i

Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Interventions 2000-2006 Financed by the Cohesion Fund (including former ISPA)

Work Package A:

Contribution to EU transport and environment policies

Task 6: Contribution to achieving the environmental acquis

Contract No: 2009CE16CAT050 EU and Countries Final Report October 2011

ii

A note about this report:

As part of the Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Interventions 2000-2006, financed by the Cohesion Fund (including former ISPA) undertaken by RGL Forensics, AECOM and Imperial College on behalf of the European Commission, this report prepared by the Imperial College team, presents the assessment of the contribution of the Cohesion Fund and ISPA to achieving the acquis communautaire in the field of environment at an EU country level.

The work presented aimed to be a systematic assessment of the value of the contribution of Cohesion Policy Interventions. The value of this contribution was put in the context of each county‟s needs in terms of meeting European legislation in three sectors: drinking water provision, wastewater management and solid waste collection and treatment and disposal.

The report involved systematic acquisition and assessment of information to provide useful feedback about cohesion policy interventions in the future. It has aimed to provide “useful feedback” rather just “critical evaluation”. Its objective has been to inform decision-making and policy formulation in the future through the provision of empirically-driven feedback.

This report has been prepared in consultation with the European Commission in terms of its content and format.

Views expressed herein are those of the authors and not the official position of the European Commission.

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GLOSSARY

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. METHODOLOGY 3

3. ACQUIS COMMUNAUTAIRE IN THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENT 7

4. DATA SOURCES USED 9

5. COUNTRIES’ OVERVIEW 11

6. EU OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS 22

7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34

APPENDIX A: COUNTRIES’ REPORTS 35

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the assessment of the contribution of the Cohesion Fund and ISPA to

achieving the acquis communautaire in the field of environment. It forms part of the Ex Post

Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Interventions 2000-2006, financed by the Cohesion Fund

(including former ISPA).

In total, seventeen countries were eligible for either Cohesion or ISPA funding during this

period, although not all of the pre-accession countries were funded for the whole period as is

made clear in individual country reports. As of the end of 1999, four countries: Greece, Spain,

Ireland and Portugal met the condition for Cohesion funding of being a Member State with a

per capita gross national product of less than 90% of the Community average and with a

programme leading to the fulfilment of conditions of economic convergence as described in

Article 104c of the Treaty. In total, €m 15,307.54 of estimated funds were allocated to projects

from 2000-2006.

Using the information collected in earlier tasks, the report focused on evaluating the extent to

which the 758 projects financed by the funds helped the seventeen beneficiary countries to

meet European Directives. The assessment was limited to the fields of water quality and

management (including wastewater treatment), and solid waste collection and treatment.

Other factors such as air pollution were not included. For this assessment, three sectors:

drinking water, wastewater and solid waste were examined, and all funded projects with a

provision in any of these sectors were included in the assessment.

Countries‟ needs, defined as the extent to which the Member States beneficiaries failed to

meet European environmental legislation in each of the three sectors, and the non Member

States beneficiaries would have not been able to meet it, were assessed by assembling data

from the year 2000 (as a baseline, before expenditure), utilising Eurostat data and data

provided by the European Environment Agency. Through the agglomeration of all projects

funded by the Cohesion Fund and ISPA in each country for each sector, the combined

provision was calculated per sector. These were then compared with the countries‟ needs to

assess the contribution of the funds per sector in each county.

The contribution of the Cohesion Fund and ISPA to the European environmental acquis was

also evaluated and discussed at the European level, to improve the effectiveness of Cohesion

Policy Interventions in the future.

The analysis demonstrated that the Cohesion fund and ISPA provided a significant

contribution to countries‟ needs and compliance with the environmental acquis. New assets,

or extensions or upgrades of infrastructure in water provision, sanitation services and solid

waste management, as required by countries to meet the EU Directives, were provided. In the

drinking water sector, projects financed delivered assets to primarily ensure adequate

supplies of drinking water to consumers in conformity with the Drinking Water Directive

98/83/EEC. In the wastewater sector, and with regards to the Urban Waste Water Treatment

v

Directive 91/271/EEC (UWWTD), investments in new infrastructure or upgrading of existing

infrastructure were a significant part of the contribution. In the solid waste sector, contribution

delivered waste infrastructure either as waste disposal facilities such as landfills or

incinerators, or as other measures and targets concerning waste prevention, recycling,

recovery and disposal (as well as for progressive closing-down and/or rehabilitation of old

waste dumps).

It was assessed that although countries received different amounts in terms of funds per

sector, the average contribution to sectors‟ needs is quite similar, with a contribution of

around 30% in the drinking water sector and 38% in the wastewater sector. In solid waste,

where counties‟ needs differed more significantly and the nature of the projects was more

diverse, the contribution was 25%.

The contribution to the reduction in the number of “environmental hotspots” identified in the

Baltic Sea in 1992 has been significant. Of the original 192 hotspots, 49 priority hotspots

(including “sub-hotspot” areas) were within the influence of countries covered by these reports

on ISPA and Cohesion funding: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Finland, Russia,

Germany and Sweden accounted for most of the remainder. Of these priority hotspots, many

have been deleted from the list as of June 2011 as no longer constituting a problem; 3 in

Estonia (leaving 2), 1 in Latvia (leaving 5), 4 in Lithuania (leaving 1) and 19 in Poland (leaving

14), a total reduction of 27 out of the original 49.

However, keeping in mind that in the rest of Europe the same infrastructure of water lines,

sewer mains, and treatment plants - many built over a hundred years ago - is today aging,

leaking, collapsing, and overflowing, partly as a result of insufficient maintenance but critically

also due to the inherent limitations of the applied technologies, one can only ask if despite the

significant contribution, we are destined to “run to failure” in the Cohesion countries as well.

Although such infrastructure had to be delivered to comply with EU directives, we need to

learn for the future, viewing the deterioration of infrastructure as a rationale for investing in

next-generation technologies and designs as well. Sustainability offers a great opportunity for

this purpose. As we move towards new policies at European level and, in particular, the

Water Framework Directive, the integrated, more holistic approach of catchment management

should further facilitate this transition.

