Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
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 Slovakia
Main Report
Directorate General Regional Policy
A report submitted by
in association with Mr. Dušek Ondrej Mr. Stijn Vermoote DUIS ECOLAS nv Srbska 21 Lange Nieuwstraat 43, 612 00, Brno 2000 Antwerp Czech Republic Belgium Tel: +420 541.244.197-8 TEL +32/3/233.07.03 [email protected] [email protected]
Date: November 10th, 2006 GHK Brussels Rue de la Sablonnière, 25 B-1000 Brussels Tel: +32 (0)2 275 0100; Fax : +32 (2) 2750109
GHK London 526 Fulham Road London, United Kingdom SW6 5NR Tel: +44 20 7471 8000; Fax: +44 20 7736 0784 www.ghkint.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY...... 2 2 OVERVIEW AND HORIZONTAL ISSUES...... 4 2.1 General facts of the Country ...... 4 2.2 State of the environment...... 4 2.3 State of the environment infrastructure...... 6 2.4 Implementation status of the European environmental acquis...... 7 2.5 Environmental policy...... 9 2.6 Environmental expenditure (2000-2006)...... 11 2.7 Future Plans (2007-20013) ...... 14 3 WATER SUPPLY...... 15 3.1 Current situation...... 15 3.2 Needs for the future ...... 19 4 WASTE WATER ...... 25 4.1 Current situation...... 25 4.2 Needs for the future ...... 30 5 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ...... 37 5.1 Current situation...... 37 5.2 Needs for the future ...... 41 6 RENEWABLE ENERGY...... 49 6.1 Current situation...... 49 6.2 Needs for the future ...... 51 7 NATURAL RISK MANAGEMENT ...... 55 7.1 Current situation...... 55 7.2 Needs for the future ...... 57 8 PRIORITY ASSESSMENT...... 61 8.1 Part 1: summarising the needs assessment ...... 61 8.2 Part 2: Assessing priorities within fields ...... 65 8.3 Part 3: Assessing Priorities Across Fields...... 72 9 ANNEXES...... 79 9.1 Annexes Current situation...... 79 9.2 Annexes Needs assessment ...... 95 9.3 Annexes Priority assessment...... 101 10 REFERENCE LIST ...... 119 10.1 Literature, databases and websites consulted...... 119 10.2 Interviews ...... 119 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See separate document.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 1
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
This report is a part of the project “Strategic Evaluation on Environment & Risk Prevention Under Structural & Cohesion Funds for 2007-2013”, European Commission project No. 2005.CE.16.0.AT.016, attributed to GHK in association with ECOLAS – Environmental Consultancy and Assistance, IEEP – Institute for European Environmental Policy, and Cambridge Econometrics. The project’s overall aim is to provide the strategic evaluation of the needs and priorities for environmental investment under the structural and cohesion funds for the period 2007-2013. It covers 5 fields of environmental investment: water supply, waste water treatment, municipal solid waste, renewable energy sources and natural risk management. In order to identify and evaluate needs in the selected fields, and to select investment priorities for the Structural and Cohesion Funds for the 2007 – 2013 period, the project analyses the current situation in each field and the financial allocations during the current programming period (2000-2006). The regional scope of the project is 15 countries, comprising the 10 new Member States (NMS) plus Bulgaria, Romania and 3 ‘old’ cohesion Member States (Greece, Portugal and Spain). This report focuses on Slovak Republic and was prepared by DUIS s.r.o. and ECOLAS nv.
The methodology implemented for preparing this report consisted in collaboration between a core team, who provided guidelines, and the several national evaluators to guarantee the consistence across the national reports. Each country reported back to the core team at each step in the research project and got feedback on how to proceed with the work.
The executive summary is presented in a separate document, as it can be read and will be used as a stand-alone document. There is an initial chapter on horizontal issues, then for each field the following sections are presented: overview and needs. Priority assessment across fields is provided.
The overview sections review the available information in Slovak Republic in each field. The information was drawn from EU information, national reports, field-specific databases, various field specific reports regarding the environmental situation in Slovak Republic and available investment plans. Key stakeholders in each field were also contacted and in some cases provided additional information. Although there are some information asymmetries between the fields, each overview assesses the current state of provision and infrastructures, the institutions involved, the past investment plans and their funding by Community support programmes in the relevant field.
The needs chapters assess the needs for environmental investment over the period 2007-2013, taking into account the requirement to ensure compliance with the environmental acquis (the body of environmental regulations and directives), the consistency between environmental and other policies and priorities, and where applicable, the regional development benefits. The needs chapters aim to indicate the main policy objectives and targets for each field and, if possible, to quantify physical investment needs based on legislative environmental requirements, demand estimations and scenarios, the current state of infrastructure and the possibility of complementary flanking measures (such as user charges) which might reduce the need for investment. However, such complete information was rarely available, either
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 2
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
because it was not disclosed or because it simply did not exist. Here the information asymmetries between fields are larger.
The priority assessment draws on the information gathered about the current situation and the identified needs to provide an independent assessment of the priority needs in each field and across fields.
A final chapter contains numerous annexes with, among others, useful data gathered during this study.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 3
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
2 OVERVIEW AND HORIZONTAL ISSUES
2.1 General facts of the Country
Indicator Latest year (2004) Trend
Area of country (square km) 48.845 km1 Not applicable!
GDP per capita (Euro) $14,500 (2004) 5,3% (2004 est.) (purchasing power parity)
Population 5.431,363(July 2005) +0,15% (2005 est.)
Number of households (thousand) cca 2.0721 2.416 (2003) grosss Average household income (Euro) money income per capita 1 i.e. 6.333 per household 13,1% (2004) Unemployment rate (%) (ILO definition) agriculture 5,8%, Sector employment (%) industry 29,3%, construction 9%, services 55,9% (2003)
2.2 State of the environment
The Slovak Republic shows both good progress and performance on the emissions of greenhouse gasses, energy consumption, emission of acidifying substances and ozone precursors, municipal waste generation and freshwater use and is on track to maintain and improve the quality of its environment in the future. Fast economic growth is expected following the EU accession in 2004 and therefore issues which may gain in importance include emissions of acidifying substances; energy intensity and greenhouse gas emissions.
1 Statistical office of the Slovak Republic
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 4
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Main strengths in 2004: Water supply and waste water treatment2,: • A large proportion of the population uses the public water supply system (84,7 %). • The quality of ground water was stabilised. From the monitoring data it can be derived that the main problems are oxido-reduction conditions with higher + concentrations of Fe, Mn and NH4 and remaining concentrations of NEL-UV (non-polar extractable substances) and COD. It must be stressed that primarily the profiles in urbanised, industrial and agricultural areas are monitored. The most polluted rivers are Dolný Váh from Galanta to Komárno at west and area Medzibodrožie and Roňava at east of the Slovak Republic. • An increase in the quality of surface waters in monitored water courses. The worst situation maintains in group E – microbiological parameters • The total withdrawal of surface and ground waters decreased from 2002 by 2,7 % and increased from 2003 to 2004 by 2,4 % of which surface water withdrawal increased by 8,7% from 2003 to 2004 and ground water withdrawal decreased by 8,3 %. • In 2004 discharged waste water volume decreased by 3,3 % compared with 2003 and by 22 % compared with 1995. In 2004, 64,71% of waste waters was treated. • There was a decrease of discharged load in 2004 (BOD5 – by 21,1 % , COD – by 20,5 %, NEL – by 75,4 %) . The increase occurred in 2004 in SS – by 0,9 % . • A significant portion of the sludge from WWTPs (ca. 95 %) comply with the requirements for use in agriculture Solid waste 3 • Since 2003 to 2004 the solid waste production has decreased by 9%. The production of dangerous wastes decreased by 7,8 % in the same period. The total production is 15,91 mil. tonnes, of which municipal waste is 1,48 mil. tonnes and dangerous waste is 1,02 mil. tonnes. • The amount of recycled and recovered waste is increasing (8,1% in 2004). The chare of waste incinerated was 2,01% in 2004 (of all waste produced). Municipal solid waste 3 • The municipal solid waste production in 2004 was 1,48 mil. tonnes. Now 14 % is reused, mostly for energy generation (55 % of reused). 1,26 mil. tonnes is landfilled. Renewable energy3 • In 2004 there was only very slight increase in renewable electricity compared with 2003 • utilisation of renewable energy sources will have a positive impact on the economy. Biomas has the largest potential (44% of renewable energy sources), followed by large water power stations (17,5%), geothermal energy (16,6%), solar energy (13,7%), waste management (9,3%), bio-fuels (6,6%), small hydro power stations (2,7%) and wind energy (1,6%) 4
Main weaknesses in 2004: Water supply and waste water treatment 3: • some of the monitored water courses (especially smaller streams close to pollution sources) remain in the categories of highly and very highly polluted (e.g. Teplica, Myjava, Malina, Mláka, Trnávka, Zolná, Slatina). • some sections of important water courses have long exhibited elevated concentrations of specific pollutants
2 Ministry of the Environment (2005): “Report on the Environment in the Slovak Republic in 2004” 3 European Environment Agency, 2005. The European environment — State and outlook 2005. Copenhagen, ISBN 92-9167-776-0
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 5
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
• The quality of surface and ground waters continues to be affected by extensive pollution sources; 54,5 % of the area of agricultural land can be classified as “vulnerable areas” • A number of water reservoirs are endangered by eutrophication Municipal solid waste 3: • 1,095 mil. tonnes is mixed waste, i.e. 74 % of total production. Separation of waste solids is still on very low level. • Landfilling remains the most usual form of disposal: 86 % in 2004 of municipal waste. Renewable energy4 • Present share of renewable electricity remains too low to achieve the national indicative target of 19 % of gross electricity consumption form renewable sources by 2010 (24 % by 2020 and 27 % by 2030). • stagnation of utilisation of secondary and renewable sources Natural risk management 3: • Catastrophic floods in period 1996 – 2000 caused sharp temporary increase in discharged pollution, in 2003 there were 41 municipalities flooded5 but the damages were not big. Floods cause increase in the microbial levels in water courses, contamination of the soil in the vicinity of flooded industrial plants by pollutants and damage to the flooded parts of the landscape • In 2004 there were 155 forest fires recorded3. The number of events has rapidly decreased compared with previous years (in 2003 over 900 fires2). • agricultural fields are integrated to large areas which causes obstacles for spreading plants and animals and causes water and wind erosion
Major environmental issues in the Slovak Republic outside of the selected fields include ambient air quality and climate: • Pollution levels by PM10 - imission standard of PM10 particles is exceeded in an increasing number of regions3 (Bratislava, Trnava, Nitra, Banská Bystrica, Prievidza, Martin, Veľká Ida and others). Total emissions dropped from 290.000 tonnes in 1990 to 50.690 tonnes in 2003 – i.e. by 82,4 % • High O3 levels – after 1990 stagnation in growth • Elevated concentrations of heavy metals in the air occur in some locations, generally Pb goes down, others are comparable with previous years or go slightly down 3 • Specific emissions of the main greenhouse gas, CO remained in 2003 on the same level as in 2002 3, concentration limits were not exceeded in 2004 • noise pollution
2.3 State of the environment infrastructure 2.3.1 Water supply Water sector in Slovakia is stagnating. The political changes and economical transformation after 1989 caused a lack of operational and investment money. Negative factors caused the delay in fulfilling of Conception of water sector policy approved by Slovak government in 1994. These heavily influenced operation and care of assets.
4 Ministry of Economy, Energy policy 5 Slovak Environmental agency, Environment in Slovak republic in period 1993-2003
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 6
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Water supply extension itself is delayed and development of sewerage systems is behind water supply development. Of the total number of 2.883 municipalities in 1999 only 1995 had public water supply available, i.e. 67,8 %. 4 454,9 thousands of inhabitants were supplied with drinking water, i.e. 82,57 % of the country. The share differs according to region, e.g. in Bratislava almost 100 %, east Slovakia 76 %. 52 % of municipalities in East Slovakia do not have public water supply, of which 62 % are small municipalities up to 500 inhabitants. In general the majority of municipalities without public water supply are those up to 500 inhabitants (58 %). 85% of the category of 1000 inhabitants is served, in category above 2000 inhabitants only 22 municipalities do not have public water supply. Total length of water supply network is 22.959 km.
2.3.2 Waste water In 1999 only 461 municipalities had sewerage systems. 54,3 % of inhabitants were connected. STPs were built in only 334 municipalities. At present 400 STPs are operated. 2.3.3 Municipal waste The existing collection system covers almost 100 % of the population. The main problem is processing of waste. At the moment, the majority of total waste collected is landfilled. 2.3.4 Renewable energy At present main production comes from hydro power stations. In future utilisation of biomass is the most promising sector. 2.3.5 Flood protection Flood protection is ensured by river training measures, revitalisation of river basins and regulation by reservoirs.
2.4 Implementation status of the European environmental acquis The basic strategic document aimed at transposing European Union law in the field of the environment is the integrated approximation strategy of the Slovak Republic for the environment chapter, which was approved through government resolution No 1138 of 6.12.2001. The aim of this strategy is to ensure the process of transposing European Union environmental law, comprising the adoption of European Union directives, their introduction in the conditions of the Slovak Republic, through to the process of their complete implementation. For this purpose 33 implementation plans for individual directives have been prepared in the approximation strategy, detailing the procedures aimed at implementing them. In the integrated approximation strategy there are also calculated the needs for funds caused through transposition of environmental law, where these needs are broken down according to individual sectors of the Environment (water the protection, waste management, atmospheric protection and the control of industrial pollution). On the basis of the strategy reports are regularly prepared evaluating the state and level of implementation of the acquis in the Slovak Republic.
Another document influencing the preparation of the Strategy for the Cohesion Fund is the bilaterally signed Treaty on accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union, which sets out also a transitional period, requested by the Slovak Republic in the framework of accession negotiations. The transitional period for implementing certain parts of EU directives in the field of the Environment serve to postpone implementation of the directives to a later time period and thus ensure the possibility of the Slovak Republic's accession to the European Union without complete transposition of environmental law, on the day of its accession, as is required by the Treaty on the
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 7
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
European Community. Postponement of the implementation of these directives in the Slovak Republic to a later time period is caused by the significant backwardness of the SR in the fields to which the directives relate. The Slovak Republic’s backwardness in certain fields has been caused by a long-term shortage of available financial funds that needed to be invested in improving the state of the environment and increasing the quality of basic environmental services. Postponements in the implementation of some financially demanding directives with regard to funds available in the Slovak Republic have been agreed for a longer time period and represent the covenants of the Slovak Republic to the European Union, recorded in the treaty on accession. The structural and Cohesion Fund itself will serve as a long term financial instrument for EU assistance, which will help to fulfil these covenants at latest by the date of the agreed transitional periods elapsing. Pursuant to the Treaty on Accession, the Slovak Republic has been provided with transitional periods for complete implementation of directives in the following fields:
Air quality: • European Parliament and Council Directive No 94/63/EC on the control of VOC emissions resulting from the storage of petrol and its distribution from terminals to service stations – transitional period has been originally requested until 2010. New equipment will be in accordance with the acquis as at the date of the SR’s accession to the EU. For existing equipment the request for a transitional period was shortened to the end of 2004, or 2007, depending on the type of specific equipment.
Waste management: • Council Directive No 94/67/EC on incineration of hazardous waste - originally requested duration of the transitional period to 2006 remained unchanged, the request was specified for 11 hospital incineration and 7 hazardous waste incinerators. • Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and waste from packaging - the transitional period was set to 2007. The SR in its original negotiating position from December 2000 did not request any transitional period for this Directive. A detailed implementation plan of the Directive showed that the SR will not be able to fulfil the commitments of this Directive before 2007.
Water protection: • Council Directive No 91/271/EEC concerning waste water treatment – the position of the SR in connection with this Directive has not changed, the requested duration of the transitional period to 2015 remained unchanged, however, the specification of the request for individual categories of agglomerations has been made: for the agglomerations with of above 10 000 population equivalent (PE) to 2010, for the agglomerations of 2 000 PE to 10 000 PE to 2015. • Council Directive No 76/464/EEC on the pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into aquatic environment of the Community – the position of the SR in connection with this Directive has not changed, the requested duration of the transitional period until 2006 remained unchanged, only the specification for three specific facilities.
Industrial pollution control and risk management: • Council Directive No 96/61/EC on concerning integrated pollution prevention and control - original request for the transitional period remained unchanged; it has merely been specified to 10 existing installations with various duration of transitional period, at longest to 2011. • Council Directive No 88/609/EEC (as amended by Directive 94/66/EC) on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants - the transitional period has been requested for three operators of large incineration
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 8
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
facilities (new facilities), while the original duration of the transitional period has been reduced to 2007. Other new incineration facilities will comply with the requirements of Directive 88/609 as at the date of the SR entering the EU. A transitional period for the other existing facilities has not been requested.
Besides this, also other transitional periods have been agreed that are not recorded in the Treaty on Accession. The possibility of using a transitional period, with the aim of a contextual deferral of implementation of a part of a directive to a precisely set time period is given directly in the wording of some directives, and therefore the deferral of their implementation is not included in the Treaty on Accession. These commitments of the Slovak Republic represent a deferral of the implementation of other directives that are recorded in the negotiating position of the Slovak Republic for the year 2000 and the common position of the EU towards the negotiating position of the Slovak Republic. According to these documents the Slovak Republic will require following accession to the EU a transitional period for implementing directives in the following fields:
Air quality protection • Council Directive No 1999/13/EC on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations – the transitional period to 2007 shall be replaced pursuant to Article 4 of Directive by drawing up the Regulation of Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic by the time when the Slovak Republic joins the EU and its implementation until 2007.
Water protection • Council Directive No 98/83/EC on quality of water intended for human consumption (drinking water) – the transitional period to 2008 shall be replaced pursuant to Article 9 of Directive, shifting of the implementation to three years following accession to the EU with the option of its extension in justified cases. • Council Directive No 91/676/EEC on water protection against the pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – the transitional period to 2008 shall, pursuant to the Directive, be replaced by the action plans drawn up for reducing water pollution by nitrates until the time of the Slovak Republic joining the EU and through the implementation of these plans in a time within 4 years from accession to the European Union.
Only following the fulfilment of our commitments ensuing from the above mentioned transitional periods will Slovak Republic have ensured the complete transposition of European Union environmental law. 6
2.5 Environmental policy The basic policy document in the field of environmental policy in the Slovak Republic is the Strategy, Principles and Priorities of the State Environmental Policy of the SR (1993). The Strategy sets out the following principles, by which the state environmental policy of the Slovak Republic is governed:
• solution of environmental problems as problems of the economic development of society • preferring preventive measures over remedial; • application of environmental policy in all sectors of the national economy responsible for the state and care for the components of the environment, as well as at the level of local authorities and in the tertiary sector (integrity principle);
6 SLOVAKIA COHESION FUND STRATEGY FOR THE 2004-2006 (DECEMBER 2003)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 9
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
• not shifting responsibility for the adverse state of the environment on to the following generation, but taking over responsibility by today’s society (inter- generation justice principle) ; • solution of environmental problems in the synergy framework of their effect; • perception of the healthy environment as the basic condition for an improvement in the state of health of the population ; • application of the polluter pays principle ; • assessment of interventions in the environment from the aspect of their impact and effects on the health and age of people, the state of components of the natural environment and the threat to organisms; • the invaluable and irreplaceable nature of the cultural and natural heritage, threat to the supply of non-renewable natural resources and rational use of natural resources while aware of their unique nature.
On the basis of the above mentioned principles the following priorities have been identified by the Strategy of the state environmental policy: • Atmospheric protection against pollutants, in particular greenhouse gases, and global environmental security. • Ensuring the quality and sufficient quantity of drinking water and a reduction in the pollution of other waters below an admissible level. • Protection of the soil against degradation and ensuring the safety of foods and other products. • Minimisation of the creation, use (recycling) and correct disposal of wastes. • Maintaining biological diversity, the protection and rational use of natural resources and optimisation of the spatial structure and utilisation of the country. The document which is focused on implementation of the strategy of environmental policy in the Slovak Republic is the National Environmental Action Programme II (NEAP II). NEAP II is aimed in particular on improving the environmental situation in the Slovak Republic as a part of overall environmental security in Europe and the world. Linking to the association agreement, it introduces measures aimed at harmonising environmental law of the Slovak Republic with EU environmental law, primarily in atmospheric and water protection, waste-management, rural and countryside conservation, control of industrial pollution and management of risks, chemical substances and genetically modified organisms, as well as in the protection against risk factors, in the issue of assessing environmental impacts and in access to information on the environment. Realisation of the proposed measures of NEAP II is conditional upon application of the fundamental principles of sustainable development. This concerns primarily:
• integrity principle, • subsidiary principle, • auto-regulation and self-supportive development principle, • preventive care principle, • environmental favourable economy and behaviour principle.
Despite the positive changes achieved in atmospheric protection, the Earth’s ozone layer and water, in waste management and biodiversity protection, NEAP II had proven the need to maintain the force of the priorities even before the approved Strategy of the State Environmental Policy of the Slovak Republic. At present NEAP III is at the preparatory stage, where this programme will be linked to NEAP II and will take
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 10
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
account of the objectives and strategy of the Sixth EU Environmental Action Programme.3
2.6 Environmental expenditure (2000-2006) A detailed description of the environmental expenditures between 2000 and 2006 is presented in chapter 9.1.6.
