Case study: Poland: Waste water taxation to address urban and industry discharges
โขDownload as PPTX, PDFโข
1 likeโข369 views
This presentation was given at IEEP's capacity building for environmental tax reform conference on 5 October 2017 in Brussels, Belgium. Speaker: Kamila Paquel (IEEP)
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
More from Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)
More from Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Case study: Poland: Waste water taxation to address urban and industry discharges
- 1. Add your own background picture: โข Do not change the IEEP logo or the website/Twitter details to the right! โข Insert + Pictures โข The picture should snap automatically to the background placeholder โข Check Slide Show view to double-check Wastewater fee POLAND Kamila Paquel, 5th October, Brussels
- 2. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu OVERVIEW โข Background โข Design โข Revenue collection and use โข Impacts โข Stakeholder engagement โข Recent reforms โข Replicability โข Summary
- 3. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Changes in Poland since the 1990s and remaining challenges Background
- 4. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Unitary fees with selective coverage and low rates Design
- 5. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Unitary fee rates for pollutants introduced in treated sewage disposed to water or soil (2017) Unitary fee PLN/kg Biochemical oxygen demand (5-day) 4.28 Organic matter as Chemical oxygen demand 1.71 Suspended solids 0.52 Sum of chlorides and sulphates 0.05 Volatile fenols 45.55 HCH, CCl4, PCP, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, izodrin, HCB, HCBD, CHCl3, EDC, TRI, PER, TCB, Hg, Cd, Zn, Cu, Ni, Cr, Pb, As, V, Ag (heavy metals) 124.56 Source: Ministry of Environment decree of 29 June 2016, annex 2 Design
- 6. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Most welcome earmarking weakened by poor enforcement Revenue collection and use
- 7. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Positive environmental trends triggered not only by the fee Impacts
- 8. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Organic substances fee rates and outflow through rivers to the Baltic Sea Max unitary fee (PLN/kg BOD5) Outflow of organic substance (1000t BOD/year) Impacts
- 9. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Poor stakeholder engagementโฆ with a few exceptions Stakeholder engagement
- 10. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Potentially sweeping changes to come Reforms
- 11. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Limited potential for replicability, country-wide redistribution as a good practice Replicability
- 12. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Broadly effective fee with many loopholes and inefficient enforcement Summary
Editor's Notes
- Polandโs dynamic development since 1990s Economic development (arrow UP) Pressure on water resources (arrow DOWN to be introduced) Positive influence of EU membership Remaining challenges: struggle to ensure good ecological status of surface water Poland referred to the EU CJ over water legislation for failing to apply WFD, lost in 2016 Charges in the portfolio of environmental protection measures, regulated by the Act of 27 April 2001 on Environmental Protection
- Wastewater fee to discharge sewage to water or soil at least since 1974, in current form since 2002 unitary per type of pollutant and category of sewage paid by the polluters operating with an environmental permit, auto-reporting and fee-calculating Fee collection by the Marshal Office Control by the regional inspectorates for environmental protection Regional databases feeding a central database Lack of efficient reporting tools, high administrative burden
- Total revenues collected in 2014: 459.8 mln PLN (ca 115 mln EUR) = around 30% of all environmental charges Collected at regional level, Revenue goes to the National and Regional Funds for Environmental Protection and Water Management; and local governments Through the funds the revenues are earmarked for investment in environmental protection across the country Weak enforcement Generous exemptions: agriculture; cooling water; saline water; fresh water farming
- Positive environmental trendsโฆ constantly declining water and soil pollutants negative correlation between the level of fee rates and the pollution they cover โฆcannot be attributed to the fee alone; Vast redistribution of revenues Weak enforcement detrimental for public perception
- Little information about the stakeholder engagement at the stage of fee design and introduction Poor public consultation no sign of engagement by civil society signs of influence by, among others; fish farming, agriculture and energy sectors lobbies Considering other inefficiencies, lack of stakeholder engagement not a major drawback?
- Sensitive issue: implications for costs of water and sewage for end-users Currently planned reforms: controversial, now stalled in the legislative process; potential scrappage of the current wastewater fee system, introduction of more centralised approach and rates increase major loopholes not addressed Suggestions: Proper public consultation, increased transparency of the law making process Higher rates could prevent even more pollutants from reaching the Baltic Sea
- Limited efficiency of the current system Good practice: earmarking of fee revenues across the country tackling economic and social disparities Redistribution managed by a specialised institution with an independent financing economy and sufficient capacity
- Wastewater unitary fee applied to discharge sewage to water or soil Introduced in current form in 2002, small increases since Paid by the polluters at regional level, auto-reporting and self-fee-calculating Fees are generally effective butโฆ Major sectoral loopholes and inefficient enforcement Relatively low rates Very poor stakeholder engagement with signs of industry lobbies influence Upcoming reforms announcing sweeping change