In addition, findings from the sustainability analysis demonstrated that there is considerable

potential in the future for countries to reduce further their needs through parameters such as

reduced water consumption, wastewater reuse, and reductions in waste generation per capita,

before new EU investments are directed towards those needs. For example, if in the future

any calculations of countries‟ needs were to take into account differences in water

consumption and waste generation and their potential for reductions in both, countries might

be encouraged to improve efficiencies, by providing more realistic estimations of their actual

needs.

vi

GLOSSARY

CF Cohesion Fund

DW Drinking Water

EEA European Environment Agency

EFW Energy From Waste

ETC/WTR European Topic Centre - Water

EU European Union

Eurostat European Commission Statistics Website:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/

GHK 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 Reports by GHK (2006)

GIS Geographical Information System

ISPA Instrument for Structural policies for Pre-Accession

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

PE Population Equivalent

SW Solid Waste

UFW Unaccounted For Water loss

UWWTD Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EC)

WFD Water Framework Directive

WHO World Health Organisation

WSN Water Supply Network

WTW Water Treatment Works (for production and treatment of drinking

water)

WW Wastewater

WWTW Wastewater Treatment Works (for the treatment of

wastewater/sewage)

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Number of projects funded by the Cohesion Fund and ISPA

Table 2.1 Number and cost of „other‟ projects not included in the evaluation Table 2.2 Outputs, results and impacts as indicators in the three environmental

sectors

Table 3.1 EU environmental legislation by sector

Table 5.1 Basic indicators for funded projects relevant to the assessment

Table 6.1 Water Use and Solid Waste Generation data that could be related to the

effectiveness of the Cohesion fund

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Methodology for calculating the contribution of funds to a country‟s needs in the drinking water, wastewater and solid waste sectors

Figure 2.2 The main steps in establishing a country‟s needs per sector as a baseline for evaluating the contribution of the funds

Figure 2.3 Criteria and indicators for the analysis of the contribution to EU

Figure 5.1 Countries‟ contribution in the three sectors of assessment

Figure 6.1 Relevance of the contribution of ISPA and the Cohesion fund to the EU needs in the three sectors

Figure 6.2 Average sector weights of EU countries

Figure 6.3 Impact to the 17 beneficiary countries (%) in the drinking water sector

Figure 6.4 Impact to the 17 beneficiary countries (%) in the wastewater sector

Figure 6.5 Impact to the 17 beneficiary countries (%) in the solidwaste sector

Figure 6.6 Distribution of total cost of projects between countries (millions of Euro)

Figure 6.7 Cost (€) per head per 1% increase of contribution in the three sectors

Figure 6.8 Impact of ISPA and the Cohesion fund to people calculated as the sum of the total number of people affected in each sector per country

Figure 6.9 Impact of ISPA and the Cohesion fund to people in the three sectors calculated as number of people affected in each sector divided by the number of people of each country

Figure 6.10 EU targets for the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste,

Figure 6.11 2006Reuse of treated wastewater in selected countries, indicating its potential for reducing water needs

Figure 6.12 The water cycle provides an ideal example for the need for integration across the three sectors

Figure 6.13 Examples of interaction between the three sectors that could reduce counties‟ needs and increase contribution in the three sectors

1

1. INTRODUCTION

As part of the Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Interventions 2000-2006, financed by

the Cohesion Fund (including former ISPA), this report presents the assessment of the

contribution of the Cohesion Fund and ISPA to achieving the acquis communautaire in the

field of environment at an EU and country level.

The European Commission awarded RGL Forensics the contract for the „Ex post evaluation

of cohesion policy interventions 2000 – 2006 financed by the Cohesion Fund (including

former ISPA)‟. In charge of task 6 of the Work package A: Contribution to EU transport and

environment policies, was Dr Nick Voulvoulis and a team of researchers from Imperial

College London (Claire Hunt, Maria Vlachopoulou, Young Lee, Tiffany Key, Brian Sohoran

and Eleni Iacovidou).

The report focused on evaluating to what extent the projects financed helped the countries

meet European directives, with the assessment limited to the fields of water quality and

management (including wastewater treatment), and solid waste collection and treatment.

Three sectors: drinking water, wastewater and solid waste were examined, and all funded

projects that delivered benefits in these sectors were included in the evaluation (Table 1.1).

Table 1.1. Number of projects funded by the Cohesion Fund and ISPA

Country No of Projects Total Projects Cost (€m) CF (ISPA) Contribution

(€m)

Bulgaria 21 501.42 372.31

Croatia 2 48.27 28.5

Cyprus 1 53.97 30.97

Czech Rep. 38 974.83 596.51

Estonia 19 231.03 219.66

Greece 73 1,508.35 1,154.65

Hungary 24 1,271.55 714.2

Ireland 4 561.71 307.52

Latvia 21 479.11 290.15

Lithuania 27 592.25 374.72

Malta 1 34.83 11.72

Poland 86 4,525.64 2,785.21

Portugal 65 2,369.29 1,470.65

Romania 36 1,398.88 968.17

Slovakia 24 641.16 365.11

Slovenia 16 285.42 129.45

Spain 300 7,827.74 5,488.04 TOTAL 758 23,305.45 15,307.54

In total, seventeen countries were eligible for either Cohesion or ISPA funding during this

period, although not all of the pre-accession countries were funded for the whole period. As of

the end of 1999, four countries: Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal met the condition for

Cohesion funding of being a Member State with a per capita gross national product of less

than 90% of the Community average and with a programme leading to the fulfilment of

2

conditions of economic convergence as described in Article 104c of the Treaty. In total, €m

15,307.54 of estimated funds were allocated to projects from 2000-2006.

The provision of the Cohesion Fund and ISPA in each sector, through the agglomeration of

the provision of all projects funded in each country, was compared to countries‟ needs in each

of these sectors, using the year 2000 as a reference for their pre-investment state. The

reduction of a country‟s needs in each sector was the contribution to the environmental acquis

communautaire for each country. For this calculation, an assessment of countries‟ needs (the

extent to which the 4 Member State beneficiaries failed to comply, and the 13 pre-accession

non-Member State beneficiaries, which were in the process of negotiating derogations at that

time, would have been unable to comply) in the three sectors prior to the expenditure (in 2000

for consistency), was undertaken utilising Eurostat data and data provided by the European

Environment Agency (EEA).

The contribution of the Cohesion Fund and ISPA to the European environmental acquis,

calculated as the extent to which projects funded reduced the needs of each country in order

to comply with European environmental legislation, was also evaluated at a European level in

order to reflect how to improve the effectiveness of Cohesion Policy Interventions in the future.