General structural assistance in Slovakia Water sector in Slovakia is stagnating. The political changes and economical transformation after 1989 caused a lack of operational and investment money. Negative factors caused the delay in fulfilling of Conception of water sector policy approved by Slovak government in 1994. These heavily influenced operation and care of assets.
Table 2-1: Water supply extension itself is delayed and development of sewerage systems is behind water supply development. Structural assistance (2004-2006), in millions of EUR, at constant prices, state price base) Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Interreg Urban Equal Leader+ Fish Cohesi All structural eries on fund assitance 1 041,04 (*) 37,17 44,94 41,47 22,27 570,50 1.757,39 (*) Distribution of expenditures by sector: basic infrastructure (40,5%); competiveness of firms (14,5%); human resources (27,2%); agriculture, rural development and fisheries (17,7%)
ISPA programme ISPA provides support concerning investment directives in the field of environment, especially in the following areas: drinking-water supply, waste water treatment, solid- waste management and air pollution to meet standards set out in EU Directives. In 2004 ISPA priorities are to a large extent continued under the Cohesion Fund. Measures co-financed by ISPA are supported by the European Investment Bank, mainly in the transport sector. Financial assistance under ISPA was allocated on an annual basis, and can be broken down as follows:
Table 2-2: Approved ISPA Projects in the years 2000 - 2002 (in million €, ISPA grant – total allocation) 2000 2001 2002 2003* TOTAL Area No. of ISPA No. of ISPA No. of ISPA No. of ISPA No. of ISPA Grant Projects Grant Projects Grant Projects Grant Projects Grant Projects Transport 1 34,85 2 85,59 1 46,74 0 0 4 167,18
Environment 3 31,88 3 15,53 5 57,34 7 70,85 18 175,6 Technical 0 0 1 0,95 2 2,95 5 11,71 8 15,61 Support Total 4 66,73 6 102,06 8 107,04 12 82,56 30 358,39 * Forecasted in the year 2002
After a difficult start in 2000, where the mid-point of range of the allocation was not reached due to the lack of suitable environmental projects, momentum has increased since. In 2002 the high number of available projects allowed Slovakia to obtain more
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 11
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
than its average allocation. Due to a well-prepared project pipeline in both the transport and environment sectors, it was expected that in 2003 Slovakia would be able to take up all the ISPA allocations that are available until 2006, while at the same time achieving the balance required in the funding to the two sectors. Moreover, it should be noted that the national co-financing in Slovakia has generally been amongst the highest of the new Member States, which has allowed an increase in the number of measures, and a spreading of investments to a greater number of regions. The improvement in ISPA programming was matched by a steady improvement in implementation. The transport sector performed well from the outset. Although it took two years before the first works on environment projects were launched, these are now progressing. To implement ISPA, three Implementing Agencies were established (Rail, Road and Environment). All agencies have benefited from technical assistance for project development and project management. Although the project pipeline for the Cohesion Fund is promising, it should be noted that the good results with ISPA can only be sustained, if the administrative capacity of the programming and implementing authorities are strengthened substantially. Further technical assistance is currently being allocated to the structures, but such assistance will only be successful if matched by a considerable increase in the number of experienced staff.
In the environment sector all funding (with the exception of the first air-protection project in 2003) has been channelled towards the investment-heavy water sector, where ISPA measures have allowed coverage of all urban areas of above 20.000 inhabitants. The active involvement of the regional, municipality-owned water companies has been crucial for the technical and environmental preparation of the 18 ISPA drinking and waste water projects. The central management by the companies has, moreover, made it possible to cover the needs of smaller urban areas through the clustering of measures.
During the implementation of ISPA substantial measures were taken to improve the strategic programming as well as the technical quality of each measure. In this context technical assistance was allocated at several levels: • Programme management (in the Ministry of Transport, Posts and Telecommunications and the Ministry of Environment of the SR) • Financial management (in the line ministries and the Ministry of Finance) • Project preparation (at the level of the ISPA Programming department in the Ministry of Environment of the SR, Implementing Agencies for Environment, and Implementing Agencies for Road and Rail) • Sector level (in the case of institution building assistance to the municipality- owned regional water companies).
In parallel to these measures, all Ministries increased the number of staff, although not to the extent recommended by the Commission. In this respect the difficulty of recruiting staff with adequate experience and background (due to low salaries) and the substantial turn over (especially young staff leaving the Ministries, as soon as the first experience has been acquired) have continued to pose a threat to efficient programming and sound implementation.
A detailed description of ISPA projects in the environmental field is presented in annex 9.1.6.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 12
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Cohesion fund This tool is only starting.
The Managing Authority for each Operational Programme will be as follows: • CSF – Ministry of Construction and Regional Development, CSF Management Department • Basic Infrastructures OP – Ministry of Construction and Regional Development SR • Human Resources OP – Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, and Family • Industry and Services OP – Ministry of Economy • Agriculture and Rural Development OP – Ministry of Agriculture • Single Programming Document Objective 2 – Ministry of Construction and Regional Development • Single Programming Document Objective 3 – Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, and Family • INTERREG A – Ministry of Construction and Regional Development • INTERREG B – Ministry of Environment • INTERREG C – Ministry of Economy • EQUAL – Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, and Family • Cohesion Fund – Ministry of Construction and Regional Development
A detailed description of Cohesion Fund projects in the environmental field is presented in annex 9.1.6.
Structural funds (European Regional Development Fund) Although economic growth in Slovakia in recent years has been above the average for the EU15, GDP per capita is at only 50% of the level of the EU15. This qualifies most of the country for Objective 1 status (where GDP is below 75% of the average of the EU15) in relation to receipt of the European Union’s Structural Funds in 2004 to 2006. Only the Bratislava region does not have Objective 1 status, as GDP per capita here is just short of the average of the EU15. The Bratislava region consequently has been in part designated for funding under Objective 2, and will receive Objective 3 funding in addition. The Objective 1 Community Support Framework (CSF) will cover a total population of 4.779.909. The National Development Plan (NDP) for Slovakia constituted this country’s overall application for Structural funding, and was received by the European Commission on 17 March 2003. It is an analysis of the macro-economic environment and the economic and social situation in the country. This document formed the basis for drawing up the CSF. The NDP was accompanied by 4 Operational Programmes (OP’s) to be managed within the CSF, and 2 Single Programming Documents (SPD) for the Bratislava region, to be managed separately. This CSF constitutes an agreement between the European Commission and the Government of Slovakia on the priorities for the use of funding from the Structural Funds in the period 2004 to 2006.
A detailed description of Structural Funds projects in the environmental field is presented in annex 9.1.6.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 13
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Figure 2-1: Main centres of economic activity in Slovakia showing regions supported under Objective 1 (in yellow colour)
2.7 Future Plans (2007-20013) At present the process of preparation of Slovakia for period 2007 – 2013 is in progress. As noted above, the quality of the environment in Slovakia is generally good. However deficiencies have been identified in the sector particularly in relation to the country’s inherited negative environmental legacy arising from its industrial history. A decline in industrial production in the 1990s has improved this adverse situation but, overall, there is a pressing need, in most regions, to adopt cleaner and more efficient technologies. In order to bring deficient infrastructure up to standard and comply with EU Directives considerable investment is still required.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 14
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
3 WATER SUPPLY
3.1 Current situation 3.1.1 Current State of Provision The main source of water supply is surface and ground water. Water resources are high in Slovakia and it is still possible to market drinking water in neighbouring countries. The capacity of sources varies along the country, generally saying the sources are sufficient. Figures on the key physical indicators are presented in chapter 9.1.1. .
Drinking Water demand The current household water demand is slightly above 100 l/cap.day, i.e. lower than EU average. Average industrial unit needs are comparable with the EU average. The demand is met by sources and supply systems. Future growth of water consumption has sufficient sources available.
Drinking water quality The results of monitoring of the quality of drinking water in 2001 reveals that the share of analyses not complying with the maximum boundary values of reference risk pursuant to STN 75 7111 Quality of Drinking Water reached the value of 4.79%. Excesses of the limit values for the indicators of Fe, Mn, Sb, As, Ni, nitrates and coliform bacteria were the most frequently recorded. Drinking water with concentrations above the limit values at the tap (point of consumption) is mostly caused by the unsuitable water resources from which the water has been used for drinking purposes. The majority of these groundwater resources are within the small to medium-size categories (to 10 l/s). At present, the supply of groundwater from these sources to the consumer is realised after hygiene treatment – disinfection3. In general water quality is good and is continuously improving.
State of infrastructures In general the system of planning infrastructure is good. The level of population connected to the water supply system is relatively high: depending on region the connection rate ranges between 54 and 100% (2004). In average 85% of the population is connected (2004). Before 1989 very low attention has been paid to maintenance. After 1990 the typical management approach is used but sources of financing are still limited. The present infrastructure is able to supply inhabitants connected. For connecting more people new systems must be built and old systems must be extended. The worst situation is in East and South Slovakia.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 15
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Water prices Water supply is measured and billed for each consumer separately. Water tariff expresses the cost of supply plus appropriate profit. There are different tariffs for inhabitants and other consumers. In 2003 the maximum allowable tariff was lower than the cost of service. Acceptable affordability is approx. 2 %. In future projects should be profitable.
Table 3-1: Drinking water 2004 2005
Tariff for household (without VAT)[Sk.m-3] 20 25 Tariff for others (without VAT) [Sk.m-3] 23 25
Note: 1 EUR = 38 SKK (2006)
Table 3-2: Waste water 2004 2005
Tariff for household (without VAT) [Sk.m-3] 12 18 Tariff for others (without VAT) [Sk.m-3] 27 30
Note : 1 EUR = 38 SKK (2006) Note : unofficial statistic data (from data on websites of regional water companies, some data is missing)
Institutional issues The drinking water sector belongs to the Ministry of Environment.
Conclusions The water supply sector needs investments to connect more inhabitants to supply systems and to protect water sources which are limited due to natural conditions. In general water quality is good and is continuously improving. However, the quality of drinking water varies across the regions with clear deficiencies in East Slovakia, and along the Vah and Kysuca river basins where samples proves the water as unsuitable for human consumption. In these regions, substantial investments are required to comply with the Drinking Water Directive.
In relation to protection of the natural environment Slovakia possesses a significant stock of protected areas with good ecological stability particularly in the North-East of the country. However there is a need for upgraded monitoring systems and management plans to protect the country’s environmental endowment.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 16
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
3.1.2 Experience of Previous Investment Programmes
For the past and present investments see the tables in chapter 9.1.6. Infrastructure works are based on long term master planning7.
General MS funding This funding is not mentioned in official statistics (see also chapter 9.1.6).
ISPA programme The ISPA programme ran from 2001 until 2003. In 2004, the ISPA programme projects have been transferred into the Cohesion Fund. Most of the projects funded under the ISPA programme were related to waste water (125, MEUR). To a much less extent also projects in the field drinking water have been supported. In the period 2001 - 2003, in total 21,79 MEUR has been spent on drinking water supply projects and 21,52 MEUR on mixed drinking water and waste water projects.
More details on the projects funded by the ISPA programme are presented in annex 9.1.6. See also chapter 2.6 on a general presentation of the ISPA programme in Slovakia.
Cohesion fund (2000-2006) This tool is only starting. An overview of expenditures in the field of drinking water and mixed water projects supported by the Cohesion Fund is presented in the following table:
Table 3-3: Overview of CF projects (eligible costs), 2000-2006
Project title Full cost Cohesion Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%)
Drinking water 28,0 19,6 70% (collection, storage, treatment and distribution): 1 project Mixed water and 228,338 179,949 79% waste water projects: 10 projects Source: EC DG Regio (2005) Note: Technical Assistance projects are not included: 1,45 mio EUR (= total and CF share for the sum of environmental projects 2000-2006)
Structural funds (European Regional Development Fund)
In the following table the total budget funded by the Structural Funds on projects in the field of drinking water supply is presented:
7 Note: The economical data need to be checked in cooperatrion with Ministry of Environment to prevent mixing of investment (eligible) costs and subsidy values.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 17
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Table 3-4: Overview of ERDF projects, 2000-2006
Measure title Full cost ERDF Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%) Total : Drinking water (collection, 30,681 23,011 75% storage, treatment and distribution) Source: EC DG Regio (2005) Note: ERDF investments are described by reference to Meausures, outlined in the ERDF Programmes
More details on the projects funded by the SF in the field of water supply can be found in annex 9.1.6. More general information on the SF programme in Slovakia is presented in chapter 2.
Good Practice Lessons or Examples All development of sector is done according to state and regional planning based on evaluation of present status.
The level of water supply services differs in different regions. The lack of sources negatively influences the development in the southern part of central Slovakia and in majority of east Slovakia. Good example of complex project to solve one of above regions is CF project “Prešov – drinking water and sewerage along river Torysa”.
From the list of previous projects and ongoing projects, it can be observed that more attention and support has been given to waste water projects. At present it is positive because there is a big gap between water supplied and waste water collected and treated which is always bad for environment. Most projects approved focus on underdeveloped areas of Slovakia, which is good for promotion of solidarity principle.
3.1.3 Conclusions The experience with co-financing with EU funding is generally good. The financial supports in past were allocated proportionally to needs, the objectives were met.
Previous projects have brought new infrastructure, know-how and experience. These must be well utilised as Slovakia still has big difficulties with EU funds usage and new projects preparation.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 18
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
3.2 Needs for the future 3.2.1 Review of Policy Objectives and Targets Present status in water quality and protecting of resources is not sufficient. Legislative basis based on “water act” will be revised. Implementation of DWD is based on some project under patronage of the MoE, but there are legitimate suspicions that implementation process is not at the same level as in our neighbouring countries. Next to this, in the field of environment there are other policies which are more in need such as waste water collection and treatment systems.
The aim in Slovakia is to connect more than 95% of inhabitants to public drinking water supply with good quality in accordance with EU and local legislation (water works + distribution system).
Compliance with the Acquis Strategy of improvement of drinking water quality will be fulfilled by reaching compliance with quality requirements according to Directive 98/83/EEC and the national technical criteria, which states the hygienic requirements on drinking water. These requirements must be fulfilled continuously to ensure trouble-free drinking water supply to inhabitants in accordance with legislation about quality.
Consistency between environmental and other policies and priorities Good drinking water quality must be primarily ensured by the protection of ground and surface waters. The majority of resources for drinking water purposes is well protected and in general the quality of water from these resources can be regarded as good. On the contrary groundwater and rivers are still being polluted. At present, the biggest polluter is the agricultural sector.
3.2.2 Demand Scenarios Demographic and economic trends and projections Expectations in population trend for period 2007-2013 are based on data from State Statistics. There are premises, that the whole population will stagnate (0% to -2%) (some regions will be increasing and some decreasing – to be completed by official statistics). The number of households will slowly grow (not very significant increase – due to overall economic situation).
There will be not very significant changes in connection rates to water supply systems, in the western part of the country the number of connected people will increase, but only for a small percentage.
Main industries using water are chemical factories (Slovnaft, Duslo), metallurgical (U.S.Steel) and energetics (cooling purposes for power plants). Most of industrial companies have their own water source (more than 80% taking water from surface sources8). The yearly growth rates of industrial production in total are predicted to be
8 Figure based on legislative duties to complain water demand to authorities regardless to sources. It is not possible to strictly identify real water demand from industry supplied from WSS.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 19
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
+4 to +11 % per year. A decrease is predicted in some specific fields (textile industry, etc. by -2 to -4 % per year). The biggest growth is expected in car industries, plastics and electronics (each above +10 % per year). No extra growth of drinking water demand for industry is expected in future. Differences between regions are very large, this situations started after 1990 (at the beginning of transition process) and now are government trying to straighten this situation by supporting “economically less developed” regions, but not very successful. Urban areas are fast growing (fast development or development), rural areas are delayed and go down. Expectations are that the western part (especially Bratislava – individual NUTS 2 region) will grow faster than the eastern part. Unit Water Demand Main factor affected water demand is the price of drinking water. More than 80% of the population connected to water supply systems has limited their water consumption due to this factor9. Current drinking water quality is sufficient (there are some resources with very high level of water quality) and will not affect consumption. In general, water consumption has stagnated for recent period – industrial demand is slowly growing and demand for WS systems for inhabitants is falling down.
There is no policy to reduce water demand. The drop in water demand is purely caused by the water tariffs, e.g. use of rain water use has increased as a reaction of the population on the tariffs.
The unit water consumption is higher in urban areas than in rural areas. In rural areas, people mostly only use drinking water for drinking and household tasks, for other purposes they use their own wells (consumption from public network below 50-60 l/cap.day). User Charges In Slovakia a “one compound” tariff is used. As the water price is quite high (relatively seen it is not extremely high compared to the real cost of service, but people think and say that) the computation of costs express the influence of depreciation of over- dimensioned assets and causes a further drop of consumption which asks for higher tariff to cover all costs etc. It is expected that that tariffs will increase in real terms over the future programme period. Tariffs are regulated by state organisation for network sectors (URSO) and expectations are that the price will grow by 10-30% per year. A two compound tariff is discussed but not introduced yet – the idea is to become less dependent on consumption itself, it would maybe lead to increases of consumption due to a reduction of price with higher consumption.
The gross estimation of the contribution from user charges for drinking water to finance investments is 20-30 % and for operation and maintenance 50-65 %, the profit is 5- 15%. A growth of differences in demand and charges is expected, but not to a very
9 In general the unit drinking water demand is increasing. This is because there are some localities where average water demand is very high (300 l/in./day), but caused by only 10-20% of people living in these localities (they use water regardless to its price and regardless to volume for irrigation of their gardens, for pools...)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 20
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
high level. The biggest differences of tariffs will be caused by the fact that private water companies (the sector is now in phase of transformation) work and calculate charges according to standard economical rules while the water companies attached to municipalities do not have to involve depreciation of assets which lowers the tariff. No new charging / tariff systems have being introduced to make costs more transparent to users or better linked to water use. There is no a policy to provide exemptions for households on low incomes or for specific industries.
Total drinking water need A forecast of the future annual water demand is presented in following table:
Table 3-5: Forecast Annual Water Demand in 2013 Low Demand Medium Demand High Demand Scenario Scenario Scenario
Population (-) 5.275.000 5.330.000 5.384.822
Unit water supply (l per inh. 80 110 15010 per day)
Total domestic water 154 214 295 demand (million m³ per year)
Total industrial water 640 67011 711 demand (million m³ per year)
Total drinking water demand 200 25012 353 (million m³ per year)
3.2.3 Drinking Water Quality The current state of water resources quality is on sufficient level. There are only some resources which will be closed due to changes in technical criteria for drinking water (previous criteria was achieved and present criteria will be not achieved). There is still missing operating tool which will coordinate on regional bases main steps in protecting water resources and sustaining water quality.
Key issues are protection of water sources and new sources, improvement of water treatment unit operations, and in some cases replacement of old pipelines, especially Pb and asbestos cement pipes. The protection of water sources involves all kinds of measures to prevent pollution of surface and groundwater and/or connecting the supply systems to new or existing well preserved sources. Reconstructions of existing water works usually involve the upgrading unit operations and especially delivery of new technological sets. Reconstruction of pipelines focuses on dangerous pipe materials.
10 High scenario is based on assumption that probably all water demand (incl. garden irrigation ...) will be supplied from WSS 11 Presented industrial water demand is not strictly supplied from WSS.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 21
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
The investments would both improve quality improvement (which is already quite good at the moment) and solve the lack of maintenance from the past which brings the big risk of failures in operation of water treatment plants with sudden deterioration of water quality below acceptable level. The goal for the future is to supply nearly all inhabitants and other consumers with healthy, save and good taste water regardless the region and local conditions.
3.2.4 State of Infrastructure – Need for Improvement / Replacement of Obsolete or Non- Compliant Infrastructure The level of population connected to the water supply system is relatively high (depending on region between 54 and 100% and in average 85% of population in year 2004). Extension of existing systems for serving more people in less populated areas or locations with difficult terrain morphology would result in excessive investment needs and are therefore not regarded as a priority.
Main investments will be orientated to existing water supply systems – especially in pipe systems. Investments in new water resources and water treatment will be incommensurability lower. Operating level of current state in pipes systems for water supply is not very good – there was a period (beginning of the 90’ies) when this system was only maintaining without any investments, in consequence increase lost of water and increased operational costs.
As the drinking water infrastructure was in past broadly relatively well designed regarding capacity but with less focus on quality of materials, machinery etc., the needs differ in different areas based on local growth, and design and M&O habits in past. It must be stressed that present investors (municipalities) had no influence on designs, materials and quality of works and now face the consequent problems. 75% of the investments on replacements and upgrading is due to the fact that infrastructure is worn-out and 25% due to non-compliance. Both bring volume and quality of drinking water supply in risk.
It is estimated that 25 to 35% of the population and business will benefit from the improvements and/or replacements. Future investments are planned in more poor and rural areas. Big municipalities have solved their major problems in past and now solve the financing of improvement of networks according to contracts between assets owner and operation company which usually state that part of water tariff is reserved for infrastructure rehabilitation.
