduced.
General MS funding There are 16 projects in National Environmental Action Plan under water supply financed by Local Municipalities, ISPA, Environmental Investment Centre, CF and the Ministry of the Environment (years 2004-2006). Most of the projects are expected to be co-financed and the share of different funds is not determined. The total cost of these projects in 2004-2006 is 937 547 000 EEK (59 920 174 EUR). Main objective of planned projects is provision of compliant drinking water to all inhabitants. Drinking water projects are divided according to river basins and cover all sub-river basin districts in Estonia. In addition to water quality improvement projects there are several expansion projects of existing water and sewage systems (in bigger towns).
ISPA programme and Cohesion fund (2000-2006) Estonia concentrates its efforts on the measures that aim at compliance with the requirements of the environmental directives and require the largest volume of investments. Responsible for preparation and selection of the projects (Intermediate Body) is the Ministry of the Environment. Implementing unit of environmental projects is Estonian Environmental Investment Centre. The projects for the Cohesion Fund are selected according to the National Environmental Strategy and National Environmental Action Plan. The Ministry of Environment has listed 14 projects related to drinking water supply and sewage systems for ISPA and Cohesion Fund financing in 2000-2006. Most of these projects are currently in progress. The total cost of these projects is 125.783.615 EUR, the share of ISPA and Cohesion Fund support is 95.823.613 EUR. Projects include renovation and reconstruction of public water and waste water systems in Tartu, Pärnu, Narva, Kohtla-Järve, Viljandi, Paide and Rapla towns and in Viimsi municipality. Final beneficiaries are water companies and local municipalities.
Table 3-2: Overview of CF projects (eligible costs, 2000-2006):
Projects in water Full cost Cohesion Fund EU-support sector (€ million) (€ million) (%) Drinking water 4,260 3,195 75% (collection, storage, treatment and distribution): 1 project Mixed water and 116,815 93,064 80% waste water projects: 11 projects
Source: EC DG REGIO (2005) Remark: Table does not include Technical Assistance Projects in the environmental sector: between 2000 and 2006, 2 TA projects have been executed (total budget: 0,50mio€ of which 0,49 mio€ funded by the Cohesion fund)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 15
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Structural funds (European Regional Development Fund) (2000-2006) In Estonia, structural assistance and development aims are broken down by four priorities. Priorities are divided into measures, each aiming to support specific activities and reaching specific objectives. Priority 4 is infrastructure and local development. Under named priority there is a measure “development of environmental infrastructure”.
Total budget for development of environmental infrastructure in 2004-2006 is 9.586.747 EUR.
Intermediate Body is a ministry that is responsible for achieving specific measures goals – in case of environmental projects the Ministry of Environment. Implementing Agency is Estonian Environmental Investment Centre. Final Recipients of financed environmental projects are enterprises, local municipalities, state agencies dealing with environment protection and environmental NGOs and foundations.
Table 3-3: Overview of ERDF projects, 2000-2006
Measure title Full cost ERDF Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%)
Total - -
Good Practice Lessons or Examples Positive examples: Good examples of successful projects of water supply are renovation of water distribution networks in various cities. As mentioned above, old piping has caused remarkable water losses in the network. In addition to that in number of cases the quality of drinking water has been affected by the status of the pipes. Old corroded pipes have increased the content of ferrous oxides in the drinking water, etc. There is range of water supply improvement projects which have enabled to increase the quality of water supply. One of the best examples of using up-to-date technology in replacement of water supply networks can be served Rakvere town in Lääne-Virumaa County. The company manages 14 wells, 16 wastewater pumping stations, 76 kilometres of water networks and 99 kilometres of wastewater network. Company has 1.800 clients and employs 14 people. Along pipes replacement and network extension, the Rakvere Waterworks has invested into renovation of water supply systems and into control measures. In 2001 new water treatment station started operation in Rakvere. There has been continuous programme of investments applied in cleaning the existing pipes, replacement of pumping stations and pipelines. Innovative approach is that the pressure of the water in the pipelines is constantly measured and data is collected into centralized computer system. The advantages of the computer system are:
• It gives opportunity to optimize the pressure in the network, avoid unreasonably high pressures which can cause breakdowns of the pipe lines. • Optimized pumping does reduce also energy consumption related to pumping.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 16
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
The principle of the leakage detection system is that if the system is revealing pressure drop in the pipes it gives a signal on failure in the pipes. Computer controlled system closes automatically the valves and isolates the section where the pressure has decreased, regulates water flow in the system to secure the supply in the sections that are not affected. The computer gives signal to the network operator on failure that the operator can initiate corrective actions. In this way with an additional investment, the water management company can control the water supply system operatively and respond appropriately while saving water and energy. Negative examples: In the water supply there are few negative cases. As low efficiency examples are installation of too many water meters. In some cases the water supply is measured at the entrance point to the property, there is collective meter in block houses and there are individual meters in every flat. Duplication in water metering does not give any additional positive effect and does not contribute to water saving. Another worrying tendency is establishment of deep groundwater wells in the areas where the sustainable yield is smaller than groundwater extraction. It is dangerous in the coastal areas where is threat of saltwater intrusion. The extent of the problem is although not sufficiently studied yet and there is no common agreement on this. Third issue is related to the optimal use of groundwater is extensive mining areas. In the North-East Estonia high quality groundwater drained and pumped out from quarries and mines in order to prevent flooding of mines. Extracted groundwater is discharged into ponds and channels. At the same time, groundwater is extracted from wells which results in an exhaustion of groundwater as extraction exceeds regeneration. Optimal scheme would be use of water from mines for drinking water.
3.2 Needs12 3.2.1 Review of Policy Objectives and Targets One of the basic environmental policy tools in Estonia is a National Environmental Strategy (NES). The National Environmental Strategy is based on the EU Lisbon Agenda, the EU Sustainable Development strategy, the state strategies “Estonian Success 2014” and “Sustainable Estonia 21”. EU directives together with Estonian legislation are taken into account in the NES. Meeting the requirements of the acquis is one of the principles. However the goals given in the strategy are quite general. The corresponding action programme for implementation is a National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). A previous action plan was composed for years 2004-2006. New measures and investment estimations are not yet collected.
The National Environmental Strategy (NES) specifies 5 areas of environmental management and protection and defines the main tasks to be achieved by 2010. One
12 Environmental investments are made according to National Development Plan (NDP) and Estonian National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). Previous NDP covered years 2000-2006. New NDP for 2007-2013 is currently under development and indicated priority fields and planned figures are not yet available. Estonian NEAP covers years 2004-2006. Future NEAP are under development and not yet available.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 17
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
of the environmental policy goals is “environment, health and life quality” which includes water supply objectives.
The water supply objectives are the following: • assure the drinking water’s compliance with health protection requirements as soon as possible (chemical and microbiological requirements) • assure compliance with indicators in settlements with more than 2.000 inhabitants by year 2008 (iron, pH and manganese by 2007) and in smaller settlements by year 2013 • implement measures for compliant water supply in dispersed settlements with polluted groundwater These are general statements related to a compliance with the EU acquis. Gaps between Estonia and the EU are mostly related to the quality and coverage of the municipal services provided to the people by environmental infrastructure as well as to the quality of drinking and bathing waters. Transitional arrangements have been agreed, until 31 December 2013 for drinking water, with intermediate targets.
For implementing the acquis in the water sector river basin management approach will be applied to compose CF projects. River basin management plans include both drinking water supply and waste water treatment measures. There are 3 river basin districts and 8 sub-river basin districts in Estonia. There is an intention to compose a CF project for each sub-basin. Several projects that have to be implemented by the means of CF are under preparation or already in progress.
3.2.2 Demand Scenarios Demographic and economic trends and projections Estonian population has decreased continuously since the beginning of 1990s. Due to the low fertility rate and aging, a further population decline is expected. By year 2015 the population may decrease about 4-5% (according to the Estonian Regional Development Strategy 2005-2015).
Concentration into bigger towns and their surroundings (Tallinn, Tartu, Pärnu) is expected. While the population group is moving to bigger centers consists mainly of younger people, rural areas suffer under an aging population which magnifies the decline rates.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 18
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
1400
1100
800
500 2004 2006 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 age 0-64 age 65+
Source: Ministry of Finance, Statistical Office of Estonia Figure 3-1: Evolution Estonian population (thousand people)
The Ministry of Finance prognoses growth of the manufacturing sector in the coming years. Added value growth is expected to be 9-10 % annually. This is largely based on the increasing production capacity, improved effectiveness and competitiveness of products, not so much on new factories.13 Thus a significant growth in industrial water demand is not expected.
Unit Water Demand Water use decreased in 1990s and early 2000s as a result of a rise in prices and closing up industries. In the last years the water extraction has balanced and a further decrease due to named factors is not expected14. Several pipelines have been replaced in settlements and industries and this process is continuing which probably leads to a further decrease in extraction and also in leakages. Certain decline due population decrease is possible. At the same time, industrial water extraction may go up if producing goes up.
Current drinking water quality isn’t a notable limiting factor on water consumption.
If the concentration in city areas continues, the public water demand in these specific areas may increase. Particularly in the close surroundings of Tallinn which has rapid real estate development and new residential areas. Several areas don’t have existing infrastructure yet and there is a need to build new connections. New residential areas are not the only case. There is still no public water supply in some non-licensed territories - in the district of summer cottages and in some older dwelling areas. Thus on one hand there is a decline due to the population decline, on the other hand there are some new areas which will be connected to public water supply system in the future.
13 MoF spring 2006 economic forecast 14 Estonian Environment Information Centre
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 19
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Changes in industrial water demand are the most difficult to be predicted. Taking into account current situation significant changes in water demand are not expected.
Based on the prognosis the total water consumption can decrease, but will stabilize up to the end of the programme period. This result is based on the estimation that the amount of unaccounted water is decreasing, the water consumption of the population is increasing, and the consumption of the legal entities is decreasing at the beginning of the described period15. The basis of official estimations is mainly trend extrapolation.
User Charges According to the Estonian Public Water Supply and Sewerage Act, the price of the service of supplying water and collection/treatment of wastewater will cover production costs. Service shall operate with justified profitability.
Currently no significant changes in water price policy are planned.
The rapid increase in water and sewage rates which took place in 1990s showed a continuous slowdown during last years. The Ministry of Finance predicts an increase in incomes about 5-6% per year. The same institution prognoses that water and sewage tariff will rise 9,6% during years 2006-2008. The growth prognoses of water companies are lower. Following table presents the prognosis of water tariffs for the Estonian capital Tallinn up to the year 2013.
Table 3-4: Prognosis of water tariffs for the Estonian capital Tallinn up to the year 2013
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Income per capita 44.081 46.538 49.133 51.872 54.764 57.817 59.262 60.744 EEK/year Water and sewerage consumption 39,11 39,50 39,90 40,30 40,70 41,11 41,52 41,93 m3/year
Water and sewage 22,82 24,88 27,11 28,33 29,61 30,35 31,11 31,89 tariff EEK
Water and sewage 892,56 982,62 1 081,76 1 141,75 1 05,05 1 47,53 1 91,51 1 37,03 costs EEK
% of net income per 2,02% 2,11% 2,20% 2,20% 2,20% 2,16% 2,18% 2,20% capita
Source: Public water supply and sewerage development plan of Tallinn city
15 Tallinna ühisveevärgi ja -kanalisatsiooni arendamise kava 2004-2015
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 20
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Total drinking water need The forecasted total drinking water need in 2013 is presented in following table:
Table 3-5: Forecast Annual Water Demand in 2013 Medium Demand Scenario
Population (-) 1,3 million
Households (-) 580.000
Unit water supply (l per inh. per day) 90
Total domestic water demand (million m³ per year) 43
Economic gross product (million euro) 14.000
Specific water consumption per gross product (m³/euro) 0,003
Total industrial water demand (million m³ per year) 47
Total drinking water demand (million m³ per year) 90
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 21
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Table 3-6: Prognosis of the water consumption in Tallinn up to the year 2013
Year No of Specific water consumption Water consumption thousand m3/d population l/d/p
Population Legal entities Population Legal entities Unaccounted water
Λ % Λ % % % % Total Incl. As Tallinn Water
2006 412500 116 1 35 -1 47,8 55,5 14,5 16,8 23,8 27,6 86,1 58,3
2007 413000 116 0 35 0 47,9 56,0 14,6 17,1 23,0 26,9 85,5 58,8
2008 416500 116 0 36 1 48,3 56,9 14,8 17,4 21,8 25,7 84,9 59,4
2009 418000 117 1 36 0 48,9 58,0 14,9 17,7 20,5 24,2 84,3 60,0
2010 421000 117 0 36 0 49,2 58,5 15,1 18,0 19,8 23,6 84,1 60,6
2011 424000 118 1 36 0 49,8 60,0 15,2 18,2 18,5 22,0 83,5 61,2
2012 427000 118 0 36 0 50,3 60,2 15,4 18,5 17,8 21,4 83,5 61,8
2013 430500 119 1 36 0 50,7 60,9 15,5 18,6 17,0 20,4 83,2 62,5
Λ % – change as compared to the last year
% – consumption of the corresponding consumer category from the total amount of water directed to the water supply network
Source: Public water supply and sewerage development plan of Tallinn city
3.2.3 Drinking Water Quality Estonia’s drinking water supply is based on: groundwater (all rural settlements and most towns - 65% of population) and - surface water (two large towns - 35% of population). Surface water is purified and disinfected before use. Groundwater is generally used without treatment.
Large parts of the distribution system are dilapidated and losses from leakage lead to excessive abstractions in order to maintain the supply. These abstractions in turn can lead to the lowering of the water table and to a deterioration in groundwater quality. In the coastal area, it can cause saline intrusion. This situation contributes to the unsustainable use of water resources in some areas.16
The natural characteristics of groundwater particularly in the southern part of Estonia do not comply with the requirements of the drinking water directive due to the naturally high concentrations of iron, manganese, sulphates and chlorides in the groundwater. In certain areas of Estonia, particularly in Pärnu and Tartu County there is high level of fluoride in the drinking water.17
16 ISPA strategy paper for environment sector 17 Ministry of Environment
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 22
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
The average concentration of iron in groundwater abstracted for the use of drinking water is approximately 8-14 mg/l. Approximately 1.700 wells and water bodies used for communal water supply come under the supervision of the Health Protection Services. Of this total, 173 wells (10%) do not meet the health protection requirements. The major problem of chemical parameters is the regional excess of fluoride content (>1.5 mg/l), which depends on the ground water aquifer being used. The content of other chemicals does not consistently exceed the limit concentrations set in the directive.
Failure of drinking water to conform to quality requirements is mainly related to the excessive content of iron, manganese, ammonia, and chloride. This results mainly from their natural occurrence but are often related to the poor condition of the distribution pipes.The main problem is concentration of iron (30% of consumers).
Currently around 70% of population has access to compliant drinking water. The goal for year 2013 is 100%. In order to transpose the water quality indicators to the EU requirements, considerable investments are necessary for renovation and reconstruction of drinking water systems and the problem of fluoride needs to be solved.
3.2.4 State of Infrastructure – Need for Improvement / Replacement of Obsolete or Non- Compliant Infrastructure The three main problems affecting drinking water in Estonia are: • in several areas the quality of raw water abstracted from surface and/or groundwater sources for drinking water does not achieve the Estonian drinking water standards (which are based on EU standards); • pollution of groundwater with either oil products or nitrates • decline of water supply systems and a lack of drinking water treatment in several places. Although all Estonian towns and most of the settlements have existing public water supply system, the connections rates in these settlements vary. Several smaller settlements don’t have yet water supply systems.
Estonia’s water supply systems are, in general, unsatisfactory. Most pipes are normally made of steel and cast iron and need reconstruction. It is evident that the biggest part of water losses is due to leakage. In most cases the leakages are 10-30%, but due to poor network conditions in north-east Estonia (Kohtla-Järve area) the leakage is up to 60 per cent and even more.18
Approximately 77% of the population is connected to the central water supply systems in Estonia. In the bigger settlements, 80-95% of the population is connected to the centralized water supply systems.
Most of water treatment plants in Estonia are worn out19. Currently, there is a need to be built or reconstruct water treatment plants.
18 Estonian Environment Information Centre 19 ISPA strategy paper for environment sector
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 23
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
3.2.5 Physical investment needs The physical investment needs on water supply are presented in following table:
Table 3-7: Physical investment needs Type of Indicators Average scenario investment
Reservoirs (to Extra volume needed in reservoirs (million No need foreseen store surface m³) water)
Drinking water Plants in need of investment to improve 59 production drinking water quality, surface water production (number)
Extra volume needed of groundwater Official number not available. reaching drinking water quality standards Based on fact that 30% of (million m³) population uses noncompliant drinking water, which is mainly groundwater, this number can be: 10-13 million m³
Transport and Long distance drinking water network - connection needed (km) – new and renovation
Local drinking water network needed (km) – Settlements >2000 inhabitants: new and renovation 698+61320; Settlements < 2000 inhabitants: no data available to make reliable estimation. Renovation need in rural areas is probably higher, also the current connection rate is smaller in rural areas.
House connections needed (number) 133.400
Monitoring & Extra monitoring points needed (number) - metering House metering needed (number) -
Taking into account new developments (new residential areas etc.), the numbers given might be too small.
20 Estonian Water Works Association
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 24
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
3.2.6 Indicative Investment Requirement and Comparison – Water Supply There is a plan to compose for each sub river basin in Estonia at least one EU funding project to minimise the pollution loads and to provide good quality drinking water for the local people. River basin management plans will be used to apply for the project implementation assistance from the EU structural funds in the future. All possible financing sources in addition to the State budget, EIC and local financing through tariffs have been considered for investments in environmental infrastructure.
New state strategy of Estonia for years 2007-2010 designates 9,2 billion EEK (588 million EURO) for drinking water supply and waste water treatment investments. These investments include bringing drinking water supply into compliance in settlements with more than 2.000 inhabitants and improving drinking water supply in smaller settlements (where deadline for compliance with directive is 2013) Most important investment projects are: Vääna water management project (ca 64 million euros), East- Harju and Keila-Vasalemma water management project (ca 64 million euros) and Narva-Jõesuu water management project (30 million euros). All named projects include both – drinking water supply and waste water treatment.
State policy target is to provide compliant drinking water in all settlements with more than 50 inhabitants by year 2013. In that reason dispersed settlement (which is quite important in Estonia and influences the statistics of drinking water supply) is left out from state investment plans.