3

2. METHODOLOGY

The methodology for evaluating the contribution of the Cohesion Fund and ISPA to the

environmental acquis communautaire, calculated as the extent to which projects funded

reduced the needs of each country in order to comply with European environmental

legislation in the three sectors (drinking water, wastewater and solid waste), was based on

the assessment of all projects in each country with provision in these sectors (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. Methodology for calculating the contribution of funds to a country’s needs in the drinking water, wastewater and solid waste sectors

To examine the extent to which the country, prior to the expenditure, the Member State

beneficiaries failed to comply or the pre-accession states would have been unable to comply

with European legislation, data from year 2000 (before the expenditure – used a baseline for

consistency) were reviewed. The methodology for establishing a county‟s needs is

summarised in Figure 2.2. Data from the year 2000 were collected in terms of required

infrastructure in the three sectors, (or extrapolated from a date as close as possible,

depending on data availability). A country‟s need for the year 2000 in each sector was defined

as the difference between the total demand for a particular provision required for achieving

the acquis communautaire (e.g. waste collection, wastewater treatment) and that which was

already provided at the time (see Figure 2.2). In the wastewater sector, sludge treatment

needs and therefore contribution were not established or included in the assessment.

However, in most cases sewage sludge treatment was an integral part of wastewater

provision and therefore was taken into account when data were available.

• Examine the extent to which , prior to the expenditure, the country did not conform with European legislation in relation to the three sectors: Drinking Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste.

• For consistency, the year 2000 (before the expenditure) was reviewed as a baseline for all, using Eurostat data and previous GHK reports1.

Establish Country Pre-Investment state in each sector

• All projects funded in the country were evaluated in terms of delivering benefits in relation to the three sectors.

• Integrated (mixed) projects delivering benefits in more than one sectors: if these projects had sub-projects, the subprojects were used to avoid double-counting, if single projects they were counted in multiple sectors based on benefits delivered.

• Both open and closed projects were included in the evaluation as it aimed to assess the potential of the contribution to countries‟ needs.

Prepare Data for the evaluation

• The aggregation of provision in each sector through projects funded in the country was compared to the county‟s needs, to estimate the funds' contribution in the three areas examined.

• The prioritisation of activities within each sector were taken into account when establishing the overall contribution of the projects to that sector.

• Data on the projects funded were provided by the European Commission and have been presented in previous tasks of the evaluation.

Calculate proportion of needs in each sector supplied by projects

1 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 Reports by GHK (2006).

4

Figure 2.2. The main steps in establishing a country’s needs per sector in 2000, as a

baseline for evaluating the contribution of the funds

All projects funded by the Cohesion Fund and ISPA with provision in the three sectors in each

country were identified and grouped accordingly for further analysis. Both open and closed

projects were included in the evaluation in order to assess the total potential of the

contribution to countries‟ needs, and not just what had been delivered at the time of the

analysis. Mixed projects (with provision across more than one sector) with sub-projects

belonging to different sectors were treated as separate sub-projects to avoid double counting,

or if they had no sub-projects they were assessed separately and taken into account in all

related sectors. Projects or sub-projects with no provision in the three sectors were classified

as „other‟ and were not included in the evaluation (Table 2.1). Indicators presented in Table

2.2 were used to define such provision.

Table 2.1. Number and cost of ‘other’ projects not included in the evaluation

No. of projects

Cost (€m)

All Included 741 22,873.37

‘Other’ 17 432.08

For calculating the contribution of the Cohesion Fund and ISPA to a country‟s needs, the

aggregation of projects delivering provisions in the three sectors was used to estimate a

country‟s total provision in each sector. Where available, data on physical outputs, outcomes

5

and benefits were used as indicators2 for the evaluation (see Table 2.2.). The prioritisation of

activities within each sector was taken into account when establishing the overall contribution

of the projects to that sector. Each activity was assigned a ranking and a weight based on its

relative importance in meeting the environmental acquis communautaire in order to assess

the activity‟s contribution to the sector. The weights were normalised so that they add up to 1,

and by multiplying the indicator value by the normalised weight, the final contribution was

calculated.

The sectors themselves were weighted in each country to discuss their relative importance in

terms of the environmental acquis. The rankings for both sub-sector activities and sectors

were taken from the GHK national reports3 and the weights were calculated based on data

provided by these reports. For the countries that the GHK reports were not available, suitable

alternatives were used.

Table 2.2. Outputs, results and impacts as indicators for the three sectors

Physical Outputs OUTPUTS

Outcomes RESULTS

Benefits IMPACTS

Drinking Water

No of WTWs

Drinking water supply

network (m)

Drinking water treatment (m3

)

Additional

population served

(new, extension)

Wastewater

No of WWTWs

Sewerage network (m)

Wastewater treatment (m3

)

PE capacity

Additional

population served

(new, extension)

Solid Waste

Compost produced (tonnes)

Waste Storage (m3

or tonnes)

Landfill capacity created (m3

)

Recycling capacity created (tonnes)

Waste capacity (m3

or tonnes)

Waste treatment (m3

) per

outcomes/results (sorting, MBT

capacity etc)

Additional

population served

(new, extension)

Waste saved

from landfill

(tonnes)

Number of

landfills

closed

/remediated

The provision of data for the funded projects was collected in earlier tasks. All project data

provided were carefully examined, and based on availability, the most representative

indicators were used. Lack of consistency in European statistics was a limiting factor when

establishing the national needs. Although extensive additional research could have reduced

2

An environmental indicator is a parameter, or a value derived from measurable parameters, that provides information about the state of the environment, and has a significance extending beyond that usually directly associated with the value. 3 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 Reports by GHK (2006).

6

uncertainties associated with data quality and quantity, it was decided that such work would

be outside the remit of this report.

For the contribution to the EU (Figure 2.3), three criteria were used: relevance (how much

was the contribution in relation to what was needed), benefits (how effective was the

contribution in having an impact on people) and sustainability.

Figure 2.3. Criteria and indicators for the analysis of the contribution to EU

For each country, the contribution in each sector to the EU environmental acquis was

calculated by the ratio of the provision to the country‟s needs and the impact on people using

available project data on benefits and additional population served.

