Treatment Wetlands for Sustainable Sanitation in Central and Eastern Europe by Tjasa Bulc

1. SWS 2015 European Chapter Meeting
Wetlands – indicators of the changing environment
Treatment wetlands for sustainable
sanitation in Central and Eastern
Europe
Griessler Bulc Tjašaa, Muller Richardb, Istenič Darjaa
aUniversity of Ljubljana, Faculty for Health Sciences, Slovenia
bGlobal Water Partnership Central and Eastern Europe
Bled, 10. – 13. 05. 2015

2. The Global Water Partnership (GWP) is a dynamic, not-for-profit action
network with over 3,000 Partner organisations in 172 countries around
the world. The network has 85 Country Water Partnerships and 13
Regional Water Partnerships.

3. 1. Introduction: GWP and sustainable
sanitation
• GWP CEE Sustainable sanitation task force
• Increased interest in low-cost on site wastewater
treatment systems
• Survey the actual situation in treatment wetlands
• Political, technical and legislation aspect
• Preparation of expert book on nature based
technologies
• Practical information on requirements, operation and
maintenance
• Learning tool

4. 1. Introduction: Central and Eastern Europe
• območju• 12 countries
• Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Ukraine
• 30% of population lives in settlements with less than
2000 inhabitants
– This is >42 million people!
– Only 9% connected to WWTP

5. 2. Materials and methods: TW database and
monitoring
• območju• Questionnaire for sanitation experts from all CEE
countries
• 1 person per country (from NGOs, Universities, private companies)
• The questions included:
• Geographical information of the country
• Wastewater management in communities with <2000 PE
• TW presence and status
• Policy and legal aspects of TW
• Obstacles and barriers for implementation
• Answers were processed and additional explanations
were claimed if needed.

6. 3. Results: TW application
• območju• Answers were received from 9 out of 12
countries
• No answers from Poland, Lithuania, Moldova
• Countries with long-term good experience
• Czech Republic, Slovenia
• Countries with bad, limited or no experience
• Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria
• Geographical, demographical and economic
conditions are suitable
• Legislation not always favourable

7. 3. Results: TW application
Nr of small*
WWTP
Nr of TW % TW Guidelines/
standards
Bulgaria 57 5 9 No
Czech Republic 1550 690 45 Yes
Estonia 826 14 2 Yes
Hungary 270 10 4 Yes
Latvia 1020 10 1 No
Romania 82 0 0 No
Slovakia 382 5 1 Yes
Slovenia 190 80 42 No
Ukraine n.a. 65 / No
Average/total 4377 897 20%
*capacity <2000 PE

8. 3. Results: Legislation limits
BG CZ EST H LA RO SK SLO UA
mg/L
<2000 PE BOD5 / 30/60 15 50 50-70% 20 30/60 30 15
COD / 125/180 125 200 50-70% 125 135/170 150 80
SS / 40/70 25 75 <35 60 30/60 / 15
NH4-N / 20/40 / 4 / 15 / / 0.39
TP / / 1.5 4 / 2 / / /
<500 PE BOD5 / 40/80 15 80
Appropriate
treatment
/ 30/60 30 15
COD / 150/220 125 300 / 135/170 150 80
SS / 50/80 25 100 / 30/60 / 15
NH4-N / / / 4 / / / 0.39
TP / / 1.5 4 / / / /
<50 PE BOD5 / / / / / / 40/70 30 15
COD / / / / / / / 150 80
SS / / / / / / / / 15
NH4-N / / / / / / / / 0.39
TP / / / / / / / / /

9. 3. Results: Knowledge foundation
• območju
Figure: Number of scientific papers at Science Direct database published by
countries according to keywords. Data from 1991 to 2012 are gathered.

10. 3. Results: Main barriers
• območju• Unawareness
• National and local authorities
• Local communities
• Deficits in legislation
• discharge limits,
• lack of programmes and plans for WW treatment in
small settlements
• Negative experiences
• Malfunctioning TW (CZ, SK, H)

11. 3. Results: Additional barriers
• območju• Land limitations
• Competition with agricultural land
• Hilly and mountainous area
• Natural characteristics
• Severe winters and cold summers in Estonia and
highlands of Romania
• High groundwater levels
• Institutional barriers
• Market barriers

12. 3. Results: Solutions
• Promotion of TW
• Low-cost on-site solutions
• Beneficial effect on economic, environmental and social wellbeing
• Special importance in rural areas
– Integration in water and nutrient needs in agriculture
• Expert book on nature based technologies
• Learning tool for expert communities
• Translation to CEE languages
• Workshops for different levels of stakeholders
• Ministries, local communities etc.
• Exchange of knowledge and good practices

13. 4. Conclusions
• območju• Awareness rising at institutional and administrative level
• Transfer of knowledge from expert to practice
• Improvement of legislation
• Demonstration of good examples
• More effective systems with less surface demand (VF)

14. Thank you for attention!
Thank you for attention!