Project "Clean Rivers - Clean Sea! NGO actions for environmental

Transcription

Project "Clean Rivers - Clean Sea! NGO actions for environmental protection within Black Sea area", funded by the European Union through the
Joint Operational Programme “Black Sea Basin 2007 – 2013” – MIS-ETC2371
1
Water management
process in relation with EU regulations within
Black Sea Basin selected regions:
Bulgaria
Georgia
Rep. of Moldova
Romania
Turkey
2
Study elaborated by S.C. DANIAS S.R.L
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS:
EMMA GILEVA
Bulgaria
EKATERINE KHVEDELIDZE
Georgia
FLOREA LUIZA
Romania
GALCA GAVRIL
R. Moldova
LEONTE MIRELA
Romania
MELTEM YILMAZ
Turkey
MOISI PETRUTA
Romania
POPOVICI MIHAELA
Romania
SILVIA BOJOI
Romania
RALITSA ZHEKOVA
Bulgaria
RADU DANIELA
Romania
MIHAELA KOZOVSKA
Bulgaria
Editing: Creţu Ileana
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword .................................................................................................................... 6
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 8
Water - vital support for life ......................................................................................... 8
Waters in the region ................................................................................................... 8
The key to the environmental health of the sea .................................................................. 9
The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive – the ecosystem based approach .............................. 12
Beginning and progress .............................................................................................. 12
The Regional Seas of Europe ....................................................................................... 14
Public participation in the MSFD implementation process ..................................................... 15
NGOs in the national consultation process ....................................................................... 15
Regional Policy on Black Sea Issues ................................................................................... 16
The Black Sea Synergy ............................................................................................... 17
The WFD - framework for EU water policy .......................................................................... 18
The river basin approach ............................................................................................ 19
Good ecological and chemical status ............................................................................. 20
The pressures assessment and impact analysis - WFD requirements ......................................... 20
Setting up the Programme of Measures (PoM) ................................................................... 22
Getting people involved ............................................................................................. 23
Progress and prospects .............................................................................................. 23
Water management and other policies ........................................................................... 24
The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC ................................................... 24
Nitrates Directive (ND) ............................................................................................ 25
The Directive on Industrial Emissions (IED, 2010/75/EU) .................................................... 25
Challenges to the future ............................................................................................ 26
Common Strategic Goals .......................................................................................... 26
Implementation of the WFD in Romania ............................................................................. 28
General overview ..................................................................................................... 28
Findings of the WFD implementation in Romania ............................................................... 29
The River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and the Program of Measures (PoM) ........................... 30
Implementation of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive in Romania ............................... 31
Implementation of Industrial Emissions Directive in Romania ................................................ 32
Implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Romania .......................................................... 33
Institutional framework ............................................................................................. 36
Prut River focuss area .................................................................................................. 38
General presentation ................................................................................................ 38
characteristics of the Prut river Basin ............................................................................ 38
Water resources .................................................................................................... 39
Water Management in Prut River Basin - Romania .............................................................. 40
Impact and risk assessment ......................................................................................... 53
Priority topics and related measures in Prut Barlad River Basin .............................................. 57
Pollution due to untreated wastewater from rural areas .................................................... 57
Pollution coming from inland navigation ....................................................................... 59
Agricultural pollution .............................................................................................. 63
Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 65
Water Management in Prut River Basin - Moldova .................................................................. 66
Legislation ........................................................................................................... 66
Water Management in Prut River Basin - Republic of Moldova ............................................... 67
Hydrographic network ............................................................................................. 69
Hydrological characteristics ...................................................................................... 72
4
Hydro morphological monitoring ................................................................................ 80
Pressures, impact and risk assessment ......................................................................... 81
Protected areas and wetlands within the Prut River basin .................................................. 90
International cooperation and coordination in the Prut River Basin .......................................... 92
Bulgaria .................................................................................................................... 93
Pollution of the Black Sea ........................................................................................... 93
Biodiversity ............................................................................................................ 94
Fishing .................................................................................................................. 94
Coastal zone management ........................................................................................... 96
Chemical pollution .................................................................................................... 96
River Basin Management Districts in Bulgaria .................................................................... 97
River Basin Directorates and Districts ............................................................................. 98
MSFD in the Black Sea River Basin Management District – in Bulgaria ...................................... 104
Hot-spots analysis ................................................................................................... 105
Legal and institutional analysis ................................................................................... 105
Georgia .................................................................................................................. 106
Degradation of the Black Sea marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats .............................. 106
Poor water quality .................................................................................................. 106
Water resources and their use: quick assessment ............................................................. 107
Major owners in water sector ..................................................................................... 110
Water legislation in Georgia ....................................................................................... 110
Water quality assessment .......................................................................................... 114
Assessment of impact on health .................................................................................. 114
Current development in water sector in Georgia .............................................................. 115
EU Water Directives (obligations of Georgia) ................................................................... 116
General Description of the Chorokhi-Adjaristskali River Basin .............................................. 117
Human activities .................................................................................................... 118
Chorokhi-Adjaristskali River Basin Management Plan ......................................................... 119
Surface Water Bodies under Significant Pollution Pressures identified through Desk Review of
Initial Studies ...................................................................................................... 119
Surface Water Bodies under Hydro morphological Pressures, identified through Desk Review of
Initial Studies ...................................................................................................... 122
Surface Water Pressures & Impacts Associated with Key Driving Forces/Significant Water
Management Issues ............................................................................................... 123
Surface Water Pollution Pressures and Impacts .............................................................. 123
Impact and risk assessment ..................................................................................... 124
Initial Programme of Measures for Water Bodies “at Risk” and HMWBs.................................. 126
Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 132
THE EVOLUTION OF WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN TURKEY ............................................. 134
EU WFD: Basic Principles and Reflections on Turkey .......................................................... 135
RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT IN TURKEY........................................................................... 136
River Basin Coordination Commission in Turkey ............................................................... 137
River Basin Management Delegation ............................................................................. 138
COOPERATE GOVERNANCE ......................................................................................... 139
YEŞILIRMAK RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ............................................................. 139
Glossary of terms employed in environmental literature ........................................................ 143
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... 145
Bibliography and References ......................................................................................... 147
5
FOREWORD
Dear Readers,
It is the Black Sea ecosystems, their problems and assets that our project has tried to
disclose in a joint effort.
My task of challenging you to develop a real interest in reading and, maybe, making the best
of the “Study on water management process within project regions in relation with EU
regulations” is not an easy one.
My motivation is to prove that the outcome of the involvement of many NGOs and NGO
networks from five countries1 belonging to the Black Sea Region is worth studying.
We, the involved NGOs, have had a very good motivation in developing the project: the Black
Sea’s many environmental issues, as well as the involvement of thousands, maybe tens of
thousands of concerned citizens in the huge task of solving, at least part of, such issues.
We have achieved it by jointly developing the project known as “Clean Rivers - Clean Sea!
NGOs actions for environmental protection within Black Sea area”, shortly CRCS Project,
with the ECCG as the lead NGO. The joint action is funded by the European Union through the
Joint Operational Programme “Black Sea Basin 2007—2013” and its total budget is € 587,255.
The project aims:



to develop cooperation partnership among NGOs and other stakeholders in order to
share experiences on fighting against pollution as common challenge;
to increase the capacity of the NGOs in supporting local and regional authorities in
the field of water management and
to raise public awareness and strengthen public participation by promoting the
protection of ecosystem and advocacy for pollution control in Black Sea Basin,
especially the tributaries rivers.
But it is not only the environmental problems of the Black Sea, it’s also the sea’s assets that
majority of the 16 million population living in the coastal area do “consume them” during the
holiday season, at least; few consider, though, the impact of the human activities upon the
Black Sea’s environment and even fewer of us do think of their own role in both causing an
impact and also being part of the solution.
The study has been laboriously elaborated by environmental experts, along many months and
it is worth reading. Allowing yourselves quite a bit of time you will learn about the area
geography, and features, details you may never thought of, and pollution (not so tempting),
and also about the legislation achieved along many decades to secure its protection and
prevent more harm done; and many other interesting pieces of information.
By reading this study you will find a lot about related legislation, River Basin Management,
eutrophication, pollution and the most important aspects related to the Black Sea ecosystem.
Mentioning the legislation, the study presents:
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) 2008/56/EC which is considered the
first all-encompassing piece of European legislation specifically aimed at the
protection of the marine environment. Its key aim is to achieve Good Environmental
Status (GES) in European waters by 2020. With this aim in mind, the Directive
establishes several implementation steps, which should guide progress towards the
achievement of GES in 2020 and allow for the revision of the Directive’s components
thereafter;
1
Bulgaria, Georgia, Rep. Moldova, Romania and Turkey
6
The E.U. Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) governs the other water
bodies and together with other legislative acts (treaties, conventions, bilateral
agreements, etc.), the WFD establishes a framework to be applied by all people;
A short summary of the marine legislation beginning with the Convention of the
Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution, signed in Bucharest in 1992,
What makes the study even more interesting for you, Reader, is the fact that several main
rivers flowing directly or indirectly into the Black Sea have been studied in details, thus, our
knowledge about what causes the BS environment to suffer is much richer and much more
effective when applying it to a specific ecosystem.
The present publication comprises an extract of the country-focused sections which can be
consulted as full versions on the water management section of the project web-site:
http://www.cceg.ro/clean-rivers-clean-sea/en/projects/clean-rivers-clean-sea/watermanagement
It has not only been knowledge and information about the Black Sea ecosystems and the
governing legislation that we were interested in within the project, but also how to develop
partnerships and to how improve cooperation in the Black Sea Region among all the
stakeholders whether governmental, business sector, civil society, and the people at large, in
general.
On the project web site you can also find more information regarding the project and its
activities, as well as materials developed within the project either in English or national
languages, such as:
-
Research on the role of NGOs in implementing Water Framework Directive and
especially in River Management Plans elaboration;
Awareness raising leaflets and brochures;
Action Plan and Memorandum of Understanding, etc.
In the name of the entire project team, we, the lead partner ECCG, would like to express our
deepest thanks and gratitude to all those who toiled upon the Study elaborated with one
thought in mind: to be used by all those who want to know more about the Black Sea and
who, maybe, hopefully, will get involved in the Black Sea’s protection and prevention
processes.
January 2015, Galati,
Prof. Petruta Moisi, president of ECCG
Photo project team
7
INTRODUCTION
WATER - VITAL SUPPORT FOR LIFE
Water supports life. It is a crucial resource for humanity, generating and sustaining economic
growth and prosperity. It is also at the core of natural ecosystems and climate regulation.
Everyone needs water – and not just for drinking. We depend on our rivers, lakes, coastal and
marine waters, as well as groundwater, in many ways. Society uses water to generate and
sustain economic growth and prosperity, through activities such as farming, commercial
fishing, energy production, manufacturing, transport and tourism. Water is also in demand for
recreational activities, and forms a key element in the beauty of natural landscapes. Water is
at the core of natural ecosystems, and climate regulation.
But the pattern of supply is particularly vulnerable to climate change. Scientists warn of
increased risk of both droughts and floods in the coming decades. Demand for water is
growing everywhere – in the house and garden, for industry, agriculture and irrigation, leisure
and tourism – putting a strain on available supplies. At the same time, threats to water
quality come from pollution and physical changes to water courses, such as new dams.
Damage is caused by households, industry and agriculture, through urban developments, flood
defences, power generation, use of fertilisers and pesticides, navigation, recreation,
wastewater discharge, coastal defences, freshwater fishing, mining and forestry.
Although humanity has long realized its dependence on water, we are now also becoming
more and more aware that the supply is not infinite, and that we need to value it
accordingly. Water must be managed and protected. It is not merely a consumer product, but
a precious natural resource, vital to future generations as well as our own. Without water, no
life can survive.
In the European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD) it is recognised that “water is a
non-profit product and a natural heritage, therefore it should be protected and managed
as a traditional resource”. Water is a vital resource for the fate of nations as being the most
basic need of human life and playing crucial role in all economic activities. The continuation
of social and economic activities in urban environment is related to having good quality and
adequate water supply. The development of water resources directly contributes to the
economic productivity and social welfare. However given the increasing population rate and
growing economic activities, many countries have begun to face acute water scarcity.
WATERS IN THE REGION
The Black Sea is a unique water body, which is part of the Mediterranean basin being
connected to it via the Sea of Marmara. It is locked between Europe and Asia and is
surrounded by Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. Its basin drains over
two million square kilometers and covers almost one third of continental Europe.
About 16 million people inhabit the coastal area. The Black Sea is almost completely isolated
from the world oceans though its depth is considerable in places, up to 2212 m. The only
connection to the world oceans is through the winding Bosphorus Straits, a narrow 35kilometer channel, only 40 m deep in places.
Each year the Black Sea receives about 350 cubic kms of river water from a territory covering
roughly a third of continental Europe and including substantial areas of eighteen countries.
The second, third and fourth largest rivers in Europe, the Danube, the Dnieper and the Don,
flow into the Black Sea.
Statistics from the European Environment Agency provide the following geographical data for
the Black Sea: regional sea surface area 474 000 sq km; EU members’ share of the surface
area is of 64 000 sq km( 13,5%); sea surface area reported under the MSFD – 46 %; catchment
area of the sea – 2 414 000 sq km; population in the catchment area 191 994 000 people.
The Black Sea catchment area and population living within it are the second largest for the
European seas after the North East Atlantic seaboard.
8
These natural characteristics have made the Black Sea ecosystem out-standing in terms of
biodiversity. However, during recent decades the sea became one of the most
environmentally degraded regional seas on our planet. Its huge catchment area and the semienclosed nature have made the Black Sea highly sensitive to a variety of anthropogenic
impacts.
The Black Sea faces four main problems: (i) decline in commercial marine living resources, (ii)
degradation of the Black Sea marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats, (iii)
eutrophication2 and (iv) poor water quality not only for human health but also for
recreational use and aquatic biota.
Another important problem is also the increase in invasive species which has a significantly
severe impact on the native Black Sea biological diversity, with negative consequences for
human activities and economic interests.
The protection of the environment and natural resources has steadily grown in importance
since the 1990s with the first big political changes in the region.
The reason for this is that the threats of environmental damage and depletion of the natural
resources are still far from being under control. Fortunately, many people have become more
aware of the lurking dangers and have demanded stronger action at national and, especially,
regional level to protect the environment. Scientists, the regional public and policy makers
have started a series of policy actions aiming to protect and rehabilitate the regional waters
and the Black Sea.
THE KEY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OF THE SEA
Recent studies have identified eutrophication, largely the result of human activities, as the
most significant cause of the Black Sea’s environmental decline, especially in the coastal
areas. This is the name given to the phenomenon of over-enrichment of the seawaters by
essential nutrients, mainly nitrates and phosphates, the dissolved compounds of nitrogen and
phosphorus. Both nutrients are abundant in wastewaters, even after treatment. The waste of
domestic and industrial sources is discharged either directly into the sea or through the rivers
and streams that feed into the sea. The practical significance of this phenomenon is on the
increase not only for the Black Sea but also for the rivers, inland water bodies and reservoirs.
Agriculture is another important source of nutrient pollution. The major change in
agricultural production during the late 1960s is associated with the use of large amounts of
fertilizers and pesticides to ensure high yields. Intensive animal farms were also established
to assure cheaper animal produce. Fertilizers and animal waste remain a major source of
nitrates and phosphates from agriculture.
The mechanism of pollution is worth considering in a much greater detail. The essential
nutrients, though non-toxic, create problems because their components are easily utilized by
the tiny floating plants, found in the surface waters, for their life functions. The effect is
very much like the enrichment with fertilizers: it stimulates the growth of the miniature
plants living in the sea that are known as plankton algae or phytoplankton that perform
photosynthesis. Their proliferation, known as algae blooms in the Black Sea, poses threats to
the ecosystem in two ways.
The miniscule blooming algae on the surface form a thick layer, resembling a cloud, which
blocks sunlight. In this way they prevent the sunlight entirely or partially from reaching the
larger plants on the seabed below – sea grass and algal seabed, which in turn begin to die.
This seabed vegetation provides food, shelter and a breeding place for other marine creatures
like worms, crustaceans, demersal fishes etc. With the destruction of their living environment
they leave or die decreasing their numbers, which means less food for other marine species
including mammals and birds. Yet the threat does not end there.
2
The gradual increase in the concentration of phosphorus, nitrogen, and other plant nutrients in an aquatic
ecosystem that promote a proliferation of plant life, especially algae, which reduces the dissolved oxygen
content and often causes the extinction of other organisms.
9
The second threat comes when the algae eventually come to the end of their lifecycle and
die. Their bodies are decomposed by bacteria, which use up a lot of oxygen in the process,
oxygen that is vital for marine organisms like seaweed, jellyfish, mussels, fish, crabs etc.
Due to the specific structure of waters in the Black Sea and their stratification into two layers
– upper layer containing oxygen and lower anoxic layer, which mix very poorly, eutrophication
has far reaching and undesirable effects. Falling to the seabed dead organisms begin to
decay. Vertical water circulation is poor, so in the process of decomposition any oxygen in the
lower layer is used up. Some bacteria decomposing organic matter use the oxygen in
sulphate, a natural component of seawater. This process generates hydrogen sulphide, which
is present in the entire lower layer of the Black Sea. It constitutes 87% of its volume and is
devoid of marine life. As a result biodiversity decreases and with it the possibilities of the
system for self-regulation.
It is estimated that, historically, the Danube alone introduced some 60,000 tons of
phosphorus and 340,000 tons of inorganic nitrogen into the Black Sea each year. This results
in a reduction of water clarity, an increase of the aerobic/anaerobic interface, loss of
macrophytes growth, reduction in fish spawning sites, increased occurrence of red-tides, loss
of biodiversity and, in conjunction with over-fishing, loss and deterioration of commercial
fisheries.
For the period 1988-2005, the Danube, as one of the major rivers discharging into the Black
Sea, was estimated to introduce on average about 35,000 tonnes of P and 400,000 tonnes of
inorganic N into the Black Sea each year.
The 2006 level of the total nutrient load in the Danube River system is considerable higher
than in the 1960s, but lower than the one in the late 1980s.
The decrease from the 1990s to the present situation is due to the political as well as
economic changes in the middle and lower DRB resulting in (i) the closure of nutrient
discharging industries, (ii) a significant decrease of the application of mineral fertilizers and
(iii) the closure of large animal farms (agricultural point sources). Furthermore, the
application of economic mechanisms in water management (e.g. the polluter pays principle
also applied in the middle and downstream DRB countries) and the improvement of
wastewater treatment (especially in upstream countries) contributed to this decrease.
40
600
35
30
TP load in kt/y
DIN load in kt/y
500
400
300
200
25
20
15
10
100
5
0
00
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
05
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
00
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
05
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
55
0
Figure 1- Long-term discharges of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) and total phosphorus
(TP) (1955-2005)3.
The present level of the total Phosphorus load that would be discharged to the Black Sea
(including the P storage that occurs today in the Iron Gate impoundments 4) would be about
3
Danube River Basin Management Plan 2010, www.icpdr.org
4
The Iron Gate influences the retention of phosphorus via the sedimentation process and has been taken into account
within the MONERIS calculations.
10
20% higher than in the early 1960s (based on modelling results from daNUbs and MONERIS).
The Iron Gate Dams (which were built between 1970 and 1986) are a significant factor in
reducing the amount of Phosphorous from countries upstream the dams, in the Danube River
that eventually reaches the Black Sea. The reason for this is that large amounts of sediment containing P attached to the sediment particles - settle out in the reservoir behind the dams.
Although this P is at present stored in the Iron Gates Reservoir it may in future be a
significant source of pollution in the case of flood events causing chemical P release. This P
release and eventual mobilization could be a pressure factor for the downstream countries
but also for the impoundment section upstream of the Iron Gate Dams.
The recent investigations also show that the ecological situation in the North Western Black
Sea coastal area has improved significantly since the early nineties due to the lower
discharges of N and P into the Black Sea. The loads of nutrients entering the Black Sea from
the Danube have fallen in recent years due to the collapse of the economies of many of the
Danube and former Soviet countries, the measures taken to reduce nutrient discharge in the
upper Danube countries, and the implementation of a ban in polyphosphate detergents in
some countries.
However, economic recovery in the future, which would potentially result in increasing
nutrient loads to the Black Sea (industry, agriculture and increased connection to sewerage),
would put the achievement of environmental objectives at risk if not combined with a set of
effective measures, especially as required by EU legislation.
The countries in the Danube river basin and the Black Sea littoral countries have started with
recognizing the necessity to take practical action and stop all kinds of pollutants.
The states in the basin first agreed on common water quality objectives for the Black Sea and
a strategy of stepwise reductions in loads until the objectives are reached. The E.U Marine
Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea
against Pollution (Bucharest Convention) are the main binding policy instruments for the
protection of the Black Sea.
A similar approach was used for the Danube River in the framework of the two early phases of
European water legislation focusing on water quality objectives and emissions limit value.
Since 2000 a new item of progress, the EU water legislation came into effect – the EU Water
Framework Directive (WFD) to combine the two approaches so that they should mutually
reinforce each other.
11
THE EU MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE – THE
ECOSYSTEM BASED APPROACH
BEGINNING AND PROGRESS
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) has been published in the Official Journal on
the 25th of June 2008 and carries the official number 2008/56/EC. It entered into force on
the 15th of July 2008.
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is the first all-encompassing piece of
European legislation specifically aimed at the protection of the marine environment. Its key
aim is to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) in European waters by 2020. With this aim
in mind, the Directive establishes several implementation steps, which should guide progress
towards the achievement of GES in 2020 and allow for the revision of the Directive’s
components thereafter.
The Directive foresees an ecosystem-based approach to the management of all human
activities which have an impact on the marine environment. It imposes an obligation
on all EU Member States to take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain Good
Environmental Status in their marine waters by 2020. The MSFD foresees a regional
approach to implementation, making use of Regional Seas Conventions.
The final adopted text of the Directive is not perfect and contains some loopholes which
might seriously compromise the achievement of its ultimate goal. For example, Member
States are not obliged to take action to achieve GES if that entails a “disproportionate cost”
(Article 14). However, stakeholder involvement was essential in the policy development
phase, and it will be even more crucial during the implementation period to make sure that
Member States apply the provisions of the Directive in its most progressive interpretation and
do not distort the “escape clauses” contained in the Directive.
The main goal of the MSFD is to achieve Good Environmental Status of EU marine waters by
2020. The Directive defines Good Environmental Status (GES) as:
“The environmental status of marine waters where these provide ecologically diverse and
dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive” Article 3
GES means that the different uses made of the marine resources are conducted at a
sustainable level, ensuring their continuity for future generations.
In addition, GES means that:

Ecosystems, including their hydro-morphological (i.e. the structure and evolution of
the water resources), physical and chemical conditions, are fully functioning and
resilient to human-induced environmental change;

The decline of biodiversity caused by human activities is prevented and biodiversity is
protected;

Human activities introducing substances and energy into the marine environment do
not cause pollution effects. Noise from human activities is compatible with the
marine environment and its ecosystems.
To help Member States interpret what GES means in practice, the Directive sets out, in Annex
I, eleven qualitative descriptors which describe what the environment will look like when GES
has been achieved.
12











Descriptor 1. Biodiversity is maintained
Descriptor 2. Non-indigenous species do not adversely alter the ecosystem
Descriptor 3. The population of commercial fish species is healthy
Descriptor 4. Elements of food webs ensure long-term abundance and reproduction
Descriptor 5. Eutrophication is minimised
Descriptor 6. The sea floor integrity ensures functioning of the ecosystem
Descriptor 7. Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely
affect the ecosystem
Descriptor 8. Concentrations of contaminants give no effects
Descriptor 9. Contaminants in seafood are below safe levels
Descriptor 10. Marine litter does not cause harm
Descriptor 11. Introduction of energy (including underwater noise) does not adversely
affect the ecosystem
As these descriptors cover broad topics, the European Commission produced in 2010 a set of
detailed criteria and indicators to help Member States determine what each descriptor means
in practice and measure progress.
By the 15th July 2012, Member States should have produced some of the most important
deliverables of this Directive:
a.
An initial assessment of the current environmental status of their marine waters (by
reference to Table 1 of Annex III) and of the environmental pressures and impacts of human
activities on the marine environment (based on Table 2 of Annex III). The initial assessment
must include an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of
degradation of the marine environment.
b.
The determination of Good Environmental Status at the level of the marine region or
sub-region, on the basis of the qualitative descriptors in Annex I and in reference to the
initial assessment. The definition of GES will be done on a case by case basis, rather than
being a single one for all Member States.
c.
The setting of environmental targets and associated indicators, in order to guide
progress towards achieving GES. The targets should be based on the initial assessment and
take account of the indicative lists of pressures and impacts set out in Table 2 of Annex III,
and of characteristics set out in Annex IV.
After this important date two more steps bring us to the present with monitoring programme
and programme of measures for achieving GES.
13
In addition to these, the Directive states that the programmes of measures (which must be
developed by Member States by 2015 at the latest, and implemented in 2016) shall include
spatial protection measures, contributing to a coherent and representative network of marine
protected areas (MPAs) . These must be designated according to existing legislation and
agreements (Birds and Habitats Directives, international agreements, etc). The designation
of these sites is a responsibility of the Member States, but the European Commission is
already planning several bio-geographic seminars in 2008 and 2009 to guide the designation
process. Regional Advisory Councils on fisheries are also already planning work towards
stakeholder involvement in the development of the management plans of such sites.
Therefore, regional networks will have a role to play in these processes.
THE REGIONAL SEAS OF EUROPE
Whereas Member States will have to deal with the designation of the competent authorities,
the transposition process and the participation in the Regulatory Committee for the criteria
and methodological standards, regional seas conventions such as OSPAR will deal with the
initial assessment (except for the economic and social analysis, which will be made by the
Member States) and in all likelihood with the determination of GES, as well as with the
establishment of targets and indicators. International, regionally organised consultative
bodies such as the RACs will also have a role to play.
Regional NGO networks therefore have a bigger responsibility towards their members, as
networks usually have a privileged access to the regional structures, where they can provide
unique expertise regarding environmental concerns at regional level. Simultaneously,
networks are well positioned to then disseminate decisions made in these fora to their
national membership
14
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE MSFD IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
The implementation of the MSFD poses new challenges and opportunities for the
environmental movement, at regional but also at national level. NGOs through their
involvement and active participation, in the different steps of the process, can ensure the
improvement and protection of the marine environment in Europe and the conservation of its
resources in the next few decades.
At this step of the process, Member States must submit their draft reports on the initial
assessment, the determination of GES and the environmental targets to a public consultation
procedure before finalising them, as provided for in the Directive:
Public consultation and information – MSFD Art. 19
1. In accordance with relevant existing Community legislation, Member States shall ensure
that all interested parties are given early and effective opportunities to participate in the
implementation of this Directive, involving, where possible, existing management bodies or
structures, including Regional Sea Conventions, Scientific Advisory Bodies and Regional
Advisory Councils.
2. Member States shall publish, and make available to the public for comment, summaries of
the following elements of their marine strategies, or the related updates, as follows:
(a) the initial assessment and the determination of good environmental status, as provided for
in
Articles 8(1) and 9(1) respectively;
(b) the environmental targets established pursuant to Article 10(1);
(c) the monitoring programmes established pursuant to Article 11(1);
(d) the programmes of measures established pursuant to Article 13(2).
The national consultations provide NGOs with an opportunity to give input on these elements,
and to voice their concerns and demands. Having a proper vision of what represents “good”
environmental status and setting the right environmental targets is very important –
ultimately, it will be these targets that will drive the programmes of measures. Weak targets
will mean weak measures. This is one of the most fundamental tasks for NGOs to evaluate and
point out.
NGOS IN THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION PROCESS
Within the framework of the national consultations, NGOs should try to ensure that:
- Initial assessments are rigorous and accurate, reflecting all the relevant aspects covered by
Annex III of the MSFD, as well as the Commission’s decision on criteria and methodological
standards.
For example NGOs should make sure that all essential features, characteristics pressures and
impacts are addressed by the initial assessments and point out any factual errors or
omissions.
- The definition of GES at the national or regional level is ambitious and adequate, and does
not just represent the status quo (the already impacted marine environment).
For example GES for marine litter could be defined in the following way: GES will be attained
when marine litter is no longer introduced into the marine environment and where the marine
environment is free of marine litter, or where levels are close to zero.
- Environmental targets are ambitious, as they will drive the elaboration of the programmes
of measures to achieve GES. For example a 50% an overarching and practical target for all
marine litter in EU waters for 2020 could be to reduce the amount of marine litter by a
minimum of 50% from an agreed baseline level.
For more details regarding the MSFD implementation and challenges, please consult the
project web page, especially the ‘WATER MANAGEMENT’ section: http://www.cceg.ro/cleanrivers-clean-sea/en
15
REGIONAL POLICY ON BLACK SEA ISSUES
The severity of the problems encountered led to the signature of the Convention on the
Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution (Bucharest Convention) in 1992 (in force since
1994).
It is still the only legally binding instrument for the protection of the Black Sea environment.
The signatories are the 6 Black Sea countries with direct access to it: Bulgaria, Georgia,
Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine.
Their governments have reached common agreement on the necessity to take preventive
measures when there are reasonable grounds for concern that an activity may increase the
risk of presenting hazards to human health, harm living resources and marine ecosystems,
damage amenities, or interfere with other legitimate uses of the Black Sea. Moldova with its
whole territory in the catchment basin is included in various international programmes and
projects for waters management.
The Convention includes a general framework of agreement and four specific protocols: on
the control of land-based sources of pollution, on the dumping of waste and on joint action in
the case of accidents, such as oil spills; and on the protection of biodiversity and landscape.
The revised Protocol on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Black Sea from LandBased Sources and Activities (2009) is the most advanced regional instrument but ratification
is pending. The protocol is ratified only by Georgia. The Strategic Action Plan for the
Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea, adopted in Sofia, Bulgaria, on
17 April 2009 is the current regional instrument for protecting the BS environment.
Regretfully there are no national counterpart plans to it.
The implementation of the Convention is overseen by a Commission with a permanent
Secretariat, which started functioning in the autumn of 2000, and is based in Istanbul, hence
the Istanbul Commission.
The Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution has not been amended
and it is still older types of legal document regarding the sea only as a place where waste is
dumped. It does not include environmental management terms, issues and targets. The
Ministerial Conference of 2009 failed to reach agreement on its amendment and the inclusion
of the EU as member and signatory of the Convention. Despite these difficulties and the
current political situation in the region the EU consistently supports the activities of the Black
Sea Commission and all regional countries in their efforts to improve knowledge on the Black
Sea environment and implement measures for its improvement.
Below is a review of the framework and history of regional commitments on the protection of
the Black Sea environment.
- The Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution, signed in Bucharest in
1992 and ratified by the six national assemblies (entered into force in 1994), includes a
general framework of agreement and four specific protocols: on the control of land-based
sources of pollution, on the dumping of waste and on joint action in the case of accidents,
such as oil spills; and on the protection of biodiversity and landscape. The revised Protocol
on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Black Sea from Land-Based Sources and
Activities (2009) is the most advanced regional instrument but ratification is pending. The
protocol is ratified only by Georgia.
The Strategic Action Plan for the Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black
Sea, adopted in Sofia, Bulgaria, on 17 April 2009 is the current regional instrument for
protecting the BS environment. Regretfully there are no national counterpart plans to it.
The implementation of the Convention is overseen by a Commission with a permanent
Secretariat, which started functioning in the autumn of 2000, and is based in Istanbul, hence
the Istanbul Commission.
- The UN Conference on the Environment in Rio De Janeiro in 1992 marked the beginning of
activities on the introduction of the sustainable development principle called Agenda 21. All
countries of the Black Sea basin were actively involved in the process.
16
- In 1993 at the request of the governments of the six Black Sea countries the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) and the European Union established a fund of 9,3 million dollars
which made possible the development of the Black Sea Environmental Programme. The
Programme prepared and published a system scientific analysis on the causes of the
environmental problems of the Black Sea called Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, the basis
of the regional strategic action plan.
- In 1996 the governments of the six Black Sea countries adopted the first Strategic Action
Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea. The signature day of the
document, October 31, was proclaimed International Black Sea Day and is marked regularly
every year. Many of the recommendations of the Strategic Action Plan are still to be
accomplished.
- In 2002 the realisation of a long term project entitled ‘Control on Eutrophication, Harmful
Substances and Related Measures for the Restoration of the Black Sea Ecosystem’ (Black Sea
Ecosystem Recovery Project) began. It is implemented by the Black Sea countries with
support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) within the framework of the new GEF initiative: Strategic Partnership for
the Countries of the Danube and Black Sea Basin.
2007 – 2009 – the revision of the TDA and SAP provided impetus to regional cooperation and
brought forward the process of study of the Black Sea environment.
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) has been published in the Official Journal on
the 25th of June 2008 under the official number 2008/56/EC, and entered into force on the
15th of July 2008.
THE BLACK SEA SYNERGY
The Black Sea Synergy initiative was proposed by the European Commission in a
communication to the Parliament and the Council in 2007 1. The proposed approach was
subsequently endorsed by the Council of Ministers, and supported at several occasions by the
European Council. The Black Sea Synergy initiative was formally launched in Kiev in February
2008 by the Foreign Ministers of the Black Sea partners and of the EU.
Implementation is now well on track. Partner countries have been closely involved from the
beginning in the designing of the implementation. Given the strategic importance of the
Black Sea area for the EU, the Council invited the Commission to carry out a review in the
first half of 2008 of the development of the Black Sea Synergy Initiative.
The Black Sea Synergy complements the Eastern Partnership. Whilst the Eastern Partnership
promotes the partner countries’ rapprochement to the EU, the Black Sea Synergy aims at
developing regional cooperation around the Black Sea.
The Black Sea Synergy is the expression of the EU’s commitment to the Black Sea region, and
to the shared objective of bringing concrete improvements that can benefit the peoples in
the region through cooperative approaches. The EU wants to give reality to this initiative by
establishing sector partnerships in three crucial sectors: environment, transport and energy.
These sectors have been chosen because it is hard to question their importance to the region.
Improvements in these sectors will have direct effect in the whole wider Black Sea region.
17
THE WFD - FRAMEWORK FOR EU WATER POLICY
The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 October 2000 is establishing the framework for Community action in the field of water
policy for the protection of inland surface waters, groundwater, transitional waters; and
coastal waters.
This Framework-Directive has a number of objectives, such as preventing and reducing
pollution, promoting sustainable water usage, environmental protection, improving aquatic
ecosystems and mitigating the effects of floods and droughts, aiming to achieve “good
ecological and chemical status” for all Community waters by 2015.
Overall, the visions and management objectives reflect the joint approach among all Danube
countries and support the achievement of the WFD objectives in a very large, unique and
heterogeneous European river basin.
The WFD is a framework for EU water policy and is complemented by other legislation
regulating specific aspects of water use:
• The Groundwater Directive (2006)
• The Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008)
• Two Commission Decisions (2005 and 2008), on ecological status, established a register of
almost 1 500 sites included in an intercalibration exercise to allow for comparison of different
countries’ standards, and published the results.
Previous and related legislation includes:
• The Urban Wastewater Directive (1991)
• The Nitrates Directive (1991)
• The new Bathing Water Directive (2006)
• The Drinking Water Directive (1998)
More recent related legislation expanding the scope of integrated water management:
• The Floods Directive (2007)
• The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008)
Some topics are of particular concern to many citizens. One of these is water management
though it is for most people within the European Union self-evident to have access to clean
water in quite abundant quantities. Global water consumption has increased seven-fold since
the beginning of the 20th century. Nevertheless, in Europe, most people enjoy adequate
supplies of fresh, clean water. But water resources are under threat from many human
activities. Industry is using water in large quantities for cooling and cleaning. Agriculture uses
water mainly for irrigation. These activities put a burden on our water resources. Therefore
the European Union is conducting an extensive range of essentially legislative measures in
order to ensure a sustainable management of water quantity and quality in Europe.
The increasing demand by citizens and environmental organisations for cleaner rivers and
lakes, groundwater and coastal beaches has been evident for considerable time.
Europe’s water is under pressure. Recent
figures show that 20% of surface water is at
serious risk from pollution; 60% of European
cities
over-exploit
their
groundwater
resources; 50% of wetlands are endangered.
Demand for water is growing all the time.
Three-quarters of Europeans get their
supply from groundwater, locked in the
Earth. Nearly half the EU population lives
in ‘water-stressed’ countries, where the
abstraction of water from freshwater
sources is too high.
18
THE RIVER BASIN APPROACH
A basic notion of the WFD is the river basin regarded as a unit of water management
irrespective of administrative and country borders. The approach is now widely used including
the countries in the Danube watershed and the Black Sea basin. With the accession of new
countries in the EU over the years the significance of the approach has been enhanced on
regional scale and non-member countries have been widely involved.
Rivers do not stop at national frontiers – they flow on through different countries to reach the
sea. All EU Member States apart from islands like Cyprus and Malta share waters with
neighbouring countries. A river basin or a catchment covers the entire river system, from the
sources of small tributaries to the estuary, including its groundwater.
19
The EU and the Member States have divided the river basins and associated coastal areas into
110 river basin districts, 40 of which are international and cross borders, covering about 60%
of EU territory. Isolated measures to improve water quality cannot be successful without
taking account of what happens upstream and downstream. Integrated river basin
management adopts a holistic approach to protecting the whole body of water, its source,
tributaries, delta and river mouth, through a coordinated strategy involving all the interested
parties in decision-making. The river basin approach is the best way to manage water. This is
the thinking behind the Water Framework Directive. Member States have had to draw up river
basin management plans (RBMPs) to safeguard each one of the 110 river basin districts. Public
participation is a fundamental principle, so European citizens are playing an influential role in
planning and implementing the WFD measures.
GOOD ECOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL STATUS
Waters must achieve good ecological and chemical status, to protect human health, water
supply, natural ecosystems and biodiversity. The definition of ecological status looks at the
abundance of aquatic flora and fish fauna, the availability of nutrients, and aspects like
salinity, temperature and pollution by chemical pollutants. Morphological features, such as
quantity, water flow, water depths and structures of the river beds, are also taken into
account.
The WFD classification scheme for surface water ecological status includes five categories:
high, good, moderate, poor and bad. ‘High status’ means no or very low human pressure.
‘Good status’ means a ‘slight’ deviation from this condition, ‘moderate status’ means
‘moderate’ deviation, and so on.
The EU now has more than 100 000 surface water bodies: 80% of them rivers, 15% lakes and
5% coastal and transitional waters. The same river can contain different water bodies, since
the status of the water may change.
The rules for groundwater are slightly different and good chemical and quantitative status is
the objective. Member States must use geological data to identify distinct volumes of water
in underground aquifers, and European law limits abstraction to a portion of the annual
recharge. Groundwater should not be polluted at all – any pollution must be detected and
stopped.
THE PRESSURES ASSESSMENT AND IMPACT ANALYSIS - WFD REQUIREMENTS
The necessity to analyze pressures and impacts is stated in Article 5 of the WFD, which
requires, for each river basin district:



an analysis of its characteristics,
a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and
groundwater, and
an economic analysis of water use.
The WFD required the tasks specified under Article 5 to complete by 2004 (which was done as
Roof Report, 2004). They have been reviewed in 2013, and subsequently every 6 years (2019,
2025…). Given the overall purpose of the WFD, the analysis undertook in 2004 is considered
both the reference condition (2004) for each water body, and a prognosis for the period to
2015.
The review process is described in five parts (Annex II Section 1, i.e.)
1. Characterization of surface water body types,
2. Ecoregions and surface water body types,
3. Establishment of type-specific reference conditions for surface water body types,
4. Identification of Pressures
5. Assessment of Impacts.
20
The EU IMPRESS guidance document addresses the final two parts of this process.
In the IMPRESS guidance, the DPSIR (Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response) analytical
framework has been adopted. The pressures and impacts assessment is a four-step process:
1. describing the “driving forces”, especially land use, urban development, industry,
agriculture and other activities which lead to pressures, without regard to their
actual impacts,
2. identifying pressures with possible impacts on the water body and on water uses,
by considering the magnitude of the pressures and the susceptibility of the water
body, considering the significant pressures,
3. assessing the impacts resulting from the pressure, and
4. evaluating the likelihood of failing to meet the objective.
In the IMPRESS guidance document is given a broad categorization of driving forces, which can
be used as a checklist for inventory of the relevant pressures.
Pollution sources
Diffuse sources:
Urban drainage (including runoff), agriculture diffuse, forestry
Point sources:
Wastewater, industry, mining, contaminated land, agriculture point sources, waste
management, aquaculture
Table 1 - Sources of pollution
For the Danube Basin Analysis (DBA) the screening approach focuses on the search for
pressures on those areas and pressure types that are likely to prevent meeting the objectives.
This means to achieve the best estimate of significant pressures in the time available.
The assessment of whether a pressure on a water body is significant must be based on
knowledge of the pressures within the catchment area, together with some form of
conceptual understanding of functioning of the water body within the catchment system. One
approach of this type is to compare the magnitude of the pressure with a criterion, or
threshold, relevant to the water body type.
The most usual categorization of pollution pressures is to distinguish between diffuse and
point sources (see Tables 2 and 3, considering IMPRESS Guidance Document. In case of diffuse
pollution driving forces are usually not directly related to pressures, but pollution reaches
water bodies on hydrologically driven pathways.
Activity or
Driving force
Industrial
(IPPC and nonIPPC)
Urban activity
Landfill
Animal burial pits
Former land use
Thermal power
generation
Dredging
Pressure
Effluent disposal to surface and
groundwaters
Effluent disposal to surface and
groundwaters
Chemical fluxes in leachate
Contaminated leachate
Contaminated land
Return of cooling waters cause alteration to
thermal regime.
Biocides in cooling water
Sediment disposal
Possible change
in state or impact
Toxic substances have
direct effect
As above
As above
As above
Various
Elevated temperatures,
reduced dissolved oxygen
Direct toxic effect on
aquatic fauna.
Smothering of bed
21
Removal of substrate
Fish farming
Feeding, medication, escaping
Table 2 - Examples of point sources pressures and their impacts.
Activity or
Driving force
Agriculture
Industry
discharges to
the atmosphere
Pathway causing Pressure
Nutrient loss from agriculture by
· surface runoff
· soil erosion
· artificial drainage flow
· leaching
(includes excess fertilizers and
manures and mineralization of
residues)
Pesticide loss by pathways mentioned
above
Sediment loss by soil, bank and riverbed
erosion
Deposition of compounds of nitrogen and
sulphur.
Pollutant spillages
Transportation
Use of salt as de-icer
Use of herbicides
Engine exhausts
Table 3- Examples of diffuse sources pressures and their impacts
Loss of habitat
Nutrients, diseases
Possible change in
state or impact
Nutrients modify
ecosystem
Contamination of potable
water supplies
Smothering of layers
Eutrophication
Pollution of water bodies
Elevated chloride
concentration
Deposition
SETTING UP THE PROGRAMME OF MEASURES (POM)
The program of measures is the key component of the river basin management planning
process (WFD, Article 11) as it is the main mechanism for achievement of the Directive
requirements, through actions to be taken during the plan period to secure the WFD’s broader
aims of:
 reducing organic and nutrients pollution
 helping to ensure the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of
hazardous substances
 reducing the level of purification treatment required for drinking water
 improving the efficiency of water use
 mitigating the effects of floods and droughts.
It is built on the gap analysis and includes the following considerations.
 Proposals for any modification of the current procedures for licensing abstractions
and consenting discharges should they not prove sufficient for Directive requirements.
 Basic measures required to implement Community legislation for the protection of
water in the river basin district as set out in the Directives.
 Any pricing measures or other economic instruments intended to provide incentives to
encourage more sustainable and efficient water use.
 If the above is not sufficient to meet Directive requirements, Member States may
need to employ supplementary measures.
 In exceptional cases additional measures may be needed to protect the aquatic
environment. This may be so for international river basins.
The Directive refers to use of the combined approach to river water quality management,
that is, the use of both environmental quality standards for the water bodies and emission
limit values for any discharge of effluent to them.
22
The environmental quality standards are the main driver when emission limit values are being
considered. Emission standards provide the minimum standards but stricter controls on
effluent discharges including those from diffuse pollution will be needed if these minimum
standards are insufficient to meet Directive requirements.
The programme of measures will also identify:
 those heavily modified and artificial water bodies (HMWB) within the river basin
districts and the actions necessary to secure and maintain their lesser objective of
good ecological potential.
 any derogations, permanent or temporary, that are sought in respect of individual
water bodies.
Programmes of Measures are co-ordinated across River Basin Districts and each River Basin
Management Plan (RBMP) will contain a summary of the measures required in that district.
PoMs became operational between 2009 and 2012 (within the first round of RBMPs).
According to the WFD principles, the party responsible for a risk that a water body’s
environmental objectives will not be met should pay for the necessary risk management
measures (i.e. the polluter pays principle).
Therefore, it is essential to:
 make sure that PoMs are allocated proportionately between all the sectors
responsible for a particular pressure on the water environment
 use a risk-based approach to target resources effectively
 facilitate the revisions of national legislation and the regulation of the water
environment.
GETTING PEOPLE INVOLVED
Under the WFD, Member States had to hold extensive consultations with the public and
interested parties to identify first the problems, and then the solutions, to be included in
river basin management plans. This meant a comprehensive consultation process, which had
to be launched by the end of 2006, with a consultation on significant water management
issues in 2007, and a broad consultation lasting at least six months on draft river basin
management plans in 2008. Public support and involvement is a precondition for the
protection of waters, and for the identification of both the problems and the most
appropriate measures to solve them, including their costs. Without popular backing,
regulatory measures will not succeed. European citizens have a key role to play in
implementation of the WFD, and in helping governments to balance the social, environmental
and economic questions to be taken into account.
PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS
The Directive is implemented through six-year recurring cycles, the first of which covers the
period 2009-2015. After the Directive came into force, Member States had to define their
river basin districts geographically, and identify the authorities responsible for water
management (2003). The next task was to undertake a joint economic and environmental
analysis (2004), and to identify water bodies at risk of not achieving the 2015 target. By 2006,
countries had to launch water monitoring networks.
The Commission checks each step of the implementation of the Directive. In 2007, in the first
WFD implementation report, it issued its first assessment of progress. In 2009, a second WFD
implementation report evaluated efforts to establish monitoring networks. 2009 was also the
deadline for Member States to draw up RBMPs and programmes of measures to meet the
WFD’s objectives. All European waters have to achieve ‘good ecological and chemical status’
by 2015. That means not only low levels of chemical pollution but also sustaining healthy
aquatic ecosystems. The Commission prepared its third implementation report, including a
review of progress and of the status of EU waters, and a survey of the river basin
management plans with suggestions for their improvement.
23
WATER MANAGEMENT AND OTHER POLICIES
Water is involved in a huge range of human activities, and therefore in the policies applied to
regulate them. For example:
• Water is vital for agriculture, farming and livestock. Since 1985, the area of irrigated land
in southern Europe has gone up by 20%. Agriculture is the main consumer of water.
• Decisions about land-use and development are influenced by the availability of water
resources and facilities for wastewater disposal.
• Energy generation uses water for cooling and other purposes. Much of it is returned to
water courses after use.
• Industry uses water for the manufacturing processes, while many other sectors of the
economy, such as tourism, impact on water resources.
• Water is indispensable for healthy ecosystems, which themselves underpin our quality of
life. It is not only a provisioning service – a basic material – but also plays a part in the
regulating services that govern climate and weather and keep our planet functioning. For
example, wetlands provide services such as water purification and carbon absorption, which
in economic terms are worth billions of euro.
Therefore, good water management has to be integrated into all these areas, while the WFD
takes account of all aspects of water use and consumption.
THE URBAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIRECTIVE 91/271/EEC
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive concerns the collection, treatment and discharge of
urban waste water and the treatment and discharge of waste water from certain industrial
sectors. The objective of the Directive is to protect the environment from the adverse effects
of the above mentioned waste water discharges.
This Directive was adopted by Member States in May 1991. Its objective is to protect the
environment from the adverse effects of sewage discharges. It sets treatment levels on the
basis of sizes of sewage discharges and the sensitivity of waters receiving the discharges.
The directive imposes different reporting obligations (Situation report according to Article 16
and implementation programme according to Article 17). The data presented in the UWWTD
Water Base pertains to Article 15 of the Directive, which stipulates that discharges from
urban waste water treatment and amounts and composition of sludge disposed to surface
waters must be monitored to verify the compliance with specific provisions of the Directive.
The Directive applies to agglomerations generating a pollution load of more than or equal to
2000 population equivalents (PE). Around 22.900 settlements generate an organic pollution
load of approximately 604 million PE all over Europe and have to be equipped with collecting
and treatment systems for their urban waste waters according to the Directive. Furthermore,
the Directive foresees the designation of sensitive areas (mostly sensitivity to eutrophication
due to nitrogen and/ or phosphorus) and application of more stringent treatment to the urban
waste waters in these areas and their relevant catchment areas.
In order to meet the relevant water quality objectives, Article 7 of the UWWTD stipulates the
need to implement an appropriate waste water treatment for agglomerations less than 2.000
PE for discharges to fresh-water and estuaries, respectively for discharges of agglomerations
less than 10.000 PE to coastal waters.
Sensitive areas, within the meaning of the directive, include "freshwater bodies, estuaries
and coastal waters which are entropic or which may become eutrophic if protective action is
not taken"; "surface freshwaters intended for the abstraction of drinking water which contain
or are likely to contain more than 50 mg/l of nitrates"; areas where further treatment is
necessary to comply with other directives, such as the directives on fish waters, on bathing
waters, on shellfish waters, on the conservation of wild birds and natural habitats, etc. The
directive also provides for a derogation for areas designated as "less sensitive" and such
derogations were approved for areas in Portugal.
24
Chronologically, by 31 December 1998 member states were required to ensure that waste
water treatment facilities were available for all agglomerations with a PE of over 10,000
where the effluent was being discharged into a sensitive area. By 31 December 1998 member
states were required to ensure that waste water treatment facilities were provided for all
agglomerations with a PE of over 15,000, which discharged their effluent into a so-called
"normal areas" and biodegradable waste water produced by plants of the food-processing
sectors listed in the directive, and which discharged directly into receiving water bodies,
fulfilled certain conditions.
Later on, by 31 December 2005 member states were required to provide collecting and
treatment systems in all agglomerations with a PE between 2000 and 10 000 where the
effluent is discharged into a sensitive area, and in all agglomerations with a PE of 10,000 to
15,000 where the effluent is not discharged into such an area.
In a 2004, Commission report on implementation by the member states, the Commission
noted that some member states, in particular France and Spain, had been tardy in providing
the required information, and infringement procedures had been initiated.
According to the 2004 report, most member states planned to achieve conformity with the
Directive by 2005 or 2008 at the latest.
NITRATES DIRECTIVE (ND)
The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) aims to protect water quality across Europe by
preventing nitrates from agricultural sources polluting ground and surface waters and by
promoting the use of good farming practices.
The EU Nitrates Directive aims to limit the amount of nitrate permitted and applied and the
resulting concentrations in surface waters and groundwaters. A key set of measures to reduce
nutrients relates to farming practices and land management in line with Nitrates Directive
and Rural Development Programmes. Nitrates in particular, leach easily into water from soils
that have been fertilized with mineral fertilizers or treated with manure or slurry.
The Nitrates Directive forms an integral part of the Water Framework Directive and is one of
the key instruments in the protection of waters against agricultural pressures. It has been
transposed in the Romanian legislation through the provisions of the Governmental Decision
GD 964/2000 concerning the approval of the Action Plan for protection of water quality
against nutrient pollution from agricultural sources.
The ND implementation includes several steps:
 Identification of water polluted, or at risk of pollution
 Designation as "Nitrate Vulnerable Zones"(NVZs)
 Establishment of Codes of Good Agricultural Practice to be implemented by farmers
on a voluntary basis
 Establishment of action programmes to be implemented by farmers within NVZs on a
compulsory basis
 National monitoring and reporting.
THE DIRECTIVE ON INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS (IED, 2010/75/EU)
The IPPC Directive - Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control requires industrial
and agricultural activities with a high pollution potential to have a permit. This permit can
only be issued if certain environmental conditions are met, so that the companies themselves
bear responsibility for preventing and reducing any pollution they may cause.
Integrated pollution prevention and control concerns new or existing industrial and
agricultural activities with a high pollution potential, as defined in Annex I to the Directive
(energy industries, production and processing of metals, mineral industry, chemical industry,
waste management, livestock farming, etc.).
25
Directive 2008/1/EC has been replaced by the Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions
(its provisions remained applicable until 6 January 2014).
According to the IED Directive, authorities need to ensure that measures of pollution
prevention and control are up-to-date with the latest developments in BAT for those larger
installations falling under the umbrella of the Directive.
CHALLENGES TO THE FUTURE
A changing environment provides some challenges for the future, including climate change,
floods and drought. Since 2000, new factors, such as accelerating climate change and the
economic crisis, have come into play. In the coming years, climate change will pose a major
challenge for water management across the EU. It is likely to bring:
• Lower rainfall and higher summer temperatures in the south, putting stress on scarce
resources. The Commission’s 2007 Communication on Addressing the challenge of water
scarcity and droughts finds that implementing the WFD will be crucial.
• More rain and a higher flood risk in the north. Floods are already becoming increasingly
frequent: since 1990, 259 major river floods have been reported, 165 of them since 2000. The
2007 Floods Directive adopts a new, proactive approach, requiring Member States to prepare
preliminary flood risk assessments for all river basin districts by 2011, followed up in 2013 by
flood hazard maps. By 2015, Member States should have flood risk management plans, ready
to link into the next cycle of RBMPs (2016-2021).
In the view of this, public involvement will be crucial to meet the goals of the WFD as
well as the Floods Directive. Yet large numbers of Europeans are still unaware of their
right to have a say on the future of water. It is important to communicate that every
effort makes a difference.
COMMON STRATEGIC GOALS
The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube (ICPDR) and the International
Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea (ICPBS) have agreed and signed in Brussels on
26 November 2001 a Memorandum of Understanding between the two Commissions on
common strategic goals for the Black Sea ecosystem.
In order to contribute to safeguard the Black Sea from a further deterioration of the status of
its ecosystems the ‘Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution’ and the
‘Commission for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River’ agree to the
following Common Strategic Goals:






The long-term goal in the wider Black Sea Basin is to take measures to reduce the loads
of nutrients and hazardous substances discharged to such levels necessary to permit
Black Sea ecosystems to recover to conditions similar to those observed in the 1960s.
As an intermediate goal, urgent measures should be taken in the wider Black Sea Basin
in order to avoid that the loads of nutrients and hazardous substances discharged into
the Seas exceed those that existed in the mid- 1990s. (These discharges are only
incompletely known.)
The inputs of nutrients and hazardous substances into both receiving Seas (Black Sea
proper and Sea of Azov) have to be assessed in a comparable way. To this very end a
common Analytical Quality Assurance (AQA) system and a thorough discussion about the
necessary monitoring approach, including the sampling procedures, has to be set up and
agreed upon between the ICPBS and the ICPDR.
The ecological status of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov has to be further assessed,
and the comparability of the data basis has to be further increased.
Both the reported input loads as well as the assessed ecological status will have to be
reported annually to both the ICPBS and the ICPDR.
Strategies for economic development have to be adopted to ensure appropriate
practices and measures to limit the discharge of nutrients and hazardous substances,
and to rehabilitate ecosystems, which assimilate nutrients.
26


Based on the annual reports and on the adopted strategies for the limitation of the
discharge of nutrients and hazardous substances, a review shall be undertaken in 2007.
It will have to focus on the further measures that may be required for meeting the longterm objective (reaching an ecological status similar to the conditions observed in the
1960s).
The States within the overall Black Sea Basin shall have to adopt strategies that will
permit economic development, whilst ensuring appropriate practices and measures to
limit the discharge of nutrients and hazardous substances, and to rehabilitate
ecosystems which assimilate nutrients.
Based on the reported positive signs (reduced input loads and improved ecological status in
the Black Sea shelf), and also aware of the missing knowledge of the comparability of input
loads (resolution both in time since the 1960s, and in space all over the Black Sea and the Sea
of Azov), and aware that the load reductions are very likely linked with the decline of
economic activity in the countries in transition, although future economic development is
expected to take place in the overall Black Sea Basin, the Danube and Black Sea countries
have decided to prepare and implement strategies for reducing the nutrients inputs into the
Black Sea ecosystem.
The actions required to attain the Common Strategic Goals included the creation of the
mechanism of basin-wide joint implementation including country commitments and external
grants and loans.
Such initiative and actions carried out so far fall within the following areas:
 Reform of agricultural policies.
 Improved waste water treatment.
 Rehabilitation of aquatic ecosystems.
 Changes in consumer practices (including use of phosphate-free detergents).
 Establishing of a legal frame in line with EU policies.
There are other priority transboundary issues in the Black Sea region, such as the pollution
from hydrocarbons (oil terminals and the transport tankers), high concentrations of organochlorine compounds found in the Black Sea sediments in the vicinity of the Danube Delta,
problems of flooding in the Dnipro and Danube resulting from climatologically based
variations, and loss of flood plain due to urban development and drainage. When it occurs,
untreated waste waters contaminate rivers, and can significantly impact contaminant levels
of the water.
There is also a general decline in biodiversity and a loss of habitat, particularly wetland
habitat in the basin.
27
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WFD IN ROMANIA
GENERAL OVERVIEW
With a surface area of 238,391 square kilometres Romania is the largest country in southeastern Europe and the thirteen largest in Europe. The Danube flows into the Black Sea within
Romania's territory forming the Danube Delta, the second largest and the best preserved
delta in Europe, and a biosphere reserve and a biodiversity World Heritage Site. In the
southeast, 245 kilometres of the Black Sea coastline provide an important outlet to the
Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.
Figure 2 - River basins in Romania
The Danube is extremely important for Romania: covering 237,391 km² and with nearly 22
million inhabitants, the country is almost entirely within the Danube Basin, covering almost a
third of the surface area of the Basin, while over a third of the river’s length flows through
the country. Crucially, the Romanian (and also Ukrainian) Danube is the end carrier of all
wastewater discharges from all countries into the Black Sea.
Almost the entire Romania’s surface lies within the Danube River Basin (>94%), and 11
tributaries flow directly into the river.
The WFD has been transposed in the Romanian legislation through the provisions of the Water
Law 107/1996, modified and completed by the Law 310/2004, Law 112/2006, Law 146/2010,
and most recently in 2013.
Romania elaborated in 2009 the first river basin management plans at the sub-basin (11 Plans
of Management), at national level and also contributes to the development of the
International District Management Plan of the Danube River Basin, and the River Basin
Management Plan for the Tisza basin. The management plans for river basin districts can be
complemented by more detailed management programmes and plans for a sub-basin, a sector
or a particular type of water body.
To achieve the set environmental objectives the first round of River Basin Management Plan
provides the implementation of the "Programme of Measures" that have become operational
by December 22, 2012.
28
The programs of measures include basic measures that provide implementation of the EU
requirements in the field of water, and where the basic measures are not sufficient,
supplementary measures are applied to achieve the status / good ecological potential and
good chemical status. Investment costs for basic and supplementary measures estimated at
river basin level, amounts to approx. 20.387 billion euros, of which about 97% are costs to
achieve the basic measures.
Currently all these plans are being updated as a part of the second cycle of further
implementation of the WFD.
River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) elaboration phases
Sending the
preliminary
implementation
report to E.U
(Art. 15)
Implementing
the PoM
Revising the most
important water
management
problems
Updating
the RBMP
Evaluating the
first cycle and
preparing the
second RBMP
Analysing
the current
state (Art. 5
- 8)
Preparing
the
Monitoring
Programs
(Art.8)
2004
2015
2013
Establishing the
environmental
objectives
(art.4)
2006
2012
Public
Participation
(Art. 14)
Analysing
the
unsolved
problems
2009
Preparing the RBMP (Art.
13, Annex VII)
Preparing the Program of
Measures for a river basin
(PoM Art. 11)
Figure 3 - River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) elaboration phases
FINDINGS OF THE WFD IMPLEMENTATION IN ROMANIA
In accordance with Article 18 WFD, the Commission published a report to the European
Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of this Directive by 22.12.2012. It
included a review of progress in the implementation of the Directive and a survey of the River
Basin Management Plans submitted in accordance with Article 15, including suggestions for
the improvement of future plans.
The 2012 report provided information on the progress in implementing the WFD programmes of
measures (PoM). It gave concrete information to provide the Commission with a clear picture of
which measures are being implemented, how, when and by whom. The 2012 report was about
what is being done as part of WFD implementation to improve the status of the aquatic
environment.
29
The 2012 reporting enabled a good understanding of the actions that are being taken to
achieve the WFD environmental objectives and to improve the status of water bodies.
There are 359 significant point sources identified at country level, which include
agglomerations, industries and agricultural units.
The diffuse sources of pollution are specially located within the nutrient vulnerable zones,
and include as well the agglomerations from rural and urban areas, fertilizers and pesticides
used in agriculture.
THE RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN (RBMP) AND THE PROGRAM OF MEASURES (POM)
Pressures and impact assessment – as part of the River Basin Management Plans in Romania
The most important categories of pressures in Romania include the point and diffuse sources
of pollution, and the hydro morphological alterations.
The methodology used by Romania for the elaboration of the RBM plans and as well for the
contribution to the RBM plan for the International Danube District is based on the ICPDR
criteria for the identification of the significant point sources of pollution, for agglomerations,
industry and agriculture.
Criteria for identification of significant pressures
The criteria for the identification of the significant point sources refer especially to
substances mentioned in the EU Directives, such as in Annex VIII WFD, to the Urban Waste
Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC), to the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
Directive (96/61/EC) and to the Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC), replaced by
the Directive 2006/11/EC.
The identification of significant pressures based on the application of a set of criteria is based
on the type of wastewater discharges (treated or untreated) into the receivers:
a. Human agglomerations: according to the requirements of the Directive on urban
wastewater treatment – UWWT -Directive 91/271/EEC) the following three categories of
human agglomerations are considered as significant point sources:
- agglomerations which are over 2000 population equivalents (p.e.) and which have collection
systems for wastewater with or without treatment plants and which discharge in the water
resources.
- agglomerations under 2000 p.e. which have a centralized collection system;
- agglomerations with a unitary collection system which do not have the capacity of collecting
and treating the mixture of waste water and rain water during the hard rain periods;
b. Industry:
i. The installations falling under the incidence of Directive 2010/75/CEE on industrial
emissions (the IED Directive) – including the enterprises in the European Pollutant Release and
Transfer Register (E-PRTR), which are relevant for the water environment factor;
ii. The enterprises discharging dangerous substances (lists I and II) and/or priority substances
over the limits of the legislation in effect (according to the requirements of Directive
2006/11/EC replacing Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous
substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community);
iii. Other enterprises discharging in the water resources which do not conform to the
legislation in effect regarding the water environment factor.
c. Agriculture:
i. Livestock farms falling under the incidence of Directive 2010/75/CEE on industrial emissions
(IED Directive) – including those registered in the European Pollutant Release and Transfer
Register (E-PRTR), which are relevant for the water environment factor;
30
ii. Farms discharging dangerous substances (lists I and II) and/or priority substances over the
limits of the legislation in effect (according to the requirements of Directive 2006/11/EC
replacing Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community);
iii. Other agro industrial units which represent point sources of pollution, discharging
wastewater in the water resources without considering the requirements of relevant water
and environmental legislation
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE URBAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIRECTIVE IN ROMANIA
In line with the UWWT Directive provisions (Table 4), Romania (the central water and
environmental authority) developed a guidance presenting the methodology for defining
agglomerations. The Guidance addresses (i) the legal basis for implementing the U\WWT
Directive, (ii) the definition of the term Agglomeration and (iii) the approach and procedures
to define Agglomerations.
Size of
Requirements
Agglomeration
Sewer system
Treatment
> 10,000 p.e5
Provided with a collecting
system
(Art. 3 paragraph 1)
Subject to more stringent treatment (Art.
5 paragraph 2)
> 2,000 p.e.
Provided with a collecting
system
(Art. 3 paragraph 1)
Secondary or equivalent treatment
according to Annex I B (Art. 4 paragraph
1, 3)
No specific requirement
No specific requirements, but subject to
“appropriate treatment” (Art. 7) for
agglomerations with an existing sewer
network
< 2,000 p.e
Table 4. Summary of requirements of UWWT Directive 91/271
Sensitive areas
As a Member State of the European Union,Romania has to fully comply with the Urban Waste
Water Treatment Directive until December 31st 2018.
The Accession Treaty defined the following deadlines:




31 December 2013, compliance with article (3) 6
with more than 10,000 p.e.;
31 December 2015, compliance with article 5(2)
with more than 10,000 p.e.;
extension of the wastewater collection
systems at the following coverage rates:
o 61% until 31 December 2010;
extension of the wastewater treatment plants
at the following coverage rates:
o 77% until 31 December 2015.
5
P.E. – population equivalent
6
Wastewater collection systems
of the Directive for agglomerations
of the Directive for agglomerations
Romania reflected in the Interim
Report 2012:
most agglomerations between
2,000 and 10,000 PE will be in line
with the UWWTD provisions after
2015, with a transition period
being obtained until 2018, and
therefore the agglomerations with
more than 10,000 PE have a
higher priority.
31
Since May 2005 Romania applies Article 5(8) of the Directive and therefore does not have to
designate sensitive areas. The parameters subject to more stringent treatment are nitrogen
and phosphorus. While agglomerations with a size of > 10,000 p.e. have to comply with
Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5(2) until 31 December 2015 at the latest, agglomerations
≤ 10,000 p.e. are subject to a transitional period of 31 December 2018. The interim target
date to comply with Article 3 (80% of the total biodegradable load of agglomerations
≤ 10,000 p.e.) and Article 4 (77% of the total biodegradable load of agglomerations
≤ 10,000 p.e.) is 31 December 2015.
It is foreseen that all agglomerations ≤ 10,000 p.e., where at least part of the generated load
is connected to collecting system and waste water treatment in the reference year 2009, will
be served by secondary treatment in 2015. In addition, the agglomerations in the size class of
2,000 p.e. – 10,000 p.e. shall be served by secondary treatment, while the agglomerations
with more than 10,000 p.e. will be served by N- and P-removal.
For meeting the WFD objectives, it is necessary the upgrade of both, collecting systems and
waste water treatment plants of all agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e. in order
to provide N - and P - removal.
IMPLEMENTATION OF INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE IN ROMANIA
Romania reflected in the Interim
Report 2012:
Romania (and Bulgaria) has received
gradual transition periods up to 2015
for the implementation of the IPPC
Directive. Additional facilities would
be receiving IPPC permits and
implementing BREF up to this date. It
is expected that all IPPC facilities will
meet the IPPC requirements according
to the legal timelines
According to Article 80(1) of the Directive,
Member States shall bring into force the laws,
regulations
and
administrative
provisions
necessary to comply with the directive's new or
substantially changed provisions.
The IPPC Directive is fully transposed into
Romanian legislation by Emergency Governmental
Ordinance no. 152/2005 amended and approved
by Law no. 84/2006. Related to the Best Available
Techniques (BAT), there have been three Orders
(37/2003, 566/2003 and 169/2004) issued for the
approval of the Guidelines on BAT and Reference
Documents
on
BAT
in
some
industry
categories/types.
The maximum transition period obtained by Romania is December 2015.
In 2005, according to Minister Order no. 249/2005, the "National Centre for Coordination,
Information and Updating of BAT Guidelines and Communication with the European IPPC
Bureau and European Forum of Information" has been set up.
In January 2008, Romania sent to EC the first report regarding the status of the
environmental integrated permitting process for existing installations.
Yearly, the inventory of IPPC installations is updated and the updated document is available
on the website of the National Agency for Environmental Protection. In 2008 the total number
of IPPC installations was 693.
The EPER Decision was transposed into Romanian law by the Order of the Minister of Waters
and Environment Protection no. 1144/2002. In order to facilitate the application of the EPER
Decision provisions, "The EPER Implementation Guide" was transposed into Romanian law
through the Order of the Ministry no. 1440/2003 for approving the National Guide for
completion of the Pollutant Emission Register (RPE), in accordance with the provisions of
Article 3 of the EPER. In June 2007, according to Article 1, 2 and 3 of the EPER Decision,
Romania has voluntarily decided to provide the "National EPER Report 2005 of Romania
Emission Data of Individual Facilities" having in view the format of Annex 2 of the EPER
Decision. The Ministry, in cooperation with the National Environmental Protection Agency
(NEPA), has prepared the report and it has been sent to the DG ENV (EC) - EEA. This report is
available to the public (on the internet).
32
The total number of installations which have been reported under EPER is 260, representing
approximately 40% of the total number of 638 IPPC installations inventoried. Out of a total of
260 reported EPER installations, 75 have reported emissions to water. Responsibility:
Technical Secretariat for the elaboration of the EPER - Ministry of Environment and
Sustainable Development, Inter ministerial Committee, Environmental authorities.
From a legal point of view, the Ministry of Environment is implementing Regulation 166/2006
of the European Parliament and European Council on the setting up of the European Pollutant
Release and Transfer Register (European PRTR). The EU Regulation has been transposed into
Romanian legislation through Governmental Decision no.140/2008.
The implementation of the Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTR
Protocol) is performed using the administrative structure, the organization and the
application of the procedures for implementing Regulation (EC) no 166/2006 of the European
Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release
and Transfer Register and amending Council Directives 91/689/EEC and 96/61/EC (EPRTR
Regulation) published in the Official Journal of the European Union no. L33 / 1 of 4 February
2006.
Since PRTR Protocol largely overlaps with Regulation (EC) no. 166/2006 it was considered that
it is not necessary to develop the legislation and two parallel structures.
The Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Register was ratified by Romania by Law no
112/2009 for the ratification of the Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Register,
adopted in Kiev on 21 May 2003 and signed by Romania in Kiev on 21 May 2003 to the
Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to
Justice in Environmental Matters signed in Aarhus on 25th June 1998, published in Official
Journal of Romania, Part I no. 339 of 21/05/2009.
Romania prepared the first E-PRTR report, using data and information for 2007, and
submitted by 30th June 2009. Up to the present according to Regulation no 166/2006,
Romania sent the data collections for the years 2007 - 2011 to European Environment Agency,
which was included in the E-PRTR European Register.
On the internet page of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change on the section "
Public Consultation Announcements " was published "Romanian Report for the session of the
Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, adopted in
Kiev on 21 May 2003 and signed by Romania in Kiev on 21 May 2003 to the Convention on
Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998" in order to be consulted by the
interested public regarding the data and information contained in the report.
In the period 1 September - 31 October 2013, the interested public was invited to send
suggestions and comments regarding Romania’s Report for the session of the Meeting of the
Parties to the Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Register.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NITRATES DIRECTIVE IN ROMANIA
The Directive 91/676/EEC has been also transposed through specific legislation. For the
elaboration of the program of measures, several pieces of legislation have been considered:



Governmental Decision 964/13.10.2000 and its amendments, concerning the approval
of the Action Plan for protection of water quality against nutrient pollution from
agricultural sources
Joint Order 1552/743/2008 of the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture,
Forests and Rural Development for approval of the list of localities, per counties
where nitrates sources from agricultural activities have been identified
Order of the Ministry of Environment and Water Management 1182/22.11.2005 and of
the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development 1270/30.11.2005
concerning the approval of the Code of best agricultural practices for the protection
of water against nutrient pollution provided by agricultural sources.
33
The local authorities at the communes’ level are responsible for establishing the action plans,
which will include the program of measures, the deadlines and the financing sources. The
Directorates for Agriculture and Rural Development and the National Environmental Guard
controls the implementation of the Action Programme in the vulnerable areas and report
twice a year to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of
Waters, Forests and Fisheries on the status of the implementation of the program of
measures. The National Administration "Romanian Waters" through its water basins
administration and the National Research and Development Institute for Soil Science,
Agrochemistry and Environmental Protection (ICPA) through the Soil and Agrochemical Studies
Offices (OSPA) - develop monitoring programs for nitrates from agricultural sources into
surface or ground waters, respectively soil, to determine the effectiveness of these plans at
commune level.
Action programmes have been established by Romania (2007-2010 – the first action
programme and 2011-2014 – second action programme), and as agreed by June 2013, the
whole territory approach under the Nitrates Directive will be applied.
Nitrates Vulnerable Zones
The first designation of vulnerable and potentially vulnerable areas in Romania was made in
2003 by the National Research and Development Institute for Soil Science, Agro-chemistry and
Environment - ICPA and the National Administration " Romanian Waters" (NAAR), and
consisted in identification of vulnerable zones to the nitrates from agricultural sources
represented by the perimeters of 255 localities in Romania, which represents 13.93 % of the
total agricultural area of the country.
Nitrates vulnerable zones designated in 2003 were based on the natural conditions of soil,
terrain, climate and hydrology, related to the transfer of nitrate to groundwater bodies and
surface and the nitrogen balance (nitrogen produced by livestock manure - nitrogen extracted
by vegetable crops) in the corresponding administrative units corresponding to the
elementary units of the European nomenclature for administrative units (NUTS5) communes,
towns, municipalities.
There were three types of vulnerable areas:
 Potential Vulnerable Zones
 Vulnerable Zones from current sources
 Vulnerable Zones from historical sources.
In 2008, the NVZs were redesigned considering areas vulnerable to nitrate pollution those
localities which were identified in 2003 and evaluation in potentially vulnerable areas and in
areas vulnerable to nitrate pollution. The municipalities, for not having major agricultural
areas, were not included in the assessment.
According to the position paper concluded between Romania and the European Commission on
the Environment chapter, completed in December 2004, the Romanian territory has been
designated as a sensitive area to nutrient pollution. This decision is reflected in the fact that
agglomerations with more than 10,000 population equivalents should provide urban
wastewater infrastructure enabling advanced treatment, especially with regard to the
removal of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus).
National Administration Romanian Waters updated the register of protected areas which is
closely linked with water resources, according to the European standards (requirements of
the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC) which requires Member States a periodic
inventory of protected areas. In this regard, in line with the Article 6 and Annex IV of the
Water Framework Directive, Member States of the European Union established and review the
register of protected areas for each river basin. Through this document the protected areas
related to water resources are monitored.
The updated current versions of the registers of protected areas realized by the Water basin
administrations, as well as their national synthesis performed NARW have been updated with
new data published in 2011-2012, and include five categories of protected areas:
34
 water protected areas for drinking water abstraction,
 for the protection of fish species economically important areas,
 for the protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or improvement of
water are important and include natural areas,
 areas vulnerable to pollution nitrates from agricultural sources and bathing areas.
Territorial approach for implementing the Nitrates Directive
Based on the assessment and recommendations of the European Commission, through the
Decision 221 983 from 26.06.2013, the Inter ministerial Commission for the implementation
of the Action Plan for the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
agricultural sources, approved the Programme of Action for the protection of waters against
pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, to be applied to the whole country,
without having the obligation to establish Nitrates Vulnerable Zones.
Accordingly, the Romanian Waters National Administration made another important step in
the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, Directive which aims primarily to
achieve 'good status' of waters, illustrated also by the whole territorial approach initiated in
June 2013, but also drawing the new code of good agricultural practices.
Findings of Nitrates directive implementation in Romania
Water quality issues in Romania are less affected by the use of fertiliser in agriculture than by
the poor infrastructure of the sewage system. Although there was an overall extensive trend,
and low use of chemical products in agriculture, some agricultural lands had been affected by
an improper use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, by irrigations, drainages, or by
applying inadequate mechanical works, reasons for which the environment components
(especially soil and water), were affected on reduced surfaces.
Therefore, the concentration of organic substances and ammonium in the ground waters is
recognized as an important environmental problem in Romania.
Additionally, the abandonment of agricultural land and use of unsuitable farming practices,
which occurred due to the lack of knowledge or limited financial resources, had a negative
influence upon biodiversity and determined the occurrence or worsening the soil erosion
phenomenon.
Romania has developed a national strategic framework for the sustainable development of
the agri-food sector and rural areas in the period 2014-2020-2030, determined by the need to
establish guidelines for the sustainable development of Romanian agriculture and rural area
as one of the core components of the launch of economic growth Romania.
National Strategic Framework is based on the European strategy for smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth - Europe 2020, which considers the realities of rural areas as economic,
social, cultural, ecological and living space, and the fact that agriculture is an economic
sector producing agricultural products and raw materials for the manufacturing industry and
finally that the rural agriculture has profound national traditions in Romania.
The Strategy for Development of Agriculture and Rural Development of Romania for the
period 2014-2020 is harmonized with the growing complexity of the EU legislation, especially
with strategy " Europe 2020 – An European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth" - March 2010, the "Common Policy Reform”, October 2011, " Declaration on the New
Age of Global Science" in November 2011, World Forum for Science (Budapest) and other EU
or international documents.
Romania's agricultural research programs should take into account the conditions for the
development of agriculture, the indispensable basis for food security, caused by increased
pressure from world population from 7 billion inhabitants in 2011 to 9,5 billion in 2050, which
require analyses of the implications worldwide.
The RDP is centred on the three key challenges of transforming and modernizing the
agriculture and forestry production and processing sectors, to maintain and enhance the
35
quality of the rural environment, and to ensure adequate economic and social conditions for
the rural population. The RDP is coherent with the three main goals of the National Strategic
Plan, namely:



To improve the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector;
To maintain and enhance the quality of the environment and rural areas through the
sustainable use of agricultural and forestry land;
To enhance the quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy.
Investments aimed at implementing the Nitrate Directive are supported under measure 121
‘modernisation of agricultural holdings’ and these will improve water quality issues.
Investments to modernise and restore irrigation equipment and drainage systems are
supported under measure 125 ‘infrastructure related to the development of agriculture’ and
will have beneficial effects on water management as well. Measure 322 under Axis III, which
received 15.5% of the total budget, also contributed to improving water quality through
support for public drinking water and waste water infrastructure projects.
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
The authorities involved in the water management of river basin, and implicitly in the
implementation of the EU policies and water directives include:
-
Ministry of Environment Waters and Forests
National Administration "Romanian Waters" and basin committees (mainly having the
a consultative role in information, communication and public participation)
the National Institute of Hydrology and Water Management
ICIM - National Research Institute of Environmental Protection
National Research and Development Institute for Soil Science, Agrochemistry and
Environment Protection
the National Institute of Research - Development "Danube Delta"
the National Institute for Marine Research and Development "Grigore Antipa”.
National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA)
Nationally, the institutions involved for implementing agricultural related polices include:
-
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
The National Land Development Agency for Payments and Intervention for Agriculture
The Paying Agency for Rural Development and Fisheries
Agricultural Chambers
National Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture,
National Health, Veterinary and Food Safety Authority
Office for Soil and Agrochemical Studies
National Research and Development Institute for Soil Science, Agrochemistry and
Environment Protection.
Roles and responsibilities of the main administrative and decision making
actors:
Ministry of Environment , Waters and Forests:
 Development of the water management policy and strategy
 Development of the water specific regulation
 Ensuring international cooperation in the water field
National Administration “Romanian Waters” responsibilities and activities
 Implementation of the water management policy and strategy
 Water quality and quantity monitoring
 Water use regulation
 Implementation of the water related legislation and agreements
 River Basin Management
36




Administration of National System Hydraulic Structures
Water Protection against pollution and over-use
Flood control management
Coordination of national investments related to water resources
River Basin Committees
Each river basin authority (‘ABA’ in Romanian) develops its activity and is coordinated by a
River Basin Committee (RBC). The latest Governmental Decision of 10.04.2012 explicitly
presents the operational rules that govern the RBC-related activity: thus, there are max. 21
members, of whom the president and vice-president are elected by a simple majority vote for
a 4-year mandate; its Technical Secretariat, of 3-5 members, supervises the entire RBC
programme of activities.
The RBC members are the followings:

2 representatives of the Central Public Administration (one for the waters and the
second for the environmental protection)
 1 representative from Public Healthcare Directorate, from each county within the RB
District.
 2 representatives of the municipal town halls and 2 from the Communes ( rural area)
 1 NGO representative, mandated by the other NGOs within the RBD
 1 prefect, from each prefecture
 The president of each County Council within the RB District
o In case the RBD is made up of only 3 counties, then 2 members belong to the
same county
 3 representatives of the Water Users
 2 representatives of the ANAR
 1 representative of the Consumers’ Protection Comisariat
Among the many tasks a RBC fulfils, it is worth mentioning a few, such as:
1. approves the chapters of the RBM Plan in accordance with the WFD requirements;
2. collaborates for the elaboration of the RBM Plan
3. secures that the public consultation procedure is developed in accordance with the
WFD rules.
4. supervises the implementation of the Governmental Decision no 80/2011 regarding
the approval of the RBM Plans, the Master Plans as required by the Operational
Sectoral Programmes(Law nr 171/1997).
5. maintains the communication flow among the RBC members
There are 2 RBC meetings each year, the date and location being announced 30 days prior the
event; each RBC member is individually invited and informed about the meeting’s agenda;
also, provides each member with the needed documents.
37
PRUT RIVER FOCUSS AREA
GENERAL PRESENTATION
The Prut River Basin has been
selected as a focus area both in
Republic of Moldova and Romania. The
following 2 chapters present, for each
country, the geographical, climate,
hydrogeological
and
ecological
characteristics and provide an overview
of the environmental issues, water
management processes at river basin
level.
The Prut River is the second
longest and last major tributary of the
Danube, being a transboundary river is
shared by three countries: Ukraine
(33%), Romania (39%) and Moldova
(28%).
It springs on Goverla mountain slopes, 15 km southwest of Vorhota village, the
Carpathian massif with Cernogorie forests and flows into the Danube to the south of the
village of Giurgiulesti at a distance of approximately 164 km from the mouth of the Danube.
The river is 967 km long, with a catchment area of 27,540 km2, the major national
tributaries being the rivers Cheremosh and Derelui, (Ukraine), Baseu, Jijia, Elanu and
Chineja (Romania) and Ciugur, Camenca, Lapusna, Sarata and Larga (Moldova).
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
PRUT RIVER BASIN
Hydrographic network
The entire catchment Prut – Bârlad includes the densest network of reservoirs and ponds in
the country with a surface of 20267km2 out of which only 10967km2 the Prut Basin.
The hydrographic network has a total length of the cadastral waters in Prut river basin of
4,540 km, with an average density of 0.4 km/km 2 and in Bârlad river basin 2,639 km with an
average density of 0.3 km/km2.
The total number of water bodies which have been identified in the Prut – Bârlad basin is 322
surface water bodies and 7 groundwater bodies.
The surface water bodies are represented by:
- natural water bodies 221 rivers and 7 lakes
- heavily modified water bodies: 45 rivers, 1 lake and 45 reservoires
- 3 artificial water bodies.
The main rivers in the Prut basin are:
Baseu : 118 km
Jijia -275 km
Bohotin -22 km
Elan – 73 km
Chineja -79 km
From a total of 7 groundwater bodies, one groundwater body has a transboundary character,
being shared by Romania and Republic of Moldova.
38
WATER RESOURCES
The main contributors to the water resources, on Romania’s side include the rivers Prut,
Bârlad and their tributaries. The total surface water resources: 3661 mil. mc/year, of which
960 mil. mc/year are usable ones. The total groundwater resources are estimated to: 40,000
m3/year (average for the years 1995 to 2007).
Total water resources per capita in the basin: 0.198 m3/year/capita7.
The mean annual discharge is 88 cm/s, while the maximum annual discharge recorded
between 1952 - 2010 was 4240 m/s, in 2008, in Radauti-Prut gauging station. The annual
minimum discharge recorded during the same period was 7.6 m/s in 1955 8.
The current water framework scheme for quantitative and qualitative management of water,
in the Bârlad River Basin includes:

16 reservoirs
(permanent, temporary
and polders) with a total
volume of 301,4 mil.m3
of which: 234 mil.m3 for
flood routing and 60,7
mil m3 for water supply
of the users (population,
industry, agriculture,
etc.)

2 river diversions – the
diversion Bârlad river –
reservoir Puscasi (1973,
length 7.7 km, max
discharge diverted 0,4
m3/s), and the diversion
Bârlad river - reservoir
Rapa Albastră (1980,
length 5.6 km, max
discharge diverted 0,6
m3/s.)

one inter basins diversion
between Prut and Bârlad
rivers (1984, length 12.7
km
max
discharge
diverted 3,2 m3/s.)

one polder – Vulturesti,
achieved in 1996 with a
total volume of 24,000
thous m3.

regularizations
and
embankments for flood
prevention and control,
built between 1977 and
1980, upstream at the
7
8
Figure 4 – Hydrographical network
source: Romanian Waters NA
ANAR, 2010
Vartolomei, 2004
39
confluence with Crasna river, and downstream until the confluence with Siret river, built
between 1981 and 1988, with a total length of 279.3 km. As a result of flood control
structures, 1397 households, 57,708 ha and 215 km of roads have been protected.
Drinking water supply followed by industrial supply are the main water uses in the basin.
Climate
In Romania, the climate in Prut-Barlad hydrographic space is temperate with strong
continental influences. In the Western part are present the mountain influences and in the
South-East the steppe influences.
Except for Prut and Bârlad River, specific for this hydrographic area are the heavy rains,
with big variations from a period to another, from an year to another.
The permanent flow is registered only on the main tributaries of Prut (Bahlui and Jijia),
the other rivers mostly having a temporary, semi-permanent flow.
The flood regime of the region is controlled by ice and snow melting and ice jam in the
spring and, in some years, heavy summer rainfall, indicated by the climatic data.
Therefore, most flooding occurs between late spring and early autumn. No summer floods
are evident and drought persists from late spring onwards. The wet and dry years tend to
come in sequences due to the large-scale atmospheric variability of the North Atlantic
Ocean. The flooding experienced in recent years can be viewed as runs of the sequences of
wet summers.
The biggest floods registered in Prut hydrographic basin have been in 1969 and 2008.
Thus, the floods that occurred in the upper Prut basin in 2008, 2006 and 2007 could be
considered typical examples of the flood regime.
WATER MANAGEMENT IN PRUT RIVER BASIN - ROMANIA
Significant Water Management Issues of the Prut River Basin Romania (SWMI)
The first step of the WFD process was completed in 2004 by finalising the ‘Danube River Basin
Analysis’(WFD Article 5), or “Roof Report”, which was the first comprehensive study of the
basin’s transboundary surface and ground waters, where Romania contributed.
Danube risk classification by risk categories
pressures /
impacts from
DE
AT
*
SK/
HU
HU
CS/RO
HR - CS
RO
BG/RO
hydromorph.
haz.subst.p.
nutrient p.
organic p.
rkm
2780 2600
2400
2200
2000
at risk
1800
1600
14 00
possibly at risk
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
not at risk
(*:SK territory).
Figure 5 - Illustrates the results of the DBA risk analysis according
to the categorised pressures for the entire length of the Danube River itself.
40
58% of the Danube River length was categorised at risk due to organic pollution, 65% due to
nutrient pollution and 74% due to hazardous substances. 93% of the Danube River was at risk
or possibly at risk of failing the WFD environmental objectives because of hydromorphological
alterations. In conclusion, large parts of the Danube River are subject to multiple pressures.
For the entire DRBD, the distribution of pressures is similar.
The Roof Report helped identify:
a) four significant water management issues in the Danube Basin District for surface
waters:

pollution by organic substances,

nutrient polution

hazardous substances pollution,

alterations to hydromorphology (such as the structural characteristics of the
shape, natural morphology and boundaries of rivers, lakes, transitional and
coastal waters);
b) two significant water management issues for transboundary groundwater issues
including alterations to quality and quantity.
For each SWMI, visions and operational management objectives have been developed based
on shared values and for the DRBD with a long-term perspective. Overall, the visions and
management objectives reflect the joint approach among all Danube countries and support
the achievement of the WFD objectives in a very large, unique and heterogeneous European
river basin.
The same ICPDR approach was used by Romania at the national level, and the same SWMIs
were identified also in the Prut - Bârlad River Basin Management Plan and therefore the
related Program of Measures focuses on these SWMIs.
There is a specific characteristic of the Bârlad River Basin related to the fact that it is
included in the Prut River Basin, and administered accordingly by the Basin Water
Administration Prut Bârlad. The justification of managing Bârlad River Basin together with
the Prut River Basin is linked with two considerations: the first is linked to the relatively
reduced surface area of Prut River Basin, on the Romanian territory, and the second one
refers to the position of this hydrographic area east of Siret, which is one of the major
tributaries of Danube on the Romanian territory (Prut is the second longest tributary of
the Danube having 952,9 km.
Results of pressures assessment for point and diffuse sources of pollution in
Prut Bârlad river basin
Aiming at establishing the potentially significant pressures – point sources – a set of criteria
was applied which led to the identification of the potentially significant point pressures,
considering the discharges of treated or untreated waters in the surface water resources,
which are:
a. Human agglomerations: according to the requirements of the Directive on urban
wastewater treatment – UWWT -Directive 91/271/EEC) the following three categories of
human agglomerations are considered as significant point sources:
- agglomerations which are over 2000 population equivalents (p.e.) and which have systems of
collection of waste water with or without treatment plants and which discharge in the water
resources.
- agglomerations under 2000 p.e. which have a centralized collection system;
- agglomerations with a unitary collection system which do not have the capacity of collecting
and treating the mixture of waste water and rain water during the hard rain periods;
41
b. Industry:
i. The installations falling under the incidence of Directive 2010/75/CEE on industrial
emissions (the IED Directive) – including the enterprises in the European Pollutant Release and
Transfer Register (E-PRTR), which are relevant for the water environment factor;
ii. The enterprises discharging dangerous substances (lists I and II) and/or priority substances
over the limits of the legislation in effect (according to the requirements of Directive
2006/11/EC replacing Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous
substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community);
iii. Other enterprises discharging in the water resources which do not conform to the
legislation in effect regarding the water environment factor.
c. Agriculture:
i. Zoo-technical farms under the incidence of Directive 2010/75/CEE on industrial emissions
(IED Directive) – including those registered in the European Pollutant Release and Transfer
Register (E-PRTR), which are relevant for the water environment factor;
ii. The farms discharging dangerous substances (lists I and II) and/or priority substances over
the limits of the legislation in effect (according to the requirements of Directive 2006/11/EC
replacing Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community);
iii. Other farms with point discharging which do not conform to the legislation in effect
regarding the water environment factor.
In the Prut-Bârlad Rriver Basin, 1830 water users that use surface water resources as a
receiver of discharged water were inventoried. Following the analysis of the sources of
point pollution, considering the criteria above, a total number of 306 potentially significant
point sources resulted (272 urban ones and 34 industrial ones).
Organic pollution from urban wastewater (point sources)
Organic pollution is mainly caused by the emission of partially treated or untreated
wastewater from agglomerations9, industry and agriculture. The major cause of organic
pollution in the Prut Barlad river basin is the insufficient wastewater treatment – wastewater
treatment either missing or is inadequate.
Organic pollution can cause significant changes in the oxygen balance of surface waters. As a
consequence it can impact upon the composition of aquatic species/populations and
therefore water status. Organic emissions and their impact can be measured and expressed
with parameters like COD (chemical oxygen demand), BOD 5 (biological oxygen demand) and
TOC (total organic carbon).
Romania obtained a period of transition of 12 years for the implementation of this Directive
from the adhesion at the most (31 December 2018), as there are human agglomerations that
do not conform to these requirements: they do not have collection systems and/or treatment
plants with an adequate equipment and operation (at least mechanical and biological
treatment for the agglomerations between 2000 and 10,000 p.e., as well the third step which
implies the nutrients removal, for the agglomerations over 10 000 p.e.).
In the Prut-Bârlad river basin there are 232 human agglomerations (>2000 p.e.), with a total
organic charge of 2767020 p.e., which are considered potentially significant pressures. Out of
these:

184 human agglomerations (over 2000 p.e.) do not yet have treatment plants and, none
of the total existing 48 treatment plants 5 conforms to the legal requirements.
9
Emissions from agglomerations: all releases of substances originating from the agglomeration reaching the
environment (soil, water, air).
42

198 human agglomerations (over 2000 p.e.)
do not yet have collection systems,

the human agglomerations under 2000 p.e.
are not equipped with collection systems in
a centralized system or with treatment
plants.
Population number
> 150000 l.e.
15000 - 150000 l.e.
10000 - 15000 l.e.
2000-10000 l.e.
Total
Following the application of the process
of validation of the potentially
significant point pressures:
86 SIGNIFICANT URBAN POINT PRESSURES
were identified in the Prut-Bârlad river
basin.
Number of
agglomerations
No. of sewage
systems
2
12
11
207
232
2
11
7
14
34
Figure 6 -Shows the human
agglomerations (over 2000 p.e.) which
have collection systems
Source:
Pollution
fromRomanian
industry Waters NA
No. of
treatment
stations
2
8
3
35
48
Total organic
charge (p.e)
1301802
558967
141315
764936
2767020
Figure 7 - Shows the human agglomerations
(over 2000 p.e.) and the type of existing
treatment plants.
Source: Romanian Waters NA
Source:
43
Over the past twenty years the closure of many heavily polluting industrial activities in
Romania has contributed to a decrease in the water pollution. A large portion of industrial
wastewaters is still being discharged without any, or with insufficient, pre-treatment into the
public sewerage network. The pressure analysis shows that emissions from industry are still
lower than those from agglomerations but nonetheless important.
Thus, both the direct and indirect discharges of industrial wastewaters are also important.
In the Prut-Bârlad river basin, considering the inventory regarding emissions, discharges and
losses of priority substances out of the 34 potentially significant industrial and agricultural
point sources that were identified, 12 have installations that fall under the incidence of the
IED Directive. The 22 other industrial and agricultural enterprises that do not fall under the
incidence of the IED Directive, require measures to comply with national legislation.
Figure 8- Shows the significant industrial point pollution sources
44
Pollution from agriculture (SWMI: organic pollution)
Animal breeding and manure disposal are key agricultural point sources of organic pollution.
Related EPER data were collected on facilities for animal breeding. The contribution of
organic pollution from agricultural sources is well below in comparison with other countries.
Among agricultural point sources of pollution, the pig and poultry farms are clearly the most
relevant point sources of organic pollution. Although many of these facilities have, in recent
years, reduced the numbers of animals they maintain or made other improvements, this
remains a pressure.
In the agricultural sector, 20 agricultural units did not comply with the European
requirements regarding the existence of an environmentally friendly technology.
In addition, a number of 221 nutrient vulnerable areas (NVZs) have been designated with the
view to implement the code of good agricultural practices.
Significant diffuse pollution sources, including the land use approach
According to the data provided by the National Institute for Statistics, the lands use in the
Prut-Bârlad river basin, depending on the geographical relief differs highly: thus, 71% of the
total surface is used by agriculture is of approximately, approx. 14% is the surface covered
with forests – (included other areas with forest vegetation), about 12% - built surface and 3%
of water bodies and wetlands.
14%
3%
71%
Forests
Waters&Wetlands
12%
Constructions
Agricultural land
Figure 9 - Land use within Prut-Barlad RB
When establishing the potentially significant diffuse pressures, the following main categories
of diffuse pollution sources are taken into account:
- The human agglomerations that do not have collection systems for waste water or adequate
systems for the collection and elimination of mud from the treatment plants, as well as those
that have household waste storage facilities that do not conform to the requirements.
- Agriculture: agricultural and animal farms that do not have adequate systems for the
storage/use of manure, human agglomerations identified as vulnerable to nitrate pollution
out of agricultural sources, farms that use pesticides and do not conform to the legislation in
effect, other farms or agricultural activities that could lead to significant diffuse emissions.
- Industry: storage facilities for raw materials, end products, auxiliary products, storage of
non-conform waste, enterprises that cause accidental diffuse pollution, abandoned industrial
sites.
45
Urban pollution sources/human agglomerations
In the Prut-Bârlad river basin, the diffuse pollution phenomenon is bigger because, at the end
of 2013, only 43.3% of the population equivalents from agglomerations over 2000 p.e., was
connected to the centralized collection systems.
Out of the 232 agglomerations (over 2000 p.e.) identified in 2013, only 34 were equipped with
a collection system.
198 agglomerations over 2000 p.e. without collection systems for waste water and 652
agglomerations under 2000 p.e. without collection systems contribute to the diffuse pollution
and are considered potentially significant pressures for the water bodies that do not reach
the environment objectives.
Another identified problem is also the inadequate management of the household waste in
human agglomerations which is a source of local diffuse pollution, while the way of collecting
/eliminating the sludge coming from the water treatment plants can also lead to the pollution
of the water resources.
The development of urban areas needs more attention from the viewpoint of the collection of
household waste, by building ecologic storage facilities for garbage and by eliminating the
uncontrolled storage of waste, often encountered on the banks of rivers and lakes.
By applying the validation process of the potentially significant diffuse pressures – industrial
and agricultural pollution sources - to the environmental objectives10 23 significant urban
diffuse pressures were identified in the Prut-Bârlad river basin.
Agriculture
Apart from the point pressures they cause, agricultural activities can also lead to the diffuse
pollution of water resources. The ways in which the pollutants (especially nutrients and
pesticides, but also other pollutants) reach the water bodies are diverse (leaks on the
surface, percolation, etc).
The main sources of diffuse pollution are:
organic and chemical fertilizers;
The data regarding the quantities of fertilizers and the number of animals at a national or
county level were taken from the Statistical Directory of Romania 2013 (containing data for
2012).
At a national level, in 2012, the average specific quantities of chemical fertilizers that were
used (expressed in active substance) were about 19.84 kg N/ha of agricultural land and 7.73
kg P/ha of agricultural land; compared to 2006, the quantities of natural fertilizers that were
used decreased with about 10.78%. Comparing the specific quantities of fertilizers used in
Romania with the quantities used in the EU member states, we can see that Romania is much
under the European average.
The average quantities used in the Prut-Bârlad river basin were about 10.198 kg N/ha of
agricultural land and 2.302 kg P/ha of agricultural land. For 2012, in the Prut-Bârlad river
basin, the number of animal equivalents (large bovine unit) is estimated to about 344,332
heads (representing a specific average density of animal equivalents of 0.35/ha of agricultural
land).
Nutrient pollution
Nutrient pollution is assessed as a priority issue of water management, particularly nitrogen
and phosphorus.
10
the ecologic state/potential and the chemical state of the water bodies
46
Nutrient pollution from point sources is mainly caused by emissions from insufficiently or
untreated wastewater into surface waters (from agglomerations, industry and agriculture).
The operation of secondary and tertiary treatment levels at wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs) is of particular importance for the respective elimination/reduction of
nitrates/phosphates.
Excess nutrients lead to eutrophication of waters, resulting in the change of species
composition and biodiversity decline and reduce the possibility of using water resources
for drinking, recreation, etc. As with organic discharges, nutrient emissions originate from
both point sources (urban wastewater, industrial and agricultural untreated or
insufficiently treated) and diffuse sources (particularly those farming: breeding, fertilizer
use, etc.).
Nutrient emissions and the eventual impact from point sources can be measured and
expressed with parameters such as inorganic nitrogen, Total nitrogen (N tot), ammonia (NH4),
nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2) or total phosphorus (Ptot) and phosphates (PO4)
The generated loads were calculated based on estimation coefficients:
N
12 g N/p.e./day
P
2,5g P/p.e./day
Regarding nutrient emissions, respective pressures on water bodies can result from (i) point
sources (in particular untreated/partially treated wastewaters), and/or (ii) diffuse sources
(especially agriculture). The pressure assessment related to nutrient pollution took the
synergies between organic and nutrient pollution fully into account. The same basic
assumptions and facts regarding wastewater treatment for urban and industrial emissions for
organic pollution are also valid for nutrients.
The 2012 assessment in the river basin Prut-Barlad identified a number of 26 agglomerations
whose collected wastewater must undertake nutrient removal.
The emissions of nutrients from diffuse sources
The diffuse pressures due to agricultural activities are hard to quantify. The diffuse
agricultural pressures affect both the quality of surface water and especially the quality of
groundwater. The levels of diffuse pollution caused by widespread activities such as
agriculture and other sources, are not only dependent on anthropogenic factors such as land
use, and land use intensity, but also on natural factors such as climate, flow conditions and
soil properties. These factors influence pathways that are significantly different. By applying
mathematical models, we can estimate the quantities of pollutants emitted by the diffuse
pollution sources.
The MONERIS model (Modelling Nutrient Emissions in River Systems) is used to estimate the
emissions coming from the point and diffuse pollution sources. The model was elaborated and
used in the first management plan for evaluating the emissions of nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus) in several water basins/districts in Europe, including the Danube basin/district.
Lately, the MONERIS model was developed in order to be used at a national level (in the
states in the International Danube District) and in international sub-basins (Tisa).
47
3%
30%
6% 7%
12%
42%
1
2
3
4
5
6
Figure 10 - Diffuse nitrogen pollution sources air deposits
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
air deposits
surface leakage
leakage from drainage infrastructure
soil erosion
underground leakage
leakage resulted from urban paved areas
It is mentioned that the underground leakages is the main path of diffuse emission for
nitrogen and the leakages from waterproof urban areas is the greatest contribution to the
diffuse emission of phosphorus.
0.42%
0.48%
0.18%
34.95%
52.47%
11.50%
1
2
3
4
5
6
Figure 11 - Diffuse phosphorus pollution sources
48
Table 5 - Shows the emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus from diffuse pollution sources,
considering the contribution of each category of pollution source. The specific average diffuse
emission for the total surface is about 4.76 kg N/ha for nitrogen and 0.92 kg P/ha for
phosphorus.
Diffuse pollution sources
nitrogen emissions (%)
Diffuse pollution sources
phosphorus emissions (%)
Agriculture
49,46
19,06
Human agglomerations
41,32
60,94
Other sources
4,44
15,65
Natural background
4,79
4,35
100,00
100,00
Total diffuse sources
It is clear that

approx. 50% of nitrogen amount from diffuse sources is generated by agricultural
activities, resulting in a specific emission of 3.45 kg N/ha. Agriculture contributes
with about 19%, equivalent of als an average emission of 0.60 kg/ha.

61% of the total diffuse emission of phosphorus is generated by human
agglomerations.
Hydromorphological alterations consist in changes of the rivers natural courses,
disconnections of wetlands, change of the river hydrological regime, degradation of the
aquatic biodiversity; these processes cause a significant impact on the aquatic environment.
Anthropogenic changes were made to meet various uses such as the requirement to ensure
water demand, flow regulating against the destructive effects of water, electricity
production, etc.
Hydro morphological alterations
Hydro-morphological pressures11 were identified as impacting the majority of water bodies
within the Prut Barlad basin. About three-quarters of all water bodies are designated as
heavily modified (73.2%) as a result of alterations caused mainly by rivers discontinuity.
The assessments of the first Prut Barlad RBM Plan (2009-2014) show that a number of two
surface water bodies within the river Prut-Barlad area at risk of failure to meet the
environmental objectives set by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) due to morphological
alterations. This represents 0.62% of the total water bodies.
As for pressures coming from the hydro-morphological alterations – specifically the
constructions and hydro technical works, the following structures were reported: 65
reservoirs larger than 50 ha, 262 ponds, 1057.529 km of regularisations and 1173 km of
embankment works and 35,43 km of derivations.
Out of these, in 2013, 105 potentially significant hydro-morphological pressures were
identified in the Prut-Bârlad river basin.
11
Hydro-morphological pressures are human alterations to the natural form, shape or pattern of surface waters such
as modification of bank structures, sediment/habitat composition, flow regime and slope and river continuity.
The consequence of these pressures can impact aquatic ecological flora and fauna and can hence significantly
impact the water status.
49
Figure 12 - Prut-Bârlad Potentially significant hydro-technical works /
waterworks in the Prut-Bârlad river basin.
Reservoirs: 65 reservoirs were identified, with a surface over 0.5 km 2. The reservoirs were
built for various purposes – defence against floods, drinking water and industrial water
supplies, energy purposes, irrigation, fisheries. There are 26 complex reservoirs in the Prut
river basin, the most important of which is Stânca-Costești (on the river Prut) with a total
volume TV=1400 million m3, with the purpose of defence against floods, ensuring the water
needs for the area (water for the population, industry, agriculture etc) and using the
hydroenergetic potential.
There are many ponds (262) within the Prut-Bârlad river basin, many of them created in the
15th century and most of them being used mainly for fishery. 225of them are located along
the Bașeu, Jijia, Bahlui rivers, and some tributaries.
Waterworks and embankments: the most important-along Bârlad, Jijia & Bahlui.
Derivations: There are 6 derivations with a total length of 35,43 km. Four of them provide
extra water volumes to certain reservoirs, thus ensuring the needed water for human
agglomerations. The most important derivations are Cătămarăşti, Pușcași and Râpa Albastră,
50
and these supply drinking and industrial water to Botoșani, Vaslui and Bârlad towns. The
purpose of the Munteni-Tecuci-Malul Alb derivation is to keep control one the huge volumes
of water. There is also a derivation with the purpose of supplementing the volume to the old
arm of Jijia river (Chiperești hydro-technical knot). All these derivations can cause significant
changes in the operational water bodies volumes .
Hazardous substances pollution12
Pollution with hazardous chemicals can significantly deteriorate the condition of water bodies
and indirectly can affect the health of the human
The category includes artificial
population.
hazardous chemicals, metals,
In accordance with the European directives in the field
aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbons,
of water, there are three types of hazardous
phenols, endocrine disruptors and
chemicals, namely:
pesticides. However, in line with
the
Environmental
Quality
- priority substances - pollutants or groups of
Standards
Directive
(EQS
pollutants presenting a significant risk to the
Directive)
to
achieve
and
aquatic environment, including waters used
maintain
good
water
is
necessary
for the abstraction of drinking water;
to progressively reduce pollution
- priority hazardous substances - pollutants or
from priority substances and
groups of pollutants presenting the same risk
specific pollutants and stop or
as the previous ones, and in addition are
eliminate emissions, discharges
toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative;
and losses of priority hazardous
substances.
- specific pollutants in river basin - pollutant
or group of pollutants in a particular river
basin.
Relevant sectors contributing to the pollution from priority substances, priority hazardous
substances and specific pollutants in the river basin Prut-Barlad have been identified as
sources of pollution from: agriculture and agglomerations.
An inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of such substances has been carried out in
the river basin Prut-Barlad using data from the period 2009 – 2011, and out of the 41 priority
substances, only two are 2 are relevant to the studied basin: cadmium and chloroform.
Therefore, the pressures resulting from hazardous substance emissions are not considered as
significant in Prut Barlad River Basin.
Other pressures reported
Several human activities such as: fisheries/aquaculture; quarries of ballast and sand,
extraction from the river bed; forest exploitations.
In the Prut-Bârlad river basin, apart from the potentially significant pressures presented
above, other types of activities/pressures that can affect the status of water bodies were
identified - accidental pollution, aquaculture exploitation, extracting ballast and sand from
the minor beds of the water bodies, wood exploitation.
Potential sources of accidental pollution
In the Prut-Bârlad river basin, 360 water users were identified that might produce accidental
pollution and there have been elaborated specific individual plans for preventing and fighting
accidental pollution. In 2013, there were 4 incidents of accidental pollution of surface water
bodies with leaks of leachate, untreated urban waste water and hydrocarbons. The
phenomena had a local impact and, due to the short duration, the nature of the pollutant,
12
Pollution through the discharge, emission or loss of priority substances: caused by the organic micropollutants,
heavy metals, oil products, pesticides, inappropriate agricultural practices, mining industry, accidental pollution; all
these factors cause problems even at low concentrations.
51
the length of the affected space and the inertia of the communities in the structure of the
aquatic biocenoses, the effects of those phenomena were nothing but the local change in the
values of the physical and chemical indicator values, without causing a long term significant
change in the aquatic biodiversity.
Fish farms and aquaculture activities
An important characteristic of the Prut-Bârlad river basin is the presence of fishing ponds and
the creation of reservoirs for fish arms,
In 2013, 229 fishing ponds and 15 fishing reservoirs were inventoried in the Prut-Bârlad river
basin, with a total surface of 13989 ha. The commercial fishing is considered a pressure on
the water bodies when it affects the aquatic fauna, the bird fauna and other elements of the
trophic chain. The main identified pressures are disturbing the habitat, illegal fishing and
unintentional captures.
Other relevant pressures
The extraction of ballast and sand from the minor beds of water bodies
Another category of hydro-mophological pressures that could affect rivers is the ballast
extraction. Its effects are generally the change in the shape of the longitudinal profile, the
variability of the deposits in the river bed and the degradation processes, especially erosion.
Wood exploitation
The same “other pressures” category also includes wood exploitation if it is performed
chaotically, without abiding by the provisions of the law, as it has an effect on the stability of
the land (by the appearance of erosion, the formation of torrents, landslides on banks, the
increase in floods, the decrease in the rate of the new supply rate of aquiferous strata etc.).
In conclusion, 1455 significant potential pressures were identified in the Prut-Bârlad river
basin – their type is shown in Figure 12 .
point pressures hidromorphology
point pressures Urban
Waste Water
point pressures IED
installatiions
7.00%
19.00%
70.00%
point pressures Non IED
installations
point pressures diffuse
poit pressure-agriculture
1.00%
1.00%
2.00%
point pressures diffuse
pressure point-human
aglomerations
Figure 13 - Potential pressures were identified in the Prut-Bârlad river basin
It is clear that

most pressures are the diffuse ones caused by human agglomerations without
collection systems;

next, point pressures caused by waste waters discharged from the collection and
treatment systems, followed by

