Subject: Sewage Bonaire: "old" Internal Position Paper (within EC) DRAFT dated 8 January 2003

Dear Sean,

Through the help of a friend I recovered from old files this Internal Position Paper on Sewage Bonaire, which I send to EC-HQ early January 2003. I never received any reply via chain of command from my HQ-colleagues. By this time back I was puzzled, why no reply at all. Later after intimidation I realised why...

I regret the attached file is only the DRAFT version. But I will dig for the final version. I hope it may help.

Would it make any difference if I post the "old" but still brand actual stuff in BT and Bonaire Reporter?

Today you had a smooth talker in your studio, who lied several times in public. He is in clear favour, but why lying?

All the Best,

Detlef


---------------------------------------------------------
Internal Position Paper Draft! 08 January 2003

Subject: Bonaire Sewage System- possibly way forward

I intend to find firstly a common position in our delegation, in the second step to find a common position with Mr. CANSECO, Brussels and later to get the TAO and local Bonaire Government in the boot for further improved action.
This project is a more delicate one then the Aruba one. It has several setup weaknesses as fare I could identify/sense it by the discussions held in NEA and reading the papers:
 TOR is very detailed but still “limited” only to repair one occurred problem; it is running behind the island problems and is not ahead in thinking and approach. I am doubtful about the sustainability and future running costs burdens. No adequate investigate has made in other technology options at possible competitive costs. Not critically enough investigated in the whole artificial water cycle and possible competitive costs alternatives and their economical/environmental final consequences for the island or regional. The consultant done in its given ”TOR-limitation”, technically it’s best. However, the Master Plan appeared to be merely a continuation of relatively traditional approaches.
 I sense, one of our pillars are some how in the shadow: TRANSPARENCY and good GOVERNANCE, main stakeholder not “allowed” (not invited) to take part from the beginning in the most important meetings/discussions, e.g. about fees/pricing policy (flow of information is limited), e.g. there is only: “A meeting with the BONHATA (Bonaire Hotel Association) shall be scheduled in the near future.” (See Annex 9 of Master Plan, Minutes of Meeting, 18.10.02). Furthermore, during the meeting with xxx and others I had the subjective impression, the sewage system and the needed not jet existing policies gets more or less impost on the main stakeholder (How to make them pay on legal terms?)
 As a result of that “shadow” the main stakeholder, who should be the main player in the “game” stays in a distance to the whole project, e.g. the hoteliers did not answer any of the questionnaires of the consultant. I can’t help it, I sense mistrust towards the authority, or at least an uncertainty about the future financial implication/burden, if filling out the questionnaires as asked. There must be somewhere/somehow a brake down of communication/cooperation. The comment (Annex 9 of mater plan) by the major environmental alliance group ANB (Aliansa Naturalesa Boneiru) about the project/Master Plan is clearly stating their distance to the project. Their comment was only copied in the Annex of the Master Plan but was not addressed at all. One of their statements I can copy word by word as my next point.
 ‘The methods in the Plan appear to be tried and true for preserving public health. However, they do not adequately investigate emerging technologies with might better protecting health AND the environment at possible competitive costs.’ I have only to add to this statement that the term ‘emerging’ technologies are a bit outdated. The technologies in mind mentioned are long time in use (the normal functions of the nature been “only” accelerated), proven and successful in daily use worldwide.
 The consultant did not realize or did not mention in their Master Plan (MP) about existing resent good island initiatives - environmental best practice amongst hoteliers, e.g. an economic and ecological alternative sewage treatment plant at a major hotel. See in the Annex of this position paper the BONHATA-news January 2002, page2, or go to http://www.bonhata.org/News-2002-01.pdf.
 The consultant suggested, based on existing sewage situation and experience made in Curaçao, to have similar conventional sewage systems and treatment in Bonaire to. I would like to dispute this suggestion. It’s the old story about comparing pears with apples. The level of urbanization, related problems, concentration and industries in Bonaire differ very to Curaçao. The other and less dense urban situation in Bonaire needs a better-adapted solution. Comparisons should be made worldwide with other small tourist islands in a similar coral environment, low-density population and with environmental best practice. Eine fundierte Entscheidung für ein Entsorgungssystem kann nur nach einem entsprechendem Variantenvergleich gefällt werden. In diese sollten die Investkosten genauso wie die Betriebskosten von verschiedenen Varianten fließen (Kostenbarwerterrmittlung von Zentral / Semizentral / Dezentral.
 In the MP no information found about the go about the effluent of the desalination plant, which produces approx. 2,000 to 2,500 m3/d (800,000 to 900,000 m3/anum) drinking water.

Maybe I am too harsh? I don’t want to be the troublemaker!


(text content still in a premature stage)
(Dear Mr. xxx,)?

Subject: Bonaire Sewage System- SUGGESTIONS
Reducing future running costs, system costs and adding values

Thank you very much for the Master Plan presented by your consultant.
I am still in the process of reading and understanding all the documents inherited from our former office in Curacao.

Being in the Netherlands Antilles and in Aruba, seeing some of the projects, getting a better understanding of your intentions, and enjoying your magnificent hospitality, smoothed the way to becoming operational as soon as possible and to having constructive/pragmatic inputs.

I would like to have some early suggestions (on the objectives, results and indicators of success) in a more holistic view, hopefully constructive and pragmatic. My intention is to reduce and sustain your future running costs to increase profitability and to possibly add values, not only limited to a future Bonaire Sewage System (existing problem solving system), in the scope of the planned EDF-financed projects.

Water, used water and energy
During our visit, I learned from Mr. xxx, representative of the Netherlands in the NEA and later in Aruba too at the future museum site, that the Dutch Antilles had a sophisticated and long tradition in collecting and using rainwater for domestic needs, which has somehow been forgotten due to the “modern” way of life? Many of the premises have systems like this still in place, of course now in a dilapidated state.

I would like to take the initiative to suggest to your team of planners that they/we widen the horizon of the project. The planned project should have a more integrated approach. Not only by words. The project should be rebalanced, taking in account the whole water cycle, the energies used, the financial advantages/disadvantages and the environmental impacts, e.g. through revitalizing-, building new and extending- rainwater collection systems in a modern way, through incentives fostered in private and business areas, to reduce the amount of water being used for flushing toilets, in order to reduce future running costs in hotels, in private homes and in the sewage system. Furthermore, private homes and businesses should be encouraged, through a combined incentive system, to enable their gardens to soak up overflowing rainwater from the private rainwater collection systems. This would keep the sizes of sewage components smaller by having less storm water and used water to capture, transport and treat. A consequence of reducing the use of expensive desalinated seawater (water which has already consumed a high amount of fossil energy is mainly used for flushing toilets?). In order to have further cost benefits, these measures should be combined with a consequent introduction and fostering (incentives and others) of water saving facilities and toilets as widely used in the Netherlands and the EU. In short, less used water means less running costs and better profit margins.

Great emphasis should be given (real money should be spent, but not as gifts) to encourage the owners/managers of the hotels, who are presently in a distanced to the project (who have not even answered vital questionnaires from the consultant) to become the main players in the planning exercises and to be part of a future “communal board team” (public private partnerships in sewage management [1]) to manage the systems. This will come true only if it is understood through incentive measures, that at the end of the day this group will have a better profit share, direct and indirect, by reducing there own financial burdens through saving energy and using less of the expensive desalinated seawater. It should be recognized that the backbone of the island’s economy needs further support to establish a real and sustainable eco-friendly tourism industry. Finally, and the very foundation of their business, the coral reefs/diving grounds will be saved through comprehensive and integrated improvements.

The success of the intention/systems to save the corals and finally to save the future tourist business (the major island income), begins and ends with the cooperation of the hoteliers. The law will be obeyed by happy stakeholders/consumers who see benefits for themselves and who have an understanding of the reason behind Sewage Bye Laws. Solutions and main decisions between the different stakeholders should be reached in a participatory, cooperative and transparent way. Of course, there will be always some disagreements. Nevertheless, the aim should be to find a minimum of cooperation and agreement.

A made investment, i.e. $250,000 for a package treatment plant is already a vital private contribution to save the corals and should be seen as being very positive. However, investments made on existing treatment facilities by hotels should be recognized as positive, as assets, and the owners should be encouraged/supported to improve them in a practical way to a better standard (not through gifts). Alternative, cheaper treatment methods which use less energy, and less industrial equipment and which treat used water efficiently in a more or less natural way, i.e. through Constructed Wetlands [2], which are much more better adapted and could be integrated into the green surrounding of the hotels, should be shown to the hoteliers. See the initiative by the diver-hotel “Captain Don’s Habitat” in Bonaire http://www.bonhata.org/News-2002-01.pdf and the international initiative “Green Hoteliers”. http://www.ihei.org/

The existing and later improved sites could be part of a future total sewage plan, -system and -management. Decentralized systems or partly decentralized systems could reduce the needed capital costs and future running costs. The management of these sites could be contracted out to the company, a limited private service company, which is communal owned, could run or support the whole systems. It should have laboratory capacity to test the treatment results of the systems on a regular basis. However, time should be given for trials to find the best modus vivendi in the management for all stakeholders. à Public private partnership in sewage management? This approach and a decentralized or a combination of a centralized and a decentralized sewage system are new for all sides. This process of finding (probably a “trial and error” and success approach) should be supported by a very experienced adviser (who sees people first – the right sewage technology is not the only answer) for institutional development/support and possibly constructed wetland/decentralized systems.

In the first stage it would be not possible to treat everything to a top standard, but still this contribution will cut the peaks (quantity and effluent load) and consequently reduce the sizes/costs of the following systems to transport and treat the used water further. The improvements on the existing plants should start as soon as possible to give the right signal to all stakeholders.

Emphasis should be given to the sole use of water for irrigation which been treated up to standard, regardless of where it is being treated, in a improved hotel treatment plant or in a town owned treatment plant.


Possibly way forward:

Option ONE: out of the 14M Euro grand the local Bonaire authority could provide sewage improvement loans based on a very good rate, using an existing organization to do so, to the individual hotels, interested groups of private households and other businesses. This loans should be based on the firm condition, that all planning, construction and future management is in “one hand”, to ensure transparence, effectiveness, standardization and permanent high standards. Basis should be the revised planning exercises with ALL main stakeholders (ZOPP’en). ZOPP = Ziel-Orientierte Projekt-Planung in a participatory, cooperative and transparent way.

The returning money could be used as a base for a possible Bonaire Foundation, which should have the general objective to improve the situation in an integrated and sustained way on the whole island, in an inventive/innovative way based on sound business approaches. This could be a step towards financial sustainability in this sector. Further sponsors could be attracted by thatch environmental best practice proven and sound business activities. Not only for reasons of environmental protection, but also for reasons of safety and diversification of energy- and water supply, and for reasons of social and economic cohesion. (public private partnership, a software project?)

Option TWO: The needed decentralized or partly decentralized sewage systems should be financed through the same channel (100% grand) as planed. Basis should be the revised planning exercises with ALL main stakeholders. (ZOPP’en).

Accompanying measurements to both Options: The project should following the recommendations presented by the European Commission in its White Paper, ”Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy” as well as the relevant resolutions adopted by the European Parliament + successful examples [3] to [12]. In this intention the project could incorporate as well major running cost saving-, water saving-, energy saving- and rainwater harvesting- activities, fostering alternatives and diversification to desalination using fossil energy, generate energy from clean sources on the island, taking into account the excellent conditions existing on the island. E.g. as a first small step only in the right direction: with the support of EC, relevant Bonaire based organizations (e.g. ANB, BONHATA) organizes buyers-implementing groups for rainwater collection- and water saving facilities for private households and business, in order to cut costs down (bulk prices). Further support should be given to small & medium enterprises (SME) to install the facilities (using possibly unit prices) on an agreed high standard. Special financial conditions for low-income groups should be consider, having “all” in the boot. (a software project?)

In General
The “widened” approach could be presented later as part of the greater Bonaire concept to save the corals and finally the environment in a more or less transparent way to all visitors. This could be an additional highlight and a nice showcase of good practice, as well as informing the public in a practical way about your intention to save financial and natural resources by applying environmental friendly policies. European tourists are much more sensitive to these issues. Furthermore, it could be an initial spark to all kinds of visitors, and in particular school classes, to revitalize the forgotten good traditions at home in order to save private money by being environmentally friendly.

All possibly planed activities should not only be done for reasons of environmental protection, but also for reasons of safety and diversification of energy- and water supply, and for reasons of social and economic cohesion.




Footnotes

[1] GPA News Forum
Access to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and International Ocean Institute discussion forum on public private partnerships in sewage management
Website: http://gpanews.unep.org


[2] Constructed Wetlands
A system like this is particularly suitable for tourism establishments in hot and dry areas and in tropical climates, since it can handle seasonally fluctuating quantities and the reeds can withstand dry periods lasting weeks.
Generally there are no limitations for the size of a system like this. The most useful technology has to be checked from case to case. Instead of one huge reed bed, several small ones could be set up. Out of season some reed beds can be switched off, if they are not needed. Constructed wetlands provide an economic and ecological alternative. If treated water is to be immediately reused, in addition to removing impurities and toxic substances, pathogenic (disease-causing) germs need to be reduced. Compared to conventional sewage treatment plants, constructed wetlands are sometimes even more efficient at cleaning water.

Advantages
• Cleaning performance far better than the statutory limit values
• Low operating cost
• Low maintenance
• Long service life
• No smells
• Easy to expand existing facilities
• Harmonious integration in the prevailing landscape



Georgetown, Guyana, 08 January 2003

Detlef SCHWAGER

Program Officer for infrastructure projects (temp contract agent) at
Delegation of the European Commission to Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad &Tobago, Aruba and The Netherlands Antilles