standard summary project fiche - european commission · urban waste water treatment plant in gozo...

Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant in GozoProject Fiche - National Pre-Accession Programme 2003 - Malta - Final

STANDARD SUMMARY PROJECT FICHE_______________________________

1. BASIC INFORMATION

1.1 CRIS Number: 4573/01

1.2 Title: Construction of an Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant inGozo

1.3 Sector: Environment

1.4 Location: Gozo, Malta

2. OBJECTIVES

2.1 Overall Objectives

To preserve, protect and improve the quality of the marine environment by meeting therequirements set out in the Urban Waste Water Directive 91/271/EEC.

2.2 Project Purpose

• To reduce the impact of raw sewage discharge to the marine environment in thearea known as Ta’ Mgarr ix-Xini in the South of the island of Gozo.

• To discharge the treated effluent to a non sensitive area (according to theguidelines laid out in Annex II of the Directive) through an existing marinesewage outfall.

• To ensure that the treated effluent is suitable for irrigation and for selectedindustrial reuse applications.

2.3. Accession Partnership and NPAA priority

Based on the long term goal of compliance with EU Legislative requirements asdefined in the National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis Communautaireand in line with Malta’s regional obligations vis-à-vis the Barcelona Convention, theMinistry for Resources and Infrastructure has already prepared an action plan on alocal level, the Sewerage Master Plan for Malta and Gozo (1992) with animplementation period extending to the year 2011.

The proposed measure relates to the criteria laid down in the Urban WastewaterDirective 91/271/EC combined with the criteria of other corresponding directives asrequired by the NPAA of the Acquis Communautaire in the scope of the waterframework.

The proposed project is a high priority measure within the scope of the NationalProgramme for the Adoption of the Acquis and furthermore, the implementation ofthe Sewerage Master Plan on the Local Level, which amongst other proposedimprovements details the measures of the NPAA in relation to the setting up of thenecessary urban sewage, collection and treatment infrastructure.


3. DESCRIPTION

3.1 Background and Justification

The proposed plant has been identified in the Sewerage Master Plan for Malta andGozo - 1992 as a priority measure for approximation to the Urban WastewaterDirective 91/271/EC.

The scope of the Sewerage Master Plan was to identify and assess the currentsewerage infrastructure of the Maltese Islands, highlight problem areas andbottlenecks of the network and propose a series of upgrades and improvements toovercome the latter.

The improvements and upgrades were identified as follows:• new relief mains and galleries• retention basins and existing galleries to be used for retention• pumping stations and rising mains• urban waste water treatment plants• sewage outfalls

The implementation of the intended improvements and upgrades will span over aperiod extending to the year 2011. The primary improvements will be concluded bythe end of 2007.

Project Description:

The urban waste water treatment plant is intended for full tertiary treatment capabilityavailing the treated effluent for irrigation purposes and for selected industrial reuseapplications. The Ras il-Hobz sewage outfall currently discharges around 8% of thetotal sewage generated on the Maltese Islands. The maximum pollutant load to behandled by the plant is as follows:

Unit All yearAverage Flow m3/day 6,500Peak Flow m3/hour 630COD kg/day 2,730BOD5 kg/day 1,670Suspended solids kg/day 4,020Total – N kg/day 415Total – P kg/day 105Conductivity µ S/cm 3,330pH - 6,5

The discharge from the plant is expected to contain the following pollutionconcentrations : BOD5 : 5mg/litre, total Ammonia Nitrogen : 2mg/litre , TotalSuspended solids 10mg/litre, Phosphorus : 5mg/litre.

The 5mg/litre limit for Phosphorus is acceptable for irrigation reuse purposes.According to the Urban Waste Water Directive: Annex I Table 2 the 2mg/litreconcentration restriction is applicable for discharges to sensitive areas only. The Gozourban waste water treatment plant does not discharge to a sensitive area.


The sludge from the urban waste water treatment plant will be fully stabilisedaerobically, pre-thickened and de-watered to a 30% dry solid content fraction. Thesludge will be handed over to the local recently established Waste ManagementServices agency to treat and dispose of it in accordance with EU Legislation. Nosludge will be re-used for agricultural purposes.

All industrial discharges incident on the urban waste water treatment plant will bepre-treated to legal notice LN 139/2002 standards before discharging to the seweragenetwork, thus safeguarding the operation of the plant as stipulated in the Urban WasteWater Directive.

The related infrastructure will basically consist of the following elements:

• One intake pumping station• One treated effluent pumping station• Two rising mains• Access Roads to intake pumping station and sewage treatment plant• One treated effluent reservoir

3.2 Linked Activities

An environmental impact assessment study pertaining to the measure was submittedto the MEPA (Malta Environment Planning Authority) and distributed to all relevantstakeholders during June 2001 for consultation. The draft tender documents arecurrently being completed and geotechnical surveys on the site will be conductedshortly. A public consultation on the project is scheduled for end of November thisyear.

3.3 Results

• Increased productivity of land in the vicinity of the plant through the provision ofsecond class water for irrigation purposes.

• Increases in agricultural employment due to the intensification of cropcultivation.

• Improved land and marine based environment through a drastic reduction in theexisting pollutant load.

• Improvement of the tourism potential of the area.

3.4. Activities

Detailed engineering design, construction and supply and installation of materials andequipment for the following infrastructural elements:

• Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant• One sewage intake pumping station• One treated effluent pumping station• Two rising mains• Access Roads to intake pumping station and sewage treatment plant• One treated effluent reservoir


4. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

• The Beneficiaries of the project are the residents in Malta and Gozo.• The employer will be the Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure.• The supervising engineer will be the Director General (Works), Works Division, within the Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure.• The investment owner after project realisation will be the government of Malta.• The project implementation will not result in any changes in the institutional framework

described above.

5. DETAILED BUDGET

EU Funding

(‘000 €) Insti-tution

Building

Invest-ment

Total

Nationalco-

financingTotal budget

Urban Waste Water TreatmentPlant and related Infrastructure

- 3,700 3,700 3,500 7,200

TOTAL - 3,700 3,700 3,500 7,200

6. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

6.1 Implementing Agency

MINISTRY FOR RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE (MRI)Works Division, Project House, Floriana CMR 02, MALTA

Contact Person: Mr. Vincent Cassar, Director General ( Works)Telephone: +356 21 22141 1Telex/Fax: 1861 SCO PWD MW/ +356 21 234145Internet E-mail: [email protected]

6.2 Twinning

Not applicable.

6.3 Non-standard aspects

Not applicable.

6.4 Contracts

One Works type contract for the total value of 7.2 million EURO. The contract will beconcluded in accordance with the procedures laid down in the PRAG (Practical Guideto EC external aid).

7. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

7.1 Start of Tendering: 1st quarter 20037.2 Start of Project Activity: 2nd quarter 20037.3 Project Completion: End of 2005


8. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

The equal participation of men and women will be assured.

9. ENVIRONMENT

The Environment Impact Assessment has been carried out by an independent EIA consultantfirm AIS Environmental Ltd. in conjunction with SLR Consulting Services Ltd.-UK. A copyof the document is readily available on request from the Ministry of Resources andInfrastructure. The EIA is in accordance with EU Directive 85/337. The urban waste waterplant will comply with the requirements set out in the Urban Waste Water Directive91/271/EC. The environmental impacts of the projects are summarised in the table presentedas Annex 6.

10. RATES OF RETURN

Economic rate of return / Financial rate of return: not applicable – non revenue generatingproject.

11. INVESTMENT CRITERIA

11.1 Catalytic effect

EU support will facilitate the implementation of the project which would haveotherwise be implemented only at a much later stage.

11.2 Co-financing

The local cofinancing element will be provided for through the local budget.

11.3 Additionality

No displacement of other financing instrument opportunities will take place.

11.4 Project Readiness and size

The project is ready for contracting and disbursement as soon as the necessary publicconsultation will be concluded in the immediate future. The technical studies havebeen completed last year and the land acquisition procedures are underway.

11.5 Sustainability

The project will comply with EU norms and standards, in line with EU sector policyacquis. The operations and maintenance costs will be paid out of local funds under therecurrent expenditure votes.


12. CONDITIONALITY AND SEQUENCING

Co-funding of the project will be conditional to:

• Co-financing of project by Malta funds.• Issue of development permit of project by MEPA (Malta Environment Planning

Authority) following the public consultation phase.

Milestones:

• Completion of tender documentation by December 2002.• Issue of development permit by MEPA by December 2002.• Tender Period scheduled for March 2003 (estimated at 90 day duration).• Financing Memorandum to be signed by the end of April 2003.• Contracting over by August 2003.• Construction activities to commence by October 2003 (20 month construction period).

ANNEXES

1. Logical Framework Matrix In Standard Format2. Detailed Implementation Chart3. Contracting And Disbursement Schedule of EU funding4. Supporting documents5. List Of Relevant Laws And Regulations6. Summary Of The Project Environmental Impacts


Annex 1

LOGICAL FRAMEWORK MATRIX Programme nber:

Contracting period expires:November 2005

Disbursement period expires:November 2006Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant in Gozo

Total budget 2003: 7,200,000 EU Contribution 2003: 3,700,000

Intervention Logic Objective Verifiable Indicators Sources of Verification AssumptionsOverall Objective:

To preserve, protect and improve thequality of the marine environment bymeeting the requirements of the EUUrban Waste Water Directive91/271/EC.

