Wastewater Policy

8/10/2019 Wastewater Policy

1/8

27

WATER DOWN THE DRAIN?

HUNGARYS WASTEWATERTREATMENT POLICY Meghan Berkenstock

Introduction

In 1999 a $29.5 million loan agreement was reached between the World Bank and theMunicipality of Budapest to finance theimprovement of wastewater collection andtreatment within the capital. (World Bank

Approves, p. 1) Specifically the funding wasdesignated to increase the capacities of theNorth Budapest and South Pest wastewatertreatment plants, as well as to construct sewerlines to transport wastewater from North Buda.(Project Appraisal Document, p. 4) Thecombined effect of these infrastructureimprovements according to the Project

Appraisal Document was a significant reduc-tion in discharges of untreated sewage to themainstream Danube. (p. 9) Many areas inHungary still have treatment facilities with

insufficient capacity; and rivers, streams, andlakes act as repositories for untreated or par-tially treated wastewater. If residents do not

have sewerage pipes connected to a septic tankor municipal treatment plant, the sewage trick-les out of pipes, forming wastewater run-off.(Somlyody and Shanahan, p. 13)

The lack of wastewater treatment or seweraccess in Hungary had been labeled a high pri-ority environmental issue by the EuropeanUnion in the late 1990s. (CommissionOpinion, p. 91) Furthermore, throughout

Hungarys negotiations to join the EuropeanUnion which ended in 2002, there was aplanned initiative to increase the number of

wastewater infrastructure and treatment plantsin Hungary.

In this article I seek to show that theimprovement in wastewater collection andtreatment in Hungary can be attributed to thepressure to attain European Union accessionstandards. In addition, the financial supportfrom the Hungarian Parliament, privatesources such as the World Bank, and theEuropean Union accession funds has allowed


2/8

28

the construction of new wastewater treatmentinfrastructure. Furthermore, one effect of bet-ter wastewater treatment has been the relativelylow incidence of water-borne diseases inHungary. In short, the significant progressmade by the Ministry of Environment and

Water in expanding sewer access and watertreatment across Hungary since independencemakes its plan of establishing treatment in themajority of communities by 2015 an attainablegoal.

Background

Generally speaking, the high cost of wastewater collection and treatment is due to thecomplexity of the process. The first challenge

is connecting sewer pipelines to each residenceand building to collect wastewater. Each sewerline then feeds into a larger pipe, which maymerge several times with other branches toform a main sewer or interceptor. Through thismaze of sewer pipes, wastewater is transportedto a treatment plant, where a series of process-es is employed to remove impurities in the

water. A series of three levels of treatment canbe applied to the wastewater, with differentimpurities removed at each stage. Primarytreatment removes large solids while separat-ing grit from organic materials, while in sec-ondary treatment bacteria filter the water byconsuming the organic matter. (Pescod) Beforethe effluent water is released into a naturalstream or lake, a tertiary treatment is utilizedto remove nitrogenous compounds found infertilizers or heavy metals. (Pescod) Finally, the

water is disinfected in a disinfection process,such as chlorination, which serves to remove

bacteria from the treated water. (Pescod) Thus,the high cost to construct and maintain thesewer pipelines as well as the treatment plantsrequires significant capital investment.

In the case of Hungary, many larger citiescontain networks of sewers and wastewatertreatment plants; however, the usage costs of sewer access in these areas deter approximate-ly one-third of residents from subscribing tothe service. (Smith and Princz, p. 2) Fewer thanone-third (or approximately 124 plants) are notequipped to handle the volume of wastewaterreceived, which may compromise the quality of

the treatment. (Smith and Princz, p. 2) In other words, some plants are forced to treat some of the sewerage while discharging some untreat-ed sewage directly into a natural stream or bodyof water. Therefore, sizeable amounts of fund-ing are needed to alleviate the high cost andoverextended condition of regional treatmentfacilities. Also, the monitoring of water on anational level is required to maintain waterquality standards in lakes and rivers.