3.2.5 Physical investment needs An overview of the total physical investment needs for water supply by type of investment taking into account changes in demand and the requirement to replace worn out infrastructure is presented in following table. The physical investment needs relate to physical needs for the period 2007-2013 assuming projects financed in the previous programming period 2000-2006 but not finished or started yet as being finished. This means there is no overlap between the two programming periods.
12 Estimation based on total water demand supplied from WSS
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 22
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Table 3-6: Physical investment needs 2007-2013 Type of Indicators Minimum Average Maximum investment scenario scenario scenario
Reservoirs (to Extra volume needed in reservoirs (million m³) Reservoirs will be built primary for flood store surface prevention and only secondary purpose will be water) source for drinking water, so it is not possible to indicate for the period 2007-2013 what will be the need for extra volume of reservoirs in function of drinking water supply. Drinking water Plants in need of investment to improve In Slovakia there is an overage in ground water production drinking water quality, surface water sources (total demand summarized together), production (number) only some localities have lack of sources with good quality of water. It is not possible at this Extra volume needed of groundwater reaching moment to indicate whether the preferable drinking water quality standards (million m³) solution would be to extent pipe connections to provide all locations with good water from existing plants, or to build locally new plants for improving quality.
Transport and Long distance drinking water network needed 280-350 400-550 600-900 connection (km) – new and renovation
Local drinking water network needed (km) – 600-800 850-1100 1200-1400 new and renovation
House connections needed (number) n.a. n.a. n.a.
Monitoring & Extra monitoring points needed (number) n.a. n.a. n.a. metering House metering needed included included13 included n.a. : data not available
3.2.6 Indicative Investment Requirement and Comparison – Water Supply No national official estimate has been given. The calculations in the National Investment Plans have been based on irrelevant data and therefore are regarded of no use for the needs assessment. Total investment needs based on estimations made by Slovak environmental experts amounts to 200 to 800 MEUR while the total investment needs calculated by the project expert team amounts to 365 to 498 MEUR. The investment cost calculated based on the indicated (average) physical needs and the national unit costs (cf. chapter 9.2.), amounts to 498 MEUR. Due to these relatively high national unit costs, this is higher than the investment cost calculated based on the default unit cost (cf. chapter 9.2.) (365 MEUR). A total investment need of 455 MEUR is regarded as best estimate for further calculations. The indicative investment requirements according to the different calculation methods are presented in the table below.
13 Metering is included in new house connections
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 23
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Table 3-7: Summary of investment cost – water supply Type of investment Indicative Investment Cost14 Indicative Implied SF/CF Intervention Requirement Rate
M Euro M Euro %
Slovak Expert Team Slovak estimate estimate estimate
Reservoirs (eg to store 0 – 50 - surface waters)
Drinking water ‘production’ 0 – 40 - plant - ground/surface (quality)
Water transport (long 80 – 350 165 -248 distance)
Distribution of water 90 – 250 200 – 250 (local network and house connections)
Monitoring - -
Metering (e.g. - - households)
Total investment 200-800 365 – 498 150-600 75
14 National Investment Plans provide figures as a total input for environment (WS, WWTT, MSW,...) and amounts to 2.400 MEUR. However, the calculations have been based on irrelevant data and can not be used for the needs assessment.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 24
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
4 WASTE WATER
4.1 Current situation 4.1.1 Current State of Provision
Only part of the generated waste water is properly treated at the moment. The discharged untreated waste water is generating negative environmental impacts, esp. eutrophication. Mainly rural areas are not served by sewerage systems and STPs.
The Slovak Republic shares a similar pattern with other new Member States in that a low proportion of the population is connected to waste water treatment facilities. Nationally 65% of the population are connected to a complete public sewer system. The shortcomings are worse outside the Bratislava, Žilina and Banská Bystrica areas. Globally the system is well organised, but has suffered from under-investment over an extended period. Although, most major agglomerations are now connected to waste water treatment plants, substantial investment is still required to upgrade the capacity and efficiency of some of the existing plants, and to extend the system to include smaller urban settlements, contiguous to larger agglomerations. In addition, cost efficient investment is also needed to cater for rural settlements.
For figures on the key physical indicators see annex 9.1.2.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 25
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Surface water quality The whole country is classified as “sensitive area”.
Results of waste water treatment are visible, but still a lot must be done: Classes: • 10,04 % is class 1 (excellent); • 28,54 % is class 2 (very good); • 28,32 % is class 3 (good); • 23,09% is class 4 (moderate); • 10,01 % is class 5 (poor, bad)
The basis for surface water quality evaluation is the summary of classification results pursuant to STN 75 7221 Water quality. Classification of surface water quality, which evaluates the water quality in 8 groups of indicators (A-group – oxygen regime, B- group – basic physical-chemical indicators, C-group – nutrients, D-group – biological indicators, E-group – microbiological indicators, F-group – micropollutants, G-group – toxicity, H-group – radioactivity) and with the use of limit system values, it classifies waters by their quality into five classes (I. class – very pure water up to V. class – very strongly polluted water, where as favourable quality of water are considered levels I, II and III of quality class). In 2001 surface water quality in Slovak Republic was monitored at 181 abstraction places, of which there were 178 basic and 3 special abstraction places. Monitored length of rivers in 2001 represented 4 891 km, which forms 19,74% of the total length of Slovak rivers, which includes only the most important flows in terms of water economy. Quality of surface water was evaluated at the length of 3 394 km, i.e. 13,7% of total length. In comparison to the preceding two-year period, in the period of 2000/2001 the number of abstraction places in quality class V. fell in all groups of indicators, with the exception of group D – biological indicators. In the period over 2000-2001 the most favourable development was noted in indicators of groups B, D and A, in which more than 80% of abstraction places complied with criteria for satisfactory water quality, i.e. complied with requirements of I., II., or III. quality class. In the indicator group C – nutrients, II. and III. quality classes dominated. Compared to the preceding period, in groups A, B, C the share of abstraction places in I.-III. quality class grew slightly. The most adverse situation persists in group E – microbiological indicators, where unsatisfactory water quality (i.e. falling within IV.-V. quality class) was recorded in 92.6% abstraction places. In microbiological indicators deterioration of quality water (the share of abstraction places falling within IV. - V. quality class over period of 1999/2000 represented 90.35% and over 1998/1999 - 85.23%) has occurred compared to preceding periods. The inclusion into V. quality class is in this group attributed particularly to coliform and thermoresistant coliform bacteria. Water quality has also deteriorated in indicators of group F – micropollutants, where unsatisfactory water quality (IV. – V. quality class) was recorded in 65% abstraction places (in 1999/2000 – 55%). The inclusion into V. quality class is in this group attributed particularly to non-polar extractable substances. In the indicators of group H – radioactivity, water quality reached the I. and II. class, though in the preceding period the dominating position of I. class was more significant.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 26
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
State of infrastructures On the basis of the Directive on Treatment of Urban Waste Water No 91/271/EEC, the requirement is set out that collecting system and the relevant treatment of urban waste water is ensured in the agreed time horizons. For implementation of this Directive, the term agglomeration was defined as a territorially limited area in which the population or economic activities are sufficiently concentrated for urban waste water to be collected and conducted to an urban waste water treatment plan or to a final discharge point. In defining the agglomeration from the aspect of size main size limits were taken into account, and this of 2 000 PE, 10 000 PE and 100 000 PE (population equivalent). On the basis of the stated approach, Slovak municipalities were classified into individual agglomerations. The following table gives an overview of agglomerations in the individual size categories, settlement of inhabitants and number of WWTPs used and incomplete in these agglomerations.
Table 4-1: Overview of number of agglomerations by size categories Agglomeration Number of Number of WWTPs WWTPs WWTPs size inhabitants agglomerations built incomplete lacking [PE] in agglomerations** above 100 000 1 232 755 10 10 0 0 10 000-100 000 1 904 159 75 74 3 0 2 000-10 000 1 161 816 304 154 32 126 > 2000 total 4 298 730 *389 238 35 *126 under 2 000 1 103 817 -- 162 29 --- SR total 5 402 547 *389 400 64 **126 ** municipalities are given according to the register provided by Statistics Office of the SR, updated as at 31.12.2000. * without regard given to data for agglomerations smaller than 2 000 PE
400 waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) were in operation in the Slovak Republic by the end of 2002. Of these only 197 were managed and administrated by regional water companies. The others were managed and administrated by municipalities. Because of the lack of data concerning the latter, the data below only concerns WWTPs administrated by regional water companies.
Table 4-2: Evaluation of WWTPs according to the Directive 91/271/EEC in 2002 WWTP Frequency of Capacity of Number Non- % Ratio of Non- breach of WWTP (PE) Compliance compliance non – compliance individual limits with standard with standard compliance solved by ISPA 79 COD-10, BOD- <2 000 PE 29 36,7 1 50 29, SS-14 58 COD-3, BOD-18, 2 000–10000 PE 19 32,8 0 39 SS-9 COD-1, BOD-7, 10 000–100000 49 36 73,5 10 SS-5, PE 13 Ntot-23, Ptot-31 COD-4, BOD-5, 11 >100 000 PE 11 100 7 SS-4, 0 Ntot-9, Ptot-9 COD-18, BOD- 197 Total 95 48,2 18 59, SS-32, 102 Ntot-32, Ptot-40 3 Note: limits of Ntot and Ptot relate to sensitive areas – the whole of Slovakia)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 27
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Prices of the waste water service
For the economical background the same principles are valid as for drinking water (see chapter 3).
Table 4-3: Waste water tariffs: 2000 2001 2002 2003 Authorised expenditures [mil. Sk] 2 042 2 193 2 408 2 808 Water supply [tis. m3] 240 280 231 154 226 663 227 165 Average expenditures [Sk.m-3] 8,50 9,49 9,88 12,36 Average cost (without VAT) [Sk.m-3] 9,33 10,27 10,62 13,71 Tariff for household (without VAT) [Sk.m-3] 5,54 6,65 6,71 8,87 Tariff for others (without VAT) [Sk.m-3] 14,37 15,16 15,80 20,43 Note: 1 EUR = 40 SKK
The waste water charges (EUR/year) for the average household expressed as an approximate % of household income: 25 EUR/year, 0,96 %2
Institutional issues The Ministry of Environment is responsible for the policy on waste water treatment.
Conclusions a) Conclusions regarding STPs: The most important problems for the Slovak Republic in the field of STPs, are : • missing plants still to be built; • obsolete plants have to be replaced; the quality of old plants is frequently bad, quality of the operation is sometimes bad • plants to be upgraded to comply with the standards of the UWWTD for sensitive areas
b) Conclusion regarding sludge treatment The sludge is mostly used in agriculture. In the future this will be influenced by legislation.
c) Conclusions regarding sewerage: • The sewerage systems have been developed in parallel at the same pace as the STP, so the future investments will consist of complete sewage systems: STP in combination with sewers; • The development of sewerage system is sometimes lagging behind the construction of STPs: a catching up movement of sewer construction is needed to use the existing STP capacity in place; • Sewer systems are missing in rural areas; • Sewerage networks are in place in many (urban) areas but are not yet connected to a STP, in most of these cases no STP exists • Many existing sewer systems are obsolete and need to be replaced; • The design of Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO) to reduce the pollution by spill events has received insufficient attention in the past and significant investment will be needed to upgrade CSOs.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 28
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
4.1.2 Experience of Previous Investment Programmes See chapter 2
General MS funding See chapter 2 and chapter 9.1.6.
ISPA programme The ISPA programme ran from 2001 until 2003. In 2004, the ISPA programme projects have been transferred into the Cohesion Fund. In the period 2001 - 2003, in total 125,42MEUR has been spent on waste water projects and 21,52 MEUR on mixed drinking water and waste water projects.
More details on the projects funded by the ISPA programme are presented in chapter 9.1.6. In chapter 2 the implementation of the ISPA programme in the Slovak Republic is presented in general.
Cohesion fund (2000-2006)
Table 4-4: Overview of CF projects (eligible costs, 2000-2006)
Project title Full cost Cohesion Fund EU-support (€ million) (€ million) (%) Sewerage and purification: 15 240,911 130,478 54% projects Mixed water and waste water 228,338 179,949 79% projects: 10 projects Source: EC DG Regio (2005) Note: Technical Assistance projects are not included: 1,45 mio EUR (= total and CF share for the sum of environmental projects 2000-2006)
See also chapter 2 and 6.1.6. for more details.
Structural funds (European Regional Development Fund) (2000-2006)
Table 4-5: Overview of ERDF projects, 2000-2006
Measure title Full cost ERDF Fund EU-support (€ million) (€ million) (%)
Total : sewerage and 30,681 23,011 75% purification Source: EC DG Regio (2005) Note: ERDF investments are described by reference to Measures, outlined in the ERDF Programmes
See also chapter 2 and 6.1.6. for more details.
Good Practice Lessons or Examples The waste water sector is very important as the whole country is declared as sensitive area. Dilution factor and self cleaning power in receiving waters for all municipalities except those discharging into the Danube River is quite poor and thus the processes must be designed with high efficiency.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 29
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
The water sector is not privatised yet. In the future, the companies and their decision makers will meet real responsibility for the company performance including environment protection which is not always the case at present. Economy of sector is deformed as the costs are based on operation and maintenance cost, investment costs and depreciation of assets is not involved. Good experience is with projects based on well prepared feasibility studies which helped to find optimal scenarios. All designs should be based on relevant data and realistic prognosis about future development. Sometimes the tendency to underestimate the hydraulic load and C, N, and P load on WWTPs is observed. Also the computations are optimistic to reduce the investment cost which is frequently the major factor during evaluation of scenarios. Together this leads to shortening the design period. Sewerage systems must be evaluated from hydraulic and environmental impact point of view – the waste water must be both transported and stored to reduce number of overflows from combined systems which still prevail. The sewer system and WWTP must work as one unit to get the desired effect.
4.1.3 Conclusions The current grants were allocated efficiently. The objectives and needs were met.
4.2 Needs for the future 4.2.1 Review of Policy Objectives and Targets Transposition Dates for Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in the Slovak Republic is 2015. The specification of the request for individual categories of agglomerations is for the agglomerations of above 10 000 population equivalent (PE) 2010 and for the agglomerations of 2 000 PE to 10 000 PE 2015.
4.2.2 State of Infrastructure • Missing plants still to be built to meet requirements and obsolete plants that need to be replaced: number of missing plants is hard to determine due to tendency to the continuing making of new agglomerations (i.e. few small villages together). o The number of obsolete plants to be replaced amounts to 100-250. In total 200-450 new plants should be built including category <2000 PE due to sensitivity areas. For the period 2007-2013 it should be in total 150-200 plants. o Number of plants where improvements are required to improve the quality of the operation: 350 plants during 2007-2013 of which 150-200 plants only need improvements of the monitoring and control system (range 50 000 – 150 000 EUR) plus minor improvements of M&E part. o Number of plants to be upgraded to comply with the standards of the UWWTD for sensitive areas: 150-200 plants • All plant must solve sludge treatment and must ensure sludge stabilization. For small plants extended aeration is typical, also with combination with aerated sludge
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 30
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
storage tanks. For big plants (over 50 000 PE) mesophilic anaerobic digestion is typical. We do not expect bigger changes in common practice for coming decade. Plants with capacity above ca 5000 PE (in some regions above 2000 PE) are equipped with mechanical dewatering. The major problem for the coming decade is hygienization. • There are two basic reasons for replacements of sewer systems : o structural status: 1.500-2.500 km, o lack of hydraulic capacity: 250-400 km It is estimated that app. 25 % of existing sewers are in poor structural status. This brings a lot of operational and environmental problems and/or accidents. At present and in coming years the system “sewerage system – STP” is solved in parallel. There are also some exception, especially in southern part (due to official policy), where are STP without sewerage systems. • Significant investment is needed, to upgrade CSO, reconstruct trunk sewers and construct storm water detention tanks. Problem: investors and even many technicians are not aware of this situation. More attention is obviously paid to waste water treatment compared with up to date waste water collection systems. Based on feasibility studies and master plans we expect necessity of construction of many storm water detention basins. The problem is that authorities are not aware of necessity of detention basins for protection of streams. They think that only STPs protect surface water. Probably only small part will be built in period 2007-2013. • Connections of surface water to sewerage systems is not the common practice. If it still happens, it is automatically becoming part of sewer projects to separate surface water from sewage water. Infiltration due to leakage can range widely according to sewer system status. It is in range 25 – 100%. Desired figures for sanitary sewers are up to 15%, for combined sewers up to 25 %.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 31
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
4.2.3 Physical investment needs Physical investment needs for waste water treatment by type of investment are presented in following tables. The physical investment needs relate to physical needs for the period 2007-2013 assuming projects financed in the previous programming period 2000-2006 but not finished or started yet as being finished (it means there is no overlap between the two programming periods).
Table 4-6: Physical investment needs – sewage treatment plants
Total nominal Nominal load of Number of Number of existing Organic biodegradable Number of Organic Number of Organic load of the the Agglomerations STP capacity of existing STP under biodegradable Planned biodegradabl agglomerations, agglomeration, expressed in PE STPs construction capacity of STP STPs e capacity of expressed in PE (population (completion under planned Compliant Non- Compliant Non- (population equivalent) before construction STPs equivalent) compliant compliant 31/12/2006) [PE] Number [PE] Number Number [PE] [PE] Number [PE] Number [PE] 2.000-10.000 304 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 150 - 250 600.000 - 1.750.000 >10.000 85 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. - - - - (some in (all already (all already experiment built) built) al operations) Other (< ca. 17 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.000) Total ca. 406 150-250 600.000- (389, without 56 350 977.689 (*) 1.750.000 < 2.000PE) Total 406 Total 14.380.000 number capacity n.a.: not available Total Organic biodegradable (*) Proxy: extrapolation from Czech Republic based on assumption Czech Republic has a similar distribution of the total nominal capacity (existing + under 15.555.000 load (in PE) of the agglomerations and an average of non-compliant STPs of 175 to be upgraded in 2007-2013 construction + planned) (average)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 32 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Table 4-7 : Design criteria for Sewage Treatment Plants
Hydraulic design capacity of planned STPs expressed in [l/PE/day] 125 – 200 l/PE/day
Hydraulic design capacity of planned STPs compared to the [ ] 1,5 *peak mean or peak Dry Weather Flow (DWF)15 DWF (sometimes more than 1,5)
Table 4-8 : Physical investment needs – sewers
Type of sewer system Separate [%] 0-10 Combined [%] 90-100 sewage connection rate (% of population or households [%] 65% connected) Length of trunk current situation [km] 7018 sewers/collectors Length in need of rehabilitation [km] 1.500-2.500 under construction (completion [km] n.a. before 31/12/2006) Planned new sewers/collectors [km] 500-1.500 Pumping stations present number [ ] n.a. Planned [ ] n.a.
Table 4-9 : Design criteria for Combined Sewer Overflows
Carry on flow of the Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), [ ] min. 16 compared to the mean or peak Dry Weather Flow (DWF) 4-8 Design spill frequency of CSOs [1/year] 12 – 20 x Storage capacity of the overflows [m³/ha] 7,5 - 25
Remark: not all systems in Slovakia are designed according to above criteria
15 Dry Weather Flow = the amount of waste water to be treated during dry weather conditions, expressed in l/PE/day (= unit dry weather flow). E.g. : hydraulic design capacity of planned STPs = 3 * DWF. 16 This criterion refers to the dilution theory, e.g. carry on flow = 5 * DWF
33 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Table 4-10 : Physical investment needs – Sewage sludge treatment
Present situation (year 2005) Quantity of sludge produced [tonnes DS/year] 53,085 Disposal or reuse route used Agriculture direct application Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 12,067 Composting Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 30,437 Soil Quantity [tonnes DS/year] Landfill Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 4,723 Incineration Quantity [tonnes DS/year] other Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 9,328 Planned situation at the end of the design horizon17 Quantity of sludge produced [tonnes DS/year] 70-90 Disposal or reuse route used Agriculture after processing Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 20-30 Composting Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 40-50 Soil Quantity [tonnes DS/year] Landfill Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 0 incineration Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 10 other Quantity [tonnes DS/year] 10
4.2.4 Demand scenarios Demographic and economic trends The change in population does not lead to a change the number of agglomerations in each of the categories (2.000-10.000; 10.000-100.000; over 100.000). Change in the number of agglomerations is caused by other factors (i.e. political).
Unit demand for waste water treatment There are no policies in place relating to disconnecting industry from the public sewers. Only operators can evoke some endeavours to force industry to treat specific pollutions themselves and after this connect pre-treated waste waters to sewerage systems.
Table 4-11 : Unit demand for the wastewater treatment of 1 PE
Unit demand In country Benchmark Present Planned situation (e.g. situation at the year 2005) end of the design horizon Volume 125 – 175 125 – 200 150 l/PE/d Organic biodegradable load 60 60 60 g BOD/PE/d Nitrogen load 11 11 10 g N/PE/d Phosphorous load 2,5 2,5 2 g P/PE/d
17 At the time when all the planned STPs will be built.
34 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Design of the STPs • The design practice for hydraulic capacity does not lead to over-dimensioning of STPs
• The hydraulic design capacity does take into account the capacity need for storm water treatment (in the case of combined sewer systems) in a sufficient manner
User charges • The waste water fee is collected by the local water companies. It is a part of invoice for drinking water and sewage. • Tariffs/user charges will increase in real terms over the future programme period from current levels. Depending on the legislations it is assumed to be 15-50% each year. • As a result of the likely changes in user charges, demand will slowly go down.