The reduction of the impact of untreatedeffluent on the marine environment atRas Il-Hobz in the South of Gozo.Treated effluent is suitable for irrigationand selected industrial reuseapplications.

Published results of the self monitoringprogramme by the operators of the newWastewater Treatment Plant.Scientific data published by the MaltaResources Authority, the HealthAuthorities and the EnvironmentProtection Directorate of MEPA.

Project Purpose :

To reduce the impact of raw sewagedischarge to the marine environment inthe area known as Ta’ Mgarr ix-Xini inthe South of the island of Gozo.To discharge the treated effluent to a nonsensitive area (according to theguidelines laid out in Annex II of theDirective) through an existing marinesewage outfall.To ensure that the treated effluent issuitable for irrigation and for selectedindustrial reuse applications.

The reduction of the impact of untreatedeffluent on the marine environment atRas Il-Hobz in the South of Gozo.Treated effluent is suitable for irrigationand selected industrial reuseapplications.

Published results of the self monitoringprogramme by the operators of the newWastewater Treatment Plant.Scientific data published by the MaltaResources Authority, the HealthAuthorities and the EnvironmentProtection Directorate of MEPA.


Intervention Logic Objective Verifiable Indicators Sources of Verification AssumptionsResults:

The construction of the neededinfrastructure;The construction of the WastewaterTreatment Plant;

The completion of all related civil andmechanical engineering works, such as

One intake pumping station;One treated effluent pumping station;Two rising mains;Access roads; andOne treated effluent reservoir.

Activities:

The completion of land expropriationprocedures;The completion of a Geo-TechnicalSurvey of the proposed site;The completion of the relatedinfrastructure works;The completion of the new UrbanWastewater Treatment Plant;

Co-financing materializes and the civiland mechanical engineering works arecarried out to the correct specifications.


Annex 2

IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE

Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant in Gozo

2003 2004 2005

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

D T T I I I I I I I I X

D = Design; T = Tendering and Contracting; I = Implementation; X = Closure


Annex 3CONTRACTING AND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE OF EU FUNDING

Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant in Gozo

(‘000 €)

CRIS REF 4573/01

2003 2004 2005DATE

I Q II Q III Q IV Q I Q II Q III Q IV Q I Q II Q

CONTRACTED 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700

DISBURSED - - 700 1,200 1,600 2,100 2,500 3,100 3,500 3,700


Annex 4SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Reference To Feasibility / Pre-Feasibility Studies. For All Investment Projects, The ExecutiveSummary Of The Economic And Financial Appraisals, And The Environmental ImpactAssessment Should Be Attached Key Pre-feasibility and feasibility studies :

• Sewerage Master Plan for Malta and Gozo – November 1992 by COWI Consult;• Alternative sites for Sewage Treatment Plant in Gozo – August 1994 by COWIconsult

and• Alternative Sites Study – October 1998 by AIS / SLR;

Addenda to Annex 11. Notes to Annex I2. EIA non-technical summary3. Economic & Financial Report

ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION MEASURES

PART A – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)

Directive N° 85/337/EEC - OJ N° L175, 5/07/1985, as amendedbyDirective N° 97/11/EC – OJ N° L073, 14/03/1997.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Is consent from a government authority required for thisproject?

Yes X No

If yes, what is the competent authority?

The Planning Authority falling under the portfolio of the Ministry for theEnvironment

2) Has consent already been given to this project?

Yes No X

(i.e. has the decision that wil l allow for the start of any constructionworks been taken?)

I f yes, on which date? |___|___|___|

If not, for which date is this decision scheduled? DECEMBER 2002


3) Is the project a class of development covered by:

Annex I of Directive 85/337 (go to question 4)

Annex II of Directive 85/337 (97/11) X (go to question 5)

Not covered by Directive 85/337(97/11)

(go to question 8)

4) When covered by Annex I:

- In case consent has been given, include the necessarydocuments.1

- In case consent has not yet been given, has anenvironmental impact assessment already been carriedout?

Yes X No

I f yes, include the necessary documents.

INCLUDED IS NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT (Addendum 2 to thisAnnex)

I f not, when is this assessment l ikely to be prepared?

5) When covered by Annex II , is an environmental impactassessment required for the authorisation of thisproject?

Yes X No

- If not, explain why not and go to question 6.- If yes, and consent has already been given, include the

necessary documents. ³- If yes, but consent has not yet been given, has an

environmental impact assessment already been carried out?

Yes X No

- If yes, include the necessary documents.³ (Include copy of EIAdocuments)

COPY OF EIA DOCUMENT AVAILABLE ON REQUEST

1 the necessary documents are described in note 1 at the end of this Annex


- If not, when is this assessment l ikely to be prepared?|___|___|___|

6) Have the environmental authorities likely to be concerned bythe project by reason of their specific responsibilities beendesignated and consulted?

YES

7) Has the request for development consent and theenvironmental impact assessment study been made availableto the public, and has the public concerned been consulted?

PUBLIC CONSULTATION IS TO BE HELD IN NOVEMBER 2002

8) When not covered by the Directive, or in the case of an Annex IIproject for which an EIA is not required, is the project likely toaffect an environmentally sensitive area2?

Yes No

- If yes, attach one of the two fol lowing documents:

a) the attached questionnaire (Annex Ia)

b) a declaration (Annex Ib) by the responsible authoritiesfor nature conservation stating that the information askedfor in the questionnaire has been submitted to them andthat their conclusion is that the zone's environmentalpotential will not be directly affected by the project.

- I f not, attach a scale map and a declarat ion (Annex Ic) by theresponsible authorit ies that the project is not situated in azone which is sensit ive from an environmental point of viewand that i t wil l not have signif icant negative effects on water,air, soi ls, landscape, f lora, fauna and cultural heritage.

NOT APPLICABLE

2 for a definition of environmentally sensitive areas see note 2 at the end of this Annex


PART B – ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, MANAGEMENT ANDMONITORING

1) Indicate whether, apart from the Environmental ImpactAssessment, any environmental integration measures areenvisaged (ex. strategic environmental impactassessment or environmental audit)

Yes No X

I f yes, please specify:

2) Will the measure be subject to environmentalmanagement and/or monitoring?

Yes X No

I f yes, please specify:

THE MEASURE IS PLANNED TO BE THE SUBJECT OF ENVIRONMENTALMONITORING. THE PROPOSED MONITORING PROGRAMME ISDESCRIBED IN THE ADDENDUM 2 TO ANNEX I


Addendum 1 to Annex I

Notes to Annex I

1 . Necessary documents are:

a) the non-technical summary of the environmental impactstudy

DOCUMENT INCLUDED AS ADDENDUM 2 TO ANNEX I

b) the results of consultations with the designatedenvironmental authorit ies;

DISCUSSIONS WITH THE MEPA ARE BEING FINALISEDBEFORE PUBLIC CONSULTATION DATE IS ANNOUNCEDFOR NOVEMBER 2002.

c) the results of consultations with the public concerned.

WILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER THE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONIS HELD IN NOVEMBER.

Note: In relation to b) and c) these may be represented in the form ofa statement, conclusion or certif ication by the designatedenvironmental authority, indicating in what way the concerns ofthe designated consultees and concerned public have beentaken into account.



Environmental Impact Statement

Non-technical summary

Ministry for the Environment – Works Division April 2001Construction of Sewage Treatment Plant at Ras Il-Hobz, Gozo 4B/082/002Environmental Impact Statement – Non-Technical Summary (Draft)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In July 1998 AIS Environmental Limited (AIS), in association with SLR ConsultingLimited of the UK (SLR) were appointed by the Ministry for the Environment toundertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in connection with theconstruction of sewage treatment plants at Malta North, Gozo and Malta South.

The Sewerage Master Plan for Malta and Gozo (prepared by COWIconsult in 1992)established that in order to comply with European Union law and with therequirements of international conventions there was a need to construct new sewagetreatment plants.

This document provides a non-technical summary of the Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) for the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant to be constructed at RasIl-Hobz on the southern coast of Gozo. This is the first of three Environmental ImpactStatements to be submitted in relation to implementation of the Sewage Master Plan.In due course Statements will be submitted for Malta North and Malta South.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Currently almost the entire population of the Maltese Islands is served by the existingsewerage system, which leads to sea outfalls at two locations in Malta and threelocations in Gozo. None of the sewage discharged to sea undergoes treatment,although around 10% of the total sewage production undergoes treatment at the SantAntnin Treatment Plant, with the treated effluent used for irrigation and industrialpurposes.

As a signatory of the 1976 Barcelona Convention Malta is obliged to establishsewage treatment for larger discharges. The requirements of European Community(EC) law is also relevant, particularly given the stated intention of the Government ofMalta to seek membership of the European Union. As part of this process there is anidentified need to implement the Sewerage Master Plan as a matter of priority.

The main outfall for most of the sewage arising on Gozo is located at Ras Il-Hobz.Improvements have been made to the outfall in recent years, although there remainsa detectable impact on the marine environment. There are two further outfalls locatedon the northern coast of Gozo discharging minor quantities of sewage to the sea.

The general location of the proposed new sewage treatment plant at Ras Il-Hobz isshown in Figure 2 and the layout of the proposed plant is shown in Figure 3 of thisEnvironmental Impact Statement. The location was selected since it was seen as


offering the optimum technical solution, being at the end of the sewerage system forGozo, thereby minimising the need for pumping and installation of new pipework. Itwas also considered that most of the treated effluent could be reused during thesummer months for irrigation of agricultural land in the vicinity of the proposed site.

The proposed plant will cover an area of 0.9 hectares of largely agricultural land,some 300 metres to the north of the coast at Ras Il-Hobz. An additional 0.3 hectaresof land would be required during the construction phase of the project, which isexpected to last for 24 months. The plant will comprise tanks (uncovered) andbuildings, all located within a roughly rectangular compound contained by a masonrywall. All tanks and other process structures will be constructed into the ground so asto ensure that they do not protrude more than 1 metre above final levels. Buildingswill be constructed in an architectural style to match other structures in the vicinity.The intention therefore, is to develop the plant in a manner which minimises anyvisual impact within the general locality and from more distant views. Wherenecessary additional planting will be provided to soften any impact and to blend thedevelopment into the surrounding landscape.

Access to the site, both during the construction phase of the development and foroperational purposes, will be provided through upgrading of an existing track.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SITE

Ecology - Almost all the area within and around the proposed site comprises dryagricultural land. The majority of the crops grown consist of cereals, with a few fieldsbeing used to grow ornamental flowers. There is also one field with a small vineyard,with another planted with onions and peas. There are no protected areas in closeproximity to the proposed site.

Agricultural Land Quality - The study area is predominantly agricultural land with agood soil cover, and a small proportion of non-productive wasteland used for bird-trapping. The natural topography is complex, with slopes in excess of 10°. In general,the fields are all well-contained within rubble walls. There are a few sparsely locatedtrees on marginal land and as wind shelter at field boundaries. The soils within thearea are of two main types.

Geology, Palaeontology and Geomorphology - The geology in the area comprisesmostly Globigerina Limestone with a layer of Blue Clay Formation in the north. TheGlobigerina Limestone overlies the Lower Coralline Limestone Formation. There arealso a number of fault systems affecting the general area around the site.

Landscape and Visual Setting - In landscape terms, the site is relatively exposed,and consists of a steep, terraced slope predominantly used for agriculture. Thecondition of the landscape is generally of a high scenic quality, with potentially highsensitivity to large scale, inappropriate development. Despite the open nature of thesite and its coastal location, the visual influence of the site is relatively restricted.

Hydrology and Hydrogeology - The geological formation to the south ofGhajnsielem gives rise to two water bearing rock strate. Surface runoff in the area isexpected to be higher than the 6% average for Malta. The fields are well terracedand the majority have rubble boundary walls, and this tends to reduce surface runoffand soil erosion and enhances infiltration.


Archaeology and Cultural Heritage - It can be assumed that this area hassupported continual human activity, although the site identified for construction of theproposed sewage treatment plant at Ras Il-Hobz, and its immediate environs, do notappear to preserve any cultural remains of any significance.

Land Use - The predominant land use within the site identified for development ofthe proposed sewage treatment plant, and the surrounding area, is agriculture.

Public Rights of Way - There are no public rights of way which traverse the siteidentified for the proposed sewage treatment plant. The site itself comprisesagricultural land under private ownership, and the public therefore have no rights assuch to gain access to the land.

Air Quality and Micro-Climate – Wind, rainfall and temperature data has beenobtained for Luqa, on the Island of Malta, for the five-year period 1995 to 1999. Luqais located approximately 25 km to the south-east of the proposed plant and thisstation is the nearest that has data appropriate for characterising the climate at theproposed development site.

Noise and Vibration - Noise monitoring locations utilised were agreed in discussionwith the Planning Authority and are considered as being representative of the closestnoise receptors to the proposed development.

Marine Environment - A review of the existing marine environment within thecoastal area adjacent to Gozo has been undertaken by reference to informationpublished in the State of the Environment Report for 1998, and an extract is includedin the main text of this report. It is clear that this development will improve the qualityof the coastal waters once the discharge of untreated sewage going to the open seais topped.

Highways and Traffic - The site of the proposed sewage treatment plant issomewhat remote from the main highway network. The closest road to the site whichcan be described as being easily accessed by car is Triq Ta’ Brieghen some 500metres or so to the north. There is an existing track which connects with Triq Ta’Brieghen and runs in a southerly direction close to the eastern boundary of theproposed site. It is this track that will be upgraded so as to provide access to theproposed sewage treatment works site.

4.0 PLANNING AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

Local Planning Policy - Local planning policy is set out in the following keydocuments:

• Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands• Gozo Local Plan (completed in draft format but yet to be published)

Maltese Legislative and Regulatory Framework - Maltese legislation relevant tothe proposed sewage treatment works development can be summarised as follows:• The Development Planning Act, 1992.• The Environment Protection Act, 1991.• Legal Notice 8 of 1983. Issued under the 1991 EPA


International Policy Framework – This is established within the context of thefollowing documents:

• Barcelona Convention• Genoa Declaration• European Community Directives

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND RISKS OF THE PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT

Primary Impacts - A summary of the impacts associated with the proposeddevelopment is provided in the table A overleaf.

Secondary Impacts - There will be a number of secondary impacts associated withdevelopment of the proposed sewage treatment plant. The principal issues that havethe potential to give rise to secondary impacts are as follows:

• Installation of the access road to the sewage treatment plant• Sourcing of construction materials (building stone, aggregates and concrete)• Installation of services to the sewage treatment plant (power supply, water

supply, telecommunications, foul water sewer)• Re-use of treated effluent• Management and disposal of wastes from the plant• Construction of ancillary structures.

Cumulative Effects - There will be times during either the construction oroperational phases of the development when one or more impact will be experiencedover the same period of time. This will be most noticeable during the constructionphase of the project. This will not be the case for the full 24 month constructionperiod, but during discrete stages of the project (excavation works and concretingworks for example when traffic, noise and air quality impacts will be at their mostsignificant). During the operational phase of the development there does not appearto be any potential for cumulative effects to increase the overall impact of thescheme.

There is significant positive impact to be gained through elimination of discharges ofuntreated sewage to the sea, and this (assuming suitable mitigation measures areincorporated) far outweighs any other negative impacts associated with the proposeddevelopment.


SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR PROPOSED SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AT RAS IL-HOBZ

Key: (P) – Positive Impact (N) – Negative Impact(D) – Direct Impact (I) – Indirect Impact(ST) – Short Term Impact (LT) – Long Term Impact(H) – High Impact (M) – Medium Impact (L) – Low Impact

Environmental Issue Summary of Impacts During Construction Summary of Impacts During Operation

Ecology • Airborne dust (N, D, ST, L-M)• Loss of vegetation (N, D, ST and LT, L)• Surface water runoff (N, I, ST, L)

• Light pollution impact on birds (N, D, LT, L)• Intensification of agriculture and use of

herbicides (N, I, LT, L-M)

Agricultural Land Quality • Loss of agricultural land (N, D, LT, M-H)• Termination of field tenure (N, D, LT, M-H)• Loss of agricultural employment (N, D, ST, M-

H)• Loss of economic productivity (N, I, LT, L)• Transportation of soils (N, D, LT, M)• Change in rural character (N, D, LT, M-H)• Removal and damage of rubble walls (N, D

and I, ST and LT, M)• Temporary land-take for storage (N, D, ST, M-

H)• Disturbance of agricultural land (N, D and I,

ST, L-M)• Dust generation (N, D, ST, L)

• Increased agricultural productivity due toeffluent re-use (P, D, LT, M-H)

• Increased agricultural employment (P, D and I,LT, M-H)

• Increased nutrient input (N, D, LT, L-M)• Soil nutrient depletion (N, D, LT, L-M)• Decreased soil erosion potential (P, D, LT, L-

M)• Health risks from effluent re-use (N, D and I,

ST and LT, L-M)

Geology, Palaeontology and Geomorphology • Removal of limestone and blue clay (N, D, LT,L)

• None



Landscape and Visual Setting • Visual disturbance due to traffic associatedwith construction activities (N, D, ST, L-M)

• Temporary loss of land for storage (N, D, ST,L-M)

• Completed plant and associated structures (N,D, LT, L-M)

• Loss of arable land and change of use (N, D,LT, L-M)

• Lighting within a dark landscape during nighttime (N, D and I, LT, L)

• Visual disturbance due to traffic accessing theplant (N, D, LT, L)

Hydrology and Hydrogeology • Removal of rubble walls causing increased soilerosion potential (N, D and I, ST, L-M)

• Siltation of watercourses (N, D and I, ST, L-M)• Water contamination (N, D and I, ST, L)

• Reduction in surface water runoff andinfiltration (N, D and I, ST and LT, L)

• Impedance of surface water runoff to sea (N,D, ST, L)

• Re-use of treated effluent (N and P, D and I,ST and LT, M-H)

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage • Damage to relics during excavation (N, D, ST,L)

• Vibration damage to historic structures onaccess routes to the site (N, D and I, ST, L)

• Vibration damage to coast tower (N, D, ST, L-M)

• Improved marine environment giving benefit toroman wreck (P, I, LT, M)

Land Use • Impact on agriculture locally (N, D and I, ST,M-H)

• Impact on agricultural yields (P,D, LT, M-H)

Public Rights of Way • None • Improved access to coast (P, D and I, LT, L-M)



Air Quality • Dust arising from construction activities (N, D,ST, L-M)

• Odour - none

• Dust from waste storage areas (N, D, ST, L)• Odours from operational plant (N, D, ST and

LT, L)• Bio-aerosol generation – on site (N, D, ST and

LT, L-M)• Bio aerosol generation – off site (N, D ST and

LT, L)

Noise and Vibration • Noise during construction operations (N, D,ST, L-M)

• Vibration during construction operations (N, Dand I, ST, L)

• Noise associated with plant operation (N, D,ST, L)

• Vibration associated with plant operation (N, Dand I, ST, L)

Marine Environment • None • Improved marine environment (P, D, LT, H)• Improved recreational potential within the area

(land based and marine based) (P, D and I,LT, H)

Traffic and Highways • Construction related traffic (N, D and I, ST, M) • Operational traffic (N, D and I, LT, L)

Socio-Economics • Loss of agricultural land (N, D and I, ST, L-H)• Termination of field tenure (N, D, LT, M-H)• Loss of agricultural employment (N, D, ST, M-

H)• Loss of economic productivity (N, I, LT, L)• Change in rural character (N, D, LT, M-H)• Construction related employment (P, D and I,

ST, L-M)



• Improved land and marine based environment(P, D and I, LT, H)



Recreation and Amenity • Visual, noise and air quality impacts ontourism and amenity within the wider area ofthe proposed plant (N, D and I, ST, L-M)

• Impact of operational plant on recreation andamenity (N, D and I, ST, L)

• Improved land and marine based environment andlocal amenity (P, D and I, LT, H)

Secondary Impacts • Installation of access road (N, D and I, ST, L-M)

• Sourcing of construction materials (N, D and I,ST, L-M)

• Installation of services (N, D, ST, L-M)• Construction of ancillary structures (N, D, ST,

L-M)

• Re-use of treated effluent (P and N, D and I,LT, M-H)

• Management and disposal of wastes from theplant (N and P, D and I, LT, L-M)


6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation measures, which seek to prevent, minimise and/or offset predictedimpacts, have been identified in the main report for the following aspects:

• Ecology• Agricultural land quality• Landscape and visual setting• Hydrology and hydrogeology• Archaeology and cultural heritage• Air quality• Noise and vibration

No mitigation measures are considered to be required for the following aspects:

• Geology, paleontology and geomorphology• Land use• Public rights of way• Marine environment• Highways and traffic• Socio-economics• Recreation and amenity

Proposed Monitoring Programme - So as to monitor the construction andoperational phases of the proposed development, and to provide a basis forconfirming that predicted impacts are not exceeded, a monitoring programme hasbeen devised. Monitoring will only be required for certain environmental issues, asfollows:

• Ecology• Agricultural land quality• Hydrology and hydrogeology• Archaeology and cultural heritage• Air quality• Noise and vibration• Marine environment



Financial and Economic Analysis

A.1 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

1. Basic Approach of Financial Analysis

The objective of the Financial Analysis is

• to show the amount of funds required in each year of investment and operation;• to show the resources (Government, EU funds, current revenues) ;• to show the liquidity situation in each year of investment and operation ;• to calculate the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Net Present Value (NPV) of

the project;• to give an indication of the average revenue (per m³ sewerage) required to cover

the total costs or part of them (e.g. operation and maintenance costs) ;• to show the operational surplus in each year of operation.

For these purposes a cash flow analysis has been prepared for the following projectcases : • project full development (main case)• stage 1 of the project• stage 2 of the project. The main assumptions of the cash flow calculation are as follows: • Construction period 2 years: from 2nd half of 2002 to 1st half of 2004• Evaluation period up to 2020, i.e. 16 full operation years• Residual value of the investment cost to be considered in 2021 based on useful

lives of 50 years for civil engineering works and 12.5 years for mechanical &electrical equipment (i.e. reinvestment of the mechanical & electrical equipment in2017).

• All costs are at constant 2001 prices in order to exclude distortion of the resultsby inflation trends (which are difficult to forecast).

• Discount rate used is 6% (considered adequate for sewerage projects).• Net working capital requirements are estimated at some 10% of the annual cost

of operation & maintenance (O & M).• For the use of treated effluent water (secondary class water) for agricultural

irrigation, an adjustment period some 6 years is needed by the agricultural sector.The respective O & M costs would therefore increase gradually.

2. Results and Conclusions

2.1 IRR and NPV The cash flow table of the full project development (main case) is presented on TableA.1. The main results are as follows: IRR -4.9 % NPV -6.888 million Euro


Though the Cash Flow analysis produces, after discounting by6 %, a negativefinancial Net Present Value of -6.888 million Euro, this can be looked at as anequivalent of the discounted social cost required for environmental protection in thissensitive area of the Mediterranean Sea. As the main objective of the sewerage project is an environmental one, i.e. reductionof pollution of the Mediterranean Sea, this type of project should not and cannot bescreened exclusively under strict financial aspects, though critical financial analysisremains one of the essential tools of project appraisal. Environmental benefits, whichare often difficult to quantify in monetary terms, have to be taken into account as well.

2.2 Financial Sustainability and Environmental Pollution Charge

In order to ensure financial sustainability of the project, it is proposed to introduce anenvironmental pollution charge based on the ‘Polluter-Pays’ principle. Such a systemof environmental pollution charges for all polluters ensures that in the initial years ofoperation, the operating and maintenance cost will be fully covered. It is expectedthat in the subsequent years, the cost of depreciation is recovered as well.

To cover the O & M cost in most operation years, an average pollution charge ofsome 0.15 Euro per m³ of sewage is required. This corresponds to some 0.12 Europer m³ of consumed water assuming that the volume of sewage amounts to around80 % of first class water consumed. The economic aspects of introducing such acharge in terms of its affordability by households are dealt with in the EconomicAnalysis (sub-chapter A.2).

Under pure financial aspects, an ‚overall average‘ pollution charge of some 0.12 Euro(Lm0.05) per m³ appears modest compared to the existing overall average (coveringall consumer types) for water consumption of nearly 1 Euro (some Lm0.4) per m³.The average water charge per m³ for households, which consume some 60 % ofdrinking water in the Maltese Islands, was some 0.8 Euro (Lm0.32) in 1998/1999(source : Annual Report of Water Services Corporation) whereas the average watercharges of the industrial, commercial and governmental sectors were 2 or even 3times higher than that for households, ranging between 1.3 and 2,7 Euro (Lm0.52and Lm1.1).

The revenues from this charge should be earmarked for investments into theinfrastructure and the respective operation and maintenance in the area of collection,treatment and re-use of waste water with the objective of reducing the pollution ofsea water and protecting and substituting scarce groundwater resources.

As a pollution charge had been levied already a few years ago, albeit no treatmentfacilities were operational, it was again abolished by the subsequent administration.The opportune time to reintroduce such a levy is thus as soon as the new seweragetreatment plant (and possibly others as well) will be operational. The charging system is proposed to differ between the domestic sector (householdsetc.) and the industrial and commercial sector, similarly to the socially differentiatedcharges for water supply. Thus the social acceptance of the charging system can bepromoted. Pollution (in terms of consumed and polluted water) exceeding a sociallyacceptable ‚basic needs‘ level shall be charged for at a disproportionally higher rate. The charging system is proposed to be developed flexibly in order to take account ofthe low income elasiticity of households (see Economic Analysis in A.2) on one sideand the increasing purchasing power and per capita incomes of polluters on the otherside.


As for liquidity, a positive operational surplus and a positive net cash flow can beensured (at least in most operational years) by the introduction of the proposedpolluter charges. Financial sustainability can thereby be achieved, as shown by cashflow analysis. In order to support sustainability and operational efficiency of the project, thesewerage treatment plant will be managed and operated by a private concessionaireunder the supervision by the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry can draw on thecontractual, managerial and financial experiences made with a similar concessionaryproject of the first sewerage treatment plant in the Maltese Islands built in 1983 atSant Antnin.

The Cash Flow table of the project full development is presented on Table A.1. 2.3 Implementation Aspects Comparison of the main project case (project full development) with stagedimplementation shows that only the stage 1 package results as relatively significantlymore attractive. In this case, the required pollution charge could start at a significantlylower level: 0.11 Euro per m³ sewage or 0.09 Euro per m³ of drinking water. The cashflow tables of the two alternative implementation stages are presented in Tables A.2(stage 1) and A.3 (stage 2).

Adequate training in the initial phase of the operation of the project is consideredanother essential prerequisite for the sustainability and operational efficiency of theproject. Therefore, appropriate funds have to be allocated in time for technicalassistance.


Table A.1

Table A.1 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF GOZO RAS IL-HOBZ - PROJECT FULL DEVELOPMENT CASH FLOW TABLE (in 1,000 Euro at constant prices of 2001)Cash Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Governmental Funds 900 2137 1263 60 3137EU Grant 900 2137 1237Loans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Subtotal: Total Inflow of Funds 1800 4274 2500 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3137 0 0 0Sales revenues from irrigated agric.,industrial & comm.sectorAdditional revenues - - 176 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352Subtotal: Total CurrentRevenues

0 0 176 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352

Residual Value of FixedInvestment

5898

TOTAL CASH INFLOW 1800 4274 2676 412 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 3489 352 352 352 5898Investment costs of STP 1800 3600 1800 2642Investment costs of irrigationinfrastructure

508 508 373

Investment costs of other infrastructure (e.g. access roads) 0Investment costs of transmissioninfrastructure

166 166 122

Increase in Net Working Capital 26 60Subtotal: Total InvestmentCost

1800 4274 2500 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3137 0 0 0

O&M costs of STP 144 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288O & M costs of PS for irrigation 5 10 15 20 25 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30O & M costs of intake PS 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24O & M costs of transmissioninfrastructure

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal: Total Operation &Maintenance Cost

0 0 156 317 322 327 332 337 342 342 342 342 342 342 342 342 342 342 342

Annual Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL CASH OUTFLOW 1800 4274 2656 377 322 327 332 337 342 342 342 342 342 342 342 3479 342 342 342 0SURPLUS (a) 0 0 20 35 30 25 20 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5898CUMULATIVE CASHBALANCE

0 0 20 55 85 110 130 145 155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 235 245 255 6153

NET CASH FLOW (b) -1800 -4274 -2480 -25 30 25 20 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 -3127 10 10 10 5898CUMULATIVE NET CASHFLOW

-1800 -6074 -8554 -8579 -8549 -8524 -8504 -8489 -8479 -8469 -8459 -8449 -8439 -8429 -8419 -11546 -11536 -11526 -11516 -5618

OPERATIONAL SURPLUS (c) 0 0 20 35 30 25 20 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10


Table A.1 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF GOZO RAS IL-HOBZ - PROJECT FULL DEVELOPMENT CASH FLOW TABLE (in 1,000 Euro at constant prices of 2001)Cash Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021CUMULATIVE OPER.SURPLUS

0 0 20 55 85 110 130 145 155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 235 245 255

IRR = -4,9% Notes: (a) Cash Inflow - Cash Outflow(b) Total Current Revenues - (Investment Cost + O&M Cost) Average Environmental Pollution Charge in

Euro/m³ :0,15

NPV at 6 % = -6888 (c) Total Current Revenues - Total O&M Cost Note : Charge per m³ of sewerage water required to cover total O & M cost.


Table A.2

Table A.2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF GOZO RAS IL-HOBZ - STAGE 1

CASH FLOW TABLE (in 1,000 Euro at constant prices of 2001)

Cash Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Governmental Funds 765 1613 868 46 2368

EU Grant 765 1613 848

Loans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal: Total Inflow ofFunds

1530 3226 1716 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2368 0 0 0

Sales revenues from irrigated agric.,industrial & comm.sectorEnvironmental pollutioncharge

- - 130 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260

Subtotal: Total CurrentRevenues

0 0 130 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260

Residual Value of Fixed Investment 4452

TOTAL CASH INFLOW 1530 3226 1846 306 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 2628 260 260 260 4452

Investment costs of STP 1530 3060 1530 2246

Investment costs of irrigation infrastructure 0

Investment costs of other infrastructure (e.g. access roads) 0

Investment costs of transmissioninfrastructure

166 166 122

Increase in Net WorkingCapital

20 46

Subtotal: Total InvestmentCost

1530 3226 1716 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2368 0 0 0

O&M costs of STP 115 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230

O & M costs of PS forirrigationO & M costs of intake PS 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

O & M costs of transmission infrastructure

Subtotal: Total Operation &Maintenance Cost

0 0 127 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254

Annual Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




Cash Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

TOTAL CASH OUTFLOW 1530 3226 1843 300 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 2622 254 254 254 0

SURPLUS (a) 0 0 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4452

CUMULATIVE CASHBALANCE

0 0 3 9 15 21 27 33 39 45 51 57 63 69 75 81 87 93 99 4551

NET CASH FLOW (b) -1530 -3226 -1713 -40 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 -2362 6 6 6 4452

CUMULATIVE NET CASHFLOW

-1530 -4756 -6469 -6509 -6503 -6497 -6491 -6485 -6479 -6473 -6467 -6461 -6455 -6449 -6443 -8805 -8799 -8793 -8787 -4335

OPERATIONAL SURPLUS(c)

0 0 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

CUMULATIVE OPER.SURPLUS

0 0 3 9 15 21 27 33 39 45 51 57 63 69 75 81 87 93 99

IRR = -5,0% Notes: (a) Cash Inflow - Cash Outflow

(b) Total Current Revenues - (Investment Cost + O&M Cost) Average Environmental Pollution Charge inEuro/m³ :

0,11

NPV at 6 % = -5282 (c) Total Current Revenues - Total O&M Cost Note : Charge per m³ of sewerage water required to covertotal O & M cost.


Table A.3



Cash Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Governmental Funds 900 1883 1005 51 2764

EU Grant 900 1883 983

Loans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal: Total Inflow ofFunds

1800 3766 1988 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2764 0 0 0

Sales revenues from irrigated agric.,industrial & comm.sectorEnvironmental pollutioncharge

- - 165 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330

Subtotal: Total CurrentRevenues

0 0 165 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330

Residual Value of FixedInvestment

5197

TOTAL CASH INFLOW 1800 3766 2153 381 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 3094 330 330 330 5197

Investment costs of STP 1800 3600 1800 2642

Investment costs of irrigation infrastructure 0

Investment costs of other infrastructure (e.g. accessroads)

0


166 166 122


22 51

Subtotal: TotalInvestment Cost

1800 3766 1988 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2764 0 0 0

O&M costs of STP 144 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288

O & M costs of PS for irrigation

O & M costs of intake PS 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

O & M costs of transmission infrastructure

Subtotal: Total Operation& Maintenance Cost

0 0 156 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312




Cash Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL CASH OUTFLOW 1800 3766 2144 363 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 3076 312 312 312 0

SURPLUS (a) 0 0 9 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 5197

CUMULATIVE CASHBALANCE

0 0 9 27 45 63 81 99 117 135 153 171 189 207 225 243 261 279 297 5494

NET CASH FLOW (b) -1800 -3766 -1979 -33 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 -2746 18 18 18 5197

CUMULATIVE NET CASHFLOW

-1800 -5566 -7545 -7578 -7560 -7542 -7524 -7506 -7488 -7470 -7452 -7434 -7416 -7398 -7380 -10126

-10108

-10090

-10072

-4875

OPERATIONAL SURPLUS(c)

0 0 9 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

CUMULATIVE OPER.SURPLUS

0 0 9 27 45 63 81 99 117 135 153 171 189 207 225 243 261 279 297

IRR = -4,8% Notes:

(a) Cash Inflow - CashOutflow(b) Total Current Revenues - (Investment Cost + O&MCost)

Average Environmental Pollution Charge inEuro/m³ :

0,14

NPV (in 1,000 Euro) at 6% =

-6067 (c) Total Current Revenues - Total O&M Cost Note : Charge per m³ of sewerage water required tocover total O & M cost.


A.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 1. Basic Approach of Economic Analysis In accordance with the standard requirements of IFI’s (International FinancialInstitutions) for economic analysis, the economic analysis encompasses thefollowing parts :

• cost-effectiveness analysis incl. calculation of prime cost (dynamic cost)• analysis of affordability of environmental pollution charges by households• assessment of other economic benefits. As traditional cost-benefit analysis is difficult to be applied for sewerage (and watersupply and solid waste) projects due to the lack of reliably quantifiable benefits, aspecific type of cost-effectiveness analysis has been applied. This cost-effectivenessanalysis shows a cost-effectiveness ratio defined as the prime cost (or dynamic cost)of sewerage treatment per treated sewerage (in m³) over a sufficiently long operatingperiod (usually some 15 years or more). The prime cost represents the relationbetween discounted total costs and discounted volumes of polluted and treatedwater. The prime cost also shows the order-of-magnitude of an average sewerage (orpollution) charge required to cover over a long-term period total cost or total currentcost respectively. The result is, however, necessarily different from the respectivecalculation of an average pollution charge in the Financial Analysis as it is based ondiscounted data (irrespective of any current revenues). The prime cost is also asuitable tool for choosing the most economic (in terms of cost efficiency) amongalternative sewerage construction options.. The cost-effectiveness analysis has been prepared for the following project cases : • project full development (main case)• stage 1 of the project• stage 2 of the project.

The main assumptions of the cost-effectiveness analysis are the same as for thecash flow calculation (see A.1). The annual volume of treated effluent water used tocalculate the prime cost is estimated at some 2.4 million m³ p.a.

2. Results and Conclusions of Cost-Effectiveness AnalysisThe cost-efficiency analysis of the full project development (main case) is presentedon Table A.15. The main results are as follows :

Net present value (NPV) ot total investment cost(incl. reinvestment) at 6 %

7,155,000 Euro

Cost-effectiveness ratio (to cover total cost) 0.42 Euro/m³

Cost-effectiveness ratio (to cover total operation &maintenance cost)

0.12 Euro/m³

Note : m³ relates to volume of treated sewerage.


The main conclusions are that the project is economically viable. The prime costidentified by cost-effectiveness analysis indicate an order-of-magnitude for thecharging system which is considered as socially acceptable. Only stage 1 proves asignificantly lower cost-effectiveness ratio and NPV than the main case (project fulldevelopment) whereas stage 2 does not show a significant advantage (see TablesA.16 and A.17 for these alternative implementation stages).

3. Affordability Analysis of an Environmental Pollution Charge

Cost recovery of the expenditures involved in the project can derive from twosources:

i. an introduction of a new charge denominated environmental pollution charge,in addition to the existing water tariffs, to cover a sewerage fee;

ii. using the output of the plant, i.e. secondary class water, to substitute otherwater resources and generating revenue from new applications of secondaryclass water.

The first issue is closely linked to topics like willingness-to-pay and affordability ofhouseholds and commercial consumers.

3.1 The Economic Potential for an new Environmental Pollution Charge

HouseholdsThe latest available National Accounts of the Maltese Islands, relating to 1998,indicate that in that year, Maltese households devoted Lm4.2 million towards chargesassociated with water consumption, including fixed metering fees and expenditureson direct consumption based on a progressively increasing tariff schedule but not asewerage fee which was briefly introduced in 1997 and repealed a few months later.This outlay represented 0.44% of household disposable income and 0.5% of totalconsumption expenditure.

An internationally-accepted maximum amount of household resources to be devotedto water consumption and related charges, including sewerage, is 5%. At 0.44% theratio for the Maltese Islands is quite low compared to the internationally acceptedmaximum, which presupposes that substantial resources, to the extent of 3% ofGDP, could be levied for the purpose. There could however be political constraints tothis. It is also to be considered that any change in the effective price of water andrelated charges would be undertaken in a dynamic context whereby the ratio ofhousehold expenditure to disposable income would be changing in response to thedevelopment in income.

In order to analyse this phenomenon, a demand function for water by Maltesehouseholds over the ten-year period 1989-1998 is undertaken. The data is shown inTable A.18 below, which details the volume of water consumption, the price of water,real disposable income, and the price of water relative to other prices in theeconomy. Development of per capita income and average household income in theMaltese Islands are shown on Table A.20.


Table A.18 Development of Water Consumption and Prices in The MalteseIslands 1973-1998

Year WaterConsumptionVolume (Index)(1973=100)

Price Index(1973=100)

RealDisposableIncome(1973LmM)

RelativePrice ofWater

1989 991 132.3 248.6 0.661990 1009 132.3 262.7 0.631991 1012 132.3 275.1 0.611992 1193 132.3 287.7 0.601993 1167 132.3 290.5 0.571994 1816 112.3 301.1 0.451995 2203 112.3 311.2 0.441996 2532 112.3 329.7 0.431997 2750 122.4 331.4 0.451998 2450 173.1 342.8 0.62

Water consumption by households grew steadily during the ten-year period, as theChart below shows (based on indices), in line with the rise in disposable income andthe stable to falling price of water, with the concomitant drop in its relative price. Thiswas halted in 1998 following a substantial increase in the price of water.

Figure A.1 Comparison of the Development of Water Consumption and WaterPrice

Regression analysis of the above data indicates that the elasticity of the volume ofwater consumption to the relative price of water is estimated at –0.65 (t-statistic is –1.9) while the income elasticity is 3.1 (t-statistic is 5.4). The relatively low priceelasticity indicates the difficulty of substituting water for other commodities. Therelatively high income elasticity indicates the complementarity between water andincome elastic commodities, such as large houses and cars.

0500

10001500200025003000

0,0

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

Water Consumption Volume Price of Water


The ratio of household expenditure on water to disposable income:

PV = z Ywhere P and V are respectively the price and volume of water, Y is disposableincome and z is the value of the ratio may thus be expressed as:

0.35(%∆P) + 2.1(%∆Y) = ∆z

which implies that:

%∆P = ∆z - 2.1(%∆Y) 0.35

This implies that to keep the ratio of household expenditure for water to incomeconstant, the relative price of water must fall by six times the percentage change inincome. This reflects the low degree of sensitivity of water consumption to its priceand the relatively high degree of sensitivity to its income. Indeed, these findings arecorroborated by the steady increase in the ratio of expenditure on water to householddisposable income, as shown in Figure A.2.

Figure A.2 Proportion of Household Expenditure on Water to Disposable Income

00,10,20,30,40,5

It is thus concluded that the potential to collect revenue from households by aneffective increase in the price of water and/ or the introduction of related pollutioncharges is low under aspects of economic elasticity of households though the relativeamount of expenses spent for water related consumption is still low as shown above.

These conclusions equally apply at a district as well as at a national level. Indeed,the reason behind the national character of the foregoing economic evaluation is thefact that changes in water charges are in the Maltese Islands typically effected at anational level, in view of the geographical proximity of different districts andinhabitants. Thus, although the proposed plant is to serve mainly the Gozo district,any changes in water consumption tariffs would have to be effected nationally, and itis therefore national affordability that is relevant in this context.

The conclusions from both criteria are that, under economic aspects, there is someroom for the introduction of a pollution charge, but that such a step has to be treatedwith caution, for political reasons, so far as the households are concerned. Suitableinformation campaigns and promotion measures are recommended to be introducedin time to achieve social acceptance. The overall order-of-magnitude of such an


environmental pollution charge is discussed in the Financial Analysis (see A.1, sub-chapter 2.2).

Business

The table below indicates the value of water consumption by the businesssector in 1998 to the value of output produced.

Table A.19 Relative Expenses for Water Consumption in the Business Sector(1998)

BusinessSector

Value ofWaterConsumption(Lm000s)

Value ofoutput(Lm000s)

Waterconsumptionas a %of output

Agriculture 151 32605 0.5Industrial 526 271334 0.2Services 1850 134308 1.4

The table reveals that the cost of water to business is minimal compared to the valueof its output and that there exists a potential for resources to be generated from thisside of the economy. It is however to be considered that business is currently gearingup to facing international competition associated with globalisation and accessioninto the EU, and it is unlikely to be willing to bear additional costs. This especiallysince the water tariffs to business are generally substantially higher than thoseapplicable to households. It is thus concluded that the potential to levy additionaltariffs for existing services from the business sector is limited as well.

3.2 The Potential for Re-Use of Treated Effluent (Second Class Water)

Water is indeed a scarce resource in the Maltese Islands. The rate of use of waterresources is 362%, reflecting the reliance on desalinated water and over-exploitationof ground-water. A rate of use of 25% for a country is usually considered tocorrespond to a high level of water scarcity. The output of the proposed project isthus to be evaluated within the context of this severe scarcity of water resources,which will facilitate the plant’s revenue generation potential. The type of use that canbe made of treated wastewater depends also on the quality of the treatment. It is thusemphasised at the outset that the use of second class water requires the adoptionand observation of strict quality standards.

As for the potential revenue generating uses of the output of the sewerage treatmentplant (second class water), the following general considerations and statements canbe made :

i. Substitution of first class water with secondary class water in households,agriculture, industry and tourism The potential for such substitution is bound to generate a win-win situationwhereby the country would be saving on the cost of producing expensive firstclass water through reverse osmosis treatment or utilisation of aquifers, andhouseholds, agriculture, industry and tourism would be benefiting from lowerwater prices. In the case of Gozo in particular, there could be significantdemand for the 6,500 m3 of water to be generated daily by the plant, becausethe district has a relatively intense agricultural activity, covering some 1,749


hectares of land. Potential water demand by agriculture in Gozo is estimatedat around 21.5 million m3 annually (Mitschoff, 1990), part of which could besatisfied by second class water. The plant’s projected output is around 2.4million m3 annually. In terms of other applications, Government and the Water ServicesCorporation (WSC) need to evaluate the benefits of investing in anappropriate second class water distribution system for this option to beeffective. The areas of substitution include the flushing of toilets inhouseholds, which absorbs a substantial part of water production in Malta.There is also a latent demand for second class water by industry due to thelack of existence of an appropriate distribution network. In Gozo, this isestimated at a potential of 1,000 m3 per day. The greater availability of cheap,second class water that is engendered by the project could serve as acatalyst for the necessary investment to be effected in this area.

ii. Recharging of underground aquifers

Under certain conditions, it is technically feasible to recharge and improve thequality of aquifers by providing protection against sea water intrusion bymeans of second class water. This would contribute to reduce the costs ofproducing first class water through reverse osmosis treatment. Revenue couldin this way be generated from Government or from WSC.

iii. Reforestation and embellishment of the environment

Second class water could be used to embark on environmentalembellishment projects, including much needed reforestation and thedevelopment of national parks which is already on the Government’s agenda.Revenue for the second class water generated could in this way be obtainedfrom Government.

iv. Replacement of illegal tapping of aquifers

There is currently a substantial amount of illegal tapping of aquifers,particularly by the agricultural sector. A census carried out in 1998 registered800 new wells in addition to about 3,000 existing ones, mostly claimed to beused for irrigation purposes, and none of which were metered. This practicewill have to be discontinued, especially with the prospect of membershipwithin the EU. It is thus envisaged that the water obtained through thispractice be replaced by second class water. This will also contribute to theoverall health of the aquifers of the country.

There is thus substantial potential for revenue to be generated out of savings madein the production of first class water and the undertaking of environmental projects.The Maltese Government currently subsidises water production in Malta to the extentof 1.5% of GDP. A further 1% of GDP is typically spent on environmentalembellishment. These resources could in part be made available towards theproduction of second class water, especially to the extent that it contributes to lowerthe amount of subsidy going towards the production of first class water.

Detailed studies and a respective marketing and promotion stategy are required tomake full use of this potential demand.


4. Assessment of Other Economic Benefits

The main immediate benefits of the project consist of a substantial improvement ofthe environmental quality of sea water in this part of the Mediterranean Sea. Theimprovement of the quality of sea water can effectively be used by the tourism sectorfor marketing purposes as ‚clean water‘ at beaches is becoming a more and moreimportant criterion for competition between tourism regions in the Mediterranean seawhich is suffering more and more under environmental pollution.

The improvement of the water quality at Malta’s coasts thus will certainly strengthenin the long term the competitive situation of Malta’s tourism sector due to theimproved environmental reputation of the islands. And this will have an importantindirect impact on related employment and foreign currency revenues in Malta.

Cleaner sea water also improves the business opportunities of fishery as the qualityof fish improves in parallel with the improvement of water quality.

In the long-term, there is a wide scope of potential economic benefits if the full projectis developed as it allows the production and re-use of secondary class water.

According to initial analysis in the framework of the Environmental Impact Statement,there is a potential for re-use of second class water (treated sewage effluent), e.g. forirrigated agriculture, which should be activated by economic incentives andappropriate infrastructural facilities in parallel to the implementation of the project.This applies similarly to other potential uses of second class water (e.g. in hotelsetc.).

The potential benefits are as follows :

• Expansion of the irrigable area through the availability of treated effluent suitablefor irrigation.

• Intensification of agricultural production (e.g. more harvests per year)• Cost savings in the industrial and services sector due to the availability of

economic second class water.

Detailed studies and a respective marketing and promotion stategy are required tomake full use of this potential demand.


Table A.15

Table A.15 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF GOZO RAS IL-HOBZ - PROJECT FULL DEVELOPMENT CALCULATION OF PRIME COST AND NET PRESENT VALUES OF SEWERAGE TREATMENT (in 1,000 Euro at constant prices of 2001)

Cost Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 NPVat 6%

Investment costs of STP 1800 3600 1800 2880Investment costs of irrigation infrastructure 508 508 406Investment costs of other infrastructure (e.g. access roads) 0Investment costs of transmissioninfrastructure

166 166 133

Increase in Net Working Capital 26 60Residual Value of FixedInvestment

-5898

Subtotal: Total Investment Cost 1800 4274 2500 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3419 0 0 0 -5898 7155O&M costs of STP 144 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288O & M costs of PS for irrigation 5 10 15 20 25 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30O & M costs of intake PS 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24O & M costs of transmission infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Subtotal: Total Operation &Maintenance Cost

0 0 156 317 322 327 332 337 342 342 342 342 342 342 342 342 342 342 342 2978

TOTAL COST 1800 4274 2656 377 322 327 332 337 342 342 342 342 342 342 342 3761 342 342 342 -5898 10133ANNUAL SEWERAGE VOLUME (in1,000 m³)

1.200 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 24013

Prime Cost to cover Total Cost : 0,42 Euro / m³

Prime Cost to cover Total 0,12 Euro / m³Operating & Maintenance Cost : Note : Prime cost is based on (net) present value (NPV) of respective cost

category.


Table A.16Table A.16 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF GOZO RAS IL-HOBZ - STAGE 1

CALCULATION OF PRIME COST AND NET PRESENT VALUES OF SEWERAGE TREATMENT (in 1,000 Euro at constant prices of 2001)

Cost Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 NPV at6 %

Investment costs of STP 1530 3060 1530 2448Investment costs of irrigation infrastructure 0Investment costs of other infrastructure (e.g. accessroads)

0


166 166 133


15 36

Residual Value of Fixed Investment -4452Subtotal: Total InvestmentCost

1530 3226 1711 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2581 0 0 0 -4452 5407

O&M costs of STP 115 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230O & M costs of PS forirrigationO & M costs of intake PS 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24O & M costs of transmission infrastructureSubtotal: Total Operation &Maintenance Cost

0 0 127 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 2262

TOTAL COST 1530 3226 1838 290 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 2835 254 254 254 -4452 7669ANNUAL SEWERAGE VOLUME(in 1,000 m³)

1.200 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 24013

Prime Cost to cover TotalCost :

0,32 Euro / m³

Prime Cost to cover Total 0,09 Euro / m³Operating & MaintenanceCost :

Note : Prime cost is based on (net) present value (NPV) of respective costcategory.


Table A.17Table A.17 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF GOZO STP - STAGE 2

CALCULATION OF PRIME COST AND NET PRESENT VALUES OF SEWERAGE TREATMENT (in 1,000 Euro at constant prices of 2001)

Cost Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 NPV at 6%

Investment costs of STP 1800 3600 1800 2880Investment costs of irrigation infrastructure 0Investment costs of other infrastructure (e.g. access roads) 0Investment costs of transmissioninfrastructure

166 166 133

Increase in Net Working Capital 22 51Residual Value of FixedInvestment

-5197

Subtotal: TotalInvestment Cost

1800 3766 1988 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3013 0 0 0 -5197 6325

O&M costs of STP 144 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288O & M costs of PS for irrigationO & M costs of intake PS 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24O & M costs of transmission infrastructureSubtotal: Total Operation& Maintenance Cost

0 0 156 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 2778

TOTAL COST 1800 3766 2144 363 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 3325 312 312 312 -5197 9103ANNUAL SEWERAGE VOLUME(in 1,000 m³)

1.200 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 24013

Prime Cost to cover Total Cost : 0,4 Euro /m³

Prime Cost to cover Total 0,1 Euro /m³

Operating & Maintenance Cost : Note : Prime cost is based on (net) present value (NPV) of respective costcategory.


Table A.20 Development of GDP and Per Capita Income in the Maltese Islands1982 - 2000

Year Population(000)

Real GDPat 1995prices

(in Lm M)

Per capitareal GDP

per year(in Lm)

Growthof realp.cap.income

1982 326,2 632,4 1938,91983 329,2 628,6 1909,4 -1,5%1984 332,0 634,5 1911,1 0,1%1985 340,9 650,9 1909,3 -0,1%1986 343,3 676,2 1969,5 3,2%1987 345,6 704,0 2036,8 3,4%1988 349,0 763,2 2186,8 7,4%1989 352,4 825,6 2342,7 7,1%1990 355,9 877,6 2465,7 5,3%1991 359,5 932,5 2593,5 5,2%1992 363,0 976,2 2689,5 3,7%1993 366,4 1020,0 2783,5 3,5%1994 369,5 1078,3 2918,6 4,9%1995 372,1 1145,5 3078,2 5,5%1996 374,0 1191,2 3185,4 3,5%1997 376,5 1249,0 3317,3 4,1%1998 378,5 1291,8 3412,8 2,9%1999 379,1 1343,2 3543,0 3,8%2000 380,2 1406,2 3698,6 4,4%

According to the Household Budgetary Survey (1995), the mean income of a typicalfamily was Lm86.21 weekly against an expenditure of Lm75.10 weekly in 1995.

Adjusted with an average annual wage growth of 4.2% between 1995 and 2000, thecorresponding figures for 2000 would be:

Average weekly income Lm105.9Average weekly consumption Lm92.3

Thus the average monthly income of a typical household is well above Lm400,equivalent to some 1,000 Euro.


Annex 5

LIST OF RELEVANT LAWS AND REGULATIONS

PLANNING AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

1 Local Planning Policy

Local Planning Policy is set out in the following key documents:

• Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands• Gozo Local Plan (completed in draft format but yet to be published)

Structure Plan policies which are relevant to the construction of a sewerage treatment plant atRas il-Hobz include:

• PUT 11 – which identifies the area north of Mgarr ix-Xini as the preferred location of thesewerage treatment plant for Gozo. The selected site must have suitably sound geology.

• PUT 8 – which states that in order to conserve potable water resources, the feasibility ofusing seawater and second class water systems in appropriate circumstances will beinvestigated. The efficient use and reuse of water will be maximised and integrated,including, among others, the use of treated sewage effluent (TSE) for appropriateindustrial, irrigation, and other uses.

• RCO 27 – which prohibits developments which involve the excavation of significantquantities of Blue Clay.

• PUT 7 – which states that water storage reservoirs shall be either located underground orbe designed so as to blend to the maximum extent with the landscape.

• RCO 28 – which classifies valleys as important water catchment areas.

• RCO 29 – which seeks to prevent soil erosion and encourage the conservation andmanagement of water resources. No new physical development will normally be allowedon the side of the valleys and especially watercourses except for construction aimed atpreventing soil erosion and the conservation and management of water resources.

• RCO 21 – which states that there is a general presumption against development in areasprone to erosion.

It would appear that the proposed development of a sewage treatment plant at the siteidentified does not conflict with any of the policies outlined above.

2 Maltese Legislative and Regulatory Framework

Maltese legislation relevant to the proposed sewage treatment works development can besummarised as follows:

• The Development Planning Act, 1992. This is primarily concerned with land use anddevelopment control. This Act requires that the implementation of development besubject to a permitting system. A development permit may require completion of anenvironmental impact assessment.


• The Environment Protection Act, 1991. This is primarily concerned with environmentalquality and its protection. The Act does not relate to internationally recognised principlesof sustainable practices. The Act requires an environmental impact assessment for allmajor developments. It is prohibited to discharge in to the sea any substance without awritten permit, this includes effluent from treatment plants. There is also a requirementfor the disposal and dumping on land of certain substances to have a written permit. Thisis relevant to the disposal of sewage sludge and/or treated wastewater to land.

• Legal Notice 8 of 1993. Issued under the 1991 EPA, this Notice establishes sewerdischarge control regulations.

3 International Policy Framework

3.1 Barcelona Convention

In 1975, the first Mediterranean inter-governmental conference was held in Barcelona whichresulted in the adoption of the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP). In February 1976 a secondconference was held in Barcelona which adopted the “Convention for the Protection of theMarine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean’ (the so-called ‘BarcelonaConvention’). This was subsequently revised in Barcelona in June 1995, although therevision is not yet in force. The Maltese Government has ratified these agreements, therebyproviding a framework for regional co-operation, including programmes for pollutionmonitoring and research within the Mediterranean (MEDPOL), a socio-economic programmecalled the Blues Plan and a Priority Action Programme (PAP).

3.2 Genoa Declaration

In 1985, ten target areas were identified through the Genoa Declaration. One such target areawas the establishment of sewage treatment plants and outfalls for all cities around theMediterreanean with more than 100,000, and appropriate treatment plants for all towns withmore than 10,000 inhabitants. It was intended that these targets be achieved as a matter ofpriority during the second decade of other MAP programme referred to above.

3.3 European Community and Other Initiatives

In parallel with its participation on MAP, the European Community has initiated a number ofenvironmental programmes, including:

• Medium-term Action Plan for the Environmental Protection in the Mediterranean(MEDSPA), which promotes continuity action.

• Environmental Regional Programme (ENVIREG), relating to regional environmentalmeasures.

As a complementary step the World Bank and European Investment Bank has financed alarge number of environmental projects, and in 1988 the Environmental Program of theMediterranean (EPM) was launched.


3.4 European Community Directives

Given the stated intention of the Government of Malta to seek membership of the EuropeanUnion it is important to consider the range of Directives that relate to the management ofwastewater. With regard to membership of the EU, a National Programme for Adoption ofthe Acquis (NPAA) is being put in place, and the Government of Malta is now seeking tocontinue the process towards accession. As part of this process there is an identified need toimplement the Sewerage Master Plan as a matter of priority.

Key EC Directives which relate to upgrading of the sewerage system include:

• Directive concerning the quality of bathing water (Directive 160/76 EEC)• Directive on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic

environment (Directive 464/76 EEC)• Directive on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous

substances included in the Annex to Directive 464/76 EEC (Directives 280/86 EEC,347/888 EEC and 415/90 EEC)

• Directive on the quality required of shellfish waters (Directive 923/79 EEC)• Directive on the protection of the environment and in particular of the soil when sewage

sludge is used in agriculture (Directive 278/86). This Directive sets criteria for the qualityof sludge, particular in respect of heavy metal content. The Directive has indirectimplications for the quality of groundwater underlying the land to which sewage sludge isapplied.

• Directive concerning urban wastewater treatment (Directive 271/91 EEC). The Directiverequires that Member States treat all wastewater discharges exceeding 15,000 peopleequivalent to secondary treatment within a determined timeframe. The Directive alsoplaces emphasis on the possible re-use of treated wastewater.

• Directive concerning the protection of water against pollution from nitrates fromagricultural sources (Directive 676/91/EEC)

In December 2000 the European Parliament and Council (Decision No. 2850/2000/EC)decided to set up a Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental ordeliberate marine pollution. Further European-wide legislation is therefore likely to arise indue course as a direct result of this decision.


Annex 6SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR PROPOSED SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AT RAS IL-HOBZ

Key: (P) – Positive Impact (N) – Negative Impact(D) – Direct Impact (I) – Indirect Impact(ST) – Short Term Impact (LT) – Long Term Impact(H) – High Impact (M) – Medium Impact (L) – Low Impact


Ecology • Airborne dust (N, D, ST, L-M)• Loss of vegetation (N, D, ST and LT, L)• Surface water runoff (N, I, ST, L)

• Light pollution impact on birds (N, D, LT, L)• Intensification of agriculture and use of

herbicides (N, I, LT, L-M)

Agricultural Land Quality • Loss of agricultural land (N, D, LT, M-H)• Termination of field tenure (N, D, LT, M-H)• Loss of agricultural employment (N, D, ST, M-

H)• Loss of economic productivity (N, I, LT, L)• Transportation of soils (N, D, LT, M)• Change in rural character (N, D, LT, M-H)• Removal and damage of rubble walls (N, D

and I, ST and LT, M)• Temporary land-take for storage (N, D, ST, M-

H)• Disturbance of agricultural land (N, D and I,

ST, L-M)• Dust generation (N, D, ST, L)



• Increased nutrient input (N, D, LT, L-M)• Soil nutrient depletion (N, D, LT, L-M)• Decreased soil erosion potential (P, D, LT, L-

M)• Health risks from effluent re-use (N, D and I,

ST and LT, L-M)

Geology, Palaeontology and Geomorphology • Removal of limestone and blue clay (N, D, LT,L)

• None



Landscape and Visual Setting • Visual disturbance due to traffic associatedwith construction activities (N, D, ST, L-M)

• Temporary loss of land for storage (N, D, ST,L-M)

• Completed plant and associated structures (N,D, LT, L-M)

• Loss of arable land and change of use (N, D,LT, L-M)

• Lighting within a dark landscape during nighttime (N, D and I, LT, L)

• Visual disturbance due to traffic accessing theplant (N, D, LT, L)

Hydrology and Hydrogeology • Removal of rubble walls causing increased soilerosion potential (N, D and I, ST, L-M)

• Siltation of watercourses (N, D and I, ST, L-M)• Water contamination (N, D and I, ST, L)

• Reduction in surface water runoff andinfiltration (N, D and I, ST and LT, L)

• Impedance of surface water runoff to sea (N,D, ST, L)

• Re-use of treated effluent (N and P, D and I,ST and LT, M-H)

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage • Damage to relics during excavation (N, D, ST,L)

• Vibration damage to historic structures onaccess routes to the site (N, D and I, ST, L)

• Vibration damage to coast tower (N, D, ST, L-M)

• Improved marine environment giving benefit toroman wreck (P, I, LT, M)

Land Use • Impact on agriculture locally (N, D and I, ST,M-H)

• Impact on agricultural yields (P,D, LT, M-H)

Public Rights of Way • None • Improved access to coast (P, D and I, LT, L-M)



Air Quality • Dust arising from construction activities (N, D,ST, L-M)

• Odour - none

• Dust from waste storage areas (N, D, ST, L)• Odours from operational plant (N, D, ST and

LT, L)• Bio-aerosol generation – on site (N, D, ST and

LT, L-M)• Bio aerosol generation – off site (N, D ST and

LT, L)

Noise and Vibration • Noise during construction operations (N, D,ST, L-M)

• Vibration during construction operations (N, Dand I, ST, L)

• Noise associated with plant operation (N, D,ST, L)

• Vibration associated with plant operation (N, Dand I, ST, L)

Marine Environment • None • Improved marine environment (P, D, LT, H)• Improved recreational potential within the area

(land based and marine based) (P, D and I,LT, H)

Traffic and Highways • Construction related traffic (N, D and I, ST, M) • Operational traffic (N, D and I, LT, L)

Socio-Economics • Loss of agricultural land (N, D and I, ST, L-H)• Termination of field tenure (N, D, LT, M-H)• Loss of agricultural employment (N, D, ST, M-

H)• Loss of economic productivity (N, I, LT, L)• Change in rural character (N, D, LT, M-H)• Construction related employment (P, D and I,

ST, L-M)



• Improved land and marine based environment(P, D and I, LT, H)



Recreation and Amenity • Visual, noise and air quality impacts ontourism and amenity within the wider area ofthe proposed plant (N, D and I, ST, L-M)

• Impact of operational plant on recreation andamenity (N, D and I, ST, L)

• Improved land and marine based environment andlocal amenity (P, D and I, LT, H)

Secondary Impacts • Installation of access road (N, D and I, ST, L-M)

• Sourcing of construction materials (N, D and I,ST, L-M)

• Installation of services (N, D, ST, L-M)• Construction of ancillary structures (N, D, ST,

L-M)

• Re-use of treated effluent (P and N, D and I,LT, M-H)

• Management and disposal of wastes from theplant (N and P, D and I, LT, L-M)

standard summary project fiche - european commission · urban waste water treatment plant in gozo...

Documents