The sustainability analysis aimed to demonstrate that the contribution of the Cohesion Fund

depends significantly on the efficiency of water and waste management systems in each

country. Changes in these systems can have important implication for the effective use of the

Cohesion fund in the future. It is to be noted that certain of the parameters that were provided

for some projects, such as the reduction of water loss in the drinking water distribution

network in a project area where the network was being upgraded, are of evident benefit to the

country and increase sustainability but do not directly contribute to a country‟s compliance

with the EU environmental acquis.

7

3. ACQUIS COMMUNAUTAIRE IN THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENT

Environmental regulations, very broadly, regulate the interaction of humanity and the rest of

the biophysical or natural environment, with the purpose of reducing the impacts of human

activity, both on the natural environment and on humanity itself. They normally cover two

major aspects: (1) pollution control and remediation (emissions), and (2) resource

conservation and management (environmental quality). They cover a broad spectrum of

biological, chemical and operational fields (see Table 3.1).

Some of the more directly relevant EU environmental directives are:

The Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC): The objective is to protect the health of the

consumers and to make sure the water is wholesome and clean. The Drinking Water

Directive sets standards for the most common substances (so-called parameters) that

can be found in drinking water. A total of 48 microbiological and chemical parameters

must be monitored and tested regularly.

The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EC): One of the first pieces of environmental

legislation, it aims to protect water quality by preventing nitrates from agricultural

sources polluting ground and surface waters and by promoting the use of good

farming practices. The Nitrates Directive forms integral part of the Water Framework

Directive and is one of the key instruments in the protection of waters against

agricultural pressures.

The Surface Water Abstraction Directive (75/440/EEC): Its purpose is the protection

of the environment from over-abstraction. It was repealed by the Water Framework

Directive 2000/60/EEC, 7 years after the latter‟s entry into force (i.e. on 22/12/2007).

Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC): This provides an integrated approach to

the protection, improvement and sustainable use of Europe's rivers, lakes, estuaries,

coastal waters and groundwater.

Urban Waste Water treatment Directive (92/271/EEC): This concerns the collection,

treatment and discharge of urban waste water and the treatment and discharge of

waste water from certain industrial sectors, and its objective is to protect the

environment from any adverse effects.

The Bathing Water Directive (76/1160/EEC) and revised Bathing Water Directive

(2006/7/EC): The overall objective of the revised Directive is the protection of public

health whilst bathing, whilst different parameters are specified.

Waste Framework Directive (2006/12/EC) and the revised Waste Framework

Directive (2008/98/EC): A key objective is to ensure that waste is disposed of by

methods that endanger neither human health nor the environment, and to this end

recycling is also promoted.

The Landfill Directive (99/31/EC): The objective of the Directive is to prevent or

reduce as far as possible negative effects on the environment from the landfilling of

waste, in particular effects on surface water, groundwater, soil, air and human health.

8

Tab

le 3

.1.

EU

En

vir

on

men

tal L

eg

isla

tio

n b

y s

ec

tor

The projects funded were evaluated for their contribution in the three sectors: Drinking

Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste. These are not entirely independent since, for

instance, inadequate treatment of waste or wastewater may pollute groundwater for

drinking water supplies, but overall the legislation for each category is different (see Table

3.1).

9

4. DATA SOURCES USED

All data on the projects funded were provided by the European Commission. The primary

data source for all other data used for the evaluation was the Eurostat database. The GHK

Strategic Evaluation on Environment and Risk Prevention Under Structural and Cohesion

Funds for the period 2007-2013 country reports were also used.

EC Eurostat statistics :

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/environment/data/database

EAA: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/waterbase-uwwtd-urban-waste-

water-treatment-directive

FAO Statistics

http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/factsheets/aquastat_fact_sheet_hrv_en.pdf

Benefits for Croatia of compliance with the environmental acquis. Final Report. The

European Commission – DG Environment. IEEP, Ecolas, Electroprojekt. Contract

04/08853. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/pdf/task2_final_report.pdf

Statistical Service of Romania: http://www.insse.ro/cms/rw/pages/index.en.do

WaterTime National Context Report – Romania (2005):

www.watertime.net/docs/WP1/NCR/D10j_Romania.doc

Statistical Yearbook of Portugal 2001:

http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESp

ub_boui=131402&PUBLICACOESmodo=2

Statistical Service of Cyprus :

http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/energy_environment_82main_en/ener

gy_environment_82main_en?OpenForm&sub=2&sel=2

Estonian Environment Information Centre (EEIC):

http://www.keskkonnainfo.ee

Estonian Ministry of the Environment Website (EMOE): http://www.envir.ee

National Statistical Institute, Spain: http://www.ine.es/en/welcome_en.htm

OECD Environmental Review Spain 2004: http://www.oecd-

ilibrary.org/environment/books/2004;jsessionid=2fq4busburkvc.delta?page=2&

Environmental Protection and Infrastructure Operational Programme, 2004-2006

Republic of Hungary

http://www.inforse.org/europe/Structuralfunds/SF_docs/HU_SF_KIOP_en.pdf

European Cohesion Policy in Hungary – A Report:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/country2009/hu_en.pdf

Czech Statistical Office official website: www.czso.cz/eng/redakce.nsf/i/home

Environmental data from the Czech public database:

http://vdb.czso.cz/vdbvo/en/uvod.jsp?vo=tabulka

European Cohesion Fund in Latvia :

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/country2009/lv_en.pdf

10

Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Interventions cofinanced by Cohesion Fund

and ISPA 2000 – 2006

Current Status of Water Restructuring in Latvia:

http://www.irs-net.de/forschung/forschungsabteilung-2/intermediaries/WP1_Latvia.pdf

Waste Management in the Baltic States (2004)

Sewerage network modelling in Latvia, use of InfoWorks CS and Storm Water

Management Model 5 in Liepaja city.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2007.00079.x/pdf

Project Amadeus. Accelerate Membrane Development For Urban Sewerage

Purification WP9 www.mbrnetwork.eu/downloadoffen.php?RequestFile=wp...pdf

Statistical Service of Malta : http://www.nso.gov.mt/themes/theme_page.aspx?id=58

Statistical Service of Ireland : http://www.cso.ie/

The Environmental Protection Agency: www.epa.ie

National Development Plan, Ireland – The Cohesion Fund in Ireland

http://www.ndp.ie/documents/eu_structural_funds/cohesion_fund/NDP-Cohesion.pdf

Website of the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania (AM):

http://www.am.lt/VI/en/VI/index.php

Environmental data from the Lithuanian Environmental Protection Agency (AAA):

http://gamta.lt/cms/index?lang=enhttp://gamta.lt/cms/index?lang=en

Central Statistical Office of Poland :

http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/srodowisko_energia_ENG_HTML.htm

Statistical Office of the Government of Slovenia Database:

http://www.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Environment/Environment.asp

Environmental data from Member States (for Slovenia):

http://kazalci.arso.gov.si/?data=group&group_id=25&lang_id=94

11

5. EVALUATION OF THE CONTRIBUTION: COUNTRIES’ OVERVIEW

Some basic indicators for the cohesion countries are presented in Table 5.1. The calculated

contributions in the three sectors per country are presented in Figure 5.2. This figure presents

the ranking of sectors for each country, the sector weights, the remaining investment needs

after the funding period in €m for each sector, and the percentage of the remaining

environmental investment needs that these amounts represent. Moreover, the indicator

weights, the needed capacity and the projects‟ provision for each indicator, and the

contribution per sector are presented.