Total need for waste water treatment Total need for waste water treatment is presented in the table below.
Table 4-12: Forecast wastewater treatment demand
Minimum Average Maximum scenario scenario scenario Demand (PE) Permanent Population (PE) 5.275.000 5.330.000 5.384.822 Target connection rate to drinking water 98 % 99 % 100 % supply Target connection rate to sewage 75% 85 % 95 % treatment Permanent Population connected to 3.956.25 4.530.50 5.115.58 sewage treatment (PE) 0 0 0 Seasonal Variations (PE) 100.000 100.000 100.000 Industry and services (PE) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total demand (PE) n.a. n.a. n.a. Unit drinking water supply (l/PE/day) 80 110 150 Wastewater volume by permanent population (1000 m³/day) 527,5 586,3 807,7 discharged (DWF) by permanent population connected to 316,5 498,4 767,4 sewage treatment (1000 m³/day) Seasonal Variations (1000 m³/day) 8 11 15 Total industrial water demand (1000 n.a. n.a. n.a. m³/day) Total wastewater volume discharged n.a. n.a. n.a. (1000 m³/day) Total wastewater volume discharged into n.a. n.a. n.a. public sewer network (mil. m³/year) Organic Unit load (g BOD/PE/day) 60 60 60 biodegradable load Nitrogen load Unit load (g N/PE/day) 11 11 11 Phosphorous load Unit load (g P/PE/day) 2,5 2,5 2,5
35 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
4.2.5 Indicative Investment Requirement and Comparison – Wastewater treatment Some key information, i.e. information about the STPs expressed in PE, is missing in order to make an estimate of the total investment needs on waste water. Second, no national official estimate has been provided so own estimates can’t be cross-checked. As already mentioned there are calculations made by the National Investment Plans but these are regarded to have been based on irrelevant data and therefore are regarded of no use for the needs assessment. The indicative investment requirements based on the project team calculations amount to 2.132-3.197 MEUR. The upper bound of the range is based on Slovak unit costs, the lower bound on default (Belgian) unit costs. Probably the Slovak unit costs have been overestimated. 350 STPs are in need for renovation/upgrading because of non- compliance. Investment costs is a proxy derived from PE equivalence of 350 STPS based on figures from Czech Republic. As we assume the Slovak unit costs as rather high compared to Belgian unit costs, the lower bound of 2.132 MEUR is used in further calculations as best estimate. Table 4-13: Summary of investment cost – wastewater treatment
Type of investment Indicative Investment Cost
M Euro
Project Team calculations
New STPs 917
Renovation / upgrading of STPs 360
New sewerage 345 -700
Renovation / upgrading of sewerage 690 - 1.400
Sewage pumping stations n.d.
CSO upgrading n.d.
Sludge treatment (*)
Sludge disposal (*)
Total investment 2.312-3.377
Total investment (% of GDP) -
Note: upper bound range calculations based on Slovak unit costs, lower bound on default unit costs. Investment costs of new STPs is based on default unit costs for new STPs with capacitiy 2.000 - 10.000 PE.
n.d. : not determined due to lack of information
(*): less important as cost drivers.
36 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
5 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
5.1 Current situation 5.1.1 Current State of Provision Recent data on the total volume of waste generated shows a declining trend caused by a reduction in the quantity of special waste however offset to some extent by a small increase in municipal solid waste. The regional picture on waste generation needs further analysis. 23% of the total waste collected is landfilled while 3,5% is incinerated. In 2004, about 84 % of the municipal waste collected is landfilled and 5% is incinerated (non-hazardous share of municipal waste). Only 14% of the municipal waste is recycled or reused (2004) 3.
Table 5-1: Number of inhabitants connected to the separate collection (2004) Region % of connected number of inhabitants in region
Banská Bystrica 23,2 %
Bratislava 71,4 %
Košice 28,3 %
Nitra 39,0 %
Prešov 43,7 %
Trenčín 58,1 %
Trnava 71,5 %
Žilina 63,3 %
Slovak Republic 49 %
A summary of the figures on the key physical indicators in the field of municipal solid waste is presented in chapter 9.1.3.
State of infrastructures
Collection In general the municipal waste collection system is quite well dimensioned along the country. Separate waste collection varies across the country and should in general be extended (see table above).
Recycling 3 According to the Waste Management Programme for the Slovak republic the most desirable as well as effective way of the waste treatment is waste recovery, eg. recycling of waste, reuse of waste or such recovery which allows using waste as a source of secondary raw materials and source of energy. The necessary precondition for higher level of waste recovery is adoption of more effective waste collection and separation systems. The rate of recovery was 52,7 % in 2002 of the total waste production in the country 12 and only 14,2 % of municipal waste 3.
37 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Landfilling 3 Landfilling is the most extensively used method of waste disposal, primarily owing to the relatively low charges for depositing wastes on landfills. Prevailing amount of landfills currently in operation in the Slovak Republic is being represented by the landfills for non-hazardous. At the moment the total capacity is 37 602 444 m3 of which 30 752 953 m3 is still free 12. There are 154 landfills available, of which 15 for hazardous waste, 120 for non-hazardous waste, and 19 for inert waste only. Every year above 85 % of municipal waste is disposed, mainly by landfilling. The most common waste commodities separated from municipal waste are paper, glass, plastic, textile and scrap iron. Most of the landfills currently in operation were established in recent period and so they should be in full accordance with the current legislation, which has been fully harmonised with the EC legislation, (Council Directive 1999/31/EC). The problems encountered in currently operated landfills are predominantly associated with the requirements concerning insulation and de-gassing. The overall capacity of landfills for municipal and other waste, including hazardous waste, is adequate to meet the current demands and the demands of the near future. Incineration 3 Incineration is a more expensive method of waste disposal in comparison with land- filling and therefore only a low percentage of total waste production is disposed of through incineration. At present there are two municipal waste incineration plants in the Slovak Republic, in Bratislava and in Košice. There are 18 incineration plants for hazardous and other waste available. In 2003, only 2,6 % of the overall waste production was incinerated or used for energy production. General Waste sector asks for more education of people and for good management.
Waste fees/taxes Existing waste charges vary between 400 to 600 SKK/inhabitant.year or 10 to 15 EUR/inhabitant.year: • average household income: 274 219 SKK/year (6 333 EUR/year) • waste charge/year is 35 EUR/household.year or 0,6 % of household income Charges are a complex problem, inhabitants always react on charges for gas, electricity, coal, wood, waste disposal etc. and e.g. use different energy sources, even incinerate in rural areas waste themselves to heat houses resulting in air pollution etc.
Institutional issues The Ministry of Environment is responsible for the policy on waste and waste handling activities (collection, recovery, treatment, disposal and export & import). Each of the municipalities are responsible for municipal solid waste management. Private operators working for municipalities are responsible for the period as defined in their contract. Waste generated by private companies is managed by the private companies themselves.
38 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Conclusions The sector needs a lot of education, investments and management. Material and energy recovery must be heavily improved.
5.1.2 Experience of Previous Investment Programmes General MS funding See chapter 9.1.6 for total MS funding in the environmental field.
ISPA programme No projects in the field of municipal waste management have been executed within the ISPA programme (2001-2003) (see also chapter 9.1.6 and chapter 2).
Cohesion fund No projects on municipal waste management have been executed within the Cohesion Fund programme (2004-2006) (see also chapter 9.1.6).
Table 5-2: Overview of CF projects (eligible costs, 2000-2006)
Project title Full cost Cohesion Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%)
- - - - Source: EC DG Regio (2005) Note: Technical Assistance projects are not included: 1,45 mio EUR (= total and CF share for the sum of environmental projects 2000-2006)
Structural funds (European Regional Development Fund) Project costs on municipal waste management executed within the Structural Fund programme (2004-2006) are presented in the table below:
Table 5-3: Overview of ERDF projects
Measure title Full cost ERDF Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%) Total : Urban and 32,052 21,818 68% industrial waste (including hospital and dangerous waste) Source: EC DG Regio (2005) Note: ERDF investments are described by reference to measures, outlined in the ERDF Programmes
See also chapter 2 and 9.1.6.
39 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Good/Bad Practice Lessons or Examples Only a small part of financial aid goes to the field of waste management. Although the contemporary methods of waste management are promoted, the daily practice in household is not good enough, especially compared with EU15.
Conclusions In compliance with the state environmental policy in waste management, the following principles should be followed:
• prevention of waste generation; • prevention of hazardous waste generation, its recovery and disposal of non- recoverable waste in an environmentally sound manner;
• reduction of waste toxicity; • promotion of material recovery as much as possible; • promotion of energy recovery if no other reuse has been feasible; • reduction of waste disposal to landfills.
40 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
5.2 Needs for the future Municipal waste is generated by households, commercial activities and other sources whose activities are similar to those of households and commercial enterprises. It does not include other waste arising e.g., from hospitals, mining, industrial or construction and demolition processes. Municipal waste is made up to residual waste, bulky waste, secondary materials from separate collection (e.g., paper and glass), household hazardous waste, street sweepings and litter collections.18 The vast majority of hazardous waste is produced by private companies and only a small share stems from household hazardous waste (e.g. paints, batteries, small packaged pesticides and chemicals). Following the polluter pays principle, costs related to hazardous waste handling is to be beard by the polluter. Hazardous waste handling is mainly private business. Therefore, investment needs for the separated collection of hazardous waste is accounted for in this report but needs related to recovery and disposal of hazardous waste not.
5.2.1 State of Infrastructure: Predicted Waste Flows of Municipal Solid Waste • Landfilling will prevail as this economical activity can be run as PPP easily. Incineration plants are quite problematic due to hard acceptation by municipalities and inhabitants. It is quite difficult to get building and operation permit for this plants. • Overall conception in the Slovak Republic is based on mechanical-biological waste processing. There is a need for expansion of integrated systems for waste handling in all regions. • According to the national plans, main investments will go to improvement of the existing system. 50-60% to construction of integrated systems of waste management, 10-20 % to recultivation of old landfills, 30-40 % to removal of old environmental loads. • It is clearly stated by the government that the funding will go to non-commerce bodies. Commercial organisations and enterprises can also obtain some funds, if they prove that the environmental load was not caused by them. So the new systems will serve mainly to the population. • Poor and rural areas will probably benefit more as the services there are more costly. It is caused by lower purchasing power of people there. The equal prices can be maintained.
Remark concerning hazardous waste from hospitals: According to the Accession Treaty for the Slovak Republic there is a need to replace or upgrade 11 hospital waste incinerators. As hazardous waste from hospitals is not classified as municipal solid waste, it is not included in the needs assessment of this report. Furthermore, it can be questioned whether investment needs for hospital waste incinerators should be funded by EU funds seen the ongoing transition process towards privatisation of these incineration plants within the next years to come. At this moment, there is no information provided where the replacing hospital waste incinerators should be built or about possibilities to incinerate this hospital waste in other hazardous waste incinerators. These issues should be cleared out.
41 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Figure 5-1 Waste flow chart - Current situation
Generation Municipal Solid Waste Generation (CURRENT SITUATION; year: 2004) 1.475.123 tonnes
Collection Residual and Bulky Waste Collection Separate Collection 1.190.000 tonnes 280.000 tonnes
Sorting Residual Waste Bulky Waste for Recyclables Bio Waste Hazardous n.a. Landfilling 50.000 157.000 waste (I) n.a. tonnes tonnes 73.000 tonnes
Disposal & M/B Pre- Thermal Direct Thermal Recovery Treatment Treatment Landfilling Treatment (III) (V) (III) n.a. 116.000 n.a. 68.000 tonnes tonnes 2 number of 2 installations installations (II)
Landfilling Compost 1.200.000 tonnes (152 landfills) 41.000 tonnes
Notes:
• (I) : Hazardous waste only covers small hazardous waste (paints, batteries, small packaged pesticides and chemicals, etc.). The main disposal route for hazardous waste is landfill, incineration and physical or chemical treatment. On the recovery side, a significant proportion of hazardous waste is recycled or burned as a fuel18
• (II) : Residues of recyclables to be landfilled only covers small part of total volume of landfilling • (III) : Residual and Bulky waste
o Bulky waste: white goods, old furniture, mattresses, metals (often collected only a few times a year)
o Residual waste: other waste than bulky waste and waste collected separately (e.g. paper, glass, organic waste etc.)
• (IV): Thermal Treatment = Waste Incineration (incl. secondary thermal recovery)
• (V): M/B treatment: Mechanical / Biological pre-treatment of residual waste to be landfilled (obligatory under the Landfilling Directive 1999/31/EC)
18 European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management, 2005
42 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Figure 5-2: Waste flow chart - Expected future situation
Generation Municipal Solid Waste Generation (PREDICTION year: 2010) 1.400.000 tonnes
Collection Residual and Bulky Waste Collection Separate Collection 200.000 tonnes 1.200.000 tonnes
Sorting Residual Waste Bulky Waste for Recyclables Bio Waste Hazardous 100.000 tonnes Landfilling 600.000 500.000 waste (I) 100.000 tonnes tonnes tonnes 100.000 tonnes
Disposal & M/B Pre- Thermal Direct Thermal Recovery Treatment Treatment Landfilling Treatment (III) (V) (III) n.a. 200.000 n.a. 50.000 tonnes tonnes 2 installations
(II)
Landfilling Compost 250.000 tonnes (160-180 landfills) (*) 300.000 tonnes (*): It is expected that a lot of existing landfills, which are now filled for more than 75% will be still operated, but the volume of deposited waste will be minimal against the new landfills.
5.2.2 Review of Future Trends Demographic and economic trends • The official objectives on the percentage of households to be covered by waste collection services: 100 % of households to be covered
• Planned introduction of targets for separate waste collection: the target is to separate and reuse waste at maximum level. There is also a planned growth of using composting sites (for each bigger municipality).
• Evolution of commerce, small business and services sectors relying on the same municipal waste treatment facilities (sorting facilities, incineration, landfill, recycling including composting) in the next programme period: o Low growth: average yearly 4-6 % o Medium growth: average yearly 8-11 % o High growth: average yearly 12-14 % • It is expected that the municipal waste production will be proportional to the changes in population, the aim is to prevent growth of quantity and separation with reuse have to be dominant
43 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Waste charges • Inhabitants pay municipal charge regardless to quantity of produced waste – charge is generated individually for each region (municipality) – per capita. • New charging / tariff systems are not planned to be introduced but it is expected, that there will be some changes in future (3-5 years). Charges are expected to increase by the inflation rate (cca 3-6 %/year) + costs for recovery of new investments. There is no official trend to support more expensive BATs. It is due to the fact that people want to pay minimal charges if possible. • Higher charges will probably have minimal effects on illegal dumping as penalties are high. • The expected size of the contribution from charges to finance investment costs for the next programming period amounts to 15-25 % • There are no important regional differences in levels of arisings or in charges that will be increased by higher charges. • There will probably no new charging / tariff systems introduced to make costs more transparent to users, better linked to waste arisings There is no policy to provide exemptions for households on low incomes or for specific industries • Previous years, the potential role of PPP to cover part of investment costs has been on the political agenda but without any results so far. It is expected that PPP can cover part of the investment needs but for the next programming period their effect is assumed to be limited (0 to 5%).
Table 5-4 Expected waste charges within the next 6 years Low estimate Medium estimate High estimate
Possible waste charges 25-30 35-50 60-80 (EUR/capita/year)
Unit and total municipal waste generation • Unit waste generation will slightly drop. Living standards are expected to increase slightly and the resulting small increase in volume of municipal waste will be offset by the increasing waste charges resulting in less waste generated per person. Present value is 294 kg/year.cap, will drop to 260-280 kg/year.cap. • Rural areas have lower unit production – cca minus 20-40 % from average. Also regions with lower incomes have lower unit production – cca minus 15-25 % from average.
• Policy incentives to reduce the unit municipal waste generation: There were only some pilot projects and with poor result. When we visit EU 10 countries we are surprised with the high standard of separation in dwellings and awareness and discipline of people.
• There is an influence of the standard of living and education of people but for a general point of view this influence is not significant.
• Changing consumption pattern do not influence significantly unit waste generation volumes. Higher incomes bring higher consumption, on the other hand also usually belong to higher education with higher standard of environmental manners.
44 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
• There will be no influence of waste charges on illegal dumping practices. Illegal dumping is punished. The Slovak Republic is densely inhabited country and illegal dumping is rejected by absolute majority of people. Only some not very well educated people with poor incomes still set up illegal dumps (only small dumps for several hundreds kg of waste).
Table 5-5: Unit and total municipal waste generation Parameter Unit Current Evolution (% change) status Minimum Average Maximum (year) scenario scenario scenario
Population Urban 2.991.268 -2% -1% 0% (number of people) Rural 2.393.554 -2% -1% 0% Per capita income Euro per capita Unit municipal waste generation kg/year per 294 -10-12% -5-7% 0% capita Total municipal waste tonnes/year 1.475.000 1.325.000 1.400.000 1.475.000 generation Composition MSW: Share organic waste % 38 +3% 0% - 2% Share packaging : paper % 28 +3% +2% +1% and cardboard+ glass + plastics share hazardous % 1 -5% 0% +5% households waste (batteries, paint, insecticides etc.) Others % 33 -6% -2% +1%
45 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
5.2.3 Physical investment needs The physical investment needs for the next programming period are presented in the table below:
Table 5-6: Physical investment needs Type of Indicators Minimum Average Maximum investment scenario scenario scenario
% of inhabitants provided MSW collection 100% Waste service (total waste volume) collection facilities % of inhabitants Organic waste 100%
provided separate MSW collection Small hazardous waste 100% services Others 100%
Required number of additional waste transfer 42 50-60 79 stations for transport of collected waste (i.e. islands or isolated areas)
Required number of additional 30-35 40-50 60-70 Waste sorting manual/mechanical sorting facilities (#) (incl facilities those as a part of planned RWMCs19)
0.6 mil. 0.9 mil 1.2 mil Required capacity of additional manual/mechanical sorting facilities (tonnes/year) 30-40 50-60 70-80 Recovery Required number of additional recycling yards facilities (incl those as part or not of planned RWMCs) (#)
Required capacity of additional recycling yards 0.25 mil 0.38 mil 0.5 mil (tonnes/year and people/year)
Required number Total 400-500 600-700 800-900 of additional composting plants (#) (incl those as Large composting plants 6 8 10 part or not of planned RWMCs)
0.15 mil 0.23 mil 0.3 mil Required capacity of additional composting plants (tonnes/year)
0 0 0 Disposal Required number of incineration plants for MSW facilities (#) Required MSW incineration capacity 0 0 0 (tonnes/year)
19 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.
46 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Type of Indicators Minimum Average Maximum investment scenario scenario scenario
Number of existing incineration plants needing 2 2 2 an upgrade to achieve airborne emission ceiling limits (incl. dioxins, mercury, dusts) Required number and overall capacity (mtonnes) 10-15 15-20 20-30 of additional landfills for non-hazardous waste (as part of planned RWMC)
Number of existing landfills needed to be 30-40 40-50 50-60 upgraded20 to be compliant until new sanitary landfills are assumed to be established and ready for operation (#)
Number of landfills needed to be remediated21 20-30 30-40 40-50 (#) (*)
(*): Provided figures only include partly the clean up of old illegal waste dumps and contaminated sites where liability can’t be established. An estimation of the total number of old illegal waste dumps could not be achieved.
5.2.4 Indicative Investment Requirement and Comparison – Municipal Solid Waste Calculated investment costs are based on default unit costs as no unit costs have been provided (cf. chapter 9.2.). Total investment costs including investments in waste transfer stations, recycling yards, additional composting plants, new sanitary landfills and recultivation and remediation of old landfills are estimated to amount between 296 MEUR and 318 MEUR.
The lower bound (296 MEUR) corresponds to calculations based on estimated number of additional large composting plants (av. capacity of 12.000 tonnes/year) for the largest Slovakian cities (+100.000 inhabitants). For smaller cities and villages, composting will be done via small scale composting installations with low investment costs (reinforcing ground and some type of isolation against rainwater infiltration and disposer machine) and have not been taken into account. Due to this latter, 296 MEUR has to be seen as an underestimation. The upper bound (318 MEUR) corresponds to calculations based on the total additional composting capacity required in the Slovak Republic multiplied with the unit cost for large composting plants. This results in an overestimation as not all organic waste will be treated in large composting plants.
Indicative investment requirements are presented in the table below. As no official investment needs have been provided, we can not cross-check this figure.
In further calculations an average investment need of 307 MEUR will be used.
20 Upgrading = e.g. monitoring wells, leachate and gas collection system, fencing, weighting bridge, reception facilities, … 21 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
47 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Table 5-7: Summary of investment cost – municipal solid waste Type of investment Indicative Investment Cost
Expert team calculations
M Euro
Waste collection 55 Waste sorting
Recovery 32-54
Disposal 209
Total investment 296-318
Total investment (% of GDP)
5.2.5 Summary, Insights, needs etc. • Prevention of waste production is not sufficient and must be improved. Reuse must prevail against disposal. Collection of separated waste must be improved – especially hazardous, biodegradable, returnable packaging, plastics. Biodegradable material have to be locally composted, each bigger municipality have to build composting site. Recycling of waste has to be preferred e.g. product from waste will have some type of tax allowance. • Main drivers (instruments) needed to make it possible to achieve objectives include upgrading the level of education (in environment field related to waste) and subsidies. • Barriers to the technology development: People are opposed to solutions with a large impact on the environment. ‘Not in my backyard’ also is an important reaction and sometimes caused difficulties with finding sites for landfilling or new incineration plants. Separation and reuse will have high support if well organized.