Table 3-8: the investment plan for implementation of all main environmental directives (millions of Euros)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 state 24,51 25,40 25,75 25,56 26,63 4,47 4,47 5,10
local 13,45 14,41 16,32 17,27 17,27 5,73 5,73 5,73 foreign grant 38,35 39,25 40,93 33,97 31,08 5,73 5,73 5,73
foreign loan 11,85 14,21 13,89 13,44 12,22 4,46 5,09 5,09
private 126,60 78,21 63,78 38,78 19,23 0 0 0 total 214,76 171,48 160,67 129,02 106,43 20,39 21,02 21,65
Source: Ministry of Environment
Investment needs for drinking water supply have been estimated based on a combination of indicated physical investment needs, Estonian unit costs and default unit costs (see chapter 9.2.1.). More details on assumptions made and the resulting investment needs ranges are presented in the table below. Important to note is that the physical investment needs presented in Table 3-7 are based on the priorities of state investment plans, i.e. to assure settlements falling under EU directives comply. For that reason estimations of physical investment needs are only available for bigger settlements (estimates based on researches made by different institutions for the ministry). However, dispersed settlements and rural areas include an important part of population in Estonia. Investments in their drinking water supply are not covered in the state investment plans and the actual situation is probably worse in these regions. In this sense we can state that the actual investment needs of 144-290 MEUR is an underestimation.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 25
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Therefore, an estimate of the total investment needs including all settlements has been made based on the limited amount of data available. Based on the forecasted water demand in 2013 and the goals to be met in the forthcoming years, we have derived physical needs of ca. 997 km of new network needed and ca. 1.300 km of network to be renovated, resulting in a much higher need of investments in transport and connection. The resulting indicative investment need amounts to a range of investment needs of 232-602 MEUR and is presented in the table below. Investment needs on monitoring and metering are not included in the total investment needs for drinking water supply as no physical needs have been provided on them. However, the lack of these types of investments can be regarded as having a minor impact on the total investment.
Table 3-9: Summary of investment cost – water supply
Type of investment Indicative Investment Cost
based on indicated physical based on own estimates on needs physical needs M Euro M Euro
Reservoirs (eg to store surface 0,0 0,0 waters)
Drinking water ‘production’ plant - ground/surface 27,5 27,5 (quality) (*)
Water transport (long distance)
Distribution of water (local network 204-574 117-262 and house connections) (**)
Monitoring
Metering (eg households)
Total investment 144-290 232-602
Total investment (% of GDP)
(*): Based on default unit cost as no unit costs have been provided. (**): Range depending unit costs used: lower Estonian unit costs versus higher default unit costs. Figures do not include the house connection costs as regarded to be covered by people themselves.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 26
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
3.2.7 Summary, Insights, needs etc. The first priority of state investment plans are settlements covered with the Directives. For that reason estimations of physical investment needs are only available for bigger settlements. The actual situation is probably worse in rural areas. In the overview of current state of infrastructure also those rural areas are taken in the account. So, the physical needs are underestimated at the moment on the reason that there is lack of information to take all settlements into consideration. Another important remark is that the overview of current state partly relies on researches made few years ago. At the moment Estonian towns receive considerable amounts of investments every year. So, the situation is improving rapidly.
The new state strategy with new investment figures is still in the first phase and the Ministry of Environment is currently working on more detailed action plans. On that reason it is not possible to give detailed information what will be covered with state investment plan, but it is clear that all needs are included (plants plus new network plus renovation) in order to meet the requirements of the EU directives.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 27
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
4 WASTE WATER
4.1 Current situation 4.1.1 Current State of Provision An overview of the key-figures related to current state of provision on waste water in Estonia is presented in chapter 9.1.2.
In Estonia, industrial and domestic wastewater is usually treated together in municipal wastewater treatment plants. The total discharge of wastewater was 1.497 million m3 in 2001. However, cooling water from energy production, which does not require treatment, accounted for 80% of the total. Of the 292 million m3 of wastewater that did require treatment, 8 million m3 (2,7%) was discharged untreated.2
The main concern with wastewater management is that there is no systematic approach to handle sewage sludge, which is mainly discharged into wastewater treatment polishing ponds, river flood plains, surface water, or landfills. In addition, Estonia will need considerable investments to provide tertiary treatment (physico- chemical treatment for phosphate and nitrogen removal) to all sensitive areas.
The situation regarding the discharge of untreated wastewater is serious in North-East Estonia where the cities of Kohtla-Järve and Narva are the two main sources of wastewater pollution.
Surface water quality The majority of Estonian water bodies (rivers, lakes, and coastal sea) are shallow and sensitive to pollution. As a result of the pollution, which was constantly increasing until 1992, the eutrophication is one of the priority problems. Discharges from sewage wastewater treatment plants and factories, leaching of agrochemicals and fertilisers applied to the soil in the past, leakage of chemicals from waste dumps and atmospheric deposition as a result of emissions from traffic and power generation have contributed to the nutrient enrichment of the aquatic ecosystem.2
It is enacted in the Water Act that Estonian water management is organised according to the River Basin Management Approach, Estonian Government established 3 river basin districts in the country. About 20% of surface water bodies are considered to be at risk. Waste water from waste water treatment plant is one of the main pressures for about 18% of water bodies in West-Estonian basin district, 28 % of water bodies in East-Estonian basin district and 16,3% in Koiva basin district.
State of Infrastructures The wastewater transmission systems are generally old and need rehabilitation or replacement. The pipelines are made of steel or cast iron and are heavily corroded. Consequently, wastewater leakage rates into the soil and storm water infiltration rates into the sewerage are both high. Sparsely developed areas are not covered with sewage systems. Important problem areas are for example gardening cooperatives and summerhouses areas.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 28
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
At the end of 2001 there were 856 wastewater treatment plants in Estonia: 810 of them were small (less than 200 m3/d), 34 medium (200-2.000 m3/d) and 12 large (more than 2 000 m3/d). Approximately 58% of treatment plants are working satisfactory. Big share of wastewater treatment systems are under renovation or they need reconstruction.2
The Ministry of the Environment has developed a plan for improvement of wastewater facilities. According to the plan, approximately EUR 320 million should be invested in sewage systems between 2000 and 2010. From the year 2004 these projects will continue as the Cohesion Fund projects. The plan gives priority to the following activities: Construction of new and upgrading of existing sewerage networks, construction of new and upgrading of existing wastewater treatment plants in accordance with the set secondary treatment (which includes nutrients removal), construction of tertiary treatment plants in sensitive areas.
Price of the wastewater services The public water supply and sewerage system can be either public or private property. The water company has to ensure sufficient provision of water supply and discharging of wastewater through water supply and sewerage systems. The price of water services includes also charge for discharging wastewater. The price is regulated by the local government (see chapter on water supply).
Institutional issues The Ministry of Environment is responsible for developing water legislation, setting water standards, developing water resource management strategies. Ministry is responsible for the technical control of water supply and sewage systems and the development of regulatory measurements, drafting and control on implementation of legislation. The County Environmental Departments are in charge of implementation of the water resource management policy in close co-operation with municipalities. Its duties are also the implementation of water protection and use policy; planning and protection of water resources and implementation of State control; running data systems (monitoring) of water quality and wastewater discharge on county and municipal levels; and issuing discharge permits.
Municipalities are in charge of water supply and sewage collection (implementation of State policy at local level, water use permits, treatment). The public water supply and sewerage system can be either public or private property. All ground and surface water abstraction and discharge require a permit delivered by the County Environmental Department. The permit determines the volume of water that can be used and also the amount of pollutants that can be discharged under consideration of the requirements of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area. Furthermore, the rate of fees for abstraction and pollution, the user has to pay are determined.
Private sector (industry) investments in waste water treatment amounted to a total of approx. 2,430 mio € in 2002.21
21 EC EuroStat (2005): Environmental protection expenditure by industry in the European Union
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 29
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Conclusions Construction of wastewater treatment facilities is a high priority for investments, particularly for funds from the EIC loans and subsidies received by the State. The wastewater transmission systems need reconstruction or replacement. Many of sewage systems are currently already under reconstruction.
Groundwater and freshwater is threatened by sewage treatment systems. Several projects are under preparation with the goal to improve the status of water bodies and solve waste water problems. River basin management approach will be used and there is an intention to compose Cohesion Fund project for each sub-basin. Projects under the preparation are following2: • East-Harju water management and Keila-Vasalemma river basin water projects in Harju sub-river basin district. • Pärnu river basin water management, expansion and rehabilitation of Pärnu sewage networks and Paide water network and sewerage projects in Pärnu sub- river basin district. • Emajõgi and Võhandu catchment area water management and Sillamäe and Narva-Jõesuu wastewater projects in Peipsi sub-river basin district. • Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa water and wastewater project in Pandivere groundwater sub-river basin district. • Islands water management project in Läänesaarte sub-river basin district. • West-Viru water management in Viru sub-river basin district.
4.1.2 Experience of previous Investment Programmes
Table 4-1: Funding by source – Waste Water Treatment (Million Euro, 2000 – 2006)
Source of funding Funding instrument EUR (million)
EU PHARE 15,6122
ISPA and Cohesion Fund 86,868
Structural Fund 1,21 (ERDF, 2000-2006)
Cohesion Fund 140,71 (drinking + waste water, 2000-2006)
National funds Co-financing of the SF and CF: see paragraphs SF+CF
Others Information on investments from other sources since 2000 is scattered and is not easily
22 Some projects include drinking water.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 30
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
retrievable
General MS funding While public water and waste water systems are integrated the projects related to waste water usually overlap with water supply projects. It is impossible to separate funding. Amount of money indicated in the chapter of water supply also includes several sewage systems.
In addition there are specific projects in National Environmental Action Plan which objective is to improve the status of water bodies and include renovation of waste water treatment plants and sewage pipelines. Estimated cost in 2004-2006 is 1.675.099.000 EEK (107.058.340 EUR). Designated funds are Local Municipalities, Environmental Investment Centre, ISPA, CF, the Ministry of the Environment and state budget. Shares of different funds are not determined.
ISPA programme (2000-2006) Final beneficiaries of financed projects were mainly local municipalities and local water companies. Local water companies were also the co-financiers. Main objectives were renovation and expanding of sewer systems. Biggest project was regional wastewater treatment system in Kohtla-Järve (Ida-Virumaa), other bigger investments went to Tartu, Narva, Rapla, Paide, Valga and Viljandi towns.
For more details about the implementation of the ISPA programme in Estonia see also chapter on water supply 3.1.2.
Cohesion fund (2000-2006) An overview of projects funded by the Cohesion Fund are presented in the following table. For more details about the implementation of the cohesion fund in Estonia see also chapter on water supply 3.1.2.
Table 4-2: Overview of CF projects, (eligible costs, 2000-2006)
Project title Full cost Cohesion Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%) Mixed water and waste 116,815 93,064 80% water projects: 11 projects Sewerage and 61,196 47,648 78% purification: 4 projects
Source: EC DG REGIO (2005) Remark: Table 4-2 does not include Technical Assistance Projects in the environmental sector: between 2000 and 2006, 2 TA projects have been executed (total budget: 0,50mio€ of which 0,49 mio € funded by the Cohesion fund)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 31
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Structural funds (European Regional Development Fund) (2000-2006) Projects in the field of waste water treatment that have been funded by the European structural funds are presented in the following table:
Table 4-3: Overview of ERDF projects, 2000-2006
Measure title Full cost ERDF Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%) Environmental 1,613 1,210 75% infrastructure (sewerage and purification)
Source: EC DG REGIO (2005) Note: ERDF investments are described by reference to Measures, outlined in the ERDF Programmes
For more details about the implementation of the structural funds in Estonia see also chapter on water supply 3.1.2.
Good Practice Lessons or Examples Good examples in wastewater treatment in 2000-ies have been related to improvement of wastewater treatment in smaller municipalities and settlements. In order to be attractive to the financial institutions, joint ventures for project management are formed on the basis of group of municipalities in the region. This has allowed carrying out the project more efficiently and professionally, announcing larger tenders with more competitive prices and conditions for the municipalities. Examples are Matsalu area joint venture in Western Estonia and joint venture in Tartu area in South Estonia.
Problematic projects are related to investments into wastewater treatment plants around Tallinn city. Tallinn Wastewater Treatment Plant which has made large investments into treatment efficiency does not operate on full capacity. At the same time municipalities around Tallinn are striving towards building independent regional sewage treatment plants. Treated water is planned to be discharged directly into surface water bodies which are classified according to the Water Framework Directive under risk. Discharge from the wastewater treatment plant will increase the pressure with nutrients to those water bodies additionally. In order to meet the requirements of the WFD additional phosphorus and/or nitrogen removal is needed. Currently planned technology does not take into consideration requirements of the WFD but solely the UWWTD. There is serious threat that final investments into sewage treatment in order to achieve good status of the water bodies will be extraordinarily high.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 32
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
4.2 Needs23 4.2.1 Review of Policy Objectives and Targets The basic environmental policy tools in Estonia are the National Environmental Strategy (NES) and the corresponding action programme for implementation which is the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). The EU directives together with the Estonian legislation and strategies are an important base for the NES. Among the government goals for water protection, two goals are directly related to waste water treatment: • the reduction of surface water pollution from municipal waste water and • the reduction of pollution with industrial and agro-industrial waste water.
4.2.2 State of Infrastructure In Estonia there are 27 settlements with a size 2000-10000 IE, 18 settlements 10000- 15000 IE (Tartu, Kohtla-Järve, Narva, Pärnu, Viljandi, Haapsalu, Maardu, Rakvere, Valga, Põltsamaa, Võru, Ahtme, Põlva, Kuressaare, Sillamäe, Kehra, Rapla, Paide) and only one waste water collection area is bigger than 15 000 IE – capital Tallinn. Thus there are 46 settlements under the UWWD. From 1990s on, the water pollution load in Estonia has been decreasing due to a decrease in discharges (related to reduction of industrial output) and an increase in treatment efficiency. New wastewater treatment plants in Tallinn, Tartu and several other settlements have been installed. In the same time also the related networks have been renovated and expanded.
Taking into account the sewage collection areas for more than 2000 IE, the connection rate is ca 89% (Estonian average together with smaller settlements is about 72%) and about 67% of waste water treatment plants meet the requirements.
The situation regarding the discharge of untreated wastewater is serious in North-East Estonia where the cities of Kohtla-Järve and Narva are the two main sources of wastewater pollution. Investments in waste water treatment plants are needed in Kohtla-Järve (reconstruction process already started), Narva, Maardu and several smaller settlements. Currently, the water management plans for all Estonian river basin districts are under preparation. Information on the total investment need will be collected during this process. Each WMP plan provides a programme for water supply systems and waste water treatment systems. There is an intention to compose a CF project for each sub-basin. Thus the actual investment need is known after compilation of these projects.
23 Environmental investments are made according to National Development Plan (NDP) and Estonian National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). Previous NDP covered years 2000-2006. New NDP for 2007-2013 is currently under development and indicated priority fields and planned figures are not yet available. Estonian NEAP covers years 2004-2006. Future NEAP are under development and not yet available.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 33
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
4.2.3 Physical investment needs The physical investment needs on waste water treatment is presented in following table:
Table 4-4: Physical investment needs – sewage treatment plants
Nominal load Number of Total nominal Number of existing Organic Number of Organic Number Organic load of the of the Agglomerations STP biodegradable STP under biodegradab of biodegradable agglomeration, agglomeration expressed in capacity of existing construction le capacity Planned capacity of , expressed in PE (population STPs (completion of STP STPs planned STPs PE equivalent) before under (population Compliant Non- Compliant Non- 31/12/2006) construction compliant compliant equivalent) [PE24] Number [PE] Number Number [PE] [PE] Number [PE] Number [PE] 2.000-10.000 27 84.000 5 22 16.000 68.000 9 30.000 10.000-15.000 9 110.000 7 2 85.000 25.000 >15.000 10 1.020.000 4 6 585.000 435.000 Total 46 1.214.000 16 3025 686.000 528.000 - - 9 30.000 Total 46 Total 1.214.000 number capacity Total Organic 1.244.000 biodegradable capacity (existing + under construction + planned)
24 PE : population equivalent = the amount of waste water produced by 1 person = 1 PE = 60 gBOD/day 25 based on detailed analyses made by Estonian Water Works Association in 2004/2005
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 34 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Table 4-5: Physical investment needs – sewers:
Length of trunk sewers/collectors current situation [km] 3.280 Length in need of rehabilitation [km] 53926 under construction (completion [km] - before 31/12/2006) Planned new sewers/collectors [km] 1.030 Pumping stations present number [ ] - Planned [ ] 220
4.2.4 Demand scenarios Demographic and economic trends The changes in population don’t show a trend which could lead to a change in agglomeration categories. Right now, in many places the industrial waste water is directed in waste water treatment plants of settlements (belonging to local municipalities or water companies), but the amount of this waste water is hard to estimate.
Unit demand for waste water treatment Unit demand for waste water treatment is presented in following table:
Table 4-6: Unit demand for the wastewater treatment of 1 PE
Unit demand In country Benchmark Present Planned situation (data situation at the of year 2004) end of the design horizon Volume -27 - 150 l/PE/d Organic biodegradable load 84 g - 60 g BOD/PE/d BOD/PE/d Nitrogen load - - 10 g N/PE/d Phosphorous load - - 2 g P/PE/d
26 Estimations available only for settlements > 2000 inhabitants. The needs in smaller settlements and rural areas are probably higher. 27 Available statistics do not present industries and public STPs separately but total number. Correct number hard to determine.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 35
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
User charges The waste water fee in Estonia is combined with the drinking water bill. See overview in the water supply chapter 3.2.2.