Pre-Accession Legislative Changes

The treatment of wastewater has been ahigh priority of Hungarian environmental pol-icy in recent years. ( Implementation of Agenda

21, Chapter 18) However, the effectiveness of

Parliaments environmental policy has beenclosely linked to the amount of money allocat-ed to environmental development. In the lasttwenty years, progress has been made in con-necting thousands of buildings to sewer and

wastewater treatment systems. The most dra-matic increase occurred while Hungary was inthe process of accession to the European Unionin the mid-1990s. During this time, theEuropean Union provided funding for the Phareand the Instrument for Structural Policies forPre-Accession (ISPA) programs. The Phare pro-gram is a European Union fund that providesmonetary assistance to accessing states to sup-plement national budgets in enacting changesand improvements in infrastructure. (ThePhare Program, p. 1) The ISPA program wasfounded in 1999 to replace the Phare programsfunding of environmental and infrastructureprojects in countries which recently joined theUnion. (Pre-Accession Assistance, p. 1)

During the decades of the communist erain Hungary, there was insufficient investmentin new sewer lines and treatment plants. Eacharea of the environment, such as air quality and

wildlife protection, was monitored by separatedepartments, with the charge of wastewatertreatment falling under the jurisdiction of theNational Water Authority. (Enyedi and Szirmai,p. 147) However, bureaucratic non-cooperationand lack of funding created little room forimprovement. Supervision of the multiple envi-ronmental sectors remained separated amongseveral departments even after the creation of


3/8

29

the Ministry for Environmental Protection and Water Management. (Enyedi and Szirmai,p. 148) By the end of the communist regime in1989, less funding had been allocated to theenvironment than in previous years because of an economic downturn. Without adequate bud-getary financing, environmental improvementremained a low governmental priority. (Enyediand Szirmai, p. 148)

The problem of insufficient funding con-tinued through the first six years of Hungariandemocracy. For example, a 1991 study bySomlyody and Shanahan found that:

Public sewerage extends to an areainhabited by 51 percent of the popu-lation, but only 42 percent of thedwellings in these areas are con-nected to the system. The technolo-gy level of wastewater treatmentshows a striking pattern: 12 percentof municipal sewerage receives onlymechanical (primary) treatment; 33percent receives biological (sec-ondary) treatment; but 55 percentreceives no treatment at all. (p. 13)Some progress was made through 1994,

during which period Hungary entered into dis-cussions with the European Union to determinethe changes needed to align Hungarian gov-ernmental policies with European protocol.In fact, the percentage of houses connectedto sewer systems increased by only onepercent from 1991 to 1994. ( Implementation

of Agenda 21 ..., Chapter 18) However, theamount of wastewater receiving at least prima-ry treatment increased from 45 to 54 percent.( Implementation of Agenda 21 ..., Chapter 18)Due to the percent of water still remaininguntreated, Hungarian wastewater policy and

Parliamentary funding were inadequate tobring about an increase in treatment through-out the country.

A milestone event was the passage of theEnvironmental Protection Act LIII in December1995. Not only did Act LIII address the need forincreased environmental regulation but, withrespect to wastewater management, section 21of the Act stated, After proper treatment, thedischarge of used and wastewater into waterbodies can occur only in a manner that will notendanger either the conditions of naturalprocesses or the quantitative and qualitative

renewal of waters. (Act LIII, pp. 2 and 13) The Act also stated that cooperation between theMinistry of Water and Environment on thenational level and municipal environmentalcouncils was needed to ensure environmentalprotection. (Act LIII, p. 9) However, the Act wasdesigned only to clarify the governments posi-tion on the environment, and the question of the funding of regional wastewater processingfacilities was not specifically addressed.

By July 1997 the treatment of wastewater was still identified by the EU as a weakness inHungarys environmental policy. In its Opinionon Hungarys Application for Membership tothe European Union, the European UnionCommission concluded:

The country still faces a major chal-

lenge to bring its standards up tothose of the European Union in theareas of water. Water quality, closelylinked to agricultural activities andexacerbated by the lack of waste-treatment plants in many settle-ments is the main problem andrequires major investment.(Commission Opinion on Hungarys

Application, p. 91)Once again, proactive legislation with accom-

panying capital expenditure was requiredto implement a significant change in wastewater collection and processing throughout thecountry.