• There are not sufficient cost drivers to stimulate people to separate and reuse waste. In general, people do not accept more expensive and time consuming waste handling. Taxes and other economical drivers to force changes in waste management are still uncommon.
• Almost 95 % of inhabitants are served by waste collection. Separate collection is available but not very utilised because the separated processing is not very well ensured – there is only few possibilities for those, who wants to separate.
• Priority should be mechanical-biological waste sorting facilities (biodegradable waste has to be collected separately) as a part of system of RWMC´s with associated recycling yards and bring-in sites in local communities and transfer stations. Biodegradable waste has to be composted (i.e. locally – in the place of creation).
48 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP,CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
6 RENEWABLE ENERGY
6.1 Current situation 6.1.1 Current State of Provision At present the only relevant renewable energy source is hydro power. A summary of the figures on the key physical indicators in the field of renewable energy supply (RES) is presented in chapter 9.1.4.
State of infrastructures Installed capacities of the generation technologies (all kinds) in 2003: • Nuclear power plants 2 640 MW • Thermal power plants 3 319 MW • Hydro power plants 2 507,5 MW • Total 8 466,5 MW
Table 6-1: State of renewable energy supply infrastructure Renewables Type Existing installed capacity Power/generation/annual (MWth, MWel) production (MWh, MJ, t.o.e., etc) Wind ≈ 0 ≈ 0 Hydro (>15 MW) 2 507,5 MW 3 582 000 MWh Hydro (<15 MW) Solid biomass 9 700 000 MWth 7 053 000 MWh Liquid biofuels potential 3 055 555 MWh Geothermal 131 MW 55 320 MWh Solar thermal collectors: 50 000 m2 25 000 MWh Solar electric (PV) ≈ 0 1 MWh Other (specify) potential 1 920 000 MWh biogas from manure
Renewable energy pricing and support issues There is no evidence legislation on feed-in tariff with purchase obligation is fully in place at the moment. The new government aims to support RES. The installation of a feed-in tariff is one of the topics to reach this goal and is currently under discussion.
Institutional and public support issues The sector is governed by Ministry of Economy. Support from public is not big. People still prefer cheaper energy from conventional sources. In general, people do not support wind mils close to their houses and reject sources based on incineration because of air pollution. The environment for investments is selectively supportive, there exists preference to biomass and hydro power as most promising energy sources.
Conclusions In the future the State should prefer biomass sources and hydro power generation.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 49 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
6.1.2 Experience of Previous and Other Ongoing Investment Programmes
Table 6-2: Funding by source – Renewable energy, Million Euro, 2000-2006
Source of funding Funding instrument EUR (million)
National funds Co-financing EU SF 1,392 mio€ (ERDF) 2000-2006: renewable sources energy (solar power, wind power, hydro-electricity, biomass)
EU funds SF (ERDF) 2000-2006: 1,624 mio€ renewable sources energy (solar power, wind power, hydro-electricity, biomass)
Under LIFE III, the Biomass energy programme has been launched in 2003 with a total budget of 1,01 MEUR. Under the ISPA programme, a project on the upgrading of the heating plant in Zilina has been launched in 2003 (budget 9,0 MEUR). For more details see also chapter 9.1.6.
Good Practice Lessons or Examples • The Slovak republic has clearly stressed the importance of the use of renewable energy sources for the economy and environment. Also the evaluation of potentials of different sources has already been done.
• The renewable energy sector is frequently discussed by authorities, TV etc. but maybe the real application is far from ordinary man daily agenda. People simply prefer cheap energy.
• Investors ask for stable economical environment, eg. long term guaranteed minimum prices.
• The Slovak Republic has good conditions especially for biomass utilisation, the present experience is positive.
Conclusions • The experience with different RES systems is already available.
• Biomass and hydro power have the biggest energy generation potential. Also liquid biofuels has a potential and is in need for development.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 50 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
6.2 Needs for the future 6.2.1 Review of Policy Objectives and Targets – and supporting instruments • National policy for prevention climate changes and support renewable sources is available. In April 2006 a first draft of a Strategy of highest utilization of renewable energy sources in the Slovak Republic has been prepared by the Ministry of Economy in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment.
• There is a legislation which defines that from 2008 there has to be at least 2% of bio-originated components in each fuel. • Present share of renewable electricity remains too low to achieve the national indicative target of 19 % of gross electricity consumption form renewable sources by 2010 (24 % by 2020 and 27 % by 2030). • There are important policy gaps as there is still missing official conception The expected evolution of the distribution of use of energy sources up to the year 2030 is presented in the following figure:
Vývoj spotreby primárnych energetických zdrojov
900
800
700 Obnoviteľné zdroje energie
600 Teplo z jadrových elektrární Ropa 500
PJ Zemný plyn 400 Uhlie 300
200
100
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Figure 6-1: Sources of energy – expected development
Translation of legend:
- Obnovitelné zudroje energie = renewable sources - Teplo z jadrových elektrární = heat from nuclear power plants - Ropa = oil - Zemný plyn = natural gass - Uhlie = coal
6.2.2 Supply and Demand Forecasts • Historically there exist “Vážska vodná kaskáda” – reservoirs and channels build in river Váh. Each reservoir contains also hydropower plant. There are also some others HPP on other rivers. Main energy source is still nuclear power.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 51 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
• Next to smaller hydropower stations, there is also a potential for 2 to 3 new large hydropower stations. Yet, these large hydropower stations have been already planned in the 70ies and are still not built. It is expected that for the next programming period these hydropower stations will not be built (see also last bullet).
• The potential of biomass is very high in the Slovak Republic. At the moment, only approximately 0,1% of the overall potential of biomass is used. This does however not mean that this potential also matches the interest in investment in this energy source. Detailed information is lacking on the interest to investment in biomass as energy source.
• The forecasts for the supply of energy from RES depend on the strategy of the national energy producer. The national energy producer has recently been privatised by Italian company ENEL and it seems that they will not support hydro- power plants. At the moment no forecasts can be given.
At present the only relevant renewable energy source is hydropower. In future the state should prefer biomass sources and hydropower generation.
6.2.3 Cost of Infrastructure /Technologies • See chapter 9.2. for unit investment costs.
• Expected future unit costs for RES systems will probably be the same as now (EUR per kW of installed power). Unit costs for produced energy will change – it depends on huge scale of factors.
• Due to technology progress it is expected some changes in costs for biomass heating systems and especially for solar collectors.
• Unit costs and especially overall cost for complete RES are heavily affected by location – changes in price can be sometimes more than double.
6.2.4 Review of Instruments and Support Schemes - Enabling/hampering factors to meet needs Support Schemes: • There is no official support scheme in the Slovak Republic such as a feed-in tariff scheme with a purchase obligation. • People are trying to use renewable sources (ground-source heat pumps, solar collectors,…) due to very high price of energy. • There is big need for support schemes in the form of a grant scheme or differenced price system. Hampering factors: • Instable energy market: Investors ask for stable economical environment, e.g. long term guaranteed minimum prices
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 52 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
• RES projects fall under the obligation to obtain a building permit. During project preparation process there can occur different problems which can disable the projects, e.g. environmental impacts (i.e. on ecosystems) and public protest against RES projects can result in not obtaining the building permit.
• People are very conservative. They probably are not aware about the assets of energy sources so they will not prefer these new techniques. There is a need for changes in public opinion by the organisation of awareness rising campaigns. • Electricity prices are still subsidised but each year the gap between the real costs and consumer price becomes closer. In the end, people will be forced to choose for the cheaper sources. Official policy for real supporting RES is missing.
6.2.5 Investment Calculation and Comparison In April 2006 a first draft of a Strategy of highest utilization of renewable energy sources in the Slovak Republic has been prepared by the Ministry of Economy in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment. This strategy provides information about the possibilities to use RES in the Slovak Republic but provides no answers on issues related to which supporting tools will be used, which combinations of RES sources should be given priority for investment nor information about overall expenditures and expected costs. Although there is a certain potential for RES in the Slovak Republic and the use of RES is recognized as important for the country, a policy framework is missing and no definite policy targets have been set. Too much information is lacking at the moment to make a calculation of the investment costs. In the previous programming period (2000-2006), investments in RES funded by international co-funding sources ranged between 3 (RES projects) and 13 MEUR22 (mixed conventional and renewable energy projects). This budget is regarded as insufficient to reach the RES-E target in 2010 and an an investment need of approximately 200 MEUR can be assumed as a more realistic proxy of the investment need. This figure is based on expert judgement and should be regarded as an order of magnitude rather than the real investment needs. Private initiatives are expected to play an important role. Detailed information is however lacking and the share of the investment needs to be covered by private funds are unknown and should be cleared out.
6.2.6 Summary, Insights, needs etc. • There exists sufficient potential for RES development. Most promising categories of RES are the utilisation of biomass, hydropower and geothermal; less promising are wind energy and solar energy. • To meet national targets there is a need to:
o finalise official national strategy for RES
22 range of 3 to 13 MEUR represents international co-funded investments in RES and excludes private investments and 100% state funded projects
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 53 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
o adopt and transpose the RES promotion Directive of EU (2001/77/EC) to the Energy law
o develop national, executive programmes for more promising categories of RES
o review existing mechanism of RES promotion
• At the moment, RES are not a very cost-effective energy source, but there are some promising RES categories to be competitive solutions soon, if they will be supported by market transformation programmes. Policy mechanisms are main driving forces on this stage of RES development.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 54 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
7 NATURAL RISK MANAGEMENT
7.1 Current situation 7.1.1 Current State of Provision Slovak Republic has well developed prevention and action risk management system which helps to overcome crisis situations. A summary of the figures on the key physical indicators in the field of natural risk management is presented in chapter 9.1.5. Existing risk assessments Main risk is floods which cause big damages quite regularly. There are two main streams – “green” with a number of small scale natural measures, and “concrete” with construction of dams, barriers etc.
There are 3 important projects: 1. Improvement of river Morava 2. Reconstruction of East Slovakian river basin (construction of 11 pumping stations, barriers, dams) 3. Flood protection in selected municipalities (e.g. rivers Myjava, Chvojnica, Svinka, etc.).
Institutional issues For the sector Ministry of Environment is responsible.
Conclusions The sector must focus on flood prevention and protection, the on fires and draughts.
7.1.2 Experience of Previous Investment Programmes See chapter 2 for more details.
ISPA programme In 2003 a project on ‘Support for priority flood protection measures’ has been launched under the ISPA programme with a total budget of 0,79 MEUR. See also chapter 6.1.6.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 55 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Cohesion fund (2000-2006) Investments in the field of natural risk management supported by the cohesion fund during the previous programming period are presented in the following table:
Table 7-1: Overview of CF projects, (eliglible costs, 2000-2006)
Project title Full cost Cohesion Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%)
Total : 1,053 0,790 75% Environnemental protection (flood protection, desertification, affrestration, Natura 2000, etc.) : 1 project Source: EC DG Regio (2005) Note: Technical Assistance projects are not included: 1,45 mio EUR (= total and CF share for the sum of environmental projects 2000-2006)
Structural funds (2000-2006) Investments in the field of natural risk management supported by the structural funds during the previous programming period are presented in the following table:
Table 7-2: Overview of EAGGF projects, 2000-2006
Measure title Full cost ERDF Fund EU-support
(€ million) (€ million) (%) Total : Restoring 4,075 3,217 79% forestry production potential damaged by natural disasters and fire and introducing appropriate prevention instruments Source: EC DG Regio (2005) Note: EAGGF: European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
Good/Bad Practice Lessons or Examples Risk management generally has a good background in the whole country. Fire prevention and fire extinguishing is on good standard level. The system is well organised.
The biggest technical problem and the most expensive one are floods. The bad experience is that a lot of attention is paid to the immediate help and to the prevention just after the event. With ongoing time, the effort sometimes goes down especially with regard to long-term measures influencing other sectors outside water sector, eg. agriculture, forestry.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 56 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
Conclusions The most important programme is “Flood Prevention Programme till 2010”. There were already more successful projects completed in recent years and this trend must continue.
7.2 Needs for the future 7.2.1 Review of Policy Objectives and Targets – and supporting instruments Main natural hazard in Slovakia is flooding. Flooding cause largest damages and is also more occurring then droughts and fires.
Droughts are not apprehended as big risk/hazards – in agricultural regions were built systems for irrigations (most of them 20 or more years ago, so they need reconstruct, or they have big operational costs). More then 40% of fires are caused by firing dried grass in spring. There are several instruments, which takes in target to turn this situation (not very sufficient).
Main part of ensued damages is a result of floodings. National policy is to prevent floods for more then 20 years, but main problem is in financing this objective. A national concept to prevent flooding There is still missing because of lack of funds at the MoE.
7.2.2 Risk Forecasts Almost the whole of the Slovak Republic has been denominated as area under risk last year because of the combination of large snow fall (high volumes of snow to melt in spring) and high precipitation. Due to morphological conditions, vulnerable areas include valleys and mountainous regions. In lowland almost every (large) river is regulated and bordered with dikes although some of them don’t offer protection to a sufficient level. Main river systems in the Slovak Republic (rivers Dunaj, Váh, Hron, Nitra, Hornád, Bodrog and Poprad) are bordered with dikes. However, the main problem with flooding relates to smaller rivers and streams. Main reasons for flooding are originated in morphological situation of locations where floods occurred and in some anthropogenic factors (agriculture, building impervious pavement,...). During storm events (also very short storms (15-30 min) with high rainfall intensity) these factors cause high volumes of runoff, which can not be captured in natural streams and rivers. At present, these floods are frequent and effect mainly small areas. Nevertheless the small size of the effected areas, related damages are often very high (e.g. in 2006 small flood caused by storm affected two small villages resulting in damages estimated at 1.5-2 MEUR). This situation has to be solved because the frequency of these events grow and is predicted to keep on growing in future. Main solution includes the development of polders (areas which can be purposely flooded during high water level in river).
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 57 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
At the moment, a strategy and action plan is missing making it difficult to put forward the physical needs and thus also to make a calculation of the financial needs. There is one study made by environmental activists in the eastern part of the Slovak Republic and they estimate that for flood prevention in this region (cca 30% of land in Slovakia) the investment costs necessary will be about 0,6 billion EUR. Based on estimates made by insurance companies, the annual damage costs can reach up to 25 MEUR. This cost does not include damage costs on ecosystems and environment.
7.2.3 Costs of Infrastructure / Technologies (Unit Investment & Operating Costs) Data not available
7.2.4 Instruments and Support Schemes – Enabling/hampering factors to meet needs An official state program for flood prevention is still missing. There are some legislation acts, which considers on some part of the problem, but the overall strategy is missing. There are some official support schemes originated from communistic era. Prevention of floods forms an essential problem and the MoE has granted this field but not very effectively – during the previous 4 to 6 years, there have no serious project been conducted. Therefore some of them are prepared locally.
7.2.5 Investment Calculation and Comparison – Natural Risk Management There is a great need for investments in flood protection – expectations are that during the next 2-3 years some sort of “national flood prevention plan” will be prepared. After this, projects could be started to realise the plan. At the moment some projects are already in preparation.
Based on the overall strategy of the Ministry for Constructions and Regional Development for the period 2007-2013, an indicative investment cost of 800 to 1.200 MEUR is calculated to be required for flood protection. This estimate is based on local case studies and a target to protect bigger urban units (+ 5.000 to 10.000 inhabitants) from flooding with a statistical periodicity of p = 0,01 (once in 100 year) . The allocated investment comprises a complex solution based on a river basin approach. As such, smaller villages and less populated areas in the same river basin as the bigger urban units are also protected. An investment need of 1.000 MEUR (800 to 1.200 MEUR) is regarded as very high if compared to other MSs with comparable flood risks. Cost- efficiency and a comparison with expected benefits should be taken into account. At the moment, detailed information is however lacking. Based on the information available, it can be stated that that the proposed investment can’t be regarded as cost- efficient as less expensive soft measures such as land use planning, forestry and agricultural techniques have not been taken into account. Second, this investment
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 58 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
need can’t be justified if compared to the benefits expressed in terms of avoided damage cost of approximately 25MEUR per year (or 150 MEUR for the next 6 years)23.
As a conclusion, an indicative investment need on flood protection between 150 MEUR and 1.000 MEUR is proposed. For further calculations, an average of 575 MEUR will be used as a best estimate.
Table 7-3: Summary of investment cost – natural risks Type of Indicative Indicative SF/CF Implied investment Investment Cost Requirement Intervention Rate
M Euro M Euro %
Floods 575 431 75
Drought Negligible - -
Forest fires Negligible - -
Total 575 431 75
23 Avoided damage costs related to the eco-system and environment and other indirect socio- economic impacts should however be included to make a correct comparison.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 59
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Country Report – Slovak Republic
8 PRIORITY ASSESSMENT
8.1 Part 1: summarising the needs assessment This part is designed to summarise the needs assessment.
It partly helps to address the difficulties of estimating the total investment needs in all cases by making using of qualitative analysis and physical indicators as well as available financial assessments. The summary consists of three tables:
o Table 8-1: Needs Summary: Qualitative Analysis
o Table 8-2: Needs Summary: Key Indicators
o Table 8-3: Needs Summary: Indicative Investment Needed
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 61 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
A summary of qualitative needs assessment providing the context and background to the priority assessment and quantitative key indicators are presented in following two tables:
Table 8-1: Needs Summary: Qualitative Analysis
SLOVAK REPUBLIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT TABLE – SUMMARY 1 Other NATURAL WATER WASTE WATER WASTE RES environmental HAZARDS issues Future needs being addressed Renovation of New STPs Waste collection and Hydropower Flood protection by current initiatives – such as existing network separation systems existing plans or investment Renovation of New sewerage Upgrading of existing Biomass existing plants landfill sites
Extension of current Renovation / Training and public network to rural upgrading of STPs awareness areas Future needs requiring further Renovation of New STPs Waste collection Biomass Need for planning and/or investment in existing plants (separate waste replacement and 2007 – 2013 – indicating any collection) upgrading of 11 changes in the importance hospital incinerators and/or size of future needs in Renovation of Renovation / New RWMCs small scale Public heating the next period compared to the existing network upgrading of STPs (including landfill, hydropower plants: high need for current one. recycling yard and air pollution composting abatement measures installation) Extension of current Renovation / Local composting network to rural upgrading of installations areas sewerage New sewerage Public awareness raising campaigns Waste water Remediation collection systems (recultivation and ( trunk sewers, CSO, removal of old Storm water environmental load) detention tanks) of old landfills Limited needs (less important Sludge treatment Liquid biofuels and Forest Fire issues or issues already wind energy addressed)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 62 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 8-2: Needs Summary: Key Indicators
SLOVAK REPUBLIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT TABLE – SUMMARY 2 Other environmental WATER WASTE WATER WASTE RES NATURAL HAZARDS issues
Future needs Main investment needed: Target connection rate to Main investment should go Adopt a policy Flood protection: main Need for replacement and requiring planning Increase of drinking sewage treatment = 85%. to improvement of existing framework: problem is lack of upgrading of 11 hospital and/or investment in water quality by Now = 65%. system: protection at small rivers. incinerators reconstruction of network Final approval of the draft 2007 – 2013 – - Construction of RWMCs: Vulnerable areas are (a lot in asbestos cement Transition period 10 to 30 national strategy for RES mainly valleys and indicating the type pipes, Pb pipes) and UWWTD: 2010 - Recultivation of old mountainous regions and physical upgrading and Adopt and transpose the (agglomerations > 10.000 landfills: 30 - 60 requirement replacement of plants ( PE); 2015 RES promotion Directive Potential solution: unit operations and new - Remediation of old of EU (2001/77/EC) (agglomerations 2.000- - Improvement of dikes at technology sets) landfills: 20 - 50 10.000 PE) larger rivers Develop national, - Polders executive programmes Focus needs: East 150 to 250 new STPS Extension of the separate - Land use planning for more promising Slovakia and southern needed for 2.000 - MSW collection system + - Alternative forestry and categories of RES part of Central Slovakia - 10.000 PE awareness raising agriculture techniques lots of efforts needed in agglomerations (to campaigns. Only 14,2% of order to reach targets comply with UWWTD) waste is recovered under Drinking Water Directive (transition For > 10.000 PE most Recovery - composting Most promising: biomass Public heating plants: high period: 2008) STPs exist but need for installations: 400 to 900 Also promising: small need for air pollution upgrading and composting sites of which scale hydropower, abatement measures replacement to comply majority small scale (only 6 geothermal with UWWTD to 10 large composting Less promising: wind plants (expect selection of locations), solar
Of those plants that need Significant investment Review existing to be replaced or required to upgrade CSO, mechanisms of RES upgraded, 75% of the reconstruction of trunk promotion infrastructure is worn-out sewers and construction and 25% is not compliant of storm water detention tanks
Between 76% (East Slovakial) and 100% Bratislava) of (inhabitants is supplied with public networks. Large geographical differences. Goal: 95% of inhabitants
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 63 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
A summary of investments needed in the next programming period 2007-2013, including the different types of investments or examples when a complete picture is not possible is presented in following table. Key gaps are highlighted so account can be taken of missing data.