Total need for waste water treatment Total need for waste water treatment is presented in following table:
Table 4-7: Forecast wastewater treatment demand
Minimum Average Maximum scenario scenario scenario Demand (PE) Permanent Population (PE) 1,3 million Target connection rate to drinking water supply 100% 100% Target connection rate to sewage treatment 100% 100% Permanent Population connected to sewage 89% (*) treatment (PE) Seasonal Variations (PE) - Industry and services (PE) 2.320.988 Total demand (PE) 3.620.988 Unit drinking water supply (l/PE/day) 90 Wastewater volume by permanent population (1000 m³/day) 117 discharged (DWF) by permanent population connected to sewage 117 treatment (1000 m³/day) Seasonal Variations (1000 m³/day) 0 Economic growth scenario (%/year) 5% 6% 7% Specific water consumption per gross product 3,36 (m³/1000 euro) Total industrial water demand (1000 m³/day) 209 Total wastewater volume discharged (1000 326 m³/day) Organic Unit load (g BOD/PE/day) 84 biodegradable load Total organic biodegradable load (tonnes 304 BOD/day) Nitrogen load Unit load (g N/PE/day) - Total nitrogen load (tonnes N/day) - Phosphorous load Unit load (g P/PE/day) - Total phosphorous load (tonnes P/day) -
(*) Remark: drinking water connection rate presented in this document refers to whole country, which sewage treatment rate only to settlements > 2000 PE. For the whole of Estonia, the sewage treatment connection rate is similar to drinking water connection rate, ca. 72% (2003).
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 36
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
4.2.5 Indicative Investment Requirement and Comparison – Wastewater treatment New state strategy of Estonia for years 2007-2010 foresees 9,2 billion crowns (588 million euros) for drinking water supply and waste water treatment investments. Since the investments are made according to water management plans and other integrated projects it is complicated to separate the sectors. Most important investment projects are: Vääna water management project (ca 64 million euros), East-Harju and Keila- Vasalemma water management project (ca 64 million euros) and Narva-Jõesuu water management project (30 million euros). All named projects include both – drinking water supply and waste water treatment.
Year 2010 is the transposition date for UWWTD which means that bigger investments in waste water treatment sector related to the Directive should be included in this investment estimation.
However, waste water treatment systems in smaller settlements and rural areas which are not covered in the Directive and for that reason not the priority of (state) investment plans are also in need of considerable investments. The investment need in waste water network in those areas can be higher than in bigger agglomerations since less investments have been made in these areas in recent years.
The water pollution taxes are rather low, and the full-cost pricing of sewage treatment is not in place. The absence of economic incentives to promote eco-efficiency raises the question whether the Member States will be able to meet the requirements of the UWWTD cost-effectively. The main reason for delays in implementing the UWWTD remains the costs involved, so eco-efficient approaches that minimise investment warrant further attention.
There is a risk for over-investment in excessive capacity if the potential reducing discharges from industrial sources is not taken into account. Cohesion and Structural Funds support is greatly needed as current prices are not at the level of full-cost pricing. It is estimated that this level will need to be increased to a level of about 40–50 Euro per capita for these countries in order to comply with the agreed deadlines. No official total investment costs for wastewater treatment have been made available. As a second best option, a proxy of the total investment need has been calculated based on own estimations about the physical needs, the information about the need for upgrading of existing and construction of new STPs and sewers and default unit costs (see chapter 9.2.2.). Based on these calculations a total investment need of 942 MEUR has been determined. The investment costs per type of investment are presented in the table below. For comparison, estimations made by Estonian Water Works Association for agglomerations >2000 PE until year 2010 are also included in the table below, equalling around 267 MEUR. For year 2013 this number will be to an extent higher. The biggest difference in investment cost is the indicated cost for renovation and upgrading of the sewerage. The Estonian Water Works Association provides only 60 million EURO for renovation of the existing network this, while we calculated a need of 665 million euro. This probably comes from the fact that due to limited resources Estonian official investment plans focus on agglomerations >2000 IE (based on
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 37
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
WWTD) and renovation needs of old WW network in rural areas is put in further future and not included.
Table 4-8: Summary of investment cost – wastewater treatment
Type of investment Indicative Investment Cost
M Euro M Euro Project Team Calculations Estonian Water Works Association New STPs 5 10
Renovation / upgrading of STPs 63 60
New sewerage 164 121
Renovation / upgrading of sewerage 665 60
Sewage pumping stations 44 16
CSO upgrading - -
Sludge treatment - -
Sludge disposal - -
Total investment 942 267
4.2.6 Summary, Insights, needs etc. An important remark is that in some cases the types of technical solutions implemented as pilot projects, cause problems for municipalities. Often conventional wastewater treatment technologies are used which involve subsidised construction costs but which have very high future maintenance costs which have to be covered from limited local budget sources. Estonia already has a case where municipality of Vormsi ended virtually in bankruptcy because the wastewater treatment plant was over-sized and the costs of daily maintenance were far too high for this small municipality. For local wastewater treatment projects the knowledge on alternatives (such as treatment wetlands/ solutions of ecological engineering) exists in Estonia but has not been used so far.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 38
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
5 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
5.1 Current situation 5.1.1 Current State of Provision An overview of the key-figures related to current state of provision on municipal solid waste is presented in chapter 9.1.3.
The current statistics on municipal waste generation are inaccurate. The amounts of municipal waste are not assessed in the place of generation but on the basis on statistics on transport and disposal. At the same time, part of the municipal waste generated is handled in the place of generation and part is illegally deposited.
The situation in waste management improved steadily in Estonia in the 1990ies despite the fact that the amount of municipal waste per capita continued to increase in the beginning of decade. This was due to rapid economic growth during this period, which led to an increase in consumer consumption and an increase in the generation of domestic or municipal waste. In 1997, on an average, 406 kg of municipal waste was generated per capita. By 2000, the generation of municipal waste had decreased to 378 kg per capita. This shows a certain stabilisation. However municipal waste generation is expected to increase in Estonia.28
There are clear differences between the composition of municipal waste in the countryside and in towns. There is also seasonal variability in the composition of municipal waste: the share of biodegradable waste is bigger in autumn. In the countryside and in smaller settlements there are better possibilities for separation, composting and burning of organic waste. Therefore, the waste collected in rural areas contains less organic substances and combustible materials. This influences the composition of landfilled municipal waste in these regions.
Reduction of generation of packaging waste, and promotion of its re-use and recovery, are among the main targets in relation to municipal waste. One of the economic incentives designed to regulate the above-mentioned processes is the taxation of non- recovered packaging with excise tax. The Packaging Act was designed to have a strong impact on the amount of waste generation through the re-use, recycling and return of waste.
Waste handling companies have been organising sorting and recovery of waste within the limits of their possibilities. This concerns especially the types of waste whose collection and sorting costs are lower than incomes from the sales of secondary raw material or energy. The system for recovery of these types of waste is not in place in Estonia.
Requirements for the landfill of waste have become stricter. Construction of new, modern and environmentally safe landfills has started. Many landfills that did not comply with environmental requirements have been closed.
28 National Waste Management Plan
39 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
The national hazardous waste handling system was initiated at the beginning of the 1990ies. Construction of a hazardous waste landfill has been completed at Vaivara and development of a national collection system for hazardous waste is underway.
The most important issues in the aftercare of waste handling facilities are conditioning of closed landfills in accordance with the closure plans and organisation of further monitoring and aftercare of the facilities.
State of infrastructures The service of waste handling (mainly organised transport and collection of waste) is accessible in most of the territory of Estonia.
A total of 263 landfills were registered in 1999 to receive municipal waste and of this total 57 landfills (incl. 7 industrial) were in operation. One of the goals of waste policy is reduction of landfills to 10-15. This involves the closure of many existing landfills and the stabilisation of closed landfill sites as well construction of the regional landfills meeting the EU requirements. After enforcement of Estonian Landfill Decree there were 14 landfills closed in 2001 and the closure of 48 landfills were budgeted to 2002.10 In 2005 878.020 EUR were divided by Environmental Investment Centre for closure of old landfills.
In the beginning of 2006 there are 18 non-compliant landfills left and in addition 24 landfills which are already closed, but not yet properly covered. A new regional landfill was constructed in Jõelähtme serving Tallinn and neighbouring areas. Project was co- financed by Tallinn City and ISPA. Total budget of this project was 4.691.017 EUR. In addition there was second phase of this project which included closure of old landfill next to Tallinn (Pääsküla landfill) with total budget of 11.060.000 EUR.
Waste fees/taxes The cost of municipal waste handling differs a lot between regions. While in Tallinn the handling of 1 ton of municipal waste costs approx. 16 EUR, in South-Estonia it costs up to 10 EUR (2002). The cost is lower in rural areas, where expenses are made only on waste transport and minimum maintenance of a small local landfill.8
In remote areas these expenses are often not borne directly by waste generators but from the budget of local government.
Prognosis of waste handling costs
In addition to the price components taken into account in the pricing of municipal waste handling at present, the following price components will be added in future: • costs of the establishment, use, closure and after-care of landfills will be added to each waste unit handled (ton, m³) during the entire operation period of a landfill; • costs of the handling of hazardous waste contained in municipal waste. These costs are currently covered from different sources; • costs of waste recovery – the experience of other countries shows that waste recovery increases the cost of waste handling; • overhead costs of waste management – planning, coordination, research, awareness-raising, etc.
40 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
When the above price components are added, municipal waste handling will become more expensive. Considering the degree of compaction of municipal waste and the fact that service charge for the collection of municipal waste is calculated by volume, the current cost of waste handling in Tallinn is up to EEK 800/ton (51 EUR/ton) and it is expected to increase to up to EEK 1000/ton (64 EUR/ton).
The state, local governments and enterprises have limited resources for making all the necessary investments. The EU pre-accession instruments (ISPA) and structural funds will be important sources of funding during the transition period.
The types of waste subject to organised waste transport, the transport areas, the frequency and time of transport and the limits of waste transport fees shall be established by a regulation of the rural municipality or city council. Thus, the limits of waste management fees are set by local municipality. In Tallinn the limit is EEK 275/m3 (EUR 17,6). Actual price depends on market situation and waste management enterprises. Waste management enterprises have individual price lists for different clients.
Institutional issues Waste collection, sorting, transport and recovery are largely the responsibility of private companies. Currently one of the most critical areas in waste management is supervision over waste handling. The Environmental Supervision Act provides that environmental supervision is be exercised by the Environmental Inspectorate, Land Board and local governments or authorities. However, not all waste handling facilities are sufficiently covered by supervision. In order to improve the efficiency of environmental supervision, it is necessary to provide in-service training for officials exercising environmental supervision.
Private investment (industry) in the domain of waste amounted to 7,29 mio€ in 2002.21
Conclusions The total expenses on current waste handling do not reflect the actual needs, both at present and in the longer perspective. According to the Landfill Regulation, all landfills have to be brought into compliance with the requirements or closed by 2009. Landfills that are not closed by 2009 have to be conditioned by 2013. The total investments needed until 2009 for establishment of stage I of new landfills, closure of old landfills and establishment of waste transfer centres are estimated at 104,6MEUR, of which 76,7MEUR is needed in 2002–2006. The need for investments will be specified during the design period. The costs necessary for improving the system of waste handling cannot be covered without foreign aid and loans.10
The following issues in Estonian waste management require more attention: • implementation of source separation of municipal waste; • environmentally sound closure of the existing landfills that do not comply with the requirements; organisation of monitoring of and aftercare of waste handling facilities; • organisation of collection and recovery of those types of industrial as well as municipal waste whose further handling is not profitable.
41 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
One of the most critical areas in waste management is supervision over waste handling. The Environmental Supervision Act provides that environmental supervision is be exercised by the Environmental Inspectorate, Land Board and local governments or authorities. However, not all waste handling facilities are sufficiently covered by supervision. In order to improve the efficiency of environmental supervision, it is necessary to provide in-service training for officials exercising environmental supervision.
5.1.2 Experience of Previous Investment Programmes An overview of the funding by source is presented in following table:
Table 5-1: Funding by source – MSW (Million Euro, 2000 – 2006)
Source of funding Funding instrument EUR (million)
PHARE 1,37
ISPA and Cohesion Fund 17,3 EU Structural Fund 3,195 (ERDF)
Cohesion Fund 24,336
National funds See below
Others Industry 7,2921 (in 2002)
General MS funding In Environment Action Plan for years 2004-2006 there are 18 projects contributing to waste treatment with total budget 479.681.000 EEK (30.657.200 EUR). Financing sources are Environmental Investment Centre, State budget, Local Municipalities, ERDF, CF. Most of the projects are expected to be co-financed (local funds and EU funds) and the shares of different funds are not defined. Projects include construction of new regional landfills (2 – Southeast and Northwest Estonia) and closure of old non-compliant landfills (20 landfills). Also recycling systems and recovery of packaging are represented (covering whole Estonia).
ISPA programme (2000-2006) Main project financed by programme ISPA support was Tallinn waste management. About 30 years the waste of the City of Tallinn had been transported to a bottomless and temporary landfill in Pääsküla that did not comply with environmental requirements. First phase of financed project was construction of an access road to new Tallinn landfill site and connecting the landfill area with the sewage system of Tallinn City. The new landfill will manage the waste of Tallinn and its surroundings for the next 40 years. Second phase of the project was closing down old Pääsküla landfill. The budget of this project was 15.751.017 EUR, from this 11.813.263 EUR from ISPA.
42 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Another project financed by ISPA was closure of Pärnu old landfill and construction of new landfill. Project is still under development. Financial help from ISPA is 5.489.498 EUR, total cost 8.713.489 EUR.
Cohesion fund (2000-2006)
Projects in the field of solid waste management (not only municipal solid waste) that have been funded by the Cohesion Fund (2000-2006) in Estonia are presented in following table:
Table 5-2: Overview of CF projects, (eligible costs, 2000-2006)
Project title Full cost Cohesion Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%) Total : Urban and 32,989 24,336 74% industrial waste (including hospital and dangerous waste): 4 projects
Source: EC DG REGIO (2005) Remarks:
Projects in the field of solid waste management (not only municipal solid waste) that have been funded by the Cohesion Fund (2000-2006) in Estonia are presented in following table:
- Table 5-2 does not include Technical Assistance Projects in the environmental sector: between 2000 and 2006, 2 TA projects have been executed (total budget: 0,50mio€ of which 0,49 mio€ funded by the Cohesion fund) - Focus Cohesion Fund: creation of regional waste management systems
Structural funds (European Regional Development Fund) (2000-2006)
Projects on solid waste management (not only municipal solid waste) that have been funded by the Structural Funds (2000-2006) in Estonia are presented in following table:
Table 5-3: Overview of ERDF projects, 2000-2006
Measure title Full cost ERDF Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%) Total: Environmental 4,260 3,195 75% infrastructure on urban and industrial waste (incl. hospital and dangerous waste) Source: EC DG REGIO (2005) Note: ERDF investments are described by reference to Measures, outlined in the ERDF Programmes Focus ERDF: Identification and cleaning of polluted territories.
43 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Good Practice Lessons or Examples Overall development of waste management has been positive in Estonia. Waste sorting, collection and handling have been improving during 2000-2006. Old local landfills that are in bad status have been constantly closed down and new landfills opened. Positive projects have been opening the new Jõelähtme Landfill at Tallinn and closure of old Pääsküla Landfill with corresponding leachate collection system that will enable to reduce pressure of nutrients and hazardous substances to Pääsküla river. Another bigger household waste management center at Pärnu, PAIKRE is about to be completed by the end of 2006. The system of separation and collection of packaging waste that has been opposed by the producers and sales companies has finally started in 2005 and has been rather successful. According to first estimations, 80% of packaging from beverages and soft drinks is collected. Positive development is that waste management companies have started the collection of sorted waste in 2004- 2005.
One of the biggest failures in the national waste management programme is site selection for South-East Estonian Regional Landfill. There have been several mistakes in development phase, EIA has been limited and did not provide sufficient number of alternatives. As a result one site was selected and heavily promoted. Unfortunately that site has met strong opposition from local community and the plan has been abandoned. Today new site selection process is ongoing, but has delayed design, building and construction for at least two years.
5.2 Needs29 5.2.1 Review of Policy and Targets Transition period Landfill Directive (99/31/EC): transition period for implementation of Art 5 (a), (b) until 16/07/2009 for closure of existing landfills in order to create network of landfills that do meet the requirements on liquid and corrosive waste; Art 14 d)i) until 16/07/2009, to explore and implement new methods for utilization of oil shale ash from energy production according to the proposed time schedule.
5.2.2 State of Infrastructure: Predicted Waste Flows of Municipal Solid Waste The priority of the final disposal options goes to landfilling, as the MSW generation in Estonia is too small to secure the economical viability of modern waste incineration facility. Infrastructure elements, most in need of expansion are sorted waste collection stations, regional waste management centres and producer responsibility infrastructure elements.
29 Environmental investments are made according to National Development Plan (NDP) and Estonian National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). Previous NDP covered years 2000-2006. New NDP for 2007-2013 is currently under development and indicated priority fields and planned figures are not yet available. Estonian NEAP covers years 2004-2006. Future NEAP are under development and not yet available.
44 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
The population of Estonia is decreasing, so the investments can be attributable to service extension of current population and increasing needs, as well as to the environmental awareness of business. The share can be assessed as 80% to the first and 20% to the second, as new waste management initiatives are mostly targeted to the population (MSW sorting and separate collection, deposit system of beverages packaging, producer responsibility systems for WEEE etc.).
Generation Municipal Solid Waste Generation (CURRENT SITUATION; year: 2003) 537 000 tonnes
Collection Residual and Bulky Waste (III) Separate Collection Collection 58 300 tonnes 478 700 tonnes
Sorting Residual Waste Bulky Waste Recyclables Bio Waste Hazardous 43 165 tonnes for Landfilling 15 135 n.a. waste (I) n.a.30 tonnes n.a.
Disposal & M/B Pre- Thermal Direct Thermal Recovery Treatment Treatment Landfilling Treatment (IV) (V) (IV) 360 000 n.a. - tonnes 0 tonnes tonnes 0 installations (II)
Landfilling Compost 403 165 tonnes (37 landfills) n.a.
