“The Adriatic is the final common destination of the waters of the entire region, and therefore it must be safeguarded with a common method and as a common good”. The CrossWater project looks at the two Adriatic shores and the sustainable management of water services

A common, integrated and sustainable management of all-round water services, from drinking water to wastewater, for the countries bordering the two shores of the Adriatic.

This is the goal of CrossWater Project  , part of the Interreg cooperation programme between Italy, Albania and Montenegro financed by the Pre-Accession Instrument of the European Union with a budget of 5,5 million euros.

On the Italian side, CrossWater includes two regions: Puglia, the project coordinator, and Molise.

“The Adriatic is the final common destination of the waters of the entire region, and therefore it must be safeguarded with a common method and as a common good”, explains engineer Andrea Zotti, project manager of CrossWater for the Puglia Region.

“It is essential to realize that a unitary management of water,” he continues, “can be useful among all the countries that have the sea as an element of division but also of union.”

The project is divided into several steps. It started with an analysis of the current situation in the territories involved, with a study of the shortcomings but also of the good practices already existing.

For each area, a specific case was identified in which a pilot project was started. In Albania, the supply network of the village of Kasalla, on the outskirts of Tirana, where over five hundred families lived without a connection to running water, was completed, while in Montenegro, an action of monitoring, control and protection of Bolje sestre, an important source of drinking water near the coast, was undertaken.

On the Italian side, more general projects were chosen, one on the protection of water resources and energy optimization in Puglia and one aimed at identifying strategies and techniques to optimize network management in Molise.

The results were published in a document, the Integrated Cross-Border Plan, published at the end of 2021. The last step (started in 2019, the project will end in November 2022) will be a policy paper with guidelines that should help governments ensure that the identified objectives and practices are actually put into practice.

“Despite the differences for each territory and situation,” explains Zotti, “future planning should be based on themes that should be the same for everyone: water quality, reduction of consumption, rationalization of uses, management of distribution by countering any losses, and possibly reuse and repurification of purified water.”

Balkans: Lots of Water, Zero Efficiency

Despite being very rich in water, Albania and Montenegro are managing their blue gold in a less than optimal way. According to experts, the two countries suffer from problems that are partly common. The first is an excessive fragmentation of managers, who often do not go beyond individual municipalities and whose possibilities for action are lost in bureaucratic labyrinths that are difficult to unravel. The myriad of actors involved prevents a common strategy, hinders controls and makes investments to improve infrastructure expensive.

The high percentage of water that is not invoiced, that is, not paid for (either because it is directly lost from aqueducts in poor condition, or because it is poorly calculated or simply not paid for), brings the accounts of the management companies permanently into the red, triggering a vicious circle that further worsens the quality of the service.

The country with the longest way to go is undoubtedly Albania.

In the country of the Eagles, the plan states, the quality of water is seriously affected by the lack of wastewater treatment plants and an inadequate sanitation system.

Since it was built in the 50s and 60s, the Albanian water network has not been modernized except to a small extent. In addition to its physical decay, in the chaos of the 90s, there was an excessive fragmentation of the service, while controls became very rare. Since the early 2000s, the World Bank has encouraged the modernization of infrastructure and reforms on the Western European model, including controversial, partial privatizations.

Despite two decades of efforts, however, according to the United Nations only 71% of the population has access to safely managed water, and the figure drops significantly in rural areas. The picture for wastewater is even more bleak, with just 13% properly disposed of through sewers and septic tanks.

Rich in powerful springs and crystal-clear streams, Montenegro should start off with a clear advantage over the other territories involved. The country, which has a long tradition of water companies inspired by municipal companies in the style of Austria and Germany, instead pays for the "overly fragmented" management of services. Infrastructure is not much better: the aqueducts are often in poor condition, while the network of wastewater treatment plants has yet to be completed. The official strategy of the country is to use sewage sludge and leaves from wastewater to produce compost, but for now there is little or nothing concrete.