Legislative Changes to MeetEuropean Union Standards

Later in 1997 the Ministry of Environmentand Water unveiled a plan which, over the nextfew years, provided the legislative basis for

wastewater treatment expansion. The firstNational Environmental Protection Program(NEPP I), which was in force between 1997 and2002, cited wastewater treatment as an envi-ronmental issue in need of improvement.( National Environmental Programme 2003

2008, p. 17) NEPP I also identified 2015 as thetarget date for access to wastewater treatmentto be set up throughout the country and also,by that time, for sewer and treatment facilities

to be established in hundreds of localities.(Gergely) Furthermore, less populated areasunable to support the construction of sewer


4/8

30

infrastructure would construct local plants, whose size was to be large enough to treat eachmunicipalitys wastewater intake. (Gergely) A follow-up program, NEPP II, effective from2003 up to the year 2008, replaced NEPP I,

which expired in 2002. NEPP II also redefinedenvironmental priorities, identifying theneed for purer water through increased treat-ment, removal of nitrates and arsenic from

water supplies, and the establishment of asystem for the disposal of solid waste in thefollowing five years. (Environment andHealth, pp. 14)

However, capital investment was stillneeded to implement the environmental devel-opment plan delineated first in NEPP I and laterin NEPP II. The decisive factor in increasing the

level of wastewater treatment in Hungary wasthe influx of European Union financial supportunder the Phare program. For the year 1998,Hungary received a total of 67 million euros, of

which 14.2 million euros was set aside for meet-ing European Union environmental standards.(The Phare Program Annual , p. 41) Later inJune 1999, the Instrument for StructuralPolicies for Pre-Accession program (ISPA) tookover funding environmental development fromPhare. The ISPA continued to finance the build-ing of infrastructure and technologicalimprovements in all areas of the environment,including water treatment. (Pre-Accession

Assistance, p. 1) After Hungarys accessionto the EU, projects initially funded by ISPAcontinued to receive financing throughthe Cohesion Fund. (Pre-Accession Assistance,p. 1)

Despite the water treatment policies of NEPP 1, the October 1999 Progress Reportissued by the European Union Commission onHungarys progress towards accession was stillnot favorable. The report noted that, while thecapacities of treatment plants had been expand-ed and new technology had been integrated intoexisting wastewater treatment systems, moreimprovements were still needed. Furthermore,Hungarys environmental regulations were stillnot harmonized with accepted EU statutes.(Regular Report: From, p. 47) Yet the fund-

ing provided through the Phare and ISPA pro-grams as well as the Parliamentary allocationsseem to have provided the capital necessary for

the facility and technological improvementsthat had been implemented.

Hungarys progress in providing access tosewerage systems and wastewater treatmentcan be illustrated by comparing the data from1994, when only 43 percent of homes were con-nected to sewer access, to those released by theMinistry of Health in 2002:

While there is almost comprehensivemains water supply, the proportionof homes connected to the sewagenetwork was 56.0 percent in 2002,and 36.9 percent in [unconnected]

villages. Although there has been sig-nificant development in communalsewerage treatment, there are still alot of tasks in building sewage pipes.The situation is most favorable inBudapest, where more than 90% of the homes have been connected tothe sewerage system since 1995.(Environment and Health, p. 4)

Overall, the number of dwellings with sewageaccess increased thirteen percentage points ineight years. Furthermore, as the largest city,Budapest is a major producer of wastewater.