Note: n.a. – data not available Figure 5-1 - Waste flows - current situation (2003)
30 Included in residual waste amount
45 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Legend:
• (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 a small part of the 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)
• (V): M/B treatment: Mechanical / Biological pre-treatment of residual waste to be landfilled (obligatory under the Landfilling Directive 1999/31/EC)
Generation Municipal Solid Waste Generation (PREDICTION year: 2013) 520 000 tonnes
Collection Residual and Bulky Waste (III) Separate Collection Collection 332 000 tonnes 118 000 tonnes
Sorting Residual Waste Bulky Waste Recyclables Bio Waste Hazardous 50 000 tonnes for Landfilling 166 000 156 000 waste (I) 68 tonnes tonnes tonnes 10 000 tonnes
Disposal & M/B Pre- Thermal Direct Thermal Recovery Treatment Treatment Landfilling Treatment (IV) (V) (IV) 0 tonnes 0 tonnes 50 000 0 tonnes 0 number of tonnes 0 number installations of installations (II)
Landfilling Compost 118 000 tonnes (8-9 landfills) 156 000 tonnes
Figure 5-2 Waste flows - Expected future situation (2013)
46 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
5.2.3 Review of Future Trends Demographic and economic trends The economic growth rate forecasts vary between 8,5 – 10 % for this year, but in the long run it is expected to be around 5 - 6 %. The objective of the national waste management plan (adopted in 2002) is to provide MSW management services to all waste generators, excluding the areas where the development of service network would not be economically justified. The Waste Act excludes municipalities with a population of less than 1.500 inhabitants from the obligation of setting up the system of organised MSW management system. MSW recycling target is 30-40% according to the national waste management plan. All dumpsites must terminate landfilling activities by September 2009. Dumpsites must be closed (recultivated, refurbished etc.) by 2013.
Waste charges Landfill tax is applied via an environmental permits system (waste permit for landfill operation or IPPC permit) directly to the permit holder.
Waste charges are applied to the MSW service clients according to either direct contracts between the service provider and the client or to contract terms, agreed between the service provider and the local authority / municipality (in case of organised MSW management system being applied).
An organised MSW management system is expected to increase the transparency of the charges and to decrease illegal dumping, since the waste generator (household and / or company), located at the municipality’s territory, belongs to the organised MSW management system without making a separate contract with the service provider. If the local authority/municipality agrees on the terms of the MSW management services with the service provider with an open bidding procedure, these terms apply to all waste generators at the local authority / municipality territory.
Table 5-4: Waste user charges 2006 2008 2009
Landfill tax for 7,8 8,5 10 MSW (EUR/ton)
Low estimate Medium estimate High estimate
Waste service 50 60 80 charges (urban) (EUR/ton)
Waste service 40 50 70 charges (rural) (EUR/ton)
47 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Unit and total municipal waste generation The goal of the national waste management plan is to stabilise the unit MSW generation at around 400 kg MSW/year per capita.
There are no notable differences in unit waste generation per region, the differences are between urban and rural areas. When the unit waste generation in urban areas is 400 – 500 kg MSW/year per capita, the figures at rural areas vary between 15 – 150 kg MSW/year per capita. This difference has two main reasons: industries providing notable share of MSW generation at urban areas and wide-spread habits of burning “burnable” waste and illegal dumping of MSW at rural households.
Several waste management campaigns of local authorities are carried out (Ökokratt, Prügihunt etc.) and in the pipeline (regional waste management cooperation project RECO under Interreg IIIB). The green movements are campaigning for environmentally friendly use of products and packaging. Introduction of beverages packaging deposit system has decreased the generation of packaging waste in that sector. Several other initiatives are under way.
Consumption habits have changed notably during the last 15 years, which has resulted in a MSW unit generation at the same level with other EU MSs. The share of different packaging materials has increased considerably.
Illegal dumping practice among the population should decrease under the influence of organised MSW management implementation at the local authorities/municipalities. The increasing of waste charges can increase the illegal dumping by enterprises and other businesses, since the organised MSW management involves (with few exceptions) the population only.
Table 5-5: Unit and total municipal waste generation Parameter Unit Current Evolution (% change) status Minimum Average Maximum (2005) scenario scenario scenario
Population Urban Number of 1 347 510 -5 -4,5 -4 Rural people Per capita income Euro per 6 730 +5 +10 +15 capita Unit municipal waste generation kg/year per 398,5 +0 +5 +10 capita Total municipal waste tonnes/year 537.000 -4,8 +4,8 +5,8 generation (2003) Composition MSW: Share organic waste % (2003) 41 -20 -15 -5 Share packaging : paper % (2003) 25 +5 +7 +10 and cardboard+ glass +
48 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Parameter Unit Current Evolution (% change) status Minimum Average Maximum (2005) scenario scenario scenario plastics
share hazardous % (2003) 0,2 +0 +531 +10 households waste (batteries, paint, insecticides etc.) Others % (2003) 32,8 +2 +4 +6 Total waste generated by tonnes/year No data - - - households available Total waste generated by tonnes/year No data - - - commerce, small businesses available and services,
Total waste generated by office tonnes/year No data - - - buildings and institutions and available waste from selected municipal services and street cleaning services
5.2.4 Physical investment needs The physical investment needs in the field of municipal solid waste management are presented in following table:
Table 5-6: Physical investment needs Type of Indicators Minimum Average Maximum investment scenario scenario scenario
% of inhabitants provided URBAN 95 97 99 Waste MSW collection service (total collection RURAL 80 85 90 waste volume) facilities % of inhabitants Organic URBAN 60 65 70
provided separate waste RURAL MSW collection services (incl. Small URBAN 95 97 99 curbside hazardous collection and waste RURAL - collection at municipal bring-in Others URBAN - sites) RURAL -
31 The strong increase of hazardous household share is based on the assumption, that the hazardous fraction of generated household waste will be sorted out and separately collected due to the increasing environmental awareness of the population and availability of separated waste collection system
49 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Type of Indicators Minimum Average Maximum investment scenario scenario scenario
Required number of additional waste transfer 12 16 20 stations for transport of collected waste (i.e. islands or isolated areas)
Required number of additional manual/mechanical 3 4 5 Waste sorting sorting facilities (#) (as part of planned RWMCs32) facilities 150 000 175 000 200 000 Required capacity of additional manual/mechanical sorting facilities (tonnes/year)
3 4 5 Recovery Required number of additional recycling yards (as facilities part of planned RWMCs) (#)
Required capacity of additional recycling yards 120.000 160.000 200.000
(tonne/year)
Required number of additional composting plants 6 10 14 (#) (as part of planned RWMCs)
75.000 100.000 125.000 Required capacity of additional composting plants (tonnes/year)
0 0 0 Disposal Required number of incineration plants for MSW facilities (#)
Required MSW incineration capacity (tonnes/year) 0 0 0
Number of existing incineration plants needing an 0 0 0 upgrade to achieve airborne emission ceiling limits (incl. dioxins, mercury, dusts)
Required number and overall capacity (tonnes) of 2 3 4 additional landfills for non-hazardous waste (as 200.000 300.000 400.000 part of planned RWMC) tonnes tonnes tonnes
Number of existing landfills needed to be 0 1 2 upgraded33 to be compliant until new sanitary landfills are assumed to be established and ready for operation (#)
Number of landfills needed to be remediated34 (#) 20 25 30
32 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. 33 Upgrading = e.g. monitoring wells, leachate and gas collection system, fencing, weighting bridge, reception facilities, … 34 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
50 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
5.2.5 Indicative Investment Requirement and Comparison – Municipal Solid Waste
The total investment cost indicated by the national evaluator is 96,3 MEUR. The investment cost calculated by the project team based on the indicated physical needs and the provided unit costs (see chapter 9.2.3.) is in the same order of magnitude, 70,4 MEUR. The difference between those two costs is mainly due to a much higher cost for disposal, indicated by the national evaluator. The cost for recovery, on the other hand, might be underestimated: 100.000 EURO for all the recovery facilities indicated seems to be quite low.
Table 5-7: Summary of investment cost – municipal solid waste Type of Indicative Investment Indicative Operating Indicative SF/CF Implied investment Cost cost Requirement Intervention Rate M Euro M Euro M Euro % National Project National Project Team National Project estimates Team estimates calculations estimates Team calculations calculations Waste collection 1,2 0,9 9 - 0,6 0,45 50
Waste sorting 20 15,2 n.a. - 10 7,6 50
Recovery 0,1 2 n.a. - 0,05 1 50
Disposal 75 52,3 n.a. - 37,5 26,2 50
Total investment 96,3 70,4 € n.a. - 48,15 35,2 50 Total investment 0,15 0,075 50 (% of GDP)35
35 Percent of GDP in 2004, multiplied with number of years of financing period 2007-2013
51 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
6 RENEWABLE ENERGY
6.1 Current situation 6.1.1 Current State of Provision The key principles of energy policy in Estonia are stated in Long-Term Development Plan for the Estonian Fuel and Energy Sector. One of the primary tasks of the national energy policy is to reduce the environmental impact of energy sector. This cannot be achieved without changing the structure of energy sources towards the usage of less- polluting fuels (natural gas) and also towards the usage of renewable energy sources. Only biomass, wind- and hydro- energy is used in Estonia. Lately also heat pumps have been installed.
Regardless of the potential of Estonian renewable energy sources their application has been insufficient. Estonian energy sector will have to make huge investments in environment-friendlier technology in the coming years. An effort must be made to support a greater use of renewable energy sources locally available. In the frame of Directive 2001/77/EC, Estonia has set up a target for a contribution of 5.1% of electricity from renewable energy sources in the year 2010.
State of infrastructures The utilization of renewable fuels has not been changed drastically within the period of 1999-2004. Renewables formed about 10% of the primary energy supply while the share of wood fuel still prevailed in 2004. Utilization of firewood, wood waste and chips has remained practically constant compared to the year 2003. There is data available also about briquette and pellets since year 2003. The production of briquettes and pellets was 209 000 tonnes in 2004.36 Most widely used type of biomass of plant origin in the Estonian energy sector is presently wood (wood fuels). It is primarily used to generate heat. Boilers with a capacity of up to 10 MW burning wood chips are in use all over Estonia. Wood is used as a fuel also in homes for heating and cooking, especially in rural areas. Another widely used type of biomass is peat and its products.
The share of renewables in electricity generation is only 0,3%, because of the huge and cheap supply of electricity from oil shale. This source dominates the Estonian electricity production. Annual production rate of electricity by wind and hydro turbines was 7 GWh in 2002 and 18.1 GWh in 2003.
Green electricity generation capacities increased significantly in the year 2004. The total installed capacity of hydro and wind power plants reached up to 27,2 MW and used capacity up to 10,8 MW by the end of the year. The annual production rate of electricity by wind and hydro turbines was 18,9 GWh in 2003 and 30 GWh in 2004. Green electricity production increased due to the establishment of a wind park in Pakri and a hydro power plant at Keila-Joa.37
36 Estonian Energy 2004. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. Tallinn 2005 37 Estonian Energy 2004. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. Tallinn 2005
52 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Table 6-1: Use of Energy Resources for Electricity Production38 Index 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Electricity gross production, GWh 9.218 8.513 8.483 8.527 10.159 10.304 Share of oil shale-based electricity, % 95,7 91,1 90,5 90,9 92,5 92,6 incl. from oil shale 95,3 90,7 90,0 90,6 92,2 92,3 from shale oil 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,3 Natural gas consumption, 106 m3 21 89 91 81 77 64 Share of natural gas, % 1,3 6,6 6,7 6,1 5,0 4,7 Share of other fuels, % 3,0 2,3 2,7 2,9 2,3 2,4 Electricity production from hydro- and wind 3 6 8 7 19 30 energy, GWh incl. hydroenergy 2,95 5,67 7,72 6 13 22,4 wind energy 0,05 0,33 0,28 1 6 9,6 Share of hydro- and wind energy, % 0,1 0,08 0,2 0,3
Heat pumps have become more and more popular starting from the year 1998. Heat pumps allow utilization of low potential heat of the soil, air or water, which is in fact renewable solar energy. The total number of installed heat pumps was 2.190, with a total output capacity about 20,7 MW and the average output of 9,5 kW in the end of 2004.39
Table 6-2 State of infrastructure
Renewables Type Existing installed capacity Power/generation/annual (MWth, MWel) production (MWh, M J, t.o.e., etc)
Wind 22,6 MW 0,325 GWh (2002)
Hydro (>15 MW) - -
Hydro (<15 MW) 3,98 MW40 19 GWh (2002)
Solid biomass (wood and 856 MW40 1941 GWh peat fired boilers)
Liquid biofuels - -
Geothermal (heat pumps) 14.740
Solar thermal - -
Solar electric (PV) - -
38 Estonian Energy 2004. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. Tallinn 2005 39 Estonian Energy 2004. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. Tallinn 2005 40 Estonian Energy 2003
53 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Renewable energy pricing and support issues The Estonian recent years legislation has been supportive to development of renewable energy trough the obligation for grid to buy the renewable electricity at a fixed price based on the Electricity Market Act.
Institutional and public support issues Responsible for the policies on renewable energy is the Energy Department of Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. Framework and strategic goals of Estonian energy sector have been assembled to the Long-term Development Plan for Fuel and Energy Sector until 2015, that purposes high quality energy supply, environmental saving and ensuring the free competition. Thereof the plan stipulates important development trends in renewable energy.
In co-operation with Eesti Energia (Estonian Energy) renewable energy is promoted under the trade mark “Green Energy”.
Conclusions The potential of Estonian renewable energy primarily means combined heat and power production based on biofuel and the wind power; at the same time small-scale hydropower industry is developed. Renewables form currently about 9,8% of the primary energy supply while the share of wood fuel prevails and the part of other sources is on the level of 0,1%.
According to the opinions presented in accession negotiations, Estonia wishes to use the support from the Cohesion Fund to finance environmental projects concerning power engineering. The projects concern also investments in renewable energy.
6.1.2 Experience of Previous and Other Ongoing Investment Programs
Table 6-3: Funding by source – Renewable energy, 2000-2006
Source of funding Funding instrument EUR (million)
National funds National share of ERDF funding 2000- 1,065 2006 (renewable sources of energy (solar power, wind power, hydro-electricity, biomass))
Others: EU Structural Funds: ERDF 2000-2006 3,196 (renewable sources of energy (solar power, wind power, hydro-electricity, biomass))
Good Practice Lessons or Examples A positive development in alternative energy use is wider spread of geothermal energy installations among households. Number of units sold and installed has been increasing constantly. Prices have been coming down and efficiency has increased.
54 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Overall Estonian Energy Policy is heavily fossil fuel oriented. Main source of primary energy for electricity production is oil shale. Alternative sources in electricity production are not supported and have to compete at market prices. As the oil shale based energy is directly or indirectly subsidised then entrance of alternative sources of electricity producers is limited.
6.2 Needs 6.2.1 Review of Policy Objectives and Targets – and supporting instruments The strategic objectives of the Estonian fuel and energy sector are to:41 • ensure fuel and energy supply with the required quality and at optimal prices; • ensure the existence of local power generation to cover the domestic electricity consumption needs and the supply of liquid fuel in compliance with the law; • ensure that by 2010 renewable electricity forms 5,1 per cent of the gross consumption; • ensure that by 2020 electricity produced in combined heat and power production stations forms 20 per cent of the gross consumption; • ensure that the power network is completely modernised in approximately every thirty years; • ensure that, in the open market conditions, the competitiveness of the domestic market of the oil shale production is preserved and its efficiency is increased, and apply modern technologies which reduce harmful environmental impact; • ensure compliance with the environmental requirements established by the state; • increase the efficiency of the energy consumption in the heat, energy and fuel sector; • until 2010, maintain the volume of primary energy consumption at the level of the year 2003; • develop measures which enable the use of renewable liquid fuels, particularly biodiesel, in the transport sector; • ensure that modern know-how and specialists are constantly available in all fields of the fuel and energy sector to promote technology development within the state and enable transfer of the modern energy technology; • establish preconditions for the establishment of connections with the energy systems of the Nordic countries and Central European countries. Electricity is produced mainly from oil-shale. The Baltic and Estonian power stations in Narva will remain the main power stations supplying Estonia until 2015. By 2005, the Eesti Energia AS will reconstruct two energy blocks (with total net capacity 363 MW) in Narva and transfer them to circulating fluidised bed combustion technology (CFBC). The specified blocks are unique in the world – a so large-scale oil shale power industry based on circulating fluidised bed combustion technology has not been developed in the world before. Therefore, although the expectations of the given project are high, it is not rational to decide at the present moment how to continue with the oil shale power industry. A final position on the further development of electrical production
41 Long-term Public Fuel and Energy Sector Development Plan until 2015
55 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
capacities is formed only after the circulating fluidised bed combustion technology has been applied in the Narva power stations.42
6.2.2 Supply and Demand Forecasts Share of renewables - forecast The share of energy production based on the renewable resources is forecasted and presented in the Development Plan for the electricity sector 2005-2015 as follows:
Table 6-4: Share of energy production based on the renewable resources is forecasted and presented in the Development plan for the electricity sector 2005- 201543
2005 2010 2015
Wind 1,0% 2,2% 4,5%
Biofuel 0,2% 2,5% 3%
Others 0,3% 0,4% 0,5%
Forecast of core indicators Forecasted Estonian economic growth is presented on the following figure.
Figure 6-1: Economic growth in Estonia44
42 Long-term Public Fuel and Energy Sector Development Plan until 2015 43 Development plan for the electricity sector 2005-2015 44 The impact of environmental requirements to the Estonian electricity market and electricity price in 2005-2015. Tallinn University of Technology. 2004
56 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Energy demand overall The cross consumption of electricity is increasing 2-3,5 % per year, because of the overall raise of the standard of living and economical growth. The national objective is to keep the growth rate of the electricity demand twice as low as the economical growth.45
Figure 6-2 : Forecast of the gross electricity consumption in Estonia untill 2015 Remark: The red line on the figure marks moderate growth, blue line – high growth and pink line – moderate growth46 An overview of existing and future supply of renewable sources in Estonia is presented in following table:
Table 6-5: Existing and future supply
Renewables Type installed capacity (MWth, Power/generation/annual Mwel) production (MWh, MJ, t.o.e., etc)
Current Future Current Future
Wind 22,8 MWel 160 MWel - - (2004)47 (2015)48
Hydro (>15 MW) - - - -
Hydro (<15 MW) 4,4 MWel 9-10 MWel50 19.000 45-55 GWh52 (2004)49 MWh51
45 Development plan for the electricity sector 2005-2015 46 Development plan for the electricity sector 2005-2015 47 Estonian Energy 2004. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. Tallinn 2005 48 Development plan for the electricity sector 2005-2015 49 Estonian Energy 2004. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. Tallinn 2005
57 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Solid biomass 856 40 MWel 0,15 mln toe 0,83 TWhth + 40 53 MWth+el (2015) 0,164 TWhel
Liquid biofuels - - - -
Geothermal 14,740 MWth - - - (heatpumps)
Solar thermal 0,4 MW - - - (2004)54
Solar electric (PV) - - - -
Renewable Energy Sources. The potential of the Estonian renewable energy primarily means combined heat and power production based on biofuel and the wind power; at the same time small-scale hydropower industry is developed and its technically applicable total resource is ~40 MW. Waste also deserves to be mentioned separately and in particular upon application of the Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste. During the planning period, the competitiveness and proportion of solar energy also increases. The percentage of the total renewable energy sources in the Estonian energy balance increases.55
Biofuels. Already, a big amount of the primary energy arising from the cut fuel wood and wood-processing waste is used in the energy conversion processes (primarily for the production of heat). Logging waste may be deemed to be a considerable additional source. Factors hindering the development of combined heat and power production based on biomass are the small heat load and the fact that new equipment producing only heat has already been installed in areas with a favourable heat load. The development is also hindered by a large-scale export of biofuels, due to which local energy producers do not have enough resources.