Table 5.1 Basic indicators for funded countries relevant to the assessment (Eurostat)

In Bulgaria, 21 projects were funded. Their total cost was €m 501.42 and the funding

contribution was €m 372.31. They reduced national needs by 4% in the drinking water sector,

16% in the wastewater sector and 10% in the solid waste sector.

In Croatia, 2 projects were funded. Their total cost was €m 48.27 and the funding contribution

was €m 28.5. They reduced national needs by 4% in the drinking water sector, 4% in the

wastewater sector and 8% in the solid waste sector.

In Cyprus 1 project was funded in the solid waste sector. Its cost was €m 53.97 and the

funding contribution was €m 30.97. It reduced national needs by 23% in the solid waste

sector.

In the Czech Republic 38 projects were funded. Their total cost was €m 974.83 and the

funding contribution was €m 596.51. They reduced national needs by 17% in the drinking

water sector, 71% in the wastewater sector and 13% in the solid waste sector.

12

In Estonia, 19 projects were funded. Their total cost was €m 231.03 and the funding

contribution was €m 219.66. They reduced national needs by 55% in the drinking water sector,

77% in the wastewater sector and 9% in the solid waste sector.

In Greece, 73 projects were funded. Their total cost was €m 1,508.35 and the funding

contribution was €m 1,154.65. They reduced national needs by 28% in the drinking water

sector, 22% in the wastewater sector and 17% in the solid waste sector.

In Hungary, 24 projects were funded. Their estimated total cost was €m 1,271.55 and the

funding contribution was €m 714.2. They reduced national needs by 12% in the drinking water

sector, 32% in the wastewater sector and 32% in the solid waste sector.

In Ireland, 4 projects were funded. Their total cost was €m 561.71 and the funding

contribution was €m 307.52. They reduced national needs by 80% in the wastewater sector

and 40% in the solid waste sector.

In Latvia, 21 projects were funded. Their total cost was €m 479.11 and the funding

contribution was €m 290.15. They reduced national needs by 70% in the drinking water sector

30%, in the wastewater sector and 70% in the solid waste sector.

In Lithuania 27 projects were funded. Their total cost was €m 592.25 and the funding

contribution was €m 374.72. They reduced national needs by 7% in the drinking water sector,

38% in the wastewater sector and 50% in the solid waste sector.

In Malta 1 project was funded in the solid waste sector. Its total cost was €m 34.83 and the

funding contribution was €m 11.72. It reduced national needs by 25% in the solid waste

sector.

In Poland 86 projects were funded. Their total cost was €m 4,525 and the funding contribution

was €m 2,785.21. They reduced national needs by 25% in the drinking water sector, 30% in

the wastewater sector and 5% in the solid waste sector.

In Portugal, 65 projects were funded. Their total cost was €m 2,369.29 and the funding

contribution was €m 1,470.65. They reduced national needs by 71% in the drinking water

sector, 51% in the wastewater sector and 29% in the solid waste sector.

In Romania, 36 projects were funded. Their total cost was €m 1,398.88 and the funding

contribution was €m 968.17. They reduced national needs by 18% in the drinking water sector,

18% in the wastewater sector and 2% in the solid waste sector.

In Slovakia, 24 projects were funded in the drinking water and wastewater sectors. Their total

cost was €m 641.16 and the funding contribution was €m 365.11. They reduced national

needs by 6% in the drinking water sector and 32% in the wastewater sector.

In Slovenia 16 projects were funded. Their total cost was €m 285.42 and the funding

contribution was €m 129.45. They reduced national needs by 31% in the drinking water sector,

29% in the wastewater sector and 28% in the solid waste sector.

In Spain, 300 projects were funded. Their total cost was €m 7,827.74 and the funding

contribution was €m 5,488.04. They reduced national needs by 62% in the drinking water

sector, 39% in the wastewater sector and 37% in the solid waste sector.

13

Figure 5.2. Calculated countries’ contribution in the three sectors of assessment

* Source: 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.Synthesis Report. GHK, 2006 **Calculations are based on data provided by the above report.

14

Figure 5.2. (cont) Calculated countries’ contribution in the three sectors of assessment

15

Figure 5.2. (cont) Calculated countries’ contribution in the three sectors of assessment

16

Figure 5.2. (cont) Calculated countries’ contribution in the three sectors of assessment

17

Figure 5.2. (cont) Calculated countries’ contribution in the three sectors of assessment

18

Figure 5.2. (cont) Calculated countries’ contribution in the three sectors of assessment

19

Figure 5.2. (cont) Calculated countries’ contribution in the three sectors of assessment

20

Figure 5.2. (cont) Calculated countries’ contribution in the three sectors of assessment

21

Figure 5.2. (cont) Calculated countries’ contribution in the three sectors of assessment

22

6. EVALUATION OF THE CONTRIBUTION: EU OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS

The realisation of the contribution of the Cohesion Fund and ISPA to the EU needs in the

drinking water, wastewater and solid waste sectors was achieved by agglomerating the needs

of the individual EU countries in each of the three sectors. The results of this relevance

assessment is summarised in Figure 6.1. In order to compute all the contributions of the

countries, each country‟s population was used as a weighting factor.

Figure 6.1. Relevance of the contribution of ISPA and the Cohesion Fund to the EU

needs in the three sectors

Although countries received different amounts in terms of funds per sector, the average

contribution between sectors is quite similar, with around 30% contribution in the drinking

water sector, 38% in the wastewater sector, and 25% in solid waste, where counties‟ needs

differed more significantly and the nature of the projects was more diverse.

