Water Services
Water Services
Water Services
Table 3.1
Surface area, population and gross domestic product (GDP) of CEE countries
Country
Surface area
Population
km2
Total million
(1998)
% in rural
Population
GDP in US $
density per
areas
km (1998)
year
Bulgaria
110,912
8257
31
74
15131)
Czech Republic
78,864
10295
32
131
48182)
Estonia
45,200
1429
30
32
33603)
Hungary
93,032
10,114
31
109
45692)
Latvia
64,600
2449
30
38
24303)
Lithuania
65,200
3702
35
57
28741)
Poland
312,685
38,666
38
124
40782)
Romania
238,391
22,503
40
94
15151)
Slovakia
49,012
5388
33
110
36541)
Slovenia
20,253
1983
50
98
10,0761)
2)
3)
48
Chapter 3
Table 3.2
Total
countries
Bulgaria
Czech Republic1)
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
2410
600
3010
600
50
650
8050
3240
11,290
570
10,360
10,930
567
11,373
11,940
Lithuania
4140
2903
7043
Poland
1440
140
1580
Romania
1501
3752
5253
Slovakia
284
1246
1530
Slovenia
16,100
6600
22,700
According to another source, the volume of water resources of the Czech Republic is higher: internal
resources 1457 m3/capita.year, river flow from other countries 97 m3/capita.year, total 1554
m3/capita.year (Central Statistical Office, Warsaw, 2001)
Table 3.3
Year of data
Total
Bulgaria
1997
1554
171.0
Czech Republic
1998
225
61.2
Estonia
1998
1000
43.0
Hungary
1995
657
85.4
Latvia
1997
913)
34.43)
1998
1179
33.0
Poland )
2000
286
60.8
Romania
1996
461
92.2
Slovakia
1997
1058
380.8
Slovenia
1996
170
129.2
Lithuania
1
2)
3)
49
The fraction of the population deemed to be rural is similar in eight of the ten CEE
countries and lies within the range of 30-38%. In two countries, however, it is higher in
Romania it is 40% and in Slovenia 50% (table 3.1). The countries with the lowest water
availability per inhabitant include the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia
(table 3.2). However, when only the internal water resources are taken into account, i.e. the
resources available within the territory of the given country, Hungary and Latvia also have
a limited amount of water. It has to be noted that in these countries the amount of river
water that flows in from other countries forms a large share of the total amount of water
resources available. To a lesser extent this is also the case for Romania and Slovakia.
The water usage per inhabitant in CEE countries varies greatly (table 3.3). The index of
total water usage in m3/person/year is high in Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovakia.
This is a result of relatively high water consumption for energy and industrial needs.
The index of water use in towns in seven CEE countries lies in the range of
33-90 m3/person.year. In three countries it is considerably higher:
in Bulgaria 171 m3/person.year; in Slovakia 380.8 m3/person.year;
and in Slovenia 129.2 m3/person.year.
3.2 Condition of water services in CEE countries
The availability of water and wastewater services can generally be characterised by the
percentage of the population served. In the CEE countries such data are only available
for the urban population, or refer to the population in general without an urban-rural
breakdown. Data are rarely available for populations of small towns and rural areas. Table
3.4 summarises the data for inhabitants using municipal or community water supply and
sewage disposal systems and sewage treatment plants. The data for the rural areas show
that populations of small municipalities are in a worse situation than town populations as
far as access to water supply and sewage disposal services is concerned. This is presented
in more detail by the data for Poland shown in table 3.5. Statistical data quoted in tables
3.4 and 3.5 also clearly indicate that in small municipalities and in rural areas sewage
disposal systems are significantly less developed than water supply networks.
50
Chapter 3
Table 3.4
Population using water supply networks and sewerage systems in CEE countries (major
parameters according to data 1997/98)
% of population using:
Municipal water supply
system
plants
Country Urban
Rural
Country Urban
49
wide
Bulgaria
Rural
Country Urban
36
wide
85
Rural
wide
70
74.8
63.9
Estonia
60
80
45
50
77
Hungary
94
96
88
43
63
30
Latvia
93
<50
92
<50
88
Lithuania
70
60
36
Poland2)
84.9
91.7
76.5
55.7
83
11.5
53
79.3
10.7
Romania
55
40
28
Slovakia
81
54
84
16
36
Slovenia
66
74
43
Source: CEETAC, 2000; Central Statistical Office, Warsaw, 2000 and 2002; Foundation for the Development of
Polish Agriculture, 2001; Hugh, J. and Roman, M., 2000; Roman, M., Kloss-Trebaczkiewicz,
H. and Osuch,
Pajdzinska,
E., 2001
1)
According to data from 2000 (Foundation for the Development of Polish Agriculture, 2001)
2)
According to data from 2000 (Central Statistical Office, Warsaw, 2001, 2002; Hughes, J. and Roman, M.,
2000; Roman, M., Kloss-Trebaczkiewicz,
H., and Osuch-Pajdzinska,
E., 2001)
,
Table 3.5
No information available.
Population of Polish urban and rural areas using municipal water supply and sewerage
systems and municipal wastewater treatment plants (data from 2000)
Type and size of
settlements
Wastewater treatment
system
system
plants
96.8
92.0
75.5
95.5
89.9
90.3
50 000 99 999
92.6
85.4
82.8
20 000 49 999
90.0
80.4
84.6
Urban area
Town size group
(number of
inhabitants)
>
51
>
Type and size of
settlements
Wastewater treatment
system
system
plants
10 000 19 999
84.3
72.0
76.8
5 000 9 999
80.4
60.6
69.3
below 5 000
72.9
44.3
60.1
Town in total
91.7
83.0
79.3
76.5
11.5
10.7
84.9
55.4
53.0
Rural area
Villages 1)
2
Country in total )
According to other sources (Central Statistical Office, Warsaw, 2001; Hughes, J. and and Roman, M., 2000;
Roman, M., Kloss-Trebaczkiewicz,
H., and Osuch-Pajdzinska,
E., 2001)
,
2)
Own estimation.
After the Second World War, in the years 1945-1990, the communal water supply and
sewage disposal systems in CEE countries were state owned. Institutional arrangements
for managing the services also had a state-owned character. The services were either
provided by state-owned companies or by central budget institutions that depended on
the state administration. In general, water supply and sewage disposal in towns and
rural areas were managed centrally.
After 1990 water supply and sewage disposal systems became the property of
municipalities and communities. As well as gaining ownership of the technical systems, they
became responsible for water supply and sewage disposal in towns and rural areas. While
implementing these tasks they began to change the institutional arrangements for
supplying water and disposing of sewage and wastewater in their territories. Currently there
are different institutional forms such as: budgetary enterprises; limited liability companies;
joint stock companies; water law companies; entrusting the operational services to private
companies based on legal agreements; and others. Table 3.6 shows examples of the
different institutional arrangements for water services currently in operation in Poland. The
figures indicate that commercial code companies prevail in the larger cities (with
populations over 50,000), while municipal budgetary enterprises and units operate
predominantly in small urban municipalities (<10,000 people) and rural locations.
52
Chapter 3
Table 3.6
of population
Budgetary
Limited
Joint stock
Unchanged
enterprises
liability
company
incorpo-
and units
company
Urban
45.6
40.2
2.0
Over 50 000
8.0
71.5
8.0
20 000
22.6
68.4
38.4
52.0
Other
Total
2.3
9.9
100.0
9.1
3.4
100.0
2.3
3.8
4.9
100.0
51.2
1.8
1.8
6.8
100.0
33.0
1.7
1.1
12.2
100.0
12.0
0.0
0.4
16.4
100.0
9.9
1.1
0.9
30.32)
100.0
ration1)
50 000
10 000
20 000
5 000
10 000
under 5 000
71.2
Municipal enterprises former state-owned enterprises operating under the State Enterprises Law of 1981.
The majority of them have entrusted operational services to others on the basis of a legal agreement or the
lease of technical objects to conduct the services.
A characteristic feature of the current situation in water supply and sewage disposal
services in CEE countries is the maintenance of public ownership of communal water
supply and sewage disposal networks. The communities do not want to sell these assets
and participation of the private sector in that field is very limited. Currently the main
opening for private sector enterprise is found in the management of the operations,
while the ownership of the system remains within the hands of the communities (or:
remains communal property).
3.3 Challenges, needs and developments
The overall vision given by the Central and Eastern Europe Technical Advisory
Committee (CEETAC) of the Global Water Partnership is that in two to three decades
there will be sufficient, safe, clean and healthy water and people living in stable societies
in the CEE region (CEETAC 2000). It is an ambitious vision, and to implement it
requires complex activities within the scope of overall water resources management:
protection from contamination; improvement of water supply and sanitation;
improvement of protection against floods and droughts; promotion of international
53
cooperation in solving common aspects of water supply and sharing water resources;
development and implementation of environmental protection policies; and obtaining
sufficient funding.
In the field of water supply there is a need to develop the water supply networks, especially
in small municipalities and rural areas. It is necessary to raise the access to domestic water
supply services in those areas to the much higher levels of large towns. This is not only
important from a perspective of social equity, but also to ensure an adequate level of public
health. Currently, shallow wells, which are present in nearly all rural households, are the
alternative water source, but the sanitary quality of their water is often unsure.
Extending the scope of water supply networks has to go hand-in-hand with
improvements in the quality of water supplied to consumers. That requires further
modernisation of existing water treatment plants and construction of new ones, to meet
raised standards. Water supplies in small municipalities and rural areas in CEE countries
mainly use water from groundwater sources. The quality of this water needs to be
improved and its sources protected against pollution.
Development of improved water supply systems must be accompanied by an adequate
development of sewage disposal and water treatment systems. If this does not happen,
the paradoxical situation will emerge that the development of safer water supply systems
in rural areas and small municipalities creates new threats to the environment and public
health. Lack of funding is the biggest obstacle to improving water supply, sewage disposal
and water treatment systems in CEE countries. The countries have low per capita GDPs
and huge restructuring needs in many other fields as well as water services.