The more, large-scale development of different types of bio energy requires profitability calculations based on the specified project. At the moment, planting energy forest and energy grass plantations is not economically viable, although the existent agricultural machinery is suitable for the cultivation and harvesting of energy grass. Technologically, it is also possible to use straw for the energy production. After chopping, it is possible to use the resource of the plants of wetlands as an addition to e.g. wood chips. The start-up of single integrated handling systems of the manure of large farms to generate energy and produce fertilizers and to reduce environmental pollution is not precluded.56
50 The possibilities to increase the share of renewable energy sources for electricity production in Estonia. Tallinn Technical University. Tallinn 2003. 51 The possibilities to increase the share of renewable energy sources for electricity production in Estonia. Tallinn Technical University. Tallinn 2003. 52 The possibilities to increase the share of renewable energy sources for electricity production in Estonia. Tallinn Technical University. Tallinn 2003. 53 Development plan for the electricity sector 2005-2015 54 EurObserv’ER 2005 55 Long-term Public Fuel and Energy Sector Development Plan until 2015 56 Long-term Public Fuel and Energy Sector Development Plan until 2015
58 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Wind power. The islands of West Estonia, the coastal areas of North-West Estonia and South-West Estonia, but also the coastal areas of North Estonia and Lake Peipus are the most appropriate areas of application of wind power. Taking into account the current situation of the power system, it is possible to install wind generators in Estonia to the extent of 90-100 MW, but this would bring about deterioration of the operations quality of the power system. It is possible to erect 30-50 MW windmills without any negative effects. In addition to the problems relating to power networks, a more wide- spread use of wind resources is restricted by relatively small electric load, the great unit capacity and poor manoeuvring ability of the existent units and sets of power stations. The strong link (interconnection capacity) of the Estonian power system with the Latvian and Russian power systems, enables covering of the unevenness of wind power, and alleviates the problem. The technical limit for the installation of wind generators in the Estonian power system is 400-500 MW. But this requires investments to power networks and power stations to ensure the transmission, regulation and necessary reserves of wind power.57
6.2.3 Review of Instruments and Support Schemes - Enabling/hampering factors to meet needs In the report “FORRES 2020: Analysis of the renewable energy sources' evolution up to 2020” is presented that the main policy for renewable electricity in Estonia at technology level is a feed-in tariff system with purchase obligation.58 Feed-in tariffs paid for max. 7 years for biomass and hydro and max. 12 years for wind and other technologies. All support schemes are scheduled to end in 2015. Together with the relatively low feed-in tariffs, this makes renewable investments very difficult.59 According to the FORRES 2020 report, the main renewable heat policy for biomass heat in Estonia is tax exemption: a reduced VAT for biomass (e.g.) (Value Added Tax Act). There is no specific policy for solar thermal heat or geothermal heat.60
6.2.4 Investment Calculation and Comparison No investment plans are available at the moment.
As already indicated, the proportion of renewable electricity in Estonia should increase to 5,1% of the gross consumption (300-360 GWh electric energy) by 2010. According to the Long-term Development Plan for Fuel and Energy Sector, 2-4 billion EEK (128 - 256 MEUR) must be invested in the equipment for the production of renewable energy and 90-144 billion EEK (5.749 - 9.198 MEUR) must be paid in the framework of the obligation to purchase renewable energy in order to achieve the specified objective. According to the Tallinn Technical University (2003), 140-170 MWel windmills will have to be erected to cover 5,1% of the energy need (electricity) in 2010 from renewable
57 Long-term Public Fuel and Energy Sector Development Plan until 2015 58 FORRES 2020: Analysis of the renewable energy sources' evolution up to 2020. 59 FORRES 2020: Analysis of the renewable energy sources' evolution up to 2020. 60 FORRES 2020: Analysis of the renewable energy sources' evolution up to 2020.
59 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
resources.61 The data comes from the report “The possibilities to increase the share of renewable energy sources for electricity production in Estonia”. The estimation is presented for the case where there is the total power of installed windmills up to 250 MW. The estimation of the costs of erecting windmills is presented in the following table and amounts to 260 MEUR for the investments in the windmills + 19,5 MEUR for connecting the windmills to the network + 7,75 MEUR/year to build adjustable power stations (price for gas turbines). Based on the yearly funds determined by the Tallinn Technical University to support these investments, the total support amounts to 53 to 71 MEUR for the next programming period (support limited to period 2006-2010).
Table 6-6: Investment Calculation
Total Investment Investment Other extra Rated Yearly Support for Share of power of in in power costs power production renewable Estonian windmills windmills networks efficiency energy energy consumption in 2010, %
Up to 250 260 MEUR 19,5 MEUR It is needed to 25 % 550 GWh 10,6-14,2 7,6 - 9,1% MW for buy adjustable MEUR per connecting power and year the reserves and windmills construct adjustable power stations. For gas turbine, the cost for buying reserve would be 7.750.000 EUR per year
According to the report there is possibility to increase the capacity of hydropower up to 10 MW which gives the possibility to produce 45 to 55 GWh (0,6-0,9% of total energy consumption in Estonia in 2010). The total investment of building hydropower stations is believed to be 2.000 EUR/kW. In total an estimated investment need of 12MEUR
would be needed to obtain an increase of capacity up to 10 MWel. As such, this investment is not sufficient to cover the 5,1% target renewable energy in 2010. It is estimated that there is also possibility to increase the share use of biomass (wood) for co-production up to 0,83 TWh of heat and 0,164 TWh electricity (2,2 - 2,7% of total energy (electricity) consumption in Estonia in 2010). The investment is estimated according the Danish experience, total investment for building 5-50MWe cogeneration
plant (wood and waste as fuel) is 2,5 MEUR/MWel (yearly maintenance costs are 5% of total investment). This means a total investment need of 100MEUR would be needed
to obtain a capacity of 40 MWel in 2015, assuming the current capacity as negligible. As such, this investment could only cover maximum half of the 5,1% target renewable energy in 2010. It is important to note that investment needs should be based on different investment scenarios reflecting potential combinations of technologies and economic instruments to reach this target. There are some scenarios made by different institutions, but none
61 The possibilities to increase the share of renewable energy sources for electricity production in Estonia. Tallinn Technical University. Tallinn 2003
60 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
of these has political importance, which means that they are not included in development plans or action plans. Therefore, the study from the Tallinn Technical University on investments in windmills is used a second best option to determine a proxy of the investment needs required to reach the target of 5,1% renewable electricity in 2010. No information is available about using revenue of carbon trading for funding RES projects. According to Enterprise, Information Society, Transport and Energy Industry Infrastructure Development Operational Programme62 it is predicted that EFRD provides funding for RES development (9,147 MEUR in total). No private funding has been foreseen as part of this funding plan.
6.2.5 Summary, Insights, needs etc. The overall objectives are to: • ensure that by 2010 renewable electricity forms 5,1 per cent of the gross consumption; • ensure that by 2020 electricity produced in combined heat and power production stations forms 20 per cent of the gross consumption; Barriers to renewable energy sources use include small-scale hydropower industry’s technically applicability of total resource of only ~40 MW. Taking into account the current situation of the power system, it is possible to install wind generators in Estonia to the extent of 90-100 MW, but this would bring about deterioration of the operations quality of the power system. It is possible to erect 30-50 MW windmills without any negative effects. In addition to the problems relating to power networks, a more wide-spread use of wind resources is restricted by a relatively small electric load, a great unit capacity and a poor manoeuvring ability of the existent units and sets of power stations. The technical limit for the installation of wind generators in the Estonian power system is 400-500 MW. But this requires investments to power networks and power stations to ensure the transmission, regulation and the necessary reserves of wind power.63
62 Enterprise, Information Society, Transport and Energy Industry Infrastructure Development Operational Programme. Draft 7/7/2006 63 Long-term Public Fuel and Energy Sector Development Plan until 2015
61 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
7 NATURAL RISK MANAGEMENT (FIRE, DROUGHT, FLOODS)
7.1 Current situation 7.1.1 Current State of Provision Existing risk assessments Flooding No existing risk assessments on country or regional level. The effects of a possible sea level rise so far have not been taken into account in planning laws. Besides the Planning Act other laws such as the Law on Protected Natural Objects, the Shores and Banks Protection Act and the Water Act influence the planning on all levels. The Shore and Banks Protection Act establishes a setback line from the coast for buildings and contributes thus mitigating of sea level rise impacts.
A strong storm „Gudrun“ hit the Baltic Sea area and caused considerable flood in Estonian towns Pärnu and Haapsalu in 2005. The flood maximum in Pärnu + 272 cm from local zero occurred in January 2005. This was the highest water level since systematic observations started in 1923. The storm/flood January 2005 raises enormous attention among population, crisis managers and authorities. Need for the better information in such situations was clearly outlined.
Forest fire Pursuant to “Estonian Forestry Development Programme until 2010” the main attention in forest protection is paid to the prevention of damages. Prospectively, national legislation will be harmonised with international norms on forest fire protection. County Rescue Services prepare forest fire suppression plans each spring.
Also development project aimed at increasing the fire resistance of forests in the Vihterpalu region (Harju County) was launched at the initiative of the Estonian Forestry Board.
In the five year period 1999 to 2003, 846 forest fires were registered covering a total area of 4137 ha. The average area of a forest fire was 4.9 ha. Fires that take place in bogs and other areas covered with vegetation are included among forest fires in Estonia. Areas of high forest fire risk (35% of total forest area) are Harju, Hiiu, Saare, Valga, Võru and Põlva Counties. Medium forest fire risk is in Ida-Viru, Lääne-Viru, Pärnu and Rapla County (26% of total forest area).
In connection with Estonia’s integration into the European Union attention has been paid to compliance with European directives and a number of development projects have been planned in this respect. The projects address the determination of fire risk levels and the compilation of fire protection plans. Research projects aimed at determining the reasons for forest fires and their backgrounds have been designed. A project aimed at preparing forest fire protection maps for all the rural municipalities was ordered by the Ministry of the Environment and launched in 2004.
Drought No existing risk assessments on country or regional level.
62 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Institutional issues Flooding No existing risk assessment system. Responsible for natural crises is Rescue Board under the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It includes also forest fire and drought. Risk assessments are made on municipality level.
Forest fire Fire prevention is the task of the Ministry of the Environment and the Rescue Board under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Pursuant to the Forest Act, the Ministry of the Environment shall monitor the forest fire situation and implement measures to prevent and suppress extensive and especially dangerous fires. In state forests, forest fire protection systems are built and maintained by the manager of state forests (State Forest Management Centre). In private forests, the state supports forest owners in compliance with the “Estonian Forest Fire Protection Plan” – if there are sufficient funds available. In the area of prevention, the awareness of the general public is insufficient. Budgetary funds are insufficient, especially those earmarked for covering expenses related to forest fires. Estonia considers the continued co-ordinated activities of the countries in the Baltic region in the sphere of forest fires a high priority. Estonia has concluded mutual assistance agreements with the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Latvia in the area of rescue services. These agreements enable to receive promptly technical assistance and counselling in case of necessity, applying procedures previously agreed upon. So far this possibility has not been used. Co-operation with Finland includes the early detection of forest fires with the help of satellites.
Drought /
7.1.2 Experience of Previous Investment Programmes An overview of fundings by source in natural risk management in Estonia in the period 2000 – 2006 is presented in the table below:
Table 7-1: Funding by Source – Natural Risk Management (Million Euro, 2000 – 2006)
Source of funding Funding instrument EUR (million)
EU PHARE 0,76 (forest management, incl fire prevention)
Structural Fund 0,495 (EAGGF)
National funds National share SF 0,212 (EAGGF)
7.1.3 Structural funds (European Regional Development Fund) (2000-2006) Projects funded by the structural funds are presented in following table:
63 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Table 7-2: EACCF projects, 2000-2006 (in mio €): Measure title Full cost ERDF Fund EU-support (€ million) (€ million) (%) Restoring forestry production 0,707 0,495 70% potential damaged by natural disasters and fire and introducing appropriate prevention instruments
Source: EC DG REGIO (2005) EAGGF = European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
7.2 Needs 7.2.1 Review of Policy Objectives and Targets – and supporting instruments Fire, drought and flood prevention is the task of the Ministry of the Environment and the Rescue Board under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. No risk assessments or strategies on natural risk management exist in Estonia. The only official strategy covering natural hazards in some extent is the Development Plan of the Ministry of Finance area 2007-2010. However the named plan only includes the development of Rescue Board and the preparedness for hazards. Measures and objectives for prevention and risk assessment are not defined in the plan.
The risk assessment of Rescue Board includes the risk level of natural hazard together with the prevention measures. But the implementation of these objectives is not guaranteed (not related to concrete instruments). Pursuant to the Forest Act, the Ministry of the Environment shall monitor the forest fire situation and implement measures to prevent and suppress extensive and especially dangerous fires. In state forests, forest fire protection systems are built and maintained by the manager of state forests (State Forest Management Centre). In private forests, the state supports forest owners in compliance with the “Estonian Forest Fire Protection Plan” – if there are sufficient funds available. In the area of prevention, the awareness of the general public is insufficient.
7.2.2 Risk Forecasts Flooding There has been one significant flood case in Estonia. A strong storm „Gudrun“ hit the Baltic Sea area and caused considerable flood in Estonian towns Pärnu and Haapsalu in 2005 (for more details cf. chapter 3.5.1.). The total losses were estimated up to 48 million EUR (mainly flooded households). Also smaller flood cases happened.
Forest fire In the five year period 1999 to 2003, 846 forest fires were registered covering a total area of 4.137 ha. The average area of a forest fire was 4,9 ha. For more details cf. chapter 3.5.1. The risk of flood and drought in Estonia is estimated to be low (once in 50-100 years), the risk of forest fire high (once in 1-10 years).64
Probability Impact
64 Estonian Rescue Board
64 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
Health Property Environment Forest fire High Not important Very important Very important Flood Low Not important Small importance Small importance Drought (high Low Important Small importance Small importance temperatures) * *: Drought separately is not included in official risk assessments
7.2.3 Instruments and Support Schemes – Enabling/hampering factors to meet needs The only official strategy covering natural hazards in some extent is the Development Plan of the Ministry of Finance area 2007-2010. However the named plan only includes the development of Rescue Board and the preparedness for hazards. Measures and objectives for prevention and risk assessment are not defined in the plan. Therefore, we may assume little or no enabling measures and support schemes to address hazards, risks and impacts exist in Estonia.
7.2.4 Investment Calculation and Comparison – Natural Risk Management Initial plan of Estonia is to invest about 45 MEUR in risk management in 2007-2013. It is expected to cover about 85% (38 MEUR) with funds of EU (ERDF), thus the government intends to cover ca 7 MEUR. In addition to natural risk like flood and forest fire this number also includes prevention and elimination of sea pollution caused by sea transport and harbors and also industrial accidents. The financial division between those areas is not available at the moment. Limiting investment needs on natural risk management to forest fire prevention and management, an indicative range of 5 to 20 MEUR has been taken into account in further calculations as a second best option. This range is based on investment needs for forest fire prevention in other EU10 MSs, adjusted to population. The main planned investments in the area of natural risk management are related to the rescue equipment of Estonian Rescue Board - cars, sprinkler systems, pumping stations, equipment to eliminate floods, training centers, command points etc. The Rescue Board is under jurisdiction of Ministry of Internal Affairs which makes it difficult to look at the investments made specifically in forest fire management. Projects which were funded by Environmental Investment Center in 2005 were researches in the fire protection of the forest and ecological and economical assessment of forest fires and storms (34 595 EUR).
7.2.5 Summary, Insights, Needs etc. The overall risk for natural hazard in Estonia is low. The main risk is forest fire. This is also the only area which gets more attention and is covered with some researches. There are no official concrete risk assessments in state level. Objectives on natural risk management are combined in general objectives of Rescue Board and risk assessments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Separate forecasts and budgets for natural risk are also not created.