The analysis demonstrated that the Cohesion Fund and ISPA through the projects funded

had a significant contribution in terms of compliance with the environmental acquis. New

assets, extensions or upgrades of infrastructure in water provision, sanitation services and

solid waste management required by countries to meet the EU Directives were provided. In

the drinking water sector, the projects financed primarily ensured adequate supplies of

drinking water to consumers in conformity with the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EEC. In

the wastewater sector, and with regard to the UWWTD, investments in new infrastructure or

upgrading of existing infrastructure were a significant part of the contribution. In the solid

waste sector, contribution delivered waste infrastructures either as waste disposal facilities

23

such as landfills or incinerators, or as other measures and targets concerning waste

prevention, recycling, recovery, disposal (as well as for progressive closing-down and/or

rehabilitation of old waste dumps). This was in accordance with the funding provided across

the three sectors, as demonstrated in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2. Average sector weights of EU countries

The impacts on the EU were calculated by combining the contribution to a country‟s needs

and the population ratio of the country to the whole population of the EU (a country‟s

contribution to EU = contribution ratio to a country‟s needs x the country‟s population / EU

population) for each sector (Figures 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5).

Figure 6.3. Impact to the 17 beneficiary countries (%) in the drinking water sector

24

Figure 6.4. Impact to the 17 beneficiary countries (%) in the wastewater sector

Figure 6.5. Impact to the 17 beneficiary countries (%) in the solid waste sector

This impact evaluation is particularly interesting when compared to the level of funding

provided per country. The distribution of the contribution to the EU is almost identical to the

distribution of the total cost of projects across the countries, a very positive outcome for the

Fund (see Figure 6.6). However, it should be kept in mind that the contribution as a

percentage of a country‟s needs cannot be compared (in terms of effectiveness or countries‟

performance) with regards to the investments required, as the needs are very different across

the EU countries. Our analysis is not about effectiveness, but understanding the role of

different needs, the potential of infrastructure to reduce them and the ability of funds to deliver

increased contribution. When for example the cost for 1% reduction of needs in each country

25

per sector is calculated, the differences between the sectors within countries are as diverse

as the differences of the countries within sectors (Figure 6.7).

Figure 6.6. Distribution of total cost of projects between countries (millions of Euro)

Figure 6.7. Funding (€) per head per 1% increase of contribution in the three sectors

When calculating number of people affected by the contribution (Figures 6.8 and 6.9),

results demonstrated a total of 197 million PE (population equivalent) across all countries

affected by the projects in the three sectors. For example in Spain 100.32 million PE (233%

Bulgaria, 501 Croatia, 48 Cyprus, 54 Czech, 975

Estonia, 231

Greece, 1,508

Hungary, 1,272

Ireland, 562

Latvia, 479

Lithuania, 592

Malta, 35

Poland, 4,526

Portugal, 2,369

Romania, 1,399

Slovakia, 641

Slovenia, 285

Spain, 7,828

26

of its total population) were affected by projects of all three sectors. Several countries shows

more than 100% of impact when the three sectors are added, as the same people could be

receiving benefits from more than one sectors and therefore counting as population affected

more than once.

Figure 6.8. Impact of ISPA and the Cohesion Fund to people calculated as the sum

of the total number of people affected in each sector per country

Figure 6.9. Impact of ISPA and the Cohesion Fund to people in the three sectors

calculated as number of people affected in each sector divided by the number of

people of each country

The impact to the environment of the projects funded is not easily quantified. The relation

between the performance of the infrastructure delivered though the funded projects, the

characteristics of the local environment and the existence of other sources of pollution is

extremely complex. Although almost all of the projects should deliver environmental benefits,

this complexity makes it difficult to assess their significance, extent and timescales involved.

However, their benefits to the environment are easier to identify in the case of European

environmental hot spots, areas of significant environmental degradation. For example the

hot spots list of the most significant point sources of pollution around the Baltic Sea, drawn up

under the HELCOM Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Programme (JCP)

in 1992, was reduced as a result of this contribution in countries around the Baltic Sea where

27

projects funded have contributed towards overall reductions in the pollution load entering the

Baltic Sea catchment area.

The environmental hot spots were designated in 1992 by an international group of scientists,

engineers, environmental managers, bankers and national representatives, according to

practical economic considerations as well as the seriousness of their impact on the

environment and human health. Water quality in many coastal waters of the Baltic Sea has

improved since 1992, reflecting progress in the treatment of municipal and industrial

wastewater.

Of the original 192 hotspots, 49 priority hotspots (including “sub-hotspot” areas) were within

the influence of countries covered by these reports on ISPA and Cohesion funding. Finland,

Russia, Germany and Sweden accounted for most of the remainder. Those 49 within the

funding area comprised 5 in Estonia, 6 in Latvia, 5 in Lithuania and 33 in Poland. Poland

clearly constituted a major pollution source. Of these, many have been deleted from the list as

of June 2011 as no longer constituting a problem; 3 in Estonia (leaving 2), 1 in Latvia (leaving

5), 4 in Lithuania (leaving 1) and 19 in Poland (leaving 14), a total of 22 of the original 49.

Since ISPA and the CF funding primarily addressed municipal rather than industrial

wastewater treatment (although, obviously, there was an industrial component to the influent

to the WWTWs) it is unlikely that problems where industrial pollution was a major element

would have been targeted. The outstanding hotspots should be viewed in this light.

In Estonia, the remaining problem is caused by the oil shale power plant and by

the Matsalu Bay management programme.

In Latvia, the problem industries are the Sloka pulp & paper plant, the Latbiofarm

pharmaceutical industry, and there are three “industrial and municipal” areas at

Daugavpils, Liepaja and Riga (one of them identified as a WWTW).

The unaddressed Lithuanian problem is that of agricultural runoff.

In Poland the remaining priority hotspots comprise one where the problem is

agricultural runoff, three where heavy industry is the source, one “lagoon

management” problem where the input is unspecified and eight where the problem

effluent is “industrial and municipal” and is in all cases specified as the WWTW.

These eight locations are: Warsaw – Poludnie; Krakow – Plaszow; Katowice –

Gliwice; Katowice – Katowice/ Myslowice/Siemianowice; Katowice –Bytom; Szczecin

–Pomorzany; Szczecin – Zdroje; and Lodz.