With nearly all of its residences connected to acentralized wastewater system, within eight

years hundreds of thousands of Hungariansreceived new access to sewer service, and theproblem of disposal of sewage into surface

waters was largely eliminated.In the same year, the 2002 European

Union Regular Report, a yearly document which reevaluated the improvements and prob-lem areas needing to be addressed beforeHungarys accession could be completed, con-cluded that increasing wastewater treatmentand sewer lines nationally would not be com-

plete by 2004, the planned year of accession tothe EU. In commenting on progress made sincethe 1999 Regular Report, the Commission onHungarys accession found:

that effective compliance with anumber of pieces of legislation requir-ing a sustained high level of investmentand considerable administrative effort(e.g. urban wastewater treatment)could be achieved only in the long tothe very long term It depended also

on an increase in public and privateinvestment. (Regular Report onHungarys Progress..., p. 108)


5/8

31

Therefore, an agreement between Hungary andthe European Union was negotiated to extendthe target date for Hungarys meeting EuropeanUnion standards on wastewater treatment. This

would allow new development projects to becompleted, which would connect most of theHungarian population to sewerage systems byDecember 31, 2015. (Regular Report onHungarys Progress, p. 108)

The slow progress of Hungary towardnationwide wastewater treatment in the lasttwo decades can be seen in Figure 1. The figuredepicts the percent of homes with public sewersystem access between 1980 and 2002. Themodestly increasing trend reflects the effect of Parliamentary legislation and the ongoinginvestment in sewer and wastewater infra-

structure.

Environmental Investment

When the Ministry of Environment and Water reevaluates the availability of wastewatertreatment and sewerage access in 2015, what

will be the total cost for the development of wastewater infrastructure? In 2002 the Ministerof Environment and Water Maria Korodi pro-

jected that the Hungarian government will con-

tribute 2.5 trillion forints (about $10 billion)through 2012 to improving wastewater treat-ment throughout the country. (HungarysEnvironment, p. 1) While this sum has notbeen specifically allocated for wastewater treat-ment expenses, fifty percent of the funds des-ignated for environmental improvementbetween 1998 and 2015 will be used for watermanagement, which includes wastewater treat-ment. (Gergely)

As previously mentioned, a portion of thefunding has been and will continue to be pro-

vided through the Phare and ISPA programs of the EU; however, the Hungarian governmentand private sources also have generated capitalfor investment in environmental infrastructure.The capital invested by the government and pri-

vate industry into wastewater treatment willcause spending on the environmental sector tohave grown from 1.2 percent to 2.2 percent of the gross domestic product between 2003 to2008. (Gergely) The increase in spending onenvironmental investment, as seen in the riseof the gross domestic product, reflects the mag-nitude of environmental investment, which isestimated to be around 10 billion eurosbetween 1998 and 2015. In order to maintainthe rising gross domestic spending on the envi-

Figure 1The Proportion of Homes in Hungary

Connected to the Public Sewage System from 19802002

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

year 1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

percent

Source: Ministry of Environment and Water.


6/8

32

ronment, increased national and municipalgovernment taxation and private industrialsources will need to continue to act in concert.(Gergely)

The percentage of total funding allocatedfor environmental investment by the nationalgovernment will be determined by the magni-tude of the tax revenue collected from allHungarians. The financial contribution of theHungarian public was noted in 2001 when JuditZalatnay (p. 1) wrote, The high Hungarianlabor tax does not leave much room for addi-tional financial burdens on taxpayers. As aresult, Hungary does not have many environ-mental economic instruments in place today.Through the contributions of taxpayers,enough tax revenue was generated in 2004 to

enable the Hungarian Parliament to allocate17.5 billion forints toward increasing seweraccess and wastewater treatment. (2004Budget Allocates, p. 1) This figure wasroughly nineteen percent of the total allocationfor environmental investment for the year.Thus, the increase in wastewater treatment andsewerage has become a national priority and aninfrastructure project subsidized by domesticand international funds.