65 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Estonia
8 CROSS FIELDS 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 Table 8-1: Needs Summary: Qualitative Analysis
o Table 8-2: Needs Summary: Key Indicators
o Table 8-3: Needs Summary: Indicative Investment Needed
67 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
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
ESTONIA NEEDS ASSESSMENT TABLE – SUMMARY 1
WATER WASTE WATER WASTE RES NATURAL HAZARDS
Future needs being Transport - local: Renovation/upgrade Recovery: recycling Solid biomass (cut Forest fire (high risk, addressed by current renovation of existing STPs yards, recovery of fuelwood and wood- once in 1-10years): initiatives – such as existing network packaging processing waste) • Determination of fire plans or investment (mainly for heat risk levels and production) compilation of fire Drinking water Renovation / upgrading Existing landfill close Wind power (electricity protection plans production plants sewerage downs production) • Forest fire protection systems (public New sewerage New regional landfills Small hydropower forests) (electricity production) • Make private forests compliant with the Geothermal “Estonian Forest Fire (heatpumps) (heat Protection Plan” production) • International cooperation on rescue services (technical assistance and counseling) • Early detection system by the use satellites (in cooperation with Finland)
Future needs requiring Drinking water New STPs Waste collection Wind power (electricity Forest fire protection further planning and/or production plants: new production) systems investment in 2007 – 2013 – and reconstruction indicating any changes in Transport - local: Renovation/upgrade Waste sorting Small hydropower the importance and/or size renovation of existing STPs (electricity production) of future needs in the next network period compared to the
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 69 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
ESTONIA NEEDS ASSESSMENT TABLE – SUMMARY 1
WATER WASTE WATER WASTE RES NATURAL HAZARDS
current one. This is likely to Transport - local: Renovation / upgrading Waste recovery Solid biomass (logging repeat items in the section network extension sewerage waste) (mainly for heat above but may also production) introduce new items House connections New sewerage Existing landfill close downs
Pumping stations New regional landfills
Sludge treatment disposal
Limited needs (less Flooding (regarded as important issues or issues low risk, once in 50- already addressed) 100years): outline of information needed in order to make risk assessment and to set up a crisis plan after Gudrun storm in 2005
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 70 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 8-2: Needs Summary: Key Indicators
ESTONIA NEEDS ASSESSMENT TABLE – SUMMARY 2
WATER WASTE WATER WASTE RES NATURAL HAZARDS
Future needs 59 drinking water General connection rate: Need for ca. 16 additional Cover 5,1% of the electricity Drafting of an official requiring planning production plants in need 72% waste transfer stations for need in 2010 from national risk assessment and/or investment of improvement to comply In areas with +2.000 PE, waste transport from renewable resources (300- and natural risk in 2007 – 2013 – with drinking water quality connection rate 89%. distinct areas 360 GWh): capacity required management report indicating the type requirements 1.311 km of new sewerage Capacity required: 140- and physical + renovation/upgrading of 170MW windmills requirement (eg no sewerage required to reach of population to be the 100% target by 2010. connected, or Reduction of water Ca. 67% of WWTPs meet 85% (rural) to 97% of Ensure that by 2020 Forecast for budgets needs number of plant to leakages in transport: the requirements: 9 new population need to be electricity produced in required for natural risks be built / upgraded currently 10-30% in STPs are planned, each with covered by MSW combined heat and power or capacity to be majority of places and a capacity equivalent for collection services. production stations =20% of installed) +60% in the Kohtla-Järve 2.000 to 10.000 PE. Large Implementation of at gross consumption. area investment needs on STPs source separation of MSW Planned capacity 2015: in Kohtla-Järva, Narva, by separate collection of • 40 MW solid biomass Maardu and several smaller organic waste (av. 65% of (cut fuelwood, wood- settlements population in urban areas) processing waste, and small hazardous logging waste) waste (av. 97% in urban • energy recovery in areas) waste incineration 77% of population in 220 additional pumping Needs for recovery Planned capacity (2015): general is connected to stations are planned facilities including 4 • 140-170MW windmills drinking water supply (80- additional recycling yards • 9-10 MW of small 95% in large settlements): and 10 additional hydro-power stations extension to 100% of composting plants (<15 MW) population in 2013 • 40 MW solid biomass
Av. of 3 new RWMCs with an overall capacity of ca. 300.000 tonnes MSW 25 landfills needed to be remediated
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 71 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 8-3: Needs Summary: Indicative Investment Needed
ESTONIA NEEDS ASSESSMENT TABLE – SUMMARY 3 Needs requiring investment in WATER WASTE WATER WASTE RES NATURAL HAZARDS 2007 - 2013
Indicative level Best estimate: 232 Best Estimate: 267 Best estimate: 96 Best estimate: 71 Best estimate: 20 of investment for Range: 144 - 602 Range: 267-942 Range: 70 - 96 Range: 53 - 71 Range: 5 - 20 the Field (Meuro): Indicative • Upper bound = Covered by the lower bound Covered by the upper bound = Indicated amount of Investment needs have not examples of the maximum needs to of the total investment of the total investment support in the period 2006 - been calculated. Overall types of cover water supply for range: range: 2010 for renewable energy risks for natural hazards are investment all +50 settlements, • New STPs: ca. 10 • Waste collection: 1,2 of 10,6 to 14,2 MEUR per low in Estonia. Only for lower bound= minimum Meuro year. forest fire risks are high needed: MEUR needs to cover • Renovation/upgrading (once in 1-10 years). As settlements of +2.000 of STPs: 60 Meuro • Waste sorting: 20 Total investment needs to forest fire have a very (= short term target) • New sewerage: 121 MEUR cover wind energy for a important impact on • Best estimate = based Meuro capacity of 250 MWel = 334 environment and property on project team • Renovation/upgrading • Recovery: 0,1 MEUR MEUR (incl. investment in losses, investments in this calculation of physical of sewerage:60 Meuro power network and other field are required. • Disposal: 75 MEUR needs to cope with the • Sewage pumping extra costs). Range is a rough indicative 2013 target (supply to stations 16 Meuro all +50 settlements) • The state policy target Locations: islands of W estimate based on figures and Estonian unit costs to compliance with the Estonia, coastal areas of N, on investment needs on • Largest share of UWWTD in 2010 and NW and SW Estonia, Lake forest fires in other MSs. investment needs are thus only focus on Peipus related to the agglomerations renovation of the >2000PE existing network (117 to 574 MEUR), other investments relate to drinking water production plants (27,5 MEUR)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 72 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
ESTONIA NEEDS ASSESSMENT TABLE – SUMMARY 3 Needs requiring investment in WATER WASTE WATER WASTE RES NATURAL HAZARDS 2007 - 2013
Key data gaps: Indicated physical needs Indicative level of Investment needs for small- Up until now, no official risk only include needs for larger investment is based on scale hydropower stations assessments or strategies settlements while small information about the needs has not been provided on natural risk settlements cover an for upgrading of existing and (small-scale hydropower is management exist at important share of the construction of new STPs technically limited to ca. 40 national level in Estonia. Estonian population. Data and sewers, own estimates MW). This result in a lack of on monitoring and metering on other physical needs and information on actual is missing as well as unit default unit costs. Key data No national investment hazards, risks and impacts, costs on drinking water gaps include unit costs and plans have been elaborated the needs for risk and production. total physical needs on new impact limiting sewerage and existing No indications have been infrastructure and sewerage needed to be given on investment technologies needs. Range renovated. scenarios reflecting potential is a rough indicative combination of technologies estimate based on figures and economic instruments on investment needs on to reach this target. forest fires in other EU 10 MSs.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 73 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
8.2 Part 2: Assessing priorities within fields This section 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):
• 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 fields Field 1: water supply In a first phase, priority should be given to bringing drinking water supply into compliance in settlements with >2.000 inhabitants (2010) (runs parallel with the end of transition period for the UWWTD). In a second phase (2010-2013), priority should be given to improving drinking water supply in smaller settlements (+50 inhabitants) (where deadline for compliance with the Drinking Water Directive is 2013). In the fist phase, investments should be focused on renovation and upgrading works of the drinking water treatment plants and the renovation of existing networks. Renovation works can be partly covered by raised user charges. In the second phase, investments are related to the extension of the water supply network in smaller settlements (= new water distribution networks and new drinking water treatment plants). These smaller settlements are an important share of the population of Estonia and will probably require the highest share of the total investment needs for drinking water supply. These smaller municipalities often lack the necessary absorption capacity leading to the need for technical assistance projects (capacity building at local level and of the EIC, improvement of the project preparation phase)
Field 2: waste water treatment Year 2010 is the transposition date for UWWTD in Estonia which means that bigger investments in waste water treatment sector related to Directive should be included in the next programming period. Prior attention should be paid to the extension of the sewage network and the renovation of the existing sewage network and the renovation and upgrading of existing STPs. Replacement of worn out infrastructure could (partly) be covered by existing user charges.
This Part comprises an assessment of the scope to manage and deliver an ERDF/CF Programme for each Field based on eligibility, the use of flanking measures and issues of administrative capacity After 2010, additional attention could be paid to smaller settlements and rural areas (i.e. in North-East Estonia) which are not covered with the Directive and for that reason not the priority of State Investment Plans. Indicated investment needs do not cover
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 74 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
these investments which are expected to increase the total investment needs for waste water treatment considerably (from 267MEUR to 942 MEUR).
Field 3: Municipal solid waste The type of projects to be funded will be mostly a continuation of the previous funding period. Priority should be given to the expansion of sorted waste collection stations, regional waste management centres and the recultivation of old landfills (closure existing landfills as requested under the Landfill Directive should be finished by 2009 = end transition period)
Field 4: RES RES priorities are first of all a function of physical possibilities for renewable energy. This would emphasize the need for relatively more funding of wind energy projects and biomass and to a lesser extent small scale hydropower stations. Priority is given to investments to wind energy projects. However, the final need for funding will strongly depend on the national strategy, which is not clear on the moment. The presented investment needs only cover the scenario in which investments in wind energy projects cover the whole 2010 target on renewable electricity. In reality, the target will probably be reached by a combination of technologies and the implementation of economic instruments. In the field of RES, the main policy for renewable electricity in Estonia at technology level is a feed-in tariff system with purchase obligation. All support schemes are scheduled to end in 2015. Together with the relatively low feed-in tariffs, this makes renewable investments very difficult and indicate a high need for support on investment in this field.
Field 5: Risk In general, natural risks are assumed to be low in Estonia. Forest fire protection is the only more or less important funding issue in Estonia and should receive the highest priority. In a small extent, flood protection could also receive part of the investment needs allocated for natural risk management
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) The Estonian recent years legislation has been supportive to development of renewable energy trough the obligation for grid to buy the renewable electricity at a fixed price based on the Electricity Market Act. A network operator shall purchase electricity generated from renewable energy sources from a producer connected to the network of the network operator in an amount which does not exceed the network losses of the network operator during the trading period. In accordance with the activity license, the producer may sell electricity generated from a renewable energy source by exercising the purchase obligation. In the long-term energy sector development plan it is stated that control mechanism to ensure a price to renewable energy which is higher than market tariff will be improved. Eesti Energia (Estonian Energy) is following the Act and using renewable energy sources is also their environmental policy. Renewable energy is sold and promoted under the trade mark “Green Energy”.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 75 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Feed-in tariffs are paid for max. 7 years for biomass and hydro-power and for max. 12 years for wind and other technologies. All support schemes are scheduled to end in 2015. Together with the relatively low feed-in tariffs, this makes renewable investments very difficult. According to the FORRES 2020 report, the main renewable heat policy for biomass heat in Estonia is tax exemption: a reduced VAT for biomass (e.g.) (Value Added Tax Act). There is no specific policy for solar thermal heat or geothermal heat.65
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 Field 1 (water supply): A public water supply and sewerage system may be in the ownership of a person in public or private law. Mostly are investments in water supply covered by local municipalities with the help of different funds. Investments in water supply system can be also made by water companies. Most of the projects planned in the NEAP are expected to be co-financed. In previous funding period 2000-2006, investments on drinking water supply in Estonia was supported via CF, mainly focusing on the largest investment requirements, measures aiming at compliance with the EU acquis. In 2000-2006, no support via SF has foreseen for drinking water supply. Field 2 (waste water): In projects (2000-2010) supported via the CF and SF, priority is given to the construction of new and upgrading of existing sewerage networks and construction of new and upgrading of existing STPs. Investments in waste water treatment is in high need for funds from the EC and subsidies received by the State. Field 3 (waste): Waste collection, sorting, transport and recovery are largely the responsibility of private companies. Investments in supervision over waste handling are highly needed. Investment types that require additional support to the MS budget from CF and SF mainly relate to the establishment of new landfills, closure and remediation of old landfills and recycling systems. Field 4 (RES): In previous funding period 2000-2006, investments on RES in Estonia were supported via SF (ERDF). Field 5 (risk): Forest fires are the only relevant natural risk issue in Estonia. Budgetary funds necessary for the set-up and maintenance of forest fire protection systems are regarded as insufficient. Member State funding can be expected but including support from the EC, as indicated from previous funding period. Projects on forest fire management have been co-financed via a PHARE project (forest management incl. fire prevention) and via SF (EAGGF).
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): In Estonia local government establishes rates for water, wastewater as well as the price for connection to public water system. The prices for industry are 2-3 time higher than for private persons, thus cross-sector subsidizing exists. Also direct transfers from municipality to the operators are in place. According to the Estonian Water Supply and Sewerage Act, the price of the service of supplying water and collection/treatment of wastewater cover production costs. It also states that services should operate with justified profitability. It may be assumed that user charges
65 FORRES 2020: Analysis of the renewable energy sources' evolution up to 2020.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 76 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
revenues can partly be used for e.g. renovation of existing network. However, the investment costs are often not covered with water tariffs and additional funding is needed (municipality budget, state budget, EU funds). The level of the recovered costs is different in different places and is low in rural municipalities with sparse population. The level of the recovered costs differs geographically depending on share of external funding in local government / municipality budget and the shape of infrastructure (restoration needs).
Field 2 (waste water): cf. Field 1
Field 3 (waste): User charges include landfill taxes (via environmental permits system) and waste charges (directly via contracts between service provider and the clients or indirectly via the local authority / municipality and the clients in case of organised MSW management system). Geographically, user charges differ a lot. In future, waste charges will be increased by adding price components related to cost of establishment, use and after-care of landfills, cost for hazardous waste handling at MSW landfills, costs of waste recovery and overhead costs including awareness-raising. When the new price components are added, municipal waste handling will become more expensive. The likely effect of the planned increase in waste charges is not clear but may be assumed as small to medium. Necessary investments are regarded as too costly to be covered by waste charges. At the moment SF are regarded as important sources to fund the required investments.
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: Currently no significant changes in water price policy are planned. It is politically a hard decision to raise the tariffs to a great extent. Between 1992 and 2002 the average water price in the country increased almost 25 times and population in poorer regions would definitely need time to accept new level of water prices. It’s not only an affordability question (which can also be a case in some municipalities where the price is already higher), but also a question of change of attitude. Another important point is that municipalities with small population (as most of the municipalities in Estonia are) can’t cover all capital costs even after big rise of tariffs (as far as 5% barrier). The effect will be significant only in bigger towns. Ministry of Finance prognoses predicts an increase in water and sewage tariffs of 9,6% during years 2006-2008. Growth prognoses of water companies are lower with tariff changes remaining in pace with a % of net income per capita of 0,05% in Talinn (may differ strongly).
Field 3: It is expected that waste charges will dramatically increase because of new charges (see previous question): from an average of 13 EUR in 2002 to 60 EUR in 2013, resulting in an average share of 1,4% for an average household. The increase of waste charges is becoming more and more an affordability issue for the average Estonian household.
The revenue 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. The 5 % barrier will be not be reached in future as current user charges in the field of drinking water and sewerage (with very limited impact on net income per capita) will more or less remain stable.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 77 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
The potential use of flanking measures and the likely effect on the need for investment, qualitatively (eg small, medium, large) and quantitatively (as a share of the indicative investment needed) Fields 1-2-3: Estonian Pollution Charge Act provides the rates of the charge to be paid for release of pollutants or waste into the environment and the procedure for calculation and payment of the charge. The pollution charge shall be paid by the owner of an immovable if pollutants or waste are released into the environment from the immovable of the owner according to the wishes of the owner. All ground and surface water abstraction and discharge require a permit delivered by the County Environmental Department. The permit determines the volume of water that can be used and also the amount of pollutants that can be discharged. Furthermore, the rate of fees for abstraction and pollution, the user has to pay are determined. Same way the landfill tax is applied via an environmental permits system (waste permit for landfill operation or IPPC permit) directly to the permit holder.
Field 1-2: the likely effect of the planned increase in water and sewerage tariffs has not been quantified but can be assumed as low as no substantial increase in tariffs has been foreseen for the years to come. Besides this, it is important to note that user charges are raised at municipality level. Most of the municipalities in Estonia are rather small (majority has < 5.000 inhabitants) which make their user charge revenues too small to enable them to carry out all needed investments. To cope with this problem, the Environmental Investment Centre (EIC) has been established in 2001, raising funds from user charges mainly to finance environmental infrastructure works. In 2005, 10% of the investments on environmental issues have been funded by the EIC, 60% by EU funding and other foreign budgets and 30% by the Estonian State.
Field 3: the likely effect of the planned increase in waste charges is not clear but may be assumed as small to medium: it includes all aspects of waste handling, enabling to cover costs such as those related to final disposal in landfills. On the other hand, EU support is regarded as necessary to cover high investment needs in final disposal issues. The remark for field 1-2 related to the small size of the majority of the municipalities also relates to waste charges.
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 ISPA, CF and SF funding in the previous years and different projects are still on-going. The problem is however that due to the small size of the country there are just few environmental investment projects which are big enough to qualify for EU financing. The Estonian Government is
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 78 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
often forced to combine smaller investment projects into packages which make it difficult to implement and monitor properly. Besides this, the biggest environmental investment projects of a state priority (e.g. wastewater treatment, projects on RWMCs) fall under the final responsibility of municipalities for raising funds for needed investments as well as implementation and maintenance of the infrastructure investment. Their ability to attract financing from ISPA (before 2004), PHARE (before 2004), CF and SF is low because of their lacking ability to prepare the projects and because of low local co-financing possibilities. Second, selected technologies imply often high maintenance costs, i.e. wastewater treatment. While the construction costs are co-funded by foreign support, these high maintenance costs have to fully beard by the municipality itself. This leads to a heavy burden on their budget as costs can’t always be recovered by user charges, i.e. for municipalities with small population.
Therefore the following tasks can be regarded as important to be fulfilled: - Improvement of project preparation (planning phase); - Improvement of project adsorption capacity at beneficiaries (local experts at municipalities); - Avoidance of the overplanning by capacities; - Ensure substantial role for inspection of affordability and willingness to pay issues during planning process. As described previously, the Environmental Investment Centre (EIC) has been established in 2001. The EIC raises funds from user charges to finance environmental infrastructure works. It also acted as the Implementation Agency for ISPA.
Field 4-5: Relatively limited experience with SF funding in the past. Institutional capacity problems likely to be expected. Furthermore, different ministries and sectors are involved, complicating the project pipeline preparation and decision mechanism.