As such, the ISPA and CF funding should have helped to address 3 hotspots in Latvia and 8

in Poland, as follows:

Latvia:

Daugavpils: Development of Water Services in Daugavpils, Stage 2 (2004)

Liepaja: Development of water services in Liepaja, Stage 2 (2004)

Riga: Development of Water Services in Riga, Stage 3 (2005)

28

In each case, wastewater treatment was a major component in the project. The status of the

project was “almost closed” in two cases (though still “open” for the Riga project, aiming to

bring wastewater services to 87% of the Riga population) therefore it should within a short

time be delivering wastewater services in the location thereby improving the hotspot.

Poland:

Warsaw – Poludnie: no plant in this named location but two other WWTW for Warsaw

Krakow – Plaszow: Krakow Plaszow 2, WWTW (Open, 2000)

Katowice – Gliwice: City of Katowice, Upper Silesia (Almost closed, 2005)

Katowice – Katowice/ Myslowice/Siemianowice: Sosnowiec waste water treatment for

The cities Silesia, Katowice and Myslowice in the Silesia region (Almost closed 2003)

Katowice – Bytom: Rationalisation of water and wastewater management in Bytom

municipality (Open, 2004)

Szczecin – Pomorzany: Szczecin water quality improvement, Stage 1 (2000, Almost closed)

Szczecin – Zdroje : [See above. Significant WW component despite project name]

Lodz : Lodz Waste Water Treatment, Phase 1 (Open, 2000)

In Poland it is also clear that ISPA and CF funding has been utilised to improve wastewater

treatment and consequently alleviate the pollution, nutrient enrichment and eutrophication that

its discharge would otherwise entail. Improvements in these hotspots can be expected when

the projects close and the works come fully into operation.

Environmental improvements driven by regulatory frameworks were also the reason behind

most interventions for solid waste management for all EU countries that period. This is a good

example to demonstrate the need for a ‘needs based’ approach to the evaluation, the

assessment of the extent to which projects financed by the funds helped the countries to meet

European Directives.

In the solid waste management, broadly speaking, cohesion policy interventions were mostly

directed:

to heavy infrastructures (incineration, landfill conforming with the standards of the

landfill directive, rehabilitation of existing landfills) and recycling plants in order to

compensate for their lack of treatment facilities, or

to new infrastructures for recycling or sorting of waste as more advanced integrated

systems for collection, recycling and recovery were needed, once the above basic

infrastructure required by legislation was already in place.

Although a target based evaluation would have been appropriate if all countries had the same

needs, as they have the same targets (EU legislation- see example in Figure 6.10), the value

of the contribution would not reflect all the benefits delivered. For example, sub-standard

landfills and dumpsites, and also closed but not remediated landfills, posed a significant

environmental threat, that was addressed by the first type of interventions above. More than

3,300 landfills in EU Member States were closed between 2004 and 2006. Such landfills were

constructed without proper measures to reduce their potentially negative environmental

29

impacts and have had to be closed or upgraded in order to comply with the minimum

requirements of the EU Landfill Directive. Actually not enough was done in this sector, as the

European Commission has identified systemic failures in the implementation of the Landfill

Directive, with 13 non-conformity cases and 11 bad application cases in 2009 as well as a

large number of complaints related to illegal landfills and the failure of many Member States

to improve the situation 4.

Figure 6.10. EU targets for the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste, 2006

On the other hand, sludge treatment and disposal needs (and contribution), normally

associated with the wastewater sector, were not separately assessed in the evaluation. The

main reason for this was that their provision was not driven by clear legislative requirements

in terms of achieving the acquis communautaire. In many cases, sludge treatment and

disposal, and when data were available, was integrated with the provision in the three sectors.

Sludge treatment was accounted only in the case of Slovenia, where the provision of one

funded project in the solid waste sector contributed to the diversion of sludge from landfill. A

total of 48 projects (including 3 sub projects) with benefits to the wastewater, drinking water or

solid waste sectors reported sludge treatment or disposal components, with treatment ranging

from drying, incineration, aerobic or anaerobic treatment and sludge thickening, and in the

following countries: Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain, which had the greatest number

of such projects.

4 European Commission (2010) COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste.

30

The total estimated cost of the sludge treatment was around 2,513 million euro (1,609 million

euro, allocated cost) representing around 11 % of the total and the allocated costs for all

countries respectively. In most cases these costs referred to a number of operations

associated with sludge management rather than treatment, one of the reasons that in most

cases they were treated as part of the wastewater sector provisions.

Finally, the sustainability analysis aimed to demonstrate that the contribution of the

Cohesion Fund in the three sectors also depends significantly on the efficiency of water and

waste management systems in each country. Changes in these systems can have important

implications for the effective use of the Cohesion Fund in the future. As the contribution of the

funds depends on a country‟s needs, it is more sustainable to aim to reduce those needs by

other means before directing investments to do so.

For the drinking water and wastewater sectors, the water use and wastewater reuse

potentials provide great opportunities for reducing countries needs in these two sectors. This

is of particular relevance when comparing water usage across the EU countries (Table 6.1)

and wastewater reuse as a way of reducing water needs (Figure 6.11). By reusing

approximately 400 Mm3/a of wastewater, Spain reduces the need for freshwater abstraction

by that amount which is equivalent to the annual water supply for over 4.2 million people.

Similarly solid waste generation data across the EU countries (Table 6.1) demonstrate that

with the contribution of the funds depending on countries needs there is great scope in aiming

to reduce those needs by solid waste reduction.