Health Benefits of Wastewater Treatment

In addition to removing wastewater, sew-ers and treatment facilities help to reduce

waterborne diseases. Bacteria, protozoa, and viruses in wastewater, if not removed beforebeing deposited into a body of water, can be asource of diarrhea and other diseases. This isespecially the case, for example, if the receiv-

ing body of water is a river. Towns downstreammay inadvertently draw wastewater from theriver, which had been deposited by upstreamcommunities. If these areas possess inadequatedrinking water purification, protozoa, viruses,and bacteria such as E. coli could enter thedrinking water supply. Likewise, in areas lack-ing sewers the main receptacles for wastewaterare septic tanks. However, if septic systems mal-function or are not kept a safe distance from

wells, potable water drawn from the wells canbecome contaminated and thus another sourceof disease. Likewise, if septic tanks leak to the

surface and become part of the surface watersystem, thereby contaminating streams, waterdrawn from these sources may not be ade-quately filtered by the soil and unsuitable fordrinking.

Realizing that access to sewers and puri-fied water is also a health-related issue, theHungarian government was one of sixteennations that ratified the Protocol on Water andHealth at the 1992 Convention on theProtection and Use of Transboundary WaterCourses and International Lakes. (Protocol on

Water, p. 3) Focusing on decreasing thenumber of Europeans without access to watertreatment and waste removal, the Protocol set2015 as the date for lowering the incidence of

water-borne diseases to near zero across

Europe. (Protocol on Water, p. 5) To meetthis goal, each of the signing countries set indi-

vidual goals to increase the water treatment andsanitation available to their citizens. (Protocolon Water, p. 6)

The 2015 target date of the Protocol coin-cides with the year which has been set forHungary to meet the water treatment standardsof the European Union. Therefore, both inter-national agreements strengthen the commit-

ment of Hungary to increase the number of sewer lines and improve water purification, as well as to decrease the incidence of water-bornediseases among its people.

Conclusion

The process of increasing sewer access andimproving wastewater treatment in Hungaryhas been a continuous one. Through its tran-sition to a European Union member state,Hungary has been able to strengthen its pro-grams on water quality and sanitation.European Union subsidies and the implemen-tation of new infrastructure have been indis-pensable to Hungarys ability to improve thecondition of wastewater treatment. However,additional changes require still further invest-ment and the cooperation of the private andpublic sectors, including all levels of govern-ments. ( National Environmental Programme

20032008 , p. 10)The European Union subsidy will contin-ue through the ISPAs post-accession program,


7/8

33

the Cohesion Fund. With continued financialassistance, in addition to private andParliamentary funding, the improved water treat-ment and the construction of new sewer lines willcontinue into the next decade. In addition, the tar-get date of 2015 for most communities to haveaccess to local sewers and water treatment is rea-

sonable when the considerable improvements which have been made in the last fifteen yearsalone are taken into account. Thus, Hungary hasa great potential to improve its wastewater treat-ment and sanitation, but it is up to the Parliamentto continue the impressive changes made sinceindependence.


8/8

34

2004 Budget Allocates HUF 92.3bn for EnvironmentalInvestments and Water Management. MTI-EcoNews. March 4, 2004.

Act No. LIII of 1995 on the General RegulationsConcerning Environmental Protection . Courtesy of

the Ministry for Environmental and Regional Policy,1998.Commission Opinion on Hungarys Application for

Membership of the European Union. EuropeanUnion. July 1997. Online. www.europa.eu.int/ comm/enlargement/hungary/#Overview%20of%20key%20documents%20related%20to%20enlargement.

Accessed September 13, 2005.Environment and Health. Ministry of Health. May 17,

2004. Online. www.eum.hu/eum/eum_angol.news.page?pid=DA_26315. Accessed November 7, 2005.

Enyedi, Gyorgy and Viktoria Szirmai. Environment and Society in Eastern Europ e. Andrew Tickle and Ian Welsh, eds. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1998.

Erdey, Gyrgy and Mariann Karcza. Hungary. Approximation of European Union Environmental Legislat ion: Case Studies of Bulgar ia , Czech Republ ic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia , L ithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republ ic and Slovenia.Budapest: The Regional Environmental Center forCentral and Eastern Europe, 1996.