8.2.5 Summary Table 8-4 summarises the analysis using a combination of available qualitative and quantitative information for a given field. Where specific quantitative information is missing present your best judgement as an approximate share of the indicative investment.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 79 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 8-4: Estimate of the Financial Requirements, 2007-2013 Stage in the Field Field 1 Water supply Field 2 Waste Water Field 3 Waste Field 4 RES Field 5 Risk Assessment
A: Indicative Total 232 267 96 71 20 (i) Investment Needs (Meuro) – from 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 8-3
B: Investments likely to be negligible negligible negligible See E - covered by market schemes (eg purchasing of renewables)
C: Amount recovered from existing user charges not 4 (iii) 25 (iii) 7 (iii) - - included in investment need
D: Further amount that could be recovered from higher negligible (iv) negligible (iv) 7 (iv) - - rates for existing or new charges to fund investment
E: Financing Requirement 228 242 89 71 20 Before Absorption Review
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 80 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
(A-B-C-D) (Meuro)
F: Absorptive Capacity (% of 80% (vi) 80% (vi) 80% (vi) 80% (vi) 80% (vi) Financing Requirement (E))
G: Financing Requirement 182 194 71 57 16 After Absorption Review (Meuro)
(i) Range is only a rough indicative proxy based on investment needs on forest fires in other MSs. (ii) Effect of market schemes may be assumed as negligible: feed-in tariffs on renewable electricity production are regarded as very low and tax exemptions on renewable heat production only include a VAT reduction for biomass. This hampers private renewable investments and increases the need for financial support to reach the RES goals (iii) These figures are rough estimates based on an average share on environmental investments of 10% (period 2004-2006) covered by user charges raised by the Environmental Investment Centre (EIC). Following assumptions have been made: the amount of the user charges that EIC invests, equals the maximum of the total revenues of the user charges that can be used to cover investments, the rest is needed for operation & maintenance; the investment share of 10% coming from user charges is equally distributed over investments in water supply, waste water and waste. (iv) These figures are rough estimates based on the fact that user charges are:
• not expected to increase or change in the coming years for water supply and waste water • expected to largely increase for waste charges, however less then indicated for future because of affordability reasons. (v) Support on investments in wind energy range between 10,6 to 14,2 MEUR per year (vi) 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. Not included: expected duration to complete the project pipelines according to the type of project (e.g. delays because of protest, requirements for EIA studies, difficulties in finding additional (private) funding sources). Limited increases in absorption capacity compared to former programming period are expected as more investment needs will have to be covered by smaller municipalities (have to cope with limited absorption capacities).
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 81 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 8-4 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 8-4 above; b) the absolute and relative structural assistance in the previous period (see chapter 2).
Table 8-5: 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) 80 137 63 5 1 287 in Meuro Past period funding (2000-2006) 28% 48% 22% 2% 0,5% 100% in %
Total financial need (2007-2013) 182 194 71 57 16 520 in Meuro Total financial need (2007-2013) 35% 37% 14% 11% 3% 100% in %
This table already indicates some major changes from the previous period to the next planning period: • The financial total need is larger; • Investment needs in the field of waste water remains predominate, share of investment needs for drinking water supply increased while share that goes to municipal solid waste dropped (needs in absolute figures for municipal solid waste remain stable compared to previous funding period) • Part of the share of the investment needs that went to municipal solid waste in the past period funding goes to renewable energy supply, which increases considerably. • Investment needs for natural risk management remain low but increased slightly.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 82 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 83 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 8-6: Multi-Criteria Assessment for Estonia
Impact Score Very good contribution 10 Good contribution 7 Limited contribution 3 ASSESS THE CONTRIBTION OF EACH TYPE OF Negligble contribution 0 INVESTMENT TO EACH CRITERIA Criteria Field Type of Investment 12345 6 7 8 Water Supply Reservoirs 00000 0 0 0 Drinking water production plant 1010333 0 7 10 Transport (inc leakage) - long 10 10333 7 7 0 Transport (inc leakage) - local 1010733 0 7 0 Metering 00000 0 0 0 Waste Water New STPs 107333 3 7 3 Renovation / upgrade STPs 10 10773 0 7 3 New Sewerage 77333 3 7 3 Renovation / upgrade sewerage 77333 3 7 3 Sewage pumping stations 77330 0 7 3 CSO upgrading 37330 0 7 3 Sludge treatment 77730 0 7 3 Sludge disposal 77030 0 7 3 MSW Waste collection 77777 0 7 7 Waste sorting 33777 0 3 7 Recovery 73733 0 3 7 Disposal - new disposal facilities 107730 0 7 7 Disposal - remediation of existing disposal facilities 710333 0 3 3 Renewables Wind 37733 0 7 7 Hydro (>15 MW) 00000 0 0 0 Hydro (<15 MW) 37773 3 7 3 Solid biomass 37773 3 7 7 Liquid biofuels 00000 0 0 0 Geothermal 37333 0 7 3 Solar thermal 00000 0 0 0 Solar electric (PV) 00000 0 0 0 Natural hazards Drought 00000 0 0 0 Fire 010333 7 7 10 Flood 00000 0 0 0 Heatwave 00000 0 0 0 Storm 00000 0 0 0 Specific remarks:
The following type of investments are not an issue for funding in Estonia (and hence are given a zero for all criteria): reservoirs, Hydro (>15 MW), Liquid biofuels, Solar thermal, Solar electric (PV), Drought, Flood, Heatwave and Storm
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 84 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
8.3.3 Economic and regional development implications of the identified investment priorities to understand the wider impacts of investment The new strategy stresses the need of balanced regional development. This is also brought out in new draft implementation plan of development of living environment (“Elukeskkonna arendamise rakenduskava”, 17.07.2006) which is additional document to strategy for next financing period and deals with environmental issues (see also chapter 2.6.)
General regional implications of the planned environmental investments At the moment big share of environmental investments are made in bigger settlements and bigger projects. Bigger municipalities have more capability to carry out the projects and to find sources for co-financing. Rural areas and smaller settlements are in poor condition and still need a lot of investments. Because small municipalities have small budgets and the solvency of population is low it is complicated to find sources for co- financing capital costs. Furthermore – maintenance costs of new installations can also be too high for those municipalities. Because of all this bigger projects are more cost- effective than smaller ones and more or less favoured. Second, available budgets and funds are limited. Thereby the first priority of state environmental policy is to meet EU Directives. For example if we look at UWWD the first deadline in 2009 is for settlements over 10 000 inhabitants and second deadline in 2010 for settlements over 2000 inhabitants and smaller settlements are left out. This is basically also the investment order Estonia is following and this is another reason why bigger settlements are favoured. This kind of approach does not support regional development. But one has to note that dispersed settlement has important share in Estonia. New draft investment plan for period 2007-2013 (“Elukeskkonna arendamise rakenduskava”) stresses the need of balanced development and the need to subsidise peripheral areas. This should give more opportunities to rural areas in coming period. But the first priority will probably still be completing compliance with the acquis. After that other investments and equal opportunities can be considered. Investments in water supply, waste water treatment and municipal solid waste system are in general supporting regional development with bringing the infrastructure outside the district of Tallinn in compliance. This makes local environment more attractive for businesses and inhabitants. Investments in renewable energy and natural risk management are neutral in this field. However, the effect of this is not predictable and can be small in short term period. There is still a problem of unemployment on the one hand and lack of skilled working force on the other hand in Estonia. Labour situation and residence preferences depend on many factors and good environment and infrastructure is only one of them. In long- term planning the effect of improved environment is probably bigger and more important. More clear effect is on providing equal opportunities and healthier living environment. Investments in drinking water and sewage systems definitely contribute to equal opportunities of inhabitants and enterprises. Other investments are indirectly related or neutral. Many investment projects allow involvement of foundations and non- profit organisations, which supports their development.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 85 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Contribution to the MCA criteria 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: Avoiding economic and social damages One of main investment priorities of Estonia is drinking water compliant to the EU acquis in all areas. Another big share of investments is needed for waste water systems. These priorities definitely contribute to avoiding social damages and ensuring safe living environment and reducing health risks. Waste water management system is important for the improvement of environmental quality. Bringing drinking water and waste water systems in compliance also makes it better economic environment for enterprises. Forest fires cause significant economic losses in national level. Because of that investments in forest fire protection system and in equipment of Rescue Board are also an important priority under this section. Encouraging new technology and market development with the potential to replace imports or generate exports Most innovative objectives are related to installation and development of new waste water treatment plants, wind power, new recycling systems. These areas encourage researches and bringing new techniques into use. Development of new enterprises in the market is also possible. Generating export is probably not relevant value from environmental investments in Estonia. Generating employment opportunities in line with national and regional employment goals Bringing drinking water and waste water systems in compliance and building necessary infrastructure improves local social and economic environment and makes it more attractive for enterprises and supports regional development, but the effect on employment is probably minor (at least in short-term period). Water, waste water and municipal solid waste projects generate work in the construction sector (building pipe systems, installing STPs, closing landfills etc), but it is doubtful if additional staff is needed in remarkable scale. Some employment opportunities may be generated for example due to new techniques in waste management. Providing employment and training opportunities for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups (e.g. ethnic minorities, women, older workers)
Employment and training opportunities for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups are limited in all environmental objectives. Low skilled workers can be used in waste sorting process which is developing in Estonia. However there is probably only a small need for workers. Promoting cross-border co-operation Cross border consultation is necessary in some water management projects (especially waste water treatment and sewage treatment plants). Koiva River-Basin District in South-Estonia is international RBD crossing the borders of Estonia and Latvia. Both countries need to follow Water Framework Directive and develop co- operation in the field of water management. Cross border co-operation is an important issue also in natural risk management. In the case of major emergencies (like big forest fires in Estonia), international co-operation exists. Most of the other investment projects are focused on solving local internal problems and cross-border co-operation is not very relevant surplus value.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 86 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 470 Meuro, then we could divide this amount according to three scenario’s: • 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) scenario’s are possible, these three scenario’s, 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) 35% 37% 14% 11% 3% in % Allocation of available funding (2007-2013) 165 175 64 52 14 470 in Meuro
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 87 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
This weighting exercise, using the scores for each type of investment mentioned in Table 8-6 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) 45% 36% 13% 6% 1% in % Allocation of available funding 213 168 59 27 3 470 (2007-2013) in Meuro
Scenario 3 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: 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 8-6 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) 39% 33% 14% 11% 3% in % Allocation of available funding (2007-2013) 184 156 66 51 14 470 in Meuro
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 88 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 DWS WW MSW RES RISK minimum allocation (%) 35% 33% 13% 6% 1% maximum allocation (%) 45% 37% 14% 11% 3% allocation range (%) 35-45 33-37 13-14 6-11 1-3
The following conclusions are proposed: • the “traditional acquis compliance” fields (water, waste water and waste) remain predominate: o but, less % allocation in the next programming period should go to municipal solid waste in comparison to the previous programming period o % allocation in the next programming period for drinking water supply increases. In short term, projects will be acquis driven focussing on water supply to settlements of +2.000 inhabitants. In long term (2013), additional attention should be paid to smaller settlements, increasing the investment needs and establishing the need for additional capacity building o in the field of waste water, projects are very much “acquis driven”; within the type of projects, the order is typically a function of the size of the projects (e.g. number of IE per agglomeration for a WTP); it is to be expected that in the coming period, the scale of the projects will decrease (smaller agglomerations needing adequate waste water treatment), hence establishing a greater need for capacity building. • % allocation for investments in renewable energy sources and natural risk management remain very low compared to the “traditional acquis compliance” : o however, share of investments in renewable energy sources increased considerably compared to previous programming period. There are however still a lot of question marks regarding the total financial need and the possible funding mechanisms; which should be cleared out first o share of investments in natural risk management remains very low. Investment needs are based on an indicative proxy as no detailed information has been provided. An indication of the investment needs based on the actual physical needs, especially in the field of forest fires should be cleared out first. More accurate investment calculations could lead to a higher share in this field for the next programming period. However, this increase is not regarded as influencing substantially the allocations over the different fields.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 89
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9 ANNEXES
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 91
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1 Key figures current situation 9.1.1 Summary Data Table Water supply Operating & Investment Type of Physical Indicators Maintenance (EUR/year) investment (EUR/year)
Water supply Connection rate 77% (2004)66 In general the volume of Operating costs (general issues) to drinking ground- and surface largely vary water supply water resources is according to type of (%) satisfactory to meet the well, need for demand for drinking purification and Unit water 4 88 (2003) water. maintenance of supply (l network. /inh/day)
67 Maintenance costs of Total drinking 40,7 (2004) private shallow wells water demand are close to 0 as the households well has to be (million m³) cleaned once in a Total drinking while. 45,2 (industry) water demand + 1323 (energy) In cities and towns industry (million (2004)4 the complicated m³) network Water price 0,74 (Tallinn, maintenance costs (EURO/ m³) private are compiled on the consumer) basis of cost on maintenance of wells, pumping stations, networks cleaning, and pipes replacement. This is different in different settlements.
Reservoirs (eg Volume in 33,1 (Tallinn Investment need per Operating costs to store surface reservoirs drinking water year vary on type of vary on type of waters and/or (million m³) system water water reservoir system. water reservoir and groundwater) reservoirs – In Narva this might be catchment. potential usage calculated on basis of volume for maintenance of dam drinking water). and reservoir, in Tallinn, maintenance of 365 (Narva catchment. The water reservoir investments vary is located on between companies. border with Russia and is shared with Russia).
66 Health Protection Inspectorate of Estonia 67 Estonian Environmental Information Centre
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 93 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Operating & Investment Type of Physical Indicators Maintenance (EUR/year) investment (EUR/year)
Associated In Tallinn and period of water Narva, water is reserve (days) collected and stored in the natural and modified water bodies constantly. Reserves are calculated as in average to satisfy settlements for 1 to 3 month period.
Drinking water Drinking water See chapter 3 The quality of ‘production’ production groundwater which is plant - capacity -by used for drinking does ground/surface source (million not meet in various (quality) m³/year) areas standards set to (groundwater, the drinking water. surface water, General problem is iron other) content which is higher than set for drinking % of samples 67,9%4 (2004) water. In the areas meeting where this is the case, standards measures for iron removal are under development.
Water transport Population of 25%4 Investment per running In cities and towns - the country self- m of water supply the complicated sufficient in network is about 800 network Distribution of drinking water EUR. maintenance costs water (includes (%) are compiled on the house In general in bigger basis of cost on connections) Shows settlements the maintenance of dependency of developer has to pay for wells, pumping the area on connection to the stations, networks water transport existing network. The cleaning, and pipes price is about 5.000 to replacement. This 7.000 EUR per is different in connection. In some different municipalities existing settlements. houses can get subsidy or are excepted from Connection rate 4 77% payment. to drinking water supply (% population or households connected to systems)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 94 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Operating & Investment Type of Physical Indicators Maintenance (EUR/year) investment (EUR/year)
Geographical Maximum 80 to variation (min % 90% in bigger - max %) cities and towns. Minimum 0% in smaller sparse settlements
Continuity of Permanent .24 supply hours. (hours/day)
Water loss Water losses (% 30-35% (2003)4 All major network minimisation of volume and owners are investing million m³) into decrease of loss of water in networks. The losses are mainly caused by failures of old networks. Therefore the reduction in losses is mainly achieved by replacement of pipes and pumping equipment. The costs in Estonia in general depend on status of the networks. In some bigger cities like Tallinn and Tartu networks are older and require larger investments whilst in smaller and newer networks losses are smaller.
Monitoring Drinking water 67,9%4 (2004) sampling points – meeting drinking water quality standards (%)
Metering (eg Households 50% (1999). In Tallinn 100 000 households) with metering Target is Eur/200568 public water 100%. supply (%)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 95 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Operating & Investment Type of Physical Indicators Maintenance (EUR/year) investment (EUR/year)
Households 10% (expert with metering opinion) own (ground)water supply (%)
Remark Investments and operational costs:
Information on investments and operational costs is difficult to obtain due to several factors. There is no centralized database on total investments and other water supply information. The data does exist but is spread between owners of the water companies. Municipalities are obliged by Estonian legislation compile the Water Supply and Sewage Plans. The process of planning has just started and is supposed to be completed by 2006. These plans will reveal more detailed information on needs in improvement of water supply and sewage in Estonian settlements (including needs for investments).
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 96 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1.2 Summary Data Table Waste water
Type of Indicators investment Sewage Sewage connection rates (% of 77% (2003) networks and population or households connected); connections (eg households, small industry) Km of sewer networks 3.280 (2003)
Trunk sewers / Km of trunk sewers/collectors Requested figures not available collectors
Treatment plant % of country surface area classified as 100% sensitive area for the UWWTD
Share of population or households 77% (2003) connected to STPs
Number of agglomerations that have N.a. been defined for the implementation of the UWWTD
Number of STP in place that comply N.a. with the UWWTD standards (y)
Number of STP in place that are not N.a. fully compliant (z)
Total biodegradable capacity of the N.a. above (y + z) plants in PE69
hydraulic design capacity of the newest - plants expressed in l/PE/d
Sludge Quantity of sludge produced [tons Tallinn 32,5 tons (2002), 28% dry matter management DS/year]; content70. (waste) Rest of country bigger treatment plants 29200 m3 annually71.
Type of sludge treatment used In Tallinn sludge treatment primary step (dewatering, digestion; drying; other); is methane oxidation, secondary step dewatering, third step composting.
Disposal or reuse route used Main use is composting with further use (agriculture; soil; landfill; incineration; for recultivation. In Tallinn production of other) compost is exceeding demand. About ½ is used for recultivation ½ is buried to landfill. In other towns main method is composting and recultivation.
Storm drains Design criteria for Combined Sewer Separate storm water collection reservoir and reservoirs Overflows (CSO) is available in Tallinn. Separate storm water collection, treatment and discharge system is under development in Tallinn.
n° of compliant CSOs -
n° of non-compliant CSOs -
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 97 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 0,536 mio t/year and 396 kg/y per capita Waste (mt/year and kg/year per (2003)1 (general capita) issues)
Waste Waste collection Coverage of waste - collection equipment (e.g. collection system - % of transport population covered in vehicles) urban/rural areas
Composition of municipal Organic waste (%) (incl. % share waste -42,1%, paper and cardboard - of packaging) 25,3%, glass – 2,7%, metal – 3,8%, plastic – 11,6%, timber - 3,3%, inert waste - 6,7%, composite material – 3,4%, textile - 0,9% and hazardous waste – 0,2%. (2000)11 Amount of selectively Figures not available collected waste per
household (tonnes per waste stream)
Recycling points Availability of on street Major cities and towns have introduced for non- facilities and more major waste separation and collection systems. hazardous collection points Persons are encouraged to sort the waste. municipal waste (rural/urban areas) Various collection options are available. (e.g. paper & Waste can be collected separately at cardboard, glass, block houses, shops, public collection metals, batteries, points. An individual or company can order textile, transportation of sorted waste. In Tallinn construction and surroundings almost 70% of municipal waste) waste is going through sorting facility, before landfilling. Construction waste is separated partially. Concrete and bricks are crushed and used for filling. Wood is used for burning in boiler houses. The rest is landfilled.