Puglia and Molise: mixed results

Flat and parched, Puglia should be the thirstiest of the territories that overlook the lower Adriatic. Yet the region boasts one of the largest and most ambitious aqueducts in Europe. Built a century ago, the Apulian Aqueduct collects water in Campania and Basilicata and conveys it in a capillary manner to the extreme offshoots of Salento.

Even from an institutional point of view, Puglia seems better organised, with a single company, belonging entirely to the Region, which supplies water throughout the territory as a service. en casa.

“Water in our territory is scarce,” Zotti argues. “But we learned early on to make the most of it. In territories like Albania and Montenegro, on the other hand, there is plenty of it but there are problems with management, maintenance, loss. This is exactly what cooperation is for: identifying the best practice useful in the unitary management of the resource”.

Not that there is room for improvement even in Puglia. The size and age of the network cause huge losses, while it would be necessary to accelerate the digitalization of the infrastructure and improve the operations of providing the service.

Molise is far worse off. The region is rich in water, but, like its Balkan counterparts, its management is distributed among a myriad (one hundred and sixty-three) municipalities, each going in its own direction. Molise, experts write, has not yet managed to adapt to the principles adopted in Italy and Europe since 1994, when the concept of integrated water service was introduced. Water does not receive the attention and care it deserves, due to insufficient funds, with heavy effects on agriculture and tourism, the two main economic resources of the region.

Fortunately, perhaps under pressure from several infringement procedures opened by the European Commission, at least on the wastewater treatment front the delays are gradually being filled.

A common policy

Once the diagnosis was made, the CrossWater experts attempted to prescribe a treatment.

The first obstacle to tackle would be the fragmentation of water suppliers, a problem common to all territories except Puglia. In Albania, the over three hundred management bodies have recently been reduced to fifty-eight, but they could still be merged to an optimal level of ten or twenty. Small Montenegro, by making the aggregation of municipal companies mandatory, could reduce them to no more than three or four.

With larger and more coordinated companies it would be possible to reduce costs, according to the principles of economies of scale, making possible investments that would improve the service and at the same time the trust of citizens.

Experts do not hide that a more efficient service could lead to an adjustment of tariffs, in order to cover costs and make investments possible both in innovation and in environmental protection.

The prospect of raising bills in areas where the right to drinking water is not always guaranteed, however, is not exciting. “We make an efficient management model, possible only when there is a widespread income that covers maintenance costs, the proper use of personnel, and so on,” comments Zotti. “But the final decision, whether to pay less, is a question that is up to politics.”

Among the possible models, the possibility of public-private partnerships based on the European model is proposed, where only the assignment of part of the services is put out to tender, while the property and infrastructure remain public. Where possible, the group does not exclude direct management, en casa, by public companies.

In any case, we will not go far without raising awareness among citizens, which is essential to reduce not only waste but also overall water consumption. On this, the document states, we are still far behind. In all four territories, we would find "substantially the same indifference among end users to issues related to reducing water consumption".

For this reason, the entire project is accompanied by awareness-raising and communication initiatives. In January, CrossWater entered four schools in Puglia, with training sessions to raise awareness among students about the conscious use of water, and the initiative will soon land on the other side of the Adriatic.

Another fundamental aspect, but often underestimated, is the management of waste water. If properly treated and reused, waste water would not only reduce the risk of pollution for seas and rivers but would also save higher quality water for more noble uses. It would therefore be necessary to orient regulations and technological investments in this direction, as well as investing again in communication. In fact, farmers, who consume over 40% of the available water, would still be reluctant to accept the use of waste water even if treated and controlled.

Water, the experts conclude, is a fundamental element to enable the development and well-being of society, but its management is extremely complex. Especially in a period of rapid social and political changes that two pre-accession countries like Montenegro and Albania are experiencing. In addition to the natural ones, of course, with climate change posing new challenges, which cannot be faced alone.

Beyond the specific interventions of each territory, the Plan states that coordination and continuous exchange of experiences between partners are essential, in a context of continuous and mutual support.

Once the experts have finished their work, the government will have its say. If civil society makes itself heard, the chances of them giving the Adriatic a common plan for the most precious of resources will increase.

 

The small – 28/02/2022