An important task currently being undertaken by the CEE countries is to ensure that in
future the water tariffs make it possible to recover the costs of the water services, as laid
down in Article 9 of the European Community water policy directive 2000/60/EC. This
is an immensely difficult challenge. It will have to be implemented gradually over several
years, because it will cause a significant increase in water prices for rural populations
with very limited financial capabilities.
In meeting the considerable challenges they face, CEE countries do have some
advantages over developing countries in the South facing similar problems. There is, for
example, no shortage of qualified professionals able to design, build and maintain water
supply infrastructure. The CEE countries all have university graduates with masters
degrees and higher engineering degrees in water supply and wastewater engineering.
Training facilities are also available for technical personnel and operators. There is an
open market now for foreign technologies, particularly from Western Europe, and CEE
home companies also produce appropriate modern solutions.
54
Chapter 3
55
Table 3.7
Water consumption
litres per capita per day
5.0
46.0
Toilet
35.0
Dish washing
8.0
Laundry
16.0
Other
8.0
Total
118.0
Source: Globus, statistische Angaben: Bundesverband der Deutschen Gas und Wasserwirtschaft
(KA Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser, Abfall 2002 (49) No. 2 p.152).
Currently in CEE countries, households are reducing their per capita tap water
consumption. This can be illustrated by the data from Poland presented in table 3.8.
The decrease in water consumption by the households is due to water metering, the
introduction of prices based on the actual costs of the services, the availability of better
quality technology for house water installations and a reduction in water wastage.
Table 3.8
Changes in average water consumption in households in Polish towns during the period
1995-2000
Year
Water consumption
1995
168.9
1996
157.5
1997
149.5
1998
141.6
1999
136.2
2000
129.8
56
Chapter 3
Bibliography
Central and Eastern Europe Regional Technical Advisory Committee (CEETAC) of The
Global Water Partnership (2000). Water for the 21st century: vision to action, Central
and Eastern Europe. Stockholm, Sweden, Global Water Partnership.
Central Statistical Office (2001). Environment 2001. Warsaw, Poland, Central Statistical
Office.
Central Statistical Office (2001). International statistics yearbook 2000. Warsaw, Poland,
Central Statistical Office.
Central Statistical Office (2001). Municipal infrastructure in 2000. Warsaw, Poland,
Central Statistical Office.
Central Statistical Office (2002). Statistical yearbook of the Republic of Poland 2001.
Warsaw, Poland, Central Statistical Office.
Foundation for the Development of Polish Agriculture (2001). Rural Poland 2000.
Warsaw, Poland, Foundation for the Development of Polish Agriculture. Rural
Development Report.
Hughes, J. and Roman, M. (2000). Water and wastewater sector pricing and economic
regulation in Poland. In: Specialised conference water management for 21st century:
learning from the 20th century experience, 24-25 October 2000 Berlin, Germany.
London, UK, International Water Association (IWA).
Roman, M.; Kloss-Trebaczkiewicz,
H. and Osuch-Pajdzinska,
E. (2001) Legal and
,
organizational forms of water supply and sewage disposal services in Poland In: Sixth
BNAWQ Scientific and Practical Conference Water quality technologies and
management in Bulgaria and Third Seminar Private participation in water supply and
sewage services, 20-22 February. Sofia, Bulgaria, Bulgarian National Association of
Water Quality.
57
3. Estonia
Estonian Water Works Association
Adela 10, Tallin 10502, PK 174
Tel. +372 626-24-58; Fax +372 672-10-63
E-mail: [email protected]
4. Czech Republic
Water Research Institute
Podhabska 30. 16062 Praque 6
Tel. 421 7 343 345; Fax 421 7 315 743
E-mail: [email protected]
5. Hungary
Hungarian Professional Association of Water and Sewerage Companies
1368 Budapest pf 201
Tel. +361 353 3241; 331 8382; 312 3066
Fax +361 1302 7600; 353 3241; 331 8382
6. Latvia
Latvian Water and Waste Water Works Society
Bezdeliguiela 12, Riga LV-1007
Tel./Fax +371 62-46-93
E-mail: [email protected]
58
Chapter 3
7. Lithuania
Lithuanian Water Supplies Association
Luki_kiu g. 5-506, 2600 Vilnius
Tel. (370 2) 22 4678; Fax (370 2) 22 4960
E-mail: [email protected]
8. Poland
9. Romania
Romanian Water Association
202A Splaiul Independenta, 9 Floor, 6 Sector
78 123 Bucharest
Tel. +401 410 3958; Fax +401 410 3872
E-mail: [email protected]
10. Slovakia
Dept. of Sanitary Engineering Slovak Technical University
Radlinskho 11; 813 68 Bratislava
Tel. 42 17 529 20631; Fax 42 17 529 21184
E-mail: [email protected]
11. Slovenia
Slovenian Water Pollution Control Association
Hajdrichova 19; Sl-1000 Ljubljana
Tel. 386 61 176 0200; 386 61 125 9244
E-mail: [email protected]
59
60