Recycling / Current amount and Separation and collection of hazardous deposit system capacity of recycling/ waste is encouraged. Batteries, for hazardous controlled deposit of fluorescent lamps, waste oils, paints, municipal waste hazardous waste package from hazardous products are (e.g. batteries, collected at designated places. waste oil Companies are obliged to collect and pass products, the hazardous waste to companies fluorescent licensed to deal with hazardous waste. lamps)
Import/export of Amount (mt) of compliant 0,482 Mio tons of waste is exported waste collected import/export of municipal (2004). waste (e.g. for recycling)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 98 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Type of investment Physical Indicators
Waste Sorting facilities Capacity of Number of sorting facilities is increasing. Treatment manual/mechanical There are about 7 municipal waste sorting sorting facilities facilities in 2006. Overall capacity is not (tonnes/year) easily retrievable as every facility has its own information.
Availability of physical- Hazardous waste is collected by licensed chemical equipment for companies. Depending on waste type the management of waste is either burnt (oils), neutralised hazardous waste and/or storied. Network of hazardous waste collection covers all Estonia (100%). As minimum county centres have public access collection points. In bigger cities there is a network of the collection points. Regularly collection campaigns are organised by bigger cities. Enterprises are obliged to organise hazardous waste management by themselves.
Waste Recycling plant Amount and share of 84.906 t recycling municipal waste recycled 15% (2003)1 (detail if available e.g. packaging)
Capacity of recycling Total capacity is not known. It is possible facilities (t/year) to compile the information on the basis of direct enquiry.
Composting Amount (mt) of Composting of waste is not widespread. It biodegradable municipal is practised basically in countryside. In waste produced (current + settlements composting is rarely used. 1995 level) 1995 composting 3.000 tons, 2001 11.000 tons.
Amount (mt) and share of - biodegradable municipal waste composted
Capacity of composting - facilities (t/year)
Waste Incineration plant Number of incineration None. Estonian waste management (Final) (for MSW) facilities strategy does not foresee building of disposal municipal waste incineration plant. Some fractions of waste are incinerated after pre- treatment (sorting, separation). E.g. wood, cardboard, waste oils not containing hazardous compounds etc.
Capacity (tonnes/year and No incineration plants for MSW. GJ/year) and activity/availability of incinerators
Equipment of plants to N.a. achieve emission ceilings (incl. dioxins and furans)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 99 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Type of investment Physical Indicators
Amount of municipal N.a. waste incinerated with energy recovery Landfill sites Number of sanitary 4 (Municipal) – landfills general and
hazardous Number of non compliant 18 landfills
% of recyclable/reusable - waste that is landfilled
Number of (illegal) waste About 20 landfills are in use. Among those dumps in use/not in use about 10 does not meet requirements.
Closed waste dumps (to About 220 landfills in 1999. According to be) recultivated the inventory of existing dumpsites and landfills about 450 dumpsites.
Municipal waste landfilled 371.306 tonnes 67% (2003)1
municipal waste landfilled - without treatment (mt/year)
biodegradable municipal 60-70% waste landfilled (mt/year)
Hazardous waste 98.706 tonnes (2004) (mt/year)
Collection of leachate and Pääsküla (Tallinn old) landfill longest biogas experience. 3,28 mio m3 landfill gas collected in 2001.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 100 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1.4 Summary Data Table Renewable Energy
Type of Physical Indicators investment Wind No. of wind turbines 1772
capacity of wind turbines (MW) 22,6 MW and % over total energy production
Output of wind turbines (MWh) and 0,325 GWh (2002) when 7 installations with % over total energy production output capacity of 2,2 MW was in place
Areas and energy potential (E.g. Islands, coastal area (Vormsi, Pakri, Naissaar, wind speeds above 5m/s) Ruhnu, Hiiumaa, Osmussaar; wind speed 5,6- 6,8 m/s)73
Biomass MWh/ GJ/ ToE produced and % 1941 GW/h (wood and peat)
suitable assessment of potential Biggest potential is wood. 47,9% of Estonia is based on land area and suitable covered by forest. crops.
Solar thermal GJ capacity installed (MW) and % There are no large solar thermal power facilities installed in Estonia. Number of small scale installations have been constructed. These are primarily used in private family houses. Exact numbers are not available.
m2 installed N.a.
PV Capacity installed(MW) and % There are no large photovoltaic facilities installed in Estonia. Number of small scale installations have been constructed. These are primarily used in private family houses. Exact numbers are not available.
GWh produced and % -
m2 installed -
number of homes/roofs -
Hydro Capacity (MW) and % 3,98, 1-1,5%
Energy production (MWh) and % 10370 (only 4 stations considered) 19 GWh
sites; 18 (2002)
distinction among sizes – to see 100% small. progression to small/large hydro;
percent of available capacity 19%. Annual total potential is 0.,…0,4 TWh exploited
Geothermal Capacity (MW) and % 14,774
Energy production (MWh) and % -
Sites exploited -
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 101 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 Flooding can cause risk in lower areas at the coasts flood plains/zones population of the Baltic Sea. About 5% of population can be etc affected by floods caused by sea level rise which is
caused by storms. Another type of floods is initiated by long term rainfalls. About 10 % of population is under threat.
Total areas Area threatened by floods is not precisely (ha) of flood calculated. There are predictions on coastal areas plains – which can be flooded regionally. recently flooded area
Flood barriers – Total km of There is not flood barriers constructed in Estonia. constructed (dykes) flood barriers (km)
Other types of action None – too n.a. (water retention diverse areas, managed (expenditure coastal realignment, only) etc)
Forest/ Fire fighting At risk Forest fire fighting is coordinated by the Rescue land fire equipment; Forest population Board. The Board is supported by the State Forest management; Company, Military etc. forces. Training; Water availability area and In dry seasons practically all forests are under assets at risk threat. I.e. 49% of the area.
Drought Water availability – At risk Droughts are considered as being not serious threat reservoirs and other population infrastructure; new and assets connections?;
Improved irrigation techniques; Water Water use - minimisation (eg per head of households) population
102 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.2 Unit investment and operating costs 9.2.1 Water supply Estimated costs for water related projects in coming years are: 45 million EUR annually.
Type of investment Indicators Investment cost
Estimations of Average value Estonian Water default unit Company, costs costs where without VAT Estonian unit costs are missing
Reservoirs (to store Cost per volume needed in reservoirs surface water (Euro per million m³) 1.500.000
Drinking water Cost to provide drinking water quality production from surface water (Euro per production 1.100.000 plant)
Cost for the treatment of groundwater to drinking water quality (Euro per million 50.000 m³)
Transport and Cost for the installation of a long connection distance drinking water network (Euro 300.000 per km)
Cost for the installation of a local 89.00075 drinking water network (Euro per km)
Cost of a house connection (Euro per 1.530 connection)
Monitoring & metering Cost for monitoring (Euro per monitoring 5.000 point)
Cost for house metering (Euro per 2.500 house)
103 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.2.2 Waste water treatment
Type of investment Indicators Investment cost
Average value Average value Estonian unit costs default unit costs (Estonian Water where Estonian unit Company) costs are missing (Belgium, 2005)
New STP with a capacity between Cost per PE [Euro 2,000-10,000 PE for non-sensitive per PE]76 780 areas
New STP with a capacity between Cost per PE [Euro 10.000-100.000 PE for non- per PE] 165 sensitive areas
New STP with a capacity above Cost per PE [Euro 160 100.000 PE for non-sensitive areas per PE]
New STP with a capacity between Cost per PE [Euro 447 2,000-10,000 PE for sensitive areas per PE]
New STP with a capacity between Cost per PE [Euro 208 10.000-100.000 PE for sensitive per PE] areas
New STP with a capacity above Cost per PE [Euro 148 100.000 PE for sensitive areas per PE]
Collector / trunk sewer Cost per km. [Euro 345.000 per km]77
Sewage pumping station Cost per unit 200.000 [Euro]78
CSO Cost per unit 24.000 [Euro]79
Sludge treatment Cost per PE [Euro - - per PE]
Sludge disposal or re-use Cost per PE [Euro - - per PE]
104 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.2.3 Municipal solid waste
Type of Indicators INVESTMENT COST OPERATING & investment MAINTENANCE COST Range Average Range Average value value
Average cost for waste collection - - 8 - 12 10 Waste service80 per inhabitant (in €) collection facilities Unit cost of an average sized waste 56.000 – 58.000 n.a. n.a. transfer station81 for transport of 60. 000 collected waste (€/transfer station)
Unit cost of an average sized 3.600.000 – 3.800.000 n.a. n.a. Waste sorting manual/mechanical sorting facility 4.000.000 facilities (€/sorting facility)
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Unit cost per volume of waste to be sorted by means of manual/mechanical sorting facilities (€/tonne) 18.000 – 19.000 n.a. n.a. Recovery Unit cost for an average sized82 20. 000 facilities recycling yard (€ per yard as part of the RWMCs)
Unit cost per volume of waste to be n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. recycled (€/tonne)
Unit cost for an average composting 180.000 – 190.000 n.a. n.a. plant83 as part of a RWMC (€/plant) 200.000
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Unit cost per tonne organic waste to be composted (€/tonne)
Not Not Not Not Disposal Unit cost for an average incineration applicable applicable applicable applicable facilities plant for MSW (€/incineration plant)
Unit cost per volume of waste to be Not Not Not Not
incinerated (€/tonne) applicable applicable applicable applicable
Average unit cost for upgrade (€ per Not Not Not Not 84 applicable applicable applicable applicable average combination of techniques ) Unit cost per average new sanitary 12.000.000 15.000.000 n.a. n.a. landfill 85 (incl. storage for small – 86 hazardous waste) (EUR/landfill) 20.000.000
Unit cost per volume waste to be 20 - 40 30 n.a. n.a. landfilled (EUR/tonne)
Unit cost for a remediation87 of an 200.000 – 290.000 average sized landfill (€/landfill) 400.000
105 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.2.4 Renewable Energy Source Local electricity production is based on oil shale. The share of electricity which is produced from oil shale is 92% (2003).88
Gas; 4,97% Others; 2,18% Hydro energy; 0,13% Shale oil; 0,32% Oil-shale Peat; 0,20% Wind energy Wind energy; 0,06% Hydro energy Others Gas Shale oil Peat
Oil-shale; 92,15%
Electricity production according to the fuel type89
The generation cost of oil shale electricity is calculated by the Tallinn University of Technology in the report “The impact of environmental requirements to the Estonian electricity market and electricity price in 2005-2015”. To calculate the production cost of oil shale electricity in the base year, data from the economical reports of Estonian Energy were used. The costs of the oil-shale production and electricity and heat generation were summarized. The incomes from co-product selling were subtracted from the total cost. Finally it was concluded that the production cost (considering that the net production on the economical year 2003/2004 was 8366 GWh) is 0,02329 EUR/kWh. To calculate the price of the electricity given into the network, the profit from energy production (considering that the profit in the economic year 2003/2004 was 21,6 million EUR) will be added. So, the final price of energy production is 0,02587 EUR/kWh.90 In Estonia the electricity cost for customer is formed of 3 parts: production costs 50%, transfer costs 20% and distribution costs 30%. In the Narva electricity plant the cost of oilshale is 40% of total production costs.
106 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Unit investment & operating costs (in EURO)
Type of investment INVESTMENT COST OPERATING & (EUR/kW) MAINTENANCE COST
Average values (EUR/kW) Average values (EUR/kW*year)
Wind91
1.033 16,2 Good wind conditions on shore
1.033 16,2 Great wind conditions on shore
1.936 23 Windmills on the sea
967-2.258 - Hydro
2,2-2,6 - Solid biomass
- - Geothermal
In practice, the development of technology and the increase of production will improve the indicators of windmills. It is expected that the power factor will increase and investment cost is going to decrease. In the report of International Energy Agency is shown that doubling the number of windmills capacity in the world would decrease the investment cost with 4%.92 Possible investment cost of hydropower plants are estimated in the range 967-2.258 EUR/kW, which guarantees a payback period of hydropower stations 6-10 years which is reasonable taking into account the life span of the hydropower stations which is 50- 60 years.93
According to the estimations in Denmark, the average investment cost of erecting the 94 5-50 MWe power plant (for wood and waste combustion) is 2,2-2,6 MEUR/MWh.
107 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.2.5 Natural Risk management There are no investment plans available. Investments are made mainly in the technical equipment of the Rescue Board and are not specifically aimed to natural risk management.
108 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.3 Annexes chapter 5 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
109 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
110 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
111 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
112 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
113 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
114 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
115 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)
116 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)
117 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
118 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
119 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Renewable Energy:
Contribution of investment to:
1. 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) -
2. 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) -
120 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
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) -
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)
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) -
121 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)
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) -
6. 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) -
122 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)
Wind 7 Renewable energy projects link well with efforts to diversify energy supply, create new market for agricultural products, etc. Hydro (>15 MW) 3 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) -
8. 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) -
123 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
10 REFERENCE LIST
10.1 Literature and online information • Development plan for the electricity sector 2005-2015 (Available in Estonian: Eesti elektrimajanduse arengukava 2005-2015) • EC EuroStat (2005): Environmental protection expenditure by industry in the European Union. Statistics in focus- Environment and energy
• Eesti jäätmekäitlusülevaade: www.keskkonnainfo.ee/jaatmed/aruanded/eksport2004_.pdf
• Eesti keskkonnastrateegia aastani 2010.
• Eesti Veevärk, Keskkonnaministeerium. Eestis kuni 2000 ie suuruste reostusallikate reovee (sademe-, olme- ja tootmisvee) puhastustehnoloogiate ja reoveesette käitlemise soovitusliku juhendmaterjali koostamine parima võimaliku tehnika tunnuste määramiseks. 2002
• Estonian Energy: www.energia.ee
• Estonian Environment Information Centre (2001): State of Environment in Estonia on the threshold of XXI century.
• Estonian Environment Information Centre : www.keskkonnainfo.ee
• Estonian Statistical Office: www.stat.ee
• EurObserv’ER 2005: http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/res/sectors/solar_thermal_heat_en.htm • European Structural Fund’s homepage: www.struktuurifondid.ee .
• EV Keskkonnaministeerium (2005). Eesti säästva arengu riiklik strateegia. Säästev Eesti 21.
• EV Rahandusministeerium (2006). Riiklik struktuurivahendite kasutamise strateegia 2007-2013. Eelnõu.
• FORRES 2020: Analysis of the renewable energy sources' evolution up to 2020. • Green Energy: www.roheline.energia.ee
• Health Protection Inspectorate, Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of the Environment (2005): Report on drinking water quality pursuant to Article 13 of Council Directive 98/83/EC.
• IFFN (2004) Forest fires in Estonia - A Review. International Forest Fire News (IFFN) No. 30 (January – June 2004, 94-98)
125 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
• Kenneth Kriz, Karsten Staehr, Alari Paulus (2004): User charges and fees in theory and practice: the Estonian case.
• Keskkonnaülevaade (2005). Keskkonnaministeeriumi Info- ja Tehnokeskus.
• Long-term Public Fuel and Energy Sector Development Plan until 2015 • Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communication (2004): Estonian Energy 2003. • Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communication Long-term Public Fuel and Energy Sector Development Plan until 2015.
• Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications (2005): Estonian Energy 2004. • Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications of Republic of Estonia. www.mkm.ee
• Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Estonia. www.fin.ee
• Ministry of Internal Affairs. www.sisemin.gov.ee
• Ministry of the Environment of Estonia (2002): National Waste Management Plan.
• Ministry of the Environment of Estonia (2003): Reference Framework for the Cohesion Fund 2004-2006 in Environment Sector.
• Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Estonia. www.envir.ee
• Päästeameti haldusala riskianalüüs 2003. Päästeamet.
• Peep Mardiste (2003): Overview of problems with financing of EU environmental acquis communautaire in Estonia.
• Pille Banhand (2001): Water Pricing and Policy in Estonia.
• Pille Banhard (2001): Water Pricing and Policy in Estonia, Presentation for the First Conference of the NIS Water Senior Officials.
• Rahandusministeerium. 2006. aasta kevadine majandusprognoos.2006
• Renewable Energy Policy Review. Estonia. May 2004.
• Republic of Estonia (2002): ISPA strategy paper for environment sector.
• Susanne Balslev Nielsen, Brigitte Hoffmann (2003). Current status of water sector restructuring in Estonia.
• Taastuvenergiaallikate majanduslikult põhjendatud rakendamine energia tootmiseks. Majandusministeeriumi taastuvenergeetika nõukogu. 2001
• Tallinn Technical University (2003): The possibilities to increase the share of renewable energy sources for electricity production in Estonia. Client: Ministry of Economic Affairs
126 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
and Communications. (Available in Estonian: Taastuvate energiaallikate osakaalu tõstmise võimalused elektri tootmisel Eestis) • Tallinn University of Technology (2004): The impact of environmental requirements to the Estonian electricity market and electricity price in 2005-2015. Client: Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications (Available in Estonian: Keskkonnanõuete mõju Eesti elektriturule ning elektri tootmishinnale aastatel 2005-2025) • Tallinn University of Technology (2004): The need for electricity generation and – transfer capacity and development scenarios in Estonian electricity system in 2005-2015. Client: Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. (Available in Estonian: Elektrienergia tootmis- ja edastusvõimsuse vajadus ning arendusstsenaariumid Eesti elektrisüsteemis aastatel 2005-2015) • Tallinna Linnavalitsus (2004). Tallinna ühisveevärgi ja -kanalisatsiooni arendamise kava 2004-2015.
• Tervisekaitseinspektsioon, Sotsiaalministeerium, Keskkonnaministeerium (2005). Aruanne joogivee kvaliteedi kohta Eestis.
• Valdur Lahtvee. Eesti keskkonnapoliitika ja selle rakendamine.
• Viimsi Vallavalitsus (2002). Viimsi valla ühisveevarustuse ja –kanalisatsiooni arendamise kava.
• Water management in Estonia: Annual report
• www.cleanaway.ee
• www.ragnsells.ee
10.2 Interviews • Anu Ideon (Environmental Investment Centre, Project coordinator of Cohesion Fund Unit)
• Rene Reisner (Water Department of Ministry of Environment)
• Mariina Hiiob (Water Department of Ministry of Environment)
127 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE