GWP Slovakia experience in promotion of sustainable sanitation, in connection with the RBMPs Milan Matuska, GWP CEE, Regio...
Sustainable sanitation in Slovakia <ul><ul><li>Negotiation SR with EC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Included into national RB...
Settlements above 2000 p.e. <ul><li>Traditional approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Centralized </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>...
Settlements less than 2000 p.e. <ul><li>More than 2800 of them </li></ul><ul><li>Traditional approach strongly promoted by...
Settlements less than 2000 p.e. <ul><ul><ul><li>Organized jointly with GWP Slovakia seminar in 2008 for mayors of small se...
What should be done next? <ul><li>Train experts to be skilled in  Open Wastewater Planning   (OWP)  and afterwards be able...
Richnava case study <ul><li>Feasibility study incl.  OWP </li></ul><ul><li>Establishment of  ad hoc  working group </li></...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

GWP Slovakia experience in promotion of sustainable sanitation, in connection with the RBMPs

396

Published on

Conference Sustainable Wastewater Management in River Basin Management Plans in Baltic Sea Region 19.11.2009
GWP Slovakia experience in promotion of sustainable sanitation, in connection with the RBMPs

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
396
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "GWP Slovakia experience in promotion of sustainable sanitation, in connection with the RBMPs"

  1. 1. GWP Slovakia experience in promotion of sustainable sanitation, in connection with the RBMPs Milan Matuska, GWP CEE, Regional Coordinator Sustainable Wastewater Management in River Basin Management Plans in Baltic Sea Region Gdynia, 19 November
  2. 2. Sustainable sanitation in Slovakia <ul><ul><li>Negotiation SR with EC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Included into national RBMP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transferred into Danube RBMP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Political issue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Association of Towns and villages of Slovakia (ATVS) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Local IWRM plans </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Support of sustainable/eco/alternative sanitation approach </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bottlenecks of sustainable sanitation (SS) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Richnava case study </li></ul></ul></ul>Settlements above 2000 p.e. Settlements less than 2000 p.e.
  3. 3. Settlements above 2000 p.e. <ul><li>Traditional approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Centralized </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collection of wastewaters </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Waste water treatment plant </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Grouping small settlements to agglomeration above 2000 p.e. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Too artificial – rejected by EC as not efficient/economical </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Waste of finances invested by small settlements into project proposals </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Included into national RBMPs and transferred into Danube RBMP </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Deadline 2015 will be met </li></ul></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Settlements less than 2000 p.e. <ul><li>More than 2800 of them </li></ul><ul><li>Traditional approach strongly promoted by joint-stock Water Companies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not affordable by small settlements from financial view </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Excluded from national operational programmes supported by EU structural funds </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some of them excluded from all national programmes promoting small settlements because of different Slovak internal regional policy in line with EC policy </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Political issue </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Small settlements feel themselves discriminated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Appeal to ATVS for help in discussion with government </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ATVS office </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Established IWRM working group (GWP experts are members) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Elaborated principles for implementation of IWRM approach in understandable language (in cooperation with GWP) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disseminated Questionnaire among towns and villages on the status of IWRM implementation/planning incl. wastewater disposal </li></ul></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Settlements less than 2000 p.e. <ul><ul><ul><li>Organized jointly with GWP Slovakia seminar in 2008 for mayors of small settlements based on results of Questionnaire </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Presentations were based on GWP CEE book on Sustainable Sanitation (SS) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Result – negotiation with 15 mayors on implementation SS – positively accepted by local governments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Negative response from state administration responsible for permits </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More complicated permit procedure and checking the treatment efficiency </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lobbying big and powerful Water Work Companies for traditional approach </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Negative attitude of wastewaters experts and water companies to alternative SS </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mayors lost their interest to implement SS approach </li></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 6. What should be done next? <ul><li>Train experts to be skilled in Open Wastewater Planning (OWP) and afterwards be able to use this tool jointly with other communities for implementation of SS (incl. wastewater treatment systems) </li></ul><ul><li>Explore which communities are willing to use OWP and consequently to build SS </li></ul><ul><li>Engage state administration at all levels into OWP and implementation of SS in order identification problems and facilitation of permits process </li></ul><ul><li>Initiate necessary changes in respective legislation which could obstruct smooth application of SS – if necessary </li></ul><ul><li>Implement pilot projects to propagate new approaches and prove their efficiency to meet sustainability criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Advocate SS at national governments and convince them to bring this as priority issue to respective EC body </li></ul><ul><li>In the case of Slovakia the whole proposed programme would be gradually executed in close cooperation between GWP Slovakia and ATVS </li></ul><ul><li>Joint action of CEE governments at EC for changing its policy in supporting small settlements from EU Funds??? </li></ul>
  7. 7. Richnava case study <ul><li>Feasibility study incl. OWP </li></ul><ul><li>Establishment of ad hoc working group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Visits on the spot </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discussion with representatives of the village </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Natural conditions (surface waters recipient groundwater, precipitation regime, water outflow) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Water supply, water pollution sources, wastewater disposal, future plans </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Roma camp – extra, intermediate solution??? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Task for ad hoc Working Group? </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Feasibility study of wastewater disposal in an IWRM context towards a Village Strategy </li></ul></ul></ul>

×