Table 8-3: Needs Summary: Indicative Investment Needed
SLOVAK REPUBLIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT TABLE – SUMMARY 3 Needs requiring investment in 2007 – 2013 WATER WASTE WATER WASTE RES NATURAL HAZARDS
Indicative level of Best estimate: 455 Best estimate: 2.132 Best estimate: 307 Proxy: 200 Best estimate: 575 investment for the Range: 200 - 800 Range: 2.132 - 3.197 Range: 296-318 Range: 150 - 1.000 Field (Meuro): Indicative examples Reservoirs: 50 MEUR New STPS: 917 MEUR Waste collection and sorting There is a certain potential = figures based on average of the types of : 55 MEUR, i.e. need for for RES in Slovak Republic yearly damage costs of investment needed: Drinking water production Renovation and upgrading improved separate collection and the use of RES is floods (covered by plants: 40 MEUR (upgrading of STPS: 180 MEUR system recognized as important for insurance companies) and and replacement of existing the country however calculations made to reach plants) New sewerage: 345 MEUR Recovery: 32-54 MEUR, definite policy targets have the requirements of the recycling yards and large not been set and a support Ministry for Constructions Water transport: 165 MEUR Renovation/upgrading number of small scale system is missing. and Regional Development (renovation and extension of sewerage: 690 MEUR composting plants for the period 2007-2013. network) Best estimate = Proxy Disposal: 209 MEUR, i.e. based on expert judgement Distribution of water (local): recultivation and remediation 200 MEUR (renovation and of old landfills extension of network) Key data gaps: Official estimate on the Official estimate on the Slovak unit costs are Data gaps: investment Data on physical needs and national investment needs is national investment needs is missing needs in RES unit costs are missing. not available not available Official estimate on the For some investment types, Number of STPs in need to national investment needs high Slovak unit costs be made compliant is for municipal solid waste is compared to default unit lacking not available. costs For some investment types, Physical needs are based on high Slovak unit costs Slovak waste experts’ compared to default unit estimations costs
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 64 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
8.2 Part 2: Assessing priorities within fields This part describes the types of investments per field ranked according to priority and considers the following three issues in terms of assessing the requirements for investment funding from the ERDF/CF funds (the financial requirement):
This section considers the following three issues in terms of assessing the requirements for investment funding from the ERDF/CF funds (the financial requirement):
• Alternative Funding Sources: The scope to meet investment needs through the market or through national programmes in each Field (but mainly Fields 4 and 5)
• Use of Flanking Measures: The scope to reduce investment needs through the use of flanking or complementary measures – mainly through the use of user charges in each Field (but mainly Fields 1, 2, 3)
• Administrative Capacity: The scope to manage and deliver the indicative investment needs identified taking into account the administrative capacity of the Member State in each Field, (but especially Fields 1, 2, 3)
8.2.1 Priorities within the fields Field 1: water supply Focus should lie upon the improvement of the quality of water and reliability of water supply. Investments in the replacement of existing network (mainly the asbestos cement pipes and Pb pipes) and upgrading of the unit operations and new technology sets at drinking water production plants should be the largest priority. Geographically, lots of efforts is needed in East Slovakia and southern part of Central Slovakia in order to reach targets under Drinking Water Directive (transition period 2008) Funding should not go to extension of capacity except for the rural areas.
Field 2: waste water treatment Rehabilitation of the existing sewage system and the increase of the connection rate of the sewage should receive high priority. Significant investments are also required for waste water collection systems: CSOs are in need for upgrading, trunk sewers need to be reconstructed and storm water detention tanks should be constructed. Special attention should also go to sludge treatment and sludge management. Next to this, the type of projects to be funded will be mostly a continuation of the previous funding period: new STPs for smaller settlements (<10.000PE), improvement of existing STPs with nutrient removal for larger settlements and new sewer network (focus on rural areas and should be done in combination with building of new STPs). It is to be expected that in the coming period, the scale of the projects will decrease (smaller agglomerations needing adequate waste water treatment), hence establishing a greater need for capacity building. This is also valid for field 1.
Field 3: Municipal solid waste Main priority should go to the improvement of the existing system; emphasis will lie on integrated waste management systems, including composting (mainly small scale composting sites), recycling, sorting and disposal.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 65 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
There is an important need for the extension of the separate MSW collection system in order to improve the waste recovery and recycling system. Next to this, awareness raising campaigns on waste prevention, reuse and separate collection should be organised.
Field 4: RES There is a certain potential for RES in the Slovak Republic and the use of RES is recognized as important for the country however definite policy targets have not been set and a support system is missing. Prior to investments on physical needs for RES development, priority should be given to the further development of the policy framework on RES such as the approval of the current draft national strategy for RES, the adoption and transposition of the RES promotion Directive of EU (2001/77/EC) and the development of national executive programmes for more promising categories of RES. RES priorities are first of all a function of technical, utilisabibility, availability and economy aspects. This would emphasize the need for relatively more funding of biomass projects and to a lesser extent also small scale hydropower and geothermal energy. There is limited potential for solar energy and partly wind energy (selection of locations). Next to infrastructure investment needs, there is a need to promote energy savings for households and economic sectors.
Field 5: Risk Flooding prevention measures are currently seen as the only issue requiring EU funding.
8.2.2 Alternative Funding Sources Existing or planned ways of supporting investment to meet needs through for example market support measures (such as guaranteed prices for renewables) At the moment there is no indication of existing or planned support from market schemes in the Slovak Republic. An official RES strategy is missing at the moment so we assume there is no law on guaranteed purchase prices for RES.
The extent to which the type of investment needed has previously been funded by Slovak Republic; and / or is already part of nationally funded plans; and/or is considered to be a MS responsibility Field 1 (water supply): User changes differ largely between the users (household versus others) and can cover a substantial part of the investment needs, especially on renovation and upgrading aspects. Additional investments are needed for the improvement of the water quality in a selection of regions (especially in Eastern Slovakia) in order to comply with the Drinking Water Directive. The extension of the network in Eastern and Southern Slovakia is also imposing important additional investments in order to meet the target to supply all inhabitants with safe and tasty drinking water. In this sense, external support is expected to cover a part of these investment needs.
Field 2 (waste water): Between 2001 and 2004 the Slovak Government has invested for approximately 111 MEUR in projects on STP and sewerage, while an estimated total of approx. 522MEUR has been allocated for international co-financed projects in the waste water sector between 2000 and 2006. As for drinking water part of the renovation and upgrading needs can be covered by user charges. Nevertheless, the
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 66 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
contribution of user charges may be assumed to be limited as investment needs in waste water are high and still asks for big support. To comply with the acquis some important investments still need to be made that the local MS funds (user charges) cannot overcome on its own.
Field 3 (waste): As for the water sector, part of the investment needs can be covered by user charges. Investment needs in the waste sector are relatively low compared to the water sector and in the previous programming period only limited international funds went to this sector (CF and Depa Dancee (Denmark)) . Between 2001 and 2004 the Slovak Government has invested for approximately 17 MEUR in the waste sector, while a total of 33MEUR has been allocated for international co-financed projects in the waste sector between 2000 and 2006. This means a substantial part of investment must have been funded by national funds. Important to note however is that these expenditures include management of other waste flows other than those related to municipal waste.
Field 4 (RES): There is an indication not too much experience exists with projects in the field of RES. At the moment the only relevant RES in the Slovak Republic is hydropower.
Field 5 (Risk): The protection against flood is a “traditional” policy field on which MS contribution has been provided in the past and also may be expected in the future. This does not mean a considerable input from external funds isn’t required. Investment needs on flood protection requires large investment which cannot be solved with MS funds only.
8.2.3 Use of Flanking Measures The current application of user charges and the associated revenue at current rates in the given fields over the period 2007-2013. Field 1-2-3: Tariffs are assigned for each field specifically. Some of them are regulated by the state institution URSO or directly by laws. This process is quite complicated. Full cost recovery is not possible due to state of living standards for whole country.
Field 1 (water supply): Current water prices are perceived as high by the population resulting in a lower water consumption rate. Part of water tariff revenues is reserved for infrastructure rehabilitation. The user charges are estimated to finance 20 to 30% of the investment costs and 50-65% of the operation and maintenance cost (+ca. 5-15% profit).
Field 2 (waste water): User charges must cover M&O cost and investment costs and evolve in the same way as water supply tariffs.
Field 3 (waste): User charges are assumed to cover 15-25% of the investment needs.
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: As already mentioned, current water prices are perceived as high and result in a drop of water consumption. The costs (price) express the influence of depreciation of over-dimensioned assets and cause a further drop of consumption
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 67 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
which on its turn asks for higher tariffs to cover all costs. In theory, a yearly increase of 10 to 30% of the user charges can be expected for water supply and 15 to 50% for waste water. In reality, water prices will probably only increase slightly taking into account affordability and political willingness24 aspects. Therefore, additional revenues from increased user charges are expected as low. New charges will be raised from extended sewage network. However, these additional charges are negligible compared to the current charges raised and will not be sufficient to cover their investments costs.
Field 3: Charges will increase to the same extent as the service costs. The increase is expected to equal the inflation rate of ca. 3-6%/y + recovery of new investments. Compared to the current charges, the effect of this increase on the total revenues from charges to cover new investments is regarded as low. Higher user charges could be a stimulation for people to separate waste and reuse but in general people do not accept more expensive waste handling.
Revenues raised assuming that domestic water/WWT/waste user charges (taken together) account for 5% of average household income (after tax). Field 1-2-3: For waste the current charge equals to 0,6% of an average household income. For water this amounts to 2,45% (approx. 1,49% for water supply and 0,96% for waste water) The affordability should be 4% (2%+2%) for drinking and waste water. The total share of domestic water/WWT/waste user charges on the average household income equals to 3,05% which means the affordability level of 5% has not being reached for an average household. Taking into account the predicted increase in user charges (see previous question), the affordability level of 5% will however be reached within the 3 to 5 years to come.
PPP’s and other measures with effect on need for investment Field 1-2-3: See previous questions about the role of user charges as flanking measure. Except for waste management, there is an indication private investing is not fully developed at the moment. However, there is a potential for PPPs in the Slovak Republic. PPP can cover part of the investment needs in the future but for the next 6 years to come it is expected to represent only a small share of the investment needs (0 to 5%).
8.2.4 Assessing the Capacity to Deliver Investment Programmes The assessment should be based on a review of the past performance of the MS in implementing investment programmes in each field and judgements made from discussions with stakeholders.
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
24 At the moment, Slovak Republic is governed by the Labour Party and they proclaimed no rise of tariffs or if any, to a limited extent.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 68 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
• The MS administrative capacity to plan and permit programmes in each of the fields and the time required to achieve this taking into account the current state of the project pipeline (number and quality of relevant investment projects)
• The capacity of municipalities and utilities to contract and implement investment programmes in each of the fields Field 1-2-3: In these fields, there is already experience with CF and SF funding in the previous years and different projects are still on-going. In the previous programming period, a relatively high number of available projects allowed Slovak Republic to obtain more than its average allocation under ISPA. Moreover, the national co-financing in the Slovak Republic was generally amongst the highest of the new Member States, which has allowed an increase in the number of measures, and a spreading of investments to a greater number of regions. The good results with ISPA can only be sustained in the Cohesion Fund in the next programming period if the administrative capacity of the programming and implementing authorities are strengthened substantially. Further technical assistance is currently being allocated to the structures, but such assistance will only be successful if matched by a considerable increase in the number of experienced staff. In the environment sector all funding (with the exception of the first air-protection project in 2003) has been channelled towards the investment-heavy water sector, where ISPA measures have allowed coverage of all urban areas of above 20.000 inhabitants. The active involvement of the regional, municipality-owned water companies has been crucial for the technical and environmental preparation of the 18 ISPA drinking and waste water projects. The central management by the companies has, moreover, made it possible to cover the needs of smaller urban areas through the clustering of measures. During the implementation of ISPA substantial measures were taken to improve the strategic programming as well as the technical quality of each measure. In parallel to these measures, all Ministries increased the number of staff, although not to the extent recommended by the Commission. In this respect the difficulty of recruiting staff with adequate experience and background (due to low salaries) and the substantial turn-over (especially young staff leaving the Ministries, as soon as the first experience has been acquired) have continued to pose a threat to efficient programming and sound implementation.
We may expect administrative capacity is largely in place to absorb investments of an order of magnitude as in the previous programming period. However, the needs for the next programming period are more or less 3 times larger than in the previous programming period which may result in a reduced absorption capacity. As already indicated further capacity building is required.
Field 5: Flood protection is a “traditional” policy field for which considerable national budget was available in the past and with strong engineering know-how from experts in water management. Furthermore, for each project and certainly for the more technical solutions, the risk of opposition for both the agricultural and the green lobby should be anticipated.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 69 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 8-4: Estimate of the Financial Requirement for all fields, 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 Investment Needs 455 2.132 307 200 575 (Meuro) – from Table 3 B: Investments likely to be covered by market 0 (ia) 0 (ia) 0 (ia) 0 (ib) - schemes (eg purchasing of renewables) C: Amount recovered from existing user charges not 166 (iia) 128 (iib) 61 (iic) - - included in investment need D: Further amount that could be recovered from higher rates for existing or negligible (iii) negligible (iii) negligible (iii) - - new charges to fund investment E: Financing Requirement Before Absorption Review 289 2.004 246 - 575 (A-B-C-D) (Meuro) F: Absorptive Capacity (% of Financing Requirement 75 % (iv) 75% (iv) 75 % (iv) 75% (iv) 75 % (iv) (E)) G: Financing Requirement After Absorption Review 217 1503 185 150 431 (Meuro)
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 70 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
(ia) Investments are not expected to be covered by market scheme at the moment although PPP could be included as a future potential source of co- financing of EC funded projects. (ib) There is no evidence a feed-in tariff with purchase obligation has been installed yet. The implementation is under discussion at the moment which means it might be in practice within the next 6 years to come. The same goes for other supporting measures: there is no subsidy system for RES installed in Slovak Republic at the moment but initiatives may be expected in the forthcoming years. Seen the uncertainty about a future legislation on RES pricing and governmental initiatives on supporting schemes, it is assumed that market schemes will not cover investment needs in the next few years and that the potential share these market schemes might cover in the further future is not assessable due to a lack of quantified data. (iia) Proxy based on current user charge of 0,47 EUR/m3 (unweighted average of tariff households: 0,34 EUR/m3 and tariff others: 0,60 EUR/m3), an average share of 25% of the user charge that goes to investments and a minimal total drinking water demand (situation 2013: 200 million m3/year) (iib) Current average user charge is 0,37 EUR/m3 (unweighted average of tariff households: 0,22 EUR/m3 and tariff others: 0,51 EUR/m3), an average share of 25% of the user charge that goes to investments (based on share for drinking water) and a minimal total wastewater discharged equal to the minimal total drinking water demand (situation 2013: 200 million m3/year) (iic) Assumed contribution from charges to finance investments in MSW of approx. 20% (iii) Effect of increased user charges on the amount that could be recovered can’t be determined based on the available information. It is not expected to largely influence the financial requirements. (iv) Absorption capacity is based on the expenditures absorbed in the previous investment period and expert judgement related to an expected change in the absorption capacity for the investment period to come.
GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE 71 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 5 above) and the contribution of the different types of investment per field for each criterion. Hence this part creates the possibility, by describing different scenario’s, 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 5 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) in Meuro 205 522 32 3 6 768 Past period funding (2000-2006) in % 27% 68% 4% 0,4% 1% 100%
Total financial need (2007-2013) in Meuro 217 1.503 185 150 431 2.486 Total financial need (2007-2013) in % 9% 60% 7% 6% 17% 100%
This table already indicates 4 major changes from the previous period to the next planning period: • The total need is approx. 3 times larger; • Waste water remains the predominant field; • A higher priority should go to municipal waste management while a lower priority should go to drinking water supply • A substantial financial need is identified for natural risk management.
Version/File Path 72 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.
Version/File Path 73 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 8-6: Multi-Criteria Assessment for Slovak Republic
Impact Score Very good contribution 10 Good contribution 7 Limited contribution 3 Negligble contribution 0 Criteria Field Type of Investment 12345678 Water Supply Reservoirs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drinking water production plant 10 10 3 3 3 0 7 10 Transport (inc leakage) - long 10 10 3 3 3 7 7 0 Transport (inc leakage) - local 10 10 7 3 3 0 7 0 Metering 00000000 Waste Water New STPs 10 7 3 3 3 3 7 3 Renovation / upgrade STPs 10 10 7 7 3 0 7 3 New Sewerage 77333373 Renovation / upgrade sewerage 7 7 3 3 3 3 7 3 Sewage pumping stations 7 7 3 3 0 0 7 3 CSO upgrading 3 7 3 3 0 0 7 3 Sludge treatment 7 7 7 3 0 0 7 3 Sludge disposal 7 7 0 3 0 0 7 3 MSW Waste collection 7 7 7 7 7 0 7 7 Waste sorting 3 3 7 7 7 0 3 7 Recovery 73733037 Disposal - new disposal facilities 10 7 7 3 0 0 7 7 Disposal - remediation of existing disposal facilities 7 10 3 3 3 0 3 3 Renewables Wind 3 7 7 3 3 0 7 7 Hydro (>15 MW) 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 7 Hydro (<15 MW) 3 7 7 7 3 3 7 3 Solid biomass 3 7 7 7 3 3 7 7 Liquid biofuels 3 7 7 3 3 3 7 7 Geothermal 3 7 3 3 3 0 7 3 Solar thermal 00000000 Solar electric (PV) 00000000 Natural hazards Drought 3103337710 Fire 0103337710 Flood 31037310710 Heatwave 00000000 Storm 00000000
Specific remarks: The following types of investments are not an issue for funding in Slovak Republic (and hence are given a zero for all criteria): reservoirs, metering, solar thermal, solar electric, heatwave and storm.
Version/File Path 74 Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
8.3.3 Elaboration of the economic and regional development implications of the identified investment priorities The prevailing approach is that every municipal investor, region etc. can qualify with his project if it proves acceptable CBA. Based on regional venues, investors receive different % of subsidy. In the past, mainly larger cities conducted projects. Now, more regional projects qualify for co-financing, which support also rural and relatively poor areas with limited own funding. This enables the further development of regions and saves funds for other necessary investments. An indicative distribution of the identified investment priorities according to region is presented in chapter 9.3.2. The investment priorities taken as a whole contribute to each of the MCA criteria 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (cf. box A). In order to understand the wider impacts of investment, particular investments that will contribute to the criteria are covered as follows: Criterion 2 The whole country must pay attention to water management as there are no areas without agriculture and industries. This brings possible risks in water and waste sectors. All risky sources are close to intakes with just several hours or at max. days of direct impact. RES are accepted as future necessity but they are expensive and at present majority of inhabitants prefer cheap sources. This asks for education and permanent publicity. People of course appreciate cleaner rivers and clean air by when the environment friendly technologies become too expensive then some of them (rural areas) switch back to unsuitable sources – even brown coal or incineration of wastes (pet bottles) with serious air pollution. Slovak Republic is endangered by floods. As the country is small the regions influence each other. This sector must work according to river basin principle to find real effective measures. Economic and social consequences of flood are very negative. New damages occur every year even if prevention measures are taken.
Criterion 3 It is expected that new projects will bring new know how – in technologies but also in way of thinking and solving problems. Slovak Republic has generally good standard in drinking and waste water sector. Also the flood prediction and prevention is on good level, but still lot of investments must be done to have the system which will protect all inhabited areas and assets on the EU-15 level. RES sector needs technologies and know-how how to use them with good efficiency – both technically and economically. Criterion 4 It is expected that direct employment opportunities through environmental investments are relatively limited in water sector. Waste sector, RES and risk prevention have big potential both in manufacturing, construction and M&O. A better employment status can be reached in general if the environment brings sources for new activities and reduces the negative impact on environment which enables the development of all regions where projects were implemented and will be implemented in future. The present experience is very good. More and more people appreciate a good environment and are attracted to such locations. Criterion 5 Generally all projects bring lots of training and experience to all personnel and staff involved. Modern infrastructure also asks for better M&O practice.
75 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
At present, training is not on good level in Slovak Republic. The whole process of project identification, implementation and operation would need more skill and professionalism. Criterion 6 Slovak Republic is a small country which results in many cross-border impacts. Typical is river pollution as all rivers and streams leave to other countries which monitor the quality, and floods crossing the borders. It seems that different problems do not have the same priorities in border countries.