Table 6.1. Water use and solid waste generation data related to the effectiveness of the funds

Country

Public Water Supply per

capita

(㎥/person/yr)

CF (water) (million euro)

CF (water)

(%)

Waste generation per

capita (kg/person/yr)

CF(waste) (million euro)

CF (waste) (%)

Bulgaria 57 429.3 2.3 516 72.7 1.8

Croatia 114 33.1 0.2 N/A 10.7 0.3

Cyprus 120 0.0 0.0 680 49.9 1.2

Czech Rep. 54 790.8 4.3 334 66.4 1.6

Estonia 52 179.2 1.0 440 41.6 1.0

Greece 51 988.5 5.4 408 449.4 11.2

Hungary 80 875.3 4.8 445 329.7 8.2

Ireland 140 559.4 3.1 603 8.1 0.2

Latvia 124 362.3 2.0 270 91.8 2.3

Lithuania 32 398.3 2.2 363 155.7 3.9

Malta 92 0.0 0.0 547 32.2 0.8

Poland 45 4160.6 22.8 316 145.3 3.6

Portugal 63 1742.9 9.5 472 520.1 12.9

Romania 116 1229.8 6.7 355 144.9 3.6

Slovakia 85 590.5 3.2 254 15.4 0.4

Slovenia 54 184.5 1.0 513 83.6 2.1

Spain 95 5741.9 31.4 662 1804.9 44.9

EU17 78 18266.2 100.0 449 4022.3 100.0

31

Figure 6.11. Reuse of treated wastewater in selected countries, indicating its potential

for reducing water needs

The highest water use (Latvia) amounts to 124 ㎥/yr capita which is 2.75 times greater than

the lowest water use which occurs in Poland. The effectiveness of the Cohesion Fund on

water supply and wastewater treatment systems varies up to 2.75 times depending on the

current water consumption. The highest waste generation (680 kg per person per yr) of

Cyprus is 2.68 times the lowest waste generation in Slovakia. Depending on the waste

reduction policies, the effectiveness of the Cohesion Fund varies up to 2.68 times.

Therefore, in sustainability terms, there is considerable potential to reduce countries‟ needs

through parameters such as reduced water consumption, wastewater reuse, and reduced

waste generation per capita, before further investments are directed towards those needs.

For example, if in the future any calculations of countries‟ needs were to take into account

differences in water consumption and waste generation and their potential for reductions in

both, countries might be encouraged to improve efficiencies, by providing more realistic

estimations of their actual needs.

There is also a need for better integration across the three sectors, with an increased

emphasis in closing loops. Closed loop systems are able to make use of currently available,

proven technologies and can have economic advantages over other approaches. One of the

key challenges is addressing these issues holistically and not within the boundaries of each of

the sectors. This can be particularly evident when applied to the water cycle (Figure 6.12),

32

where sometimes technological barriers and public perception can be obstacles to delivering

change, with opportunities lying in the interaction between the three sectors (Figure 6.13).

Figure 6.12. The water cycle provides an ideal example for the need for integration

across the three sectors.

Figure 6.13. Examples of interaction between the three sectors that could reduce counties’ needs and increase contribution in these sectors.

33

Through research and innovation, technical barriers and institutional obstacles can be

overcome, an area that was not really addressed through the projects funded, which focused

mainly on delivering conventional and proven infrastructure to address the countries‟ needs in

the three sectors.

However, in terms of the future of the funds, this need should not be a barrier. The application

of new concepts does not have to be at full scale from the beginning: the most successful

case studies have been those that have grown and gradually evolved over a period of time,

giving scope for innovation and optimisation. This reduces risks compared with large-scale

roll-out of integrated systems and supply chains from inception. It may be that solutions to the

obstacles would become apparent as the system develops, enabling subsequent scale-up of

all operations. With the right policy environment, closed loop systems could provide a

framework for more economical and low carbon interventions for the three sectors in the EU.

Of course this can only come with a change of mindset, which is required to address any

perceived conflicts between the economy and the protection of the environment. Of course in

the future, as indicated by EU policies, economic development and environmental protection

cannot be in conflict, as both are needed for improved human well-being, particularly as it is

now recognised that environmental degradation diminishes the capacity of the planet to

sustain economic development. As we move towards new policies at European level there is

a clear trend that legislation will aim to further facilitate this transition.

34

7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The analysis presented in this report demonstrated that the Cohesion Fund and ISPA

provided a significant contribution to countries‟ needs in terms of compliance with the

environmental acquis. This contribution was mainly the delivery of infrastructure. New

assets, extensions, and upgrades of infrastructure in water provision, sanitation services and

solid waste management required by countries in order to meet the EU Directives were

delivered as a result. Findings demonstrate significant contribution towards this direction.

In the drinking water sector, the projects financed in this sector are intended primarily to

ensure adequate supplies of drinking water to consumers in conformity with the Drinking

Water Directive 98/83/EEC.

In the wastewater sector, for the UWWTD, a cornerstone of the EU environmental water

policy, the main measures associated with cohesion interventions are investments in new

infrastructure or upgrading of existing infrastructure. Although this sector absorbed the largest

share of the amounts allocated to the environment, with the UWWT Directive being one of the

most costly of the environmental Directives, there are still marked differences between

countries and regions in this sector even today.

In the solid waste sector, waste infrastructures were delivered, either as waste disposal

facilities such as landfills or incinerators, or as other measures and targets concerning waste

prevention, recycling, recovery, disposal (as well as for progressive closing-down and/or

rehabilitation of old waste dumps). As some countries had to deliver infrastructures necessary,

to be efficient and meet EU legislation, there is still a great need for the solid waste sector to

be integrated through regional or national strategies, while respecting relevant EU policy and

legislation. Actually, the Structural and Cohesion Funds have undoubtedly stimulated the

elaboration of waste management plans in conformity with EU legislation.

However, keeping in mind that in the rest of Europe the same infrastructure of water lines,

sewer mains, and treatment plants - many built over a hundred years ago - is today aging,

leaking, collapsing, and overflowing, partly due to insufficient maintenance but critically also

due to the inherent limitations of the technologies applied, one can only ask if despite the

significant contribution, we are destined to “run to failure” in the Cohesion countries as well.

Although such infrastructure had to be delivered to comply with EU directives, we need to

learn for the future, viewing the deterioration of infrastructure as a rationale for investing in

next-generation technologies and designs as well. Sustainability offers a great opportunity for

this purpose. As we move towards new policies at European level and, in particular the WFD,

the integrated, more holistic approach of catchment management should further facilitate this

transition.

35

APPENDIX A: COUNTRIES’ REPORTS (provided as a separate report)

Table of Contents

Page Number

BBuullggaarriiaa A1

CCrrooaattiiaa A8

CCyypprruuss A14

CCzzeecchh RReepp.. A22

EEssttoonniiaa A29

GGrreeeeccee A38

HHuunnggaarryy A50

IIrreellaanndd A58

LLaattvviiaa A64

LLiitthhuuaanniiaa A71

MMaallttaa A82

PPoollaanndd A88

PPoorrttuuggaall A97

RRoommaanniiaa A108

SSlloovvaakkiiaa A119

SSlloovveenniiaa A129

SSppaaiinn A134

AAppppeennddiixx 11

A160

1