Gergely, Dr. Erzebet. Remarks to the Martindale CenterStudent Associates. May 13, 2005. Budapest,Hungary.

Hungarys Environment On Track, Says EUCommissioner Wallstrom HUF 2.5 TrillionSpending in 10 Years. Interfax Hungary Weekly

Business Report . October 21, 2002. Implementation of Agenda 21: Review of Progress

Made since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Uni ted Nat ionsCommission on Sustainable Development . 1997.Online. www.un.org/esa/earthsummit/hunga-cp.htm#chap18. Accessed September 24, 2005.

National Environmental Programme 20032008 . Ministryfor Environment and Water, 2004.

National Was te Management Plan 20032008 . TheMinistry for Environment and Water, 2002.

Pescod, M.B. Wastewater Treatment and Use in Agriculture: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Irrigation and Drainage Paper 47. Chapter3. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UnitedNations, 1992.

The Phare Program. European Union. Online. www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/pas/phare/.

Accessed October 2, 2005.The Phare Program Annual Report 1998 . European Union.

Online. www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/ pas/phare/ar98/index_ar98.htm. Accessed October17, 2005.

Pre-Accession Assistance. European Union. Online. www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/pas/ispa.htm.

Accessed November 15, 2005.

Project Appraisal Document on Proposed Loans in the Amount of EUR 27.6 Million to the Municipality of Budapest and in the Amount of EUR 2.0 Million tothe Municipality of Dunaujvaros with the Guaranteeof Republic of Hungary for a Municipal Wastewater

Project. Infrastructure Sector Unit. Europe andCentral Asia Region. The World Bank. Online. www-wds.worldbank.org/ se rv le t/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1999/09/25/000094946_99091002405740/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf. AccessedDecember 2, 2005.

The Proportion of Homes Connected to the Water Supplyand the Public Sewerage System from 19802002.Graph. The Ministry of Environment and Water.

Protocol on Water and Health to the 1992 Convention onthe Protection and Use of Transboundary

Watercourses and Internat ional Lakes. WorldHealth Organization. Online. www.euro.who.int/ document/wsn/Water_protocol_2005.pdf. AccessedOctober 22, 2005.

Regular Report: From the Commission on HungarysProgress towards Accession. European Union (1999).Online. www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/ h u n g a r y / # O v e r v i e w % 2 0 o f % 2 0 k e y % 2 0documents%20related%20to%20enlargement.

Accessed September 13, 2005.Regular Report on Hungarys Progress towards Accession

(2002). European Union. Online. www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/hungary/#Overview%2 0 o f % 2 0 k e y % 2 0 d o c u m e n t s % 2 0 r e l a t e d %20to%20enlargement. Accessed September 13,2005.

Smith, Scot and Pter Princz. Improvement of the Biological Degradability of Wastewaters Using Activated Zeol ites . Online. www.surv.ufl.edu/ research/zeolites.htm. Accessed December 1, 2005.

Somlyody, Laszlo and Peter Shanahan. Municipal Wastewater Treatment in Central and Eastern

Europe: Present Si tuat ion and Cost-Effective Development Stra tegies . The World Bank: Washington, D.C., 1998.

Szabo, Elemer and Dr. Istvan Pomazi, eds. Main Environmental Indicators of Hungary 2003 .

Budapest: Istvan Ori, 2004. Valent, F. D. Little, G. Tamburlini, F. Barbone. Burden of

Disease Attributable to Selected Environmental Factors and Injuries among Europes Children and Adolescents. WHO Environmental Burden of DiseaseNo. 8. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2004.

World Bank Approves Two Loans for Municipal WastewaterProject in Hungary. The World Bank. www.

web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUN-TRIES/ECAEXT/HUNGARYEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20017059~menuPK:302100~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:302081,00.html. 17 September1999. Online. Accessed December 4, 2005.

Zalatnay, Judit. Hungary: The Current Political Debate onthe Introduction of Emissions Charges. Newsletter

on Green Budget Reform , Issue 8, July 2001.

REFERENCES

Documents

Wastewater Policy