8.3.4 Scenario’s and priorities It is likely that the total financial need (as given in 8.3.1) will be substantially higher than the available structural funds, necessitating a priority assessment in allocation across the fields. If we were to assume, purely hypothetical, that the available funding would be 2.100 Meuro, then we could divide this amount according to three scenarios: • Scenario 1: The available amount is divided relative to the needs; • Scenario 2. More weight is given to compliance with the Acquis; • Scenario 3: More weight is given to Regional Development. Although much more (intermediate) 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) in % 9% 60% 7% 6% 17% 100% Allocation of available funding (2007-2013) in Meuro 175 1.209 148 121 347 2.000
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
76 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: 3 points
8. promoting more cost-effective programme design and delivery: 2 points
This weighting exercise, using the scores for each type of investment mentioned in Table 7 and the relative financial needs estimate, results in the following:
Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 TOTAL DWS WW MSW RES RISK Total financial need (2007-2013) in % 13% 65% 8% 4% 12% 100% Allocation of available funding (2007-2013) in Meuro 253 1.291 153 72 231 2.000
Scenario 3 This scenario 3 is translated in giving different weighting to each of the 8 criteria mentioned in 8.3.2.
1. securing compliance with the acquis: 10 points
2. avoiding economic and social damages: 15 points
3. encouraging new technology and market development: 15 points
4. generating employment opportunities in line with national and regional employment goals: 15 points
5. providing employment and training opportunities for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups: 10 points
6. promoting cross-border co-operation: 5 points
7. delivering national and regional environmental strategies and plans which are well integrated with wider development strategies and plans: 5 points
8. promoting more cost-effective programme design and delivery: 5 points
This weighting exercise, using the scores for each type of investment mentioned in Table 7 and the relative financial needs estimate, results in the following: Result:
Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 TOTAL DWS WW MSW RES RISK Total financial need (2007-2013) in % 10% 56% 8% 6% 20% 100% Allocation of available funding (2007-2013) in Meuro 205 1.128 159 118 390 2.000
77 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
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 (%) 9% 56% 7% 4% 12% maximum allocation (%) 13% 65% 8% 6% 20% allocation range (%) 9-13 56-66 7-8 4-6 12-20
The following conclusions are proposed: • The % allocation for the next programming period that goes to waste water treatment (56-66%) is slightly lower than in the previous programming period (68%). However, waste water treatment remains the dominant field in need for investments. The potential role of PPPs is assumed to be limited;
• Municipal solid waste only covers 8% of the total investment needs, which is low compared to other Member States. However, compared to the previous programming period the share of allocation to this field doubled. PPP can cover part of the investment needs in the future but for the next 6 years to come it is expected to represent only a small share of the investment needs (0 to 5%).
• Also water supply only covers a small share of the total investment needs: 9-13%. This is substantially lower that in the previous programming period, 27%. User charges are estimated to cover approximately 36% of the total needs indicated for this field;
• In the fields of water supply, waste water and waste, projects are very much “acquis driven” and the type of projects to be funded will be mostly a continuation of the previous funding period with focus on replacement of non-compliant and worn-out infrastructure and in a second place also the extension of infrastructure to smaller settlements and economically less developed regions; with this latter establishing a greater need for capacity building.
• A substantial share of the investment needs is allocated to natural risk management: 12-20%. The high needs on natural risk management is driven by increasing flooding problems in Slovak Republic and the high investment needs to bring back risks to an acceptable level. The proposed investment cost of 1.000 MEUR is assumed as an upper bound while an average assured damage costs of 150 MEUR as a lower bound of the investment needs. The upper bound does not include more cost efficient ‘soft measures’. Seen the high level of investment needs international co-financing is expected. • A minor contribution can go to renewable energy projects with a great potential such as small scale hydropower, solid biomass and wind power in some selected areas. There is however no information regarding the physical needs nor the financial need on this field for the next programming period, nor a clear strategy on the use of market schemes to cover part of the investment needs (for RES) and other possible funding mechanisms. This should first be cleared out.
78 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9 ANNEXES
9.1 Annexes Current situation 9.1.1 Summary data Table water supply Type of investment Physical Indicators Water supply Connection rate to drinking water 84,3%(2003)5 (general issues) supply (%) 84,7% (2004) 3 Unit water supply (lts /inh/day) 109,2 (2003)25 Specific domestic water consumption 101,1 (2004) 3 Total drinking water demand 165,746 2 households (million m³) Total drinking water demand industry 77,449 2 (million m³) Water price (EURO/lt) 0,35 €/m326 (without VAT) Reservoirs (eg to Volume in reservoirs (million m³) total 2005 2 store surface for water supply 163 2 waters and/or Associated period of water reserve cca 55 days groundwater) (days) Drinking water Drinking water production capacity - Water production: 353 million ‘production’ plant by source (million m³/year) m³/year3 - ground/surface (groundwater, surface water, other) Capacity of surface resources: (quality) 33,5 m3/s 5 Capacity of groundwater resources: 28,3 m3/s 5 Abstracted: 298,553 groundwater, 54,651 (2004) surface water 7 Leakage losses: 32,6 %3 % of samples meeting standards hygienic limits: 99,15%3 meeting all limits: 87,84% 3 Water transport - Area / pop of the country self- cca 20 % Distribution of sufficient in drinking water (%) water (includes Connection rate to drinking water 84,3%(2003)5 house supply (% population or households 84,7% (2004) 3 connections) connected to systems) Geographical variation (min % - max Max Bratislava 99,89, min %) Vranov nad Toplou 54,28 5 Continuity of supply (hours/day) 24 hours/day Water loss Water losses (% of volume and 92,0 million m³ 6 minimisation million m³) Monitoring Drinking water sampling points – 99,15 % of satisfactory tests meeting drinking water quality in 2004 3 standards (%) 87,84 % of samples fully satisfactory in all parametres in 2004 3 Metering (eg Households with metering public 100% households) water supply (%) Households with metering own ca 0 % (ground)water supply (%)
25 The annual report on “Water-supply and sewerage systems in Slovak Republic in 2004” 26 Národná správa 2004 o stave implementácie Rámcovej smernice o vodách v Slovenskej republike
79 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1.2 Summary data table waste water
Type of investment Indicators Sewage networks Sewage connection rates (% of 56,3%(2004) 2 and connections population or households (eg households, connected); small industry) Km of sewer networks 7 018 km (2004)2 Trunk sewers / Km of trunk sewers/collectors cca 500 km collectors Treatment plant % of country surface area classified 100 % as sensitive area for the UWWTD27 Share of population or households 97,3 % of water discharged connected to STPs to network 3 Number of agglomerations that have over 2000 PE been defined for the implementation 389 agglom.28 of the UWWTD Number of STP in place that comply in 2002 with the UWWTD standards (y) 102 12 Number of STP in place that are not in 2002 fully compliant (z) 95 12 total number of STPs is 400, for 203 of them detail data is not available, assume the same percentage Total biodegradable capacity of the cca 5,8 mil. above (y + z) plants in PE29 hydraulic design capacity of the 125 – 200 newest plants expressed in l/PE/d Sludge Quantity of sludge produced [tons 53 085 3 management DS/year]; (waste) Type of sludge treatment used digestion, dewatering (dewatering, digestion; drying; other); Disposal or reuse route used 80,1 % agriculture (agriculture; soil; landfill; incineration; 8,9 % landfills 3 other) Storm drains and Design criteria for Combined Sewer critical rain intensity 10 – 25 reservoirs Overflows (CSO) l/s.ha and/or frequency of overflows n° of compliant CSOs not available n° of non-compliant CSOs not available, assumption: majority not compliant
27 Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EC 28 Slovakia Cohesion Fund Strategy for the 2004 - 2006 29 1 PE = 60 gBOD/day
80 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1.3 Summary data table municipal waste
Type of investment Physical Indicators Municipal Waste Total waste generated (mt/year total 15,907 3 (general issues) and kg/year per capita) municipal 1,475 3 294kg/cap.aear 3 in 2004 Waste collection Waste collection Coverage of waste collection 100 equipment (e.g. system - % of population transport vehicles) covered in urban/rural areas Composition of municipal waste household: 58,5 % (%) (incl. % share of packaging) hazardous: 0,1 % (2004) packaging: 28 % of municipal waste 3 approx. household composition: 22 % paper 13 % plastics 9 % glas 3 % hazardous 18 % biological 35 % other Amount of selectively collected 3,2 % of household waste per household (tonnes production per waste stream) Recycling points for Availability of on street facilities yes non-hazardous and more major collection points municipal waste (rural/urban areas) (e.g. paper & cardboard, glass, metals, batteries, textile, construction waste) Recycling / deposit Current amount and capacity of available system for recycling/ controlled deposit of reused 27 % of total 3 hazardous hazardous waste reused 14,2 % of municipal waste municipal waste (e.g. batteries, in 2004 waste oil products, fluorescent lamps) Import/export of Amount (mt) of compliant import 0,0043 mt waste collected import/export of municipal waste export 0,0039 mt 3 (e.g. for recycling) iin 2004 Waste Treatment Sorting facilities Capacity of manual/mechanical not sufficient sorting facilities (tonnes/year) 3 % of municipal sorted 3 Availability of physical-chemical not sufficient equipment for management of hazardous waste Waste recycling Recycling plant Amount (mt) and share of 14,2 % 3 municipal waste recycled (detail packages 0,413 mt if available e.g. packaging) reused 0,344 mt 3 Capacity of recycling facilities not sufficient (t/year) Composting Amount (mt) of biodegradable 0,003 mt municipal waste produced (current + 1995 level) Amount (mt) and share of 2,8 % 3 biodegradable municipal waste composted
81 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Capacity of composting facilities low (t/year) Waste (Final) Incineration plant Number of incineration facilities 2 municipal disposal (for MSW) 18 industrial +hazardous3 Capacity (tonnes/year and not available GJ/year) and activity/availability of incinerators Equipment of plants to achieve only 6 comply with emission ceilings (incl. dioxins emission limits in force and furans) Amount of municipal waste 0,116 mt 3 incinerated with energy recovery Landfill sites Number of sanitary landfills total 1543: (Municipal) – 15 hazardous general and 120 non-hazardous hazardous 19 inert Number of non compliant complient with 99/31/EC landfills % of recyclable/reusable waste not available that is landfilled Number of (illegal) waste dumps not available in use/not in use Closed waste dumps (to be) not available recultivated Municipal waste landfilled 1,084 mt 3 (mt/year)
municipal waste landfilled cca dtto without treatment (mt/year) biodegradable municipal waste not available landfilled (mt/year) Hazardous waste (mt/year) 1,021 3 in 2004 Collection of leachate and leachate yes, biogas biogas sometimes
82 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1.4 Summary data table renewable energy
Type of investment Physical Indicators Wind No. of wind turbines not available capacity of wind turbines (MW) and % over close to 0 % total energy production Output of wind turbines (MWh) and % over close to 0 % total energy production Areas and energy potential (E.g. wind speeds very limited, above 5m/s) only outside national parks, potential only 1,6 % of renewable energy Biomass MWh/ GJ/ ToE produced and % total present potential approx. 9 700 GWh 5 electricity : 153 GWh 5 heat: 6 900 GWh 5 suitable assessment of potential based on land big potential, area and suitable crops. cca 44 % of renewable energy Solar thermal GJ capacity installed (MW) and % produced 25 GWh 5 m2 installed 50000 5 PV Capacity installed(MW) and % close to 0 % GWh produced and % 0,001 5 m2 installed not available number of homes/roofs not available Hydro Capacity (MW) and % 2 507,5 MW 29,6 % 3 Energy production (MWh) and % 3 582 000 MWh in 2003 3 sites; not found distinction among sizes – to see progression to mainly large small/large hydro; percent of available capacity exploited not found Geothermal Capacity (MW) and % 131 MW 5 Energy production (MWh) and % Electricity: 320 MWh 5 heat: 55000 MWh 5 Sites exploited 36
83 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1.5 Summary data table natural risk management
Type of investment Physical Indicators Flooding Natural protection - flood At risk population not available plains/zones etc Total areas (ha) of flood plains – Q100 2 recently flooded area 398 800 ha Flood barriers – Total km of flood barriers (km) 3 074 2 constructed (dykes) in 2004 Other types of action None – too diverse (expenditure different (water retention areas, only) managed coastal realignment, etc) Forest/ land fire Fire fighting equipment; At risk population in 2004 total 155 Forest management; fires, no dead 3 Training; Water area and assets at risk availability minimum Drought Water availability – At risk population and assets 0 reservoirs and other infrastructure; new Water use per head of population 0 connections?; Improved irrigation techniques; Water minimisation (eg households)
84 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.1.6 Overview environmental expenditures Overview of international financing 2000 - 2006
Table 9-1: Structural assistance for environmental investment 2000 2000 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Project Remark see separate table Depa Dancee, Denmark
Dangerous waste 21,8 mil program SKK 0,55 mil EUR
Table 9-2: Structural assistance for environmental investment 2001 -2004 2000 see Project 2001 2002 2003 2004 Remark separate table PHARE Twinning (for details see annexes)
National programme 16,83 mil PHARE 2001 SKK 0,42 mil EUR National programme 150,71 mil PHARE 2002 SKK 3,75 mil EUR PHARE-unallocated 13,62 mil institutional building SKK facility 2002 0,34 mil EUR National programme 104,12 mil PHARE 2003 SKK 2,6 mil EUR PHARE 2001-2003 – 285,28 mil SKK total 7,11 mil EUR Transition Facility 2004- 64,07 mil 2006 SKK 1,60 mil EUR Transition Facility total 64,07 mil SKK 1,60 mil EUR The 5th programme EC
2,37 mil SKK 0,036 mil EUR 3,51 mil SKK 0,088 mil EUR 0,68 mil SKK 0,017 mil
85 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
2000 see Project 2001 2002 2003 2004 Remark separate table EUR 1,56 mil SKK 0,039 mil EUR The 5th programme EC 7,55 mil SKK - total 0,177 mil EUR The 6th programme EC
0,63 mil SKK 0,016 mil EUR 1,78 mil SKK 0,044 mil EUR 1,04 mil SKK 0,026 mil EUR 2,48 mil SKK 0,064 mil EUR The 6th programme EC 5,93 mil SKK - total 0,15 mil EUR ISPA
Right bank STP Trenčín 169,02 mil SKK 4,23 mil EUR Extension of STP for 220,5 mil Nitra agglomeration SKK 5,18 mil EUR Sewerage and STP 968,5 mil Banská Bystrica SKK 22,73 mil EUR ISPA – approved in 1 358,02 mil SKK 2000 – total 31,88 mil EUR Sewerage Komárno 171,3 mil SKK 4,02 mil EUR Reconstruction and 224,2 mil extension of STP Zvolen SKK 5,48 mil mil EUR Sewerage and STP 260,9 mil Martin SKK 6,02 mil EUR ISPA – approved in 656,4 mil SKK 2001 – total 15,52 mil EUR Water supply and 705,7 mil
86 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
2000 see Project 2001 2002 2003 2004 Remark separate table sewerage Zemplín SKK 16,53 mil EUR Environment 224,6 mil improvement of Liptov SKK region 5,26 mil EUR STP and sewerage 262,6 mil system in Povážská SKK Bystrica 6,15 mil EUR Intensification of STP 418,6 mil Žilina and extension of SKK sewerage system 9,8 mil EUR Water supply for Veľký 836,7 mil Krtíš district SKK 19,6 mil EUR Support for regional 221,6 mil water companies SKK 5,19 mil EUR Support for priority flood 33,7 mil protection measures SKK 0,79 mil EUR ISPA – approved in 2 703,5 mil SKK 2002 – total 57,32 mil EUR Upgrading of heating 373,5 mil plant in Žilina SKK 9,0 mil EUR Košice – sewerage 402,5 mil system and STP SKK 9,69 mil EUR Sewerage system and 592,7 mil STP Šaľa and region SKK 14,39 mil EUR Sewerage system and 330,9 mil STP Humenné and SKK Horný Zemplín region 7,97 mil EUR STP and sewerage 423 mil system for Trnava SKK region 10,2 mil EUR Piešťany – sewerage 267,1 mil system and STP SKK reconstruction 6,4 mil EUR STP Poprad – 546,3 mil Matejovce SKK 13,16 mil EUR Technical support for 207,3 mil
87 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
2000 see Project 2001 2002 2003 2004 Remark separate table project preparation for SKK water sector 4,99 mil EUR Technical support for 25,5 mil Ministry if Environment SKK 0,62 mil EUR ISPA – approved in 3 168,8 mil SKK 2003 – total 76,42 mil EUR ISPA – TOTAL 7 886,72 mil SKK 181,14 mil EUR Cohesion Fund
Water supply and 1 782,32 sewerage for Horné mil SKK Kysuce region 43,47 mil EUR Vranov – drinking water 1 394,85 and sewerage along mil SKK river Toplá 34,02 mil EUR Sewerage, STP and 784,18 mil water supply – SKK agglomeration Galanta 19,13 mil EUR Sewerage, STP and 630,29 mil water supply – SKK agglomeration Šamorín 15,37 mil EUR Prešov – drinking water 1 663,23 and sewerage along mil SKK river Torysa 40,57 mil EUR Cohesion Fund – 6 254,87 mil SKK approved in 2004 – total 152,56 mil EUR ERDF brooks revitalisation 266,43 mil infrastructure SKK landfills 6,68 mil flood protection EUR sewerages pumping stations river traqining ERDF – approved in 266,43 mil SKK 2004 – total 6,68 mil EUR Community program LIFE III
Eagle protection 41,63 mil forest protection SKK water regime 1,04 mil EUR biodiversity program 12,81 mil SKK 0,32 mil EUR LIFE – nature – total 54,43 mil SKK 1,36 mil EUR
88 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
2000 see Project 2001 2002 2003 2004 Remark separate table Bio-mass energy 40,53 mil program SKK 1,01 mil EUR Climatic changes 18,12 mil prevention, waste SKK reduction programme 0,45 mil EUR LIFE – environment – 58,3 mil SKK total 1,38 mil EUR LIFE – total 112,73 mil SKK 2,74 mil EUR
Table 9-3: Structural assistance for environmental investment 2004 -2006 Structural assistance (2000-2006), in millions of EUR, at constant prices, state price base) Objective Objective Objective Interreg Urban Equal Leader+ Fisheries Cohesion 1 2 3 fund 1 764 121 103 56 32 2 576 Input: Indicative Financial Table for the CSF - by priority and year 2004- 2006
89 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Overview national financing
Table 9-4: Environmental investments of government departments of SR from state budget in 2000 (thous. SKK) Department Total MŽP SR (MoE SR) 1 029 037 Ministry of Environment of SR MP SR (MoA SR) 60 000 Ministry of Agriculture of SR MS SR (MoJ SR) 16 800 Ministry of Justice of SR MPSVaR (MoLSAF SR) 0 Ministry of Labour, Socialů Affairs and Family of SR MO SR (MoD SR) 195 619 Ministry of Defence of SR MK SR (MoC SR) 6 460 Ministry of Culture of SR MZ SR (MoH SR) 230 685 Ministry of Health of SR MH SR (MoEC SR) 5 700 Ministry of Economy of SR MV SR (MoI SR) 41 236 Ministry of Interior of SR MŠ SR (MoED SR) 0 Ministry of Education of SR) MDPaT SR (MoTPT SR) 1 500 Ministry of Transport, Posts and Telecommunications of SR MF SR (MoF SR) 1 500 Ministry of Finance of SR TOTAL 1 588 537 thous.SKK 39 714 thous. EUR
90 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 9-5: Environmental investments of government departments of Slovak Republic from state budget in 2001 (thous. SKK)
Department STP Other WM Waste Air Others Total sewerage actions managem protection ent MŽP SR (MoE SR) 601 719 168 369 123 602 104 735 179 414 1 177 839 Ministry of Environment of SR MP SR (MoA SR) 298 691 1 094 003 0 0 0 1 392 694 Ministry of Agriculture of SR MS SR (MoJ SR) 50 1 750 0 35 034 0 36 834 Ministry of Justice of SR MPSVaR (MoLSAF SR) 3 447 0 0 0 0 3 447 Ministry of Labour, Socialů Affairs and Family of SR MO SR (MoD SR) 1 675 12 949 32 792 16 482 70 998 134 896 Ministry of Defence of SR MK SR (MoC SR) 0 146 0 0 30 405 30 551 Ministry of Culture of SR MZ SR (MoH SR) 31 186 0 41 143 145 519 0 217 848 Ministry of Health of SR MH SR (MoEC SR) 0 0 9 885 0 0 9 885 Ministry of Economy of SR MV SR (MoI SR) 2 487 1 165 0 20 652 0 24 304 Ministry of Interior of SR MŠ SR (MoED SR) 517 0 0 15 710 3 410 19 637 Ministry of Education of SR) MDPaT SR (MoTPT SR) 53 780 7 805 0 16 864 9 200 87 649 Ministry of Transport, Posts and Telecommunications of SR MF SR (MoF SR) 2 691 0 0 9 394 6 597 18 682 Ministry of Finance of SR TOTAL 996 243 1 286 187 207 422 364 390 300 024 3 154 266 thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK 24 906 32 155 5 186 9 110 7 501 78 857 thous. thous. thous. thous. thous. thous. EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR
91 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 9-6: Environmental investments of government departments of SR from state budget in 2002 (thous. SKK)
Department STP Other WM Waste Air Others Total sewerage actions managem protection ent MŽP SR (MoE SR) 847 012 186 504 65 060 117 660 248 072 1 464 308 Ministry of Environment of SR MP SR (MoA SR) 156 194 952 471 0 0 0 1 108 665 Ministry of Agriculture of SR MS SR (MoJ SR) 13 440 1 755 0 17 297 0 32 492 Ministry of Justice of SR MPSVaR (MoLSAF SR) 550 0 0 0 0 550 Ministry of Labour, Socialů Affairs and Family of SR MO SR (MoD SR) 19 542 14 967 18 626 46 736 14 261 114 132 Ministry of Defence of SR MK SR (MoC SR) 0 0 0 8 819 0 8 819 Ministry of Culture of SR MZ SR (MoH SR) 57 153 0 27 581 74 668 0 159 402 Ministry of Health of SR MH SR (MoEC SR) 0 0 8 300 0 410 171 418 471 Ministry of Economy of SR MV SR (MoI SR) 9 297 338 0 12 516 0 22 151 Ministry of Interior of SR MŠ SR (MoED SR) 0 0 0 27 128 0 27 128 Ministry of Education of SR) MDPaT SR (MoTPT SR) 223 973 11 363 80 252 218 105 659 593 293 Ministry of Transport, Posts and Telecommunications of SR MF SR (MoF SR) 7 343 2 802 0 0 0 10 145 Ministry of Finance of SR MVRR SR (MoCRD SR) 143 890 0 0 0 0 143 890 Ministry of Construction and Regional Development of SR TOTAL 1 478 394 1 170 200 119 647 557 042 778 163 4 103 446 thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK 36 960 29 255 2 991 13 926 19 454 102 586 thous. thous. thous. thous. thous. thous. EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR
92 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 9-7: Environmental investments of government departments of SR from state budget in 2003 (thous. SKK) Department STP Other WM Waste Air Others Total sewerage actions managem protection ent MŽP SR (MoE SR) 652 370 138 900 159 380 34 766 149 312 1 134 728 Ministry of Environment of SR MP SR (MoA SR) 12 216 0 0 0 25 000 37 216 Ministry of Agriculture of SR MS SR (MoJ SR) 9 361 154 0 12 637 0 22 152 Ministry of Justice of SR MPSVaR (MoLSAF SR) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ministry of Labour, Socialů Affairs and Family of SR MO SR (MoD SR) 17 430 675 77 881 54 354 34 028 184 368 Ministry of Defence of SR MK SR (MoC SR) 0 0 0 4 762 0 4 762 Ministry of Culture of SR MZ SR (MoH SR) 0 24 334 0 23 375 0 47 709 Ministry of Health of SR MH SR (MoEC SR) 0 0 10 000 0 148 900 158 900 Ministry of Economy of SR MV SR (MoI SR) 3 229 107 0 39 217 0 42 553 Ministry of Interior of SR MŠ SR (MoED SR) 0 0 0 35 565 0 35 565 Ministry of Education of SR) MDPaT SR (MoTPT SR) 269 081 50 456 0 0 33 381 352 918 Ministry of Transport, Posts and Telecommunications of SR MF SR (MoF SR) 6 869 448 4 369 9 258 0 20 944 Ministry of Finance of SR MZV SR (MoFA SR) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of SR MVRR SR (MoCRD SR) 41 488 0 0 0 135 203 176 691 Ministry of Construction and Regional Development of SR TOTAL 1 012 044 215 074 251 630 213 934 525 824 2 218 506 thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK 25 301 5 377 6 291 5 348 13 146 55 463 thous. thous. thous. thous. thous. thous. EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR
93 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Table 9-8: Environmental investments of government departments of SR from state budget in 2004 (thous. SKK)
Department STP Other WM Waste Air Others Total sewerage actions managem protection ent MŽP SR (MoE SR) 420 700 191 550 69 881 36 069 27 988 746 188 Ministry of Environment of SR MP SR (MoA SR) 0 26 038 0 0 0 26 038 Ministry of Agriculture of SR MS SR (MoJ SR) 7 215 1 771 0 11 535 0 20 521 Ministry of Justice of SR MPSVaR (MoLSAF SR) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ministry of Labour, Socialů Affairs and Family of SR MO SR (MoD SR) 0 0 0 60 761 68 117 128 878 Ministry of Defence of SR MK SR (MoC SR) 0 0 0 0 15 161 15 161 Ministry of Culture of SR MZ SR (MoH SR) 0 0 8 960 373 0 9 333 Ministry of Health of SR MH SR (MoEC SR) 0 0 10 000 0 133 200 143 200 Ministry of Economy of SR MV SR (MoI SR) 905 2 369 0 54 455 24 57 753 Ministry of Interior of SR MŠ SR (MoED SR) 3 760 530 92 29 339 6 575 40 296 Ministry of Education of SR) MDPaT SR (MoTPT SR) 295 542 62 007 8 994 0 60 581 427 124 Ministry of Transport, Posts and Telecommunications of SR MF SR (MoF SR) 20 38 0 3 172 18 984 22 214 Ministry of Finance of SR MZV SR (MoFA SR) 1 033 0 0 8 203 1 017 10 253 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of SR MVRR SR (MoCRD SR) 237 793 0 0 0 0 237 793 Ministry of Construction and Regional Development of SR TOTAL 966 968 284 303 97 927 203 907 331 647 1 884 752 thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK thous. SKK 24 174 7 108 2 448 5 098 8 291 47 119 thous. thous. thous. thous. thous. thous. EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR
94 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.2 Annexes Needs assessment 9.2.1 Unit Investment & Operating Costs Water Supply Slovakian unit investment costs are presented and compared with the default unit costs in the table below.
Type of investment Indicators Investment cost
Slovak Unit Costs Default Unit Costs
Range Average Average value value
Reservoirs (to store Cost per volume needed in 1.500.000 surface water reservoirs (Euro per million m³)
Drinking water Cost to provide drinking water 1.100.000 production quality from surface water (Euro per production plant)
Cost for the treatment of 50.000 groundwater to drinking water quality (Euro per million m³)
Transport and Cost for the installation of a long 350.000 - 450.000 300.000 connection distance drinking water network 600.000 (Euro per km)
Cost for the installation of a 200.000- 250.000 200.000 local drinking water network 400.000 (*) (Euro per km)
Cost of a house connection 200.000- 300.000 1.500 (Euro per connection) 500.000
Monitoring & metering Cost for monitoring (Euro per 5.000 monitoring point)
Cost for house metering Included Included 2.500
(*): Remark: Price depends on composition of the costs – if we summarized together costs for lands (if applicable), costs for traffic restrictions during building process (especially in bigger cities this costs are very high), costs for planning, engineering and building this can be these numbers. Real practise for past years is, that average price is about 150-175t. EUR, but it caused some very unwanted effects (new pipe systems need to be reconstruct only few years after building due to low prices and comparative low quality of building process)
In general, the presented Slovak unit costs may be assumed as high. For different investment types they even exceed the default unit costs which are based on Belgian unit costs.
95 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.2.2 Unit Investment & Operating Costs Waste Water Slovakian unit investment and operating costs and the default unit costs are presented in the table below. For some of the investment types, there are large differences between the default unit costs (based on Belgian unit costs) and the Slovakian unit costs.
Operating and maintenance Investment cost Type of cost Indicators investment Average SK Average Average SK Range SK Range (SK) value default value value
New STP with a not applicable not applicable 780 not applicable not applicable capacity Cost per between 2,000- PE [Euro 10,000 PE for per PE]30 non-sensitive areas
New STP with a not applicable not applicable 165 not applicable not applicable capacity Cost per between 10.000- PE [Euro 100.000 PE for per PE] non-sensitive areas
New STP with a not applicable not applicable 160 not applicable not applicable capacity above Cost per 100.000 PE for PE [Euro non-sensitive per PE] areas
New STP with a 320 - 480 400 780 16 - 24 20 capacity Cost per between 2,000- PE [Euro 10,000 PE for per PE] sensitive areas
New STP with a 200 – 300 250 165 10 – 15 12,50 capacity Cost per between 10.000- PE [Euro 100.000 PE for per PE] sensitive areas
160 – 200 180 160 8 – 10 9 New STP with a Cost per capacity above PE [Euro 100.000 PE for per PE] sensitive areas
Cost per 600.000 – 700.000 345.000 3.000 – 3.200 Collector / trunk km. [Euro sewer 31 760.000 3.800 per km]
80.000 – 90.000 200.000 2.400 – 2.500 Sewage Cost per pumping station unit 100.000 3 000
30 Inclusive of all associated costs, such as access road, fence, service buildings (if needed), utilities supply, etc. 31 For a gravitational concrete pipe with a diameter of 80 cm.at 3 m depth, inclusive of manholes, road repair over 50% of the length, house connections (200 per km.), street gully connections (40 per km)
96 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Operating and maintenance Investment cost Type of cost Indicators investment Average SK Average Average SK Range SK Range (SK) value default value value
[Euro]32
Cost per 50.000 – 60.000 24.000 500 – 700 550 CSO unit 33 70.000 [Euro]
Cost per Sludge PE [Euro involved in plant cost treatment per PE]
Cost per Sludge disposal PE [Euro involved in plant cost or re-use per PE]
32 For a flow of 100 l/s, head of 15 m, entering collector at a depth of 4 m. 33 For an overflow discharge of 1000 l/s.
97 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.2.3 Unit Investment Costs Municipal Solid Waste No Slovak unit investment costs have been provided. In table below, default unit costs are presented.
Type of Indicators INVESTMENT COST - Default Unit investment Costs Range Average value
Average cost for waste collection Waste service34 per inhabitant (in €) 37€ - 39€ 38 € collection facilities Unit cost of an average sized waste transfer station35 for transport of 998.220 € collected waste (€/transfer station)
Unit cost of an average sized Partly included in Waste sorting manual/mechanical sorting facility average cost for facilities (€/sorting facility) waste collection
- Unit cost per volume of waste to be sorted by means of manual/mechanical sorting facilities (€/tonne)
Recovery Unit cost for an average sized36 facilities recycling yard (€ per yard as part of the 294.600 € RWMCs)
Unit cost per volume of waste to be 0,6 € recycled (€/tonne)
Unit cost for an average composting 1.987.550 € plant37 as part of a RWMC (€/plant)
Unit cost per tonne organic waste to be 166 € composted (€/tonne)
Disposal Unit cost for an average incineration 100.000.000 € facilities plant for MSW (€/incineration plant)
34 Unit cost collection service includes: • curbside collection : vehicles, bins, containers, trucks and equipment for separate collection, … • municipal bring-in sites: site clearing and preparation, containers, … 35 Unit cost transfer station includes: transfer and service vehicles, transfer station and maintenance tools, containers,… 36 Approximately for 50.000 people. Unit cost includes: land acquisition, clearing and preparation (pavement), fencing, petrol and oil separation, containers,…. 37 Average size: assume ca; 12.000 tonnes/year. Unit cost for a simple windrow composting plant include: land acquisition and preparation (pavement), storage area for compost (shelter), windrow area preparation, equipment (crusher, windrow turnover machine, laboratory equipment, sieves), … Note: Make distinction with unit cost for biogas plants if necessary.
98 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Type of Indicators INVESTMENT COST - Default Unit investment Costs Range Average value
Unit cost per volume of waste to be 40€ - 80€ 60 € incinerated (€/tonne)
Average unit cost for upgrade (€ per - average combination of techniques38)
Unit cost per average new sanitary landfill 39 (incl. storage for small 8.216.900 € hazardous waste) (EUR/landfill)
Unit cost per volume waste to be landfilled (EUR/tonne) 8,2€ - 16,0€ 12,1 €
Upgrading dumpsite/landfill to be 1.041.400 € compliant
Unit cost for a remediation40 of an 635.564 € average sized landfill (€/landfill)
38 Equipment : e.g. filters, monitoring, adaptations to incineration process 39 Unit cost of average new sanitary landfill includes: land acquisition, clearance and earth works, access road, receiving area incl. weighbridge, landfill liner and drainage layer, leachate and gas collection facilities, monitoring wells, fencing, landfill rolling stock and equipment (bulldozers, containers, excavators, compactors etc.), power and water supply, final cover per section of landfill, reception and storage of small hazardous waste components to be treaded elsewhere (il, batteries, pesticides etc), … 40 Unit price composition : see remediation techniques in table 4B
99 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.2.4 Unit Investment Costs Renewable Energy Sources
Investment costs:
• Wind turbines: 750-2.000 EUR/kW
• Hydro-power:
o small: 1.500-5.000 EUR/kW
o big (> 5MW): 2.500-5.000 EUR/kW
• Biomass heating system: 750-2.500 EUR/kW (cheaper is adaptation of existing coal heating system – aprox. 3-4 times) • Geothermal: 300-800 EUR/kW
100 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.3 Annexes Priority assessment 9.3.1 Criteria for Scoring the Potential Impact of Different Types of Investment – Default Assessments The following assessment is provided by the core team as an initial and generic overview of the main types of investment and the ways in which they contribute to each of the different criteria. The assessment is based on a consideration of the contribution that a fixed sum (say 1 Meuro) would make to each criteria, ranking the contribution from very strong (10 points), strong (7 points), limited (3 points), to negligible (0 points). National evaluators are asked to review this and to revise the scoring and argumentation to reflect the national conditions and circumstances. In some cases it may be difficult to judge in the absence of available information – in which case, please indicate where the default value is taken because there is no national data.
101 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
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 10 The parametric values set in the Directive on Drinking Water plant Quality are to be complied with at the point where it emerges from the tap. Transport & leakage long 10 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 view as well as from an economical point of view plant 7
Transport & leakage long distance 7
Transport & leakage local 7
Metering 3 Less important
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 3 local development plant
Transport & leakage long 3 distance
Transport & leakage local 7
Metering 7
102 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
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 3 proportionate with criterion 2. Anyhow the effect is rather plant limited, since most water companies are overstaffed and can take on extra work without additional staff. The projects will generate work in the construction sector. Transport & leakage long 3 distance
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 3 and no distinction can be made among investment types plant
Transport & leakage long 3 distance
Transport & leakage local 3
Metering 3
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 0 Promotion effect negligible plant
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
103 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)
Reservoirs 7 Provision of sufficient drinking water is well anchored in the Water Framework Directive. E.g. economic considerations Drinking water production 7 (sustainable water use) are considered; improvement of plant 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 7 Some possibilities for PPP’s, as well for construction, plant operation as for maintenance of production plants and network. On the other hand often still seen as a governmental Transport & leakage long 7 task (base provision, social charges, etc.); distance
Transport & leakage local 7
Metering 10 Typical service to be provided by private companies, controlled by public authority
104 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 3 Not really a compliance requirement. Rather a way of sewerage 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 7 sewerage
Sewage pumping stations 7
CSO upgrading 7
Sludge treatment 7
Sludge disposal 7
105 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 3 sewerage
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 3 sewerage
Sewage pumping stations 3
CSO upgrading 3
Sludge treatment 3
Sludge disposal 3
106 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 3 sewerage
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 3 sewerage
Sewage pumping stations 0
CSO upgrading 0
Sludge treatment 0
Sludge disposal 0
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
107 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Renovation / upgrade 7 sewerage
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 3 investor. sewerage
Sewage pumping stations 3
CSO upgrading 3
Sludge treatment 3
Sludge disposal 3
108 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 7 Meeting requirements as laid down in Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) existing 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 Improved environmental quality (quality drinking water sources, 10 existing disposal facilities reduced air emission, soil contamination)
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
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 3 Limited to new monitoring, control and remediation techniques existing 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 3 Directly: Little impacts on local employment opportunities, employment existing disposal facilities opportunities in environmental sector specialised in remediation techniques (national level)
110 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 3 Training opportunities: Monitoring activities existing 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 No Cross-border co-operation promotion 0 existing 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 3 Little integration with wider development strategies and plans existing disposal facilities
111 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
112 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
Renewable Energy:
Contribution of investment to:
• securing compliance with the acquis (e.g. because of replacement of non-compliant treatment plant)
Wind 3 All renewable energy sources will assist countries in achieving aspects of the acquis such as the RES directive and the biomass Hydro (>15 MW) 3 action plan. The degree to which they are of assistance will Hydro (<15 MW) 3 depend on site-specific factors. Solid biomass 3 Liquid biofuels 3 Geothermal 3 Solar thermal 3 Solar electric (PV) 3 Other (specify) -
• avoiding economic and social damages (e.g. because of reduced natural risks of flooding, fire or because of improved environmental quality)
Wind 7 All renewable energy sources contribute to the important goal of avoiding global warming, which would have economic and social Hydro (>15 MW) 3 impacts. Larger hydro projects are more problematic, however, Hydro (<15 MW) 7 given their potential for impacting the landscape. Solid biomass 7 Liquid biofuels 7 Geothermal 7 Solar thermal 7 Solar electric (PV) 7 Other (specify) -
113 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
• encouraging new technology and market development (e.g. priming the development of local PV or passive solar market) with the potential to replace imports or generate exports
Wind 7 Wind is an important emerging market Hydro (>15 MW) 3 This is a more developed technology than others Hydro (<15 MW) 7 Solid biomass 7 Biomass and biofuels can replace imported solid and liquid fossil fuels and are among the sources slated for the greatest growth in 7 Liquid biofuels Europe Geothermal 3 Geothermal is largely a special case Solar thermal 7 10 PV is the technology with perhaps the biggest gap between Solar electric (PV) current use and future potential Other (specify) -
• generating employment opportunities in line with national and regional employment goals (e.g. for employment in lagging regions, or in particular cities or in rural areas - because of improvements in environmental quality in particular areas or because of the location of utilities and construction firms) Wind 3 Employment impacts are very hard to quantify. These results are based on a study by U. Bremen in Germany – note that while Hydro (>15 MW) 3 solar provides jobs for installers, for example, the amount Hydro (<15 MW) 7 installed for a given amount of investment is so low that the impacts are negligible in comparison to other sources. Solid biomass 7 Liquid biofuels 3 Geothermal 3 Solar thermal 0 Solar electric (PV) 0 Other (specify) -
114 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
• providing employment and training opportunities for low skilled workers or ‘hard to reach’ groups (e.g. ethnic minorities, women, older workers)
Wind 3 There is no reason to expect RES to provide opportunities to these workers in particular; all of them have a rural element that Hydro (>15 MW) 3 can be useful – whether in terms of agriculture for biomass, or Hydro (<15 MW) 3 siting of wind mills. Solid biomass 3 Liquid biofuels 3 Geothermal 3 Solar thermal 3 Solar electric (PV) 3 Other (specify) -
• promoting cross-border co-operation (e.g. management of cross-border flooding) Wind 0 Hydro (>15 MW) 7 Hydro projects may have an element of cooperation, given impacts on water flows, etc., with larger project more likely Hydro (<15 MW) 3 Solid biomass 3 Sourcing biomass and biofuels may involve a range around a facility that crosses borders Liquid biofuels 3 Geothermal 0 Solar thermal 0 Solar electric (PV) 0 Other (specify) -
115 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
• delivering national and regional environmental strategies and plans which are well integrated with wider development strategies and plans (e.g. where environmental priorities are well linked to economic or social objectives) Wind 7 Renewable energy projects link well with efforts to diversify energy supply, create new market for agricultural products, Hydro (>15 MW) 3 etc. Large hydro has potential downsides for communities. Hydro (<15 MW) 7 Solid biomass 7 Liquid biofuels 7 Geothermal 7 Solar thermal 7 Solar electric (PV) 7 Other (specify) -
• promoting more cost-effective programme design and delivery (e.g. encouraging the use of public-private partnerships, or more effective procurement)
Wind 7 Wind is a cost effective source of RES Hydro (>15 MW) 7 Large hydro is generally cost effective Hydro (<15 MW) 3 Solid biomass 7 Biomass and biofuels are among the less expensive source of RES Liquid biofuels 7 Geothermal 3 Solar thermal 3 Solar electric (PV) 3 Other (specify) -
116 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
9.3.2 Indicative distribution of the identified investment priorities according to region Share (%) of investment by regions in Slovak Republic:
REGION WS WWT MSW RES NRM
01 Bratislavsky 6 6,4 9 6,5 5,7
02 Zapadoslovensky 23,7 25,7 27 25,3 28
03 Stredoslovensky 31,9 34,6 29 27,2 30
04 Vychodoslovensky 38,4 33,3 35 41 36,3
All Regions 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
117 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE
Strategic Evaluation of Environment and Risk Prevention – Priority Assessment
10 REFERENCE LIST
10.1 Literature, databases and websites consulted • European Environment Agency, 2005. The European environment — State and outlook 2005. Copenhagen, ISBN 92-9167-776-0 • Ministry of Economy, Energy policy • Ministry of the Environment (2005): “Report on the Environment in the Slovak Republic in 2004” • Národná správa 2004 o stave implementácie Rámcovej smernice o vodách v Slovenskej republike • Slovak Environmental agency, Environment in Slovak republic in period 1993- 2003 • Slovakia Cohesion Fund Strategy for the 2004 – 2006 • Slovakia Cohesion Fund Strategy for the 2004-2006 (December 2003) • Statistical office of the Slovak Republic • The annual report on “Water-supply and sewerage systems in Slovak Republic in 2004” • Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EC
10.2 Interviews • Assoc. Prof. Oskar Cermak
• Assoc. Prof. Dusan Rusnak
• Prof. Jozef Kamensky
• Ing. Zelmira Harvankova
• Ing. Peter Brtko
119 GHK, ECOLAS, IEEP, CE