potentially significant hydro-morphological pressures.
52
IMPACT AND RISK ASSESSMENT
Surface water bodies
The results of the assessment carried out by ABA Prut Barlad while developing the second
RBMP (for 2016-2021) show that there are: 322 surface water bodies (WB) in the Prut Barlad
river basin out of which:
228 natural water bodies: 75 (32,89%) have good ecological status, 153 (67,1%) moderate
ecological status;
- 91 heavily modified water bodies: 17 (18,68%) have good ecological potential, 51 (56,04%)
have moderate ecological potential, and for 23 (25,27%) the evaluation is irrelevant
- 3 (100%) artificial water bodies have moderate ecological potential
In comparison with the evaluation of the ecological status and the ecological potential in the
first basin management plan, we notice the decrease in the number of bodies with a good
status and good potential by 30.13%, from 58.7% to 28.57%, and the main causes are the
development of methodologies and more restrictive limits. We also notice the decrease in the
percentage of water bodies with a “low” or “bad” ecological status.
Given the impact of significant
pressures present and future and
the measures required to be
implemented until 2021, the river
basin Prut-Barlad, none of the
322 surface water bodies has
been identified as being at risk of
failure to reach environmental
objectives because of pollution
with organic substances.
By 2018 all agglomerations of
more than 2,000 population
equivalents must be equipped
with separate collection systems
and wastewater treatment plants
(secondary and tertiary) and
agglomerations below 2000 pe
must achieve a proper treatment
in centralized systems and / or
individual treatment systems.
Fig. 14 - The ecological status
and ecological potential of the
surface water bodies in the Prut –
Bârlad river basin
53
Groundwaters
Figure 15 - The quantitative status of the groundwater bodies attributed
to ABA Prut – Bârlad
Groundwater body ROPR01 Upper Prut Valley: based on the analysed data, we notice that the
qualitative status of the groundwater body is good.
Groundwater body ROPR02 – Medium and Lower Prut Valley: good qualitative status
Groundwater body ROPR03 – Bârlad Valley: the qualitative status of this groundwater body is
good.
Groundwater body ROPR04 – Tecuci Plain: based on the performed analysis we notice that the
qualitative status of this groundwater body is low for the quality standard regarding nitrates,
due to the areas occupied by overtime drilling which are 62.62% of the surface of the whole
groundwater body
Groundwater body ROPR05 Central Moldavian Plateau: the qualitative state of this
groundwater body is good.
Groundwater body ROPR06 Covurlui Plain: following the performed analysis, it is believed
that the qualitative state of this groundwater body is low due to the surface which is polluted
with nitrates – 83.47% of the surface of the whole water body.
Groundwater body ROPR07 Moldova Plain
54
Protected areas
The management plan of the river basin includes a summary of the protected areas and maps
with the location of each category of protected areas, as well as the list of laws and
regulations at a community, national and local level based on which they were identified and
mapped.
The data used for writing this chapter are based on the information on protected areas for
2013 from the Protected Areas Directory.
Protection areas for the freshwater catchments
In 2013, for the Prut – Bârlad river basin, registered are:
18 water catchments, surface sources to become drinkable (17 - for the population supply
and 1 for the food industry supply);
376 water underground catchments sources planned to be drinkable (266- for the population
supply and 110 for the food industry supply).
The total freshwaterwater volume from surface sources, was 67,271 million m 3 and from
underground sources was of 29,466 million m3.
Figure 16 - Shows the water
catchments planned to be used as
freshwater surface sources and
underground sources; also, the
protected areas.
Areas for commercial fishing
In 2013, there is no record of
significant fish captures or any areas
of commercial fishing in the Prut –
Bârlad river basin.
Due
to
the
geographic
characteristics and to the specificity
of the river basin-related water
bodies, no mountain areas have
been identified with fish species
belonging to the salmon group; also,
no areas have been identified and
mapped for potentially economic
fish species.
Protected areas for habitats and
species where water is an important
factor
Thus, in the Prut – Bârlad river
basin, the protected natural areas
related to water that have been
identified have been grouped into 27
areas for the protection of habitats and species that depend on water.
Thus, the total surface of these areas is 237580 ha, representing 11.7% of the surface of the
Prut – Bârlad river basin.
The length of the water bodies that exist in these protected areas represents about 14.83% of
the total length of the water bodies that is 1087.11 km. About 62.72% of the total surface of
the natural lakes and reservoirs is part of water-related natural protected areas. At the same
55
time, according to the evaluation of the ecological status of the water bodies, an evaluation
performed within the draft of the second management plan of the Prut – Bârlad river basin,
out of the 147 water bodies in protected natural areas, 22.45% are in a good ecological
status, 61% are in a moderate status, 8.84% have a good ecological potential and 27.2% have a
moderate ecological potential.
Figure 17 - Shows the space distribution of the water-related natural protected areas13
for which it is very important to maintain and improve the water quality.
point pressures hydro-morphology
13
if the limits of the natural protected areas are beyond the limits of the Prut – Bârlad river basin, the figure shows
only the surfaces that are in this basin.
56
Areas sensitive to nutrients. Areas vulnerable to nitrates
Romania is no longer obliged to designate the areas that are vulnerable to nitrates from
agricultural sources, as the action programme applies, no exception, for the whole territory
of the country. The provisions of the action programme are compulsory for all the farmers
who own or manage agricultural exploitations; also for the local public administration
authorities of communes, towns and cities locations known for agricultural exploitations.
Bathing areas:
Starting with 2011, the monitoring and evaluation of the bathing waters are performed for at
least 2 microbiological parameters and the information of the public on the quality of the
bathing water and the management of beaches is performed by means of the bathing profiles,
based on which symbols for the classification of bathing water quality (excellent, good,
satisfactory or low) and for forbidding bathing are established..
PRIORITY TOPICS AND RELATED MEASURES IN PRUT BARLAD RIVER BASIN
Based on the results of pressures assessment in the investigated basin, the most relevant
priority topics are:
-
Pollution due to untreated wastewater from rural areas
Pollution coming from inland navigation
Agricultural pollution
POLLUTION DUE TO UNTREATED WASTEWATER FROM RURAL AREAS
Around 90% of rural Romania’s population does not have access to public sewerage systems
and some 70% are not served by running water supplies. Rural 14 water supply systems are
therefore noted by the national Rural Development Plan as representing a major development
constraint for rural areas. In the Prut Barlad basin, in the rural areas, most of the inhabitants
live in houses that are not connected to centralized sewerage systems. There are some
residences which treat their own wastewater 'on site'. There is an insufficient treatment
capacity, and it is estimated that a person living in a rural area burdens about 6-8 times more
than a person who lives in urban area and benefit of sewerage system.
According to the ABA Prut statistics, the water supply networks in rural areas registered some
improvements during 2005 – 2012. The majority of households in rural areas use dwells for
water supply (approximately 70%).
As regards the sewage systems, the discrepancy between the urban and rural areas is
considerably higher with 92.3% of length in urban and only 7.7% in rural areas (2005 data).
The share of connection of population to the sewerage systems in Prut Barlad river Basin is
very small, ranging from 0,8% in 2001, 0,9% in 2002, 11% in 2011 and 14% in 2012.
The share of connection of population to the wastewater treatment plants is even smaller
than for the sewerage systems: ranging from 0,5% in 2001, 0,6% in 2002, 0,9% in 2011 and 4%
in 2012.
The problems connected to the rural untreated wastewater are associated as well with the
uncontrolled waste dump-sites.
14
According to Romanian legislation (Romanian Law No 350/2001 on spatial planning and urbanism and Law No
351/2001 on approving the National Spatial Plan – Section IV – Localities network), the definition of rural areas is
done based on basic activities and endowment with public utilities (rural localities are the localities where either the
majority of population is occupied in agriculture, forestry or fisheries, or, in terms of endowment with public
utilities, do not fulfill the legal obligations to be declared as urban localities, even if the majority of population is
occupied in other sectors than those mentioned before). However, for the water sector, it is very important to
consider the definition of agglomeration according to the Directive No 91/271 on urban wastewater treatment 'agglomeration' means an area where the population and/or economic activities are sufficiently concentrated for
urban waste water to be collected and conducted to an urban wastewater treatment plant or to a final discharge
point.
57
This situation is mainly due to the long-term insufficient funds in the water supply and
sewage systems. The state of the sewers infrastructure is less developed or modernized in
comparison to sewages systems due to smaller consideration in towns and total ignored in
rural areas.
Therefore, water pollution due to untreated wastewater discharged in the ecosystems in rural
areas is one of Prut Barlad river basin’s largest priority issues, with negative impact on fish
breeding, irrigation, and drinking water supplies. Poor water quality arises mainly from poor
controls
over
industrial
effluents
and
discharges
and
from
inadequate
wastewater infrastructure.
Measures to address the water pollution in rural areas
According to the legislation of Romania (Law no. 350/2001 on spatial planning and urbanism
and Law no. 351/2001 for the approval of the National Spatial Plan - Section IV network
locations), rural areas are defined based on core activities and endowments of public utilities
(rural areas are localities where a majority of the population works in agriculture, forestry or
fishing, or, in terms of endowment with public utilities, they do not meet legal requirements
to be declared urban localities, even if most people working in sectors other than those
mentioned above). For the water sector is very important to consider the definition of
agglomerations in accordance with Directive. 91/271 concerning urban wastewater treatment
- "agglomeration" means an area where the population and / or economic activities are
sufficiently concentrated so that urban waste water to be collected and directed to a
wastewater treatment plant or to a final discharging point.
ABA Prut Barlad prepared the regional Master Plan for modernizing water infrastructure and
these Master Plans help to coordinate the use of EU funds in rural areas. Such strategic
planning is useful for targeting funds towards priority projects and also provides advance
knowledge of the works needed to prepare the way for infrastructure investments.
Furthermore the Master Plans help to improve the stability of budget forecasting for public
bodies.
Even though for agglomerations smaller than 2000 p.e., Romania does not have urgent
obligations according to Chapter 22 – Environment, it is a constant priority of the Government
to improve the water and wastewater infrastructure in these areas as a pre-requisite for
improvement of living conditions for rural population and the development of rural areas.
The basic measure is the Council Directive 91/271/EEC (UWWT) concerning urban wastewater treatment, adopted on 21 May 1991. Its objective is to protect the environment from
the adverse effects of urban waste water discharges and discharges from certain industrial
sectors (see Annex III of the Directive) and concerns the collection, treatment and discharge
of:



Domestic waste water
Mixture of waste water
Waste water from certain industrial sectors (see Annex III of the Directive)
Improvement through co -financing
EU funds can be used to assist in the implementation of the UWWT Directive, in particular the
Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) which helped those regions
lagging behind or facing structural difficulties to achieve sustainable development. Romania
also received support to invest in the needed infrastructures for waste water treatment over
several programming periods (at the national level 1.2 billion €).
Despite the significant support from EU funding, the "Fitness check of EU freshwater policy"
underlined that the majority of funds necessary to implement EU water policy needs to be
generated within the Member States.
58
The main reason for this financing gap is that progress towards achieving cost recovery from
water users and implementation of the polluter pays principle, as required by the Water
Framework Directive (WFD), have been slow and insufficient.
To encourage such water
pricing policies, the Commission has proposed some ex ante conditions, including the WFD
requirements on water pricing which Member States need to fulfil in the future EU Cohesion
Policy (2014-2020) for the financing of projects in the water sector.
The estimated costs for implementation at national level are:
a) 9.5 billion Euro for investments, of which:
-
5.7 Euro billion for wastewater treatment
-
3.8 Euro billion for sewerage systems
b) 3.4 Euro billion for operating expenses (the transition period)
The investment costs for the application of basic and additional measures within the Prut –
Bârlad River Basin are estimated to 1,779 billion EUR, out of which 97,4% represent basic
measures achievement costs.
In order to identify sources of funding, currently there are considered more flexible financing
mechanisms and more efficient: using multilateral funds and grants, loans to finance public
services and local infrastructure investments, guaranteed by the state or by local authorities,
stimulating the participation of private capital and public-private partnerships. Also, support
from the international institutions such EBRD or EIB.
POLLUTION COMING FROM INLAND NAVIGATION
Background
Pollution coming from navigation still remains one of the main factors responsible for the
degradation of the aquatic environment. Shipping and naval transport activities, the port
exploitation and port development activities are concentrating in a relatively small area,
which can contribute to an increase of environmental risks. Generally, navigation accidents
causing accidental water, land or air pollution may be the result of fuel supply accidents,
cargo handling operations, storing operations, port maintenance activities, port
industrialization and port development operations.
Nevertheless, oil spillage and water pollution generated by inland navigation and sea-going
vessels represent other environmental hazards that continue to threaten coastal ecosystems.
According to the findings of the researchers studying the Black Sea, the annual oily and greasy
wastes that reach the sea and that originate from pollution sources on land amount to: 30.000
tons from the sewer system, 15.500 tons from industrial sources (including the petroleum
industry) and 53.000 tons are brought to the Danube river.
In many coastal areas of the Black Sea and at the river mouths, water pollution has reached
an unacceptable level. Still, not only the vessels, but also onshore sources contribute to
water pollution.
Sources of pollution coming from navigation
In connection with naval transport and ports activities, the solid waste pollution sources (95%
of which represent non-degradable plastic materials) have been identified: shipping, tourism
and recreational activities.
Oil spills resulting from accidents occurring at sea, which can have a serious impact on
sensitive maritime areas and on coastal areas as well (on average 110 tons/year) are
relatively low. As a result of the increase in the traffic of oil tankers there is also an increase
59
in the risks associated to major oil leaks, which imposes the requirement for building more oil
terminals.
The main categories of wastes generated by inland navigation are: ship-borne waste and
waste originating from cargo. The ship-borne wastes result from the operation of the vessel
(these are mainly oily and greasy ship-borne wastes) and from the activities of crew
members or passengers on board. Wastes originating from cargo consist of residual charges,
washing water and slops. The most important types of ship waste at the moment in the Prut
Barlad basin, are those registered at Port Galati, specifically:
-
Bilge water;
Waste oil;
Household waste water (sewage);
Domestic waste (garbage);
Small hazardous waste;
Cargo residues.
Legal framework
International level: There is large number of international legal instruments governing the
navigation, the ship generated waste and the ports. A considerable amount of conventions,
codes and international resolutions has been published by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO).
One of the major objectives of the EU’s transport policy is to promote inland and maritime
transport. It is necessary to take into account the large diversity that characterizes this
sector in respect to structures, operations, organization, legal status, things that differ
greatly from region to region.
The most important legal international instrument is the MARPOL 73/78 Convention which has
been ratified by all the Black Sea riparian countries. The Black Sea has been declared
“Special Protection Area” In addition to this, MARPOL 73/78 also makes a set of
recommendations regarding the control, recording and management of the waste onboard the
ship, as well as the development of certain port waste facilities for the collection and
disposal of ship waste. However, there are difficulties to apply these provisions, due to a lack
of port collection and treatment facilities for oil products and for solid waste delivered by the
vessels mooring in the port.
In addition to this, MARPOL 73/78 also makes a set of recommendations regarding the control,
recording and management of the waste onboard the ship, as well as the development of
certain port waste facilities for the collection and disposal of ship waste.
Directive on waste 2006/12/EC known as the waste Framework Directive, establishes a
framework for the management of waste across the European Community. It also defines
certain terms, such as 'waste', 'recovery' and 'disposal', to ensure that a uniform approach is
taken across the EU.
Furthermore, the European Action Programme for Inland Waterway Transport (NAIADES) aims
at promoting inland waterway transport.
The Convention on Co-operation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River
(Danube River Protection Convention, or DRPC), signed on 29 June 1994 in Sofia, forms the
overall legal instrument for co-operation on transboundary water management in the Danube
River Basin. The Convention is based on the Bucharest Declaration for the Protection of the
Danube River and on the UN/ECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary
Water Courses and International Lakes (Helsinki, 1992)15. Romania acts as the Depositary of
this Convention.
15
The Convention was approved by the European Communities in a Council Decision (97/825/EC) on 24. November
1997 as published in OJ L 342/18
60
The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) establishes a legal framework to protect and
enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems; prevent their deterioration and ensure long-term,
sustainable use of water resources. The Directive provides for an innovative approach for
water management based on river basins, the natural geographical and hydrological units,
and sets specific deadlines for EU Member States to produce Programmes of Measures and
River Basin Management Plans.
The EU Strategy for the Danube Region establishes four main pillars for action, of which
relevant for the navigation are the following:
(1) Connecting the Danube Region
(2) Protecting the Environment in the Danube Region
(3) Building Prosperity in the Danube Region
(4) Strengthening the Danube Region
National level
In Romania, there is an impressive package of legislation, regulations, rules and procedures
covering issues applied to navigation, applied to ports, legal regulations for the waste
handling stages, connected to water quality protection and with collection, transport and
disposal of ship born wastes.
To facilitate the implementation of MARPOL Convention in all the European ports, the EU has
issued Directive no. 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and Council on port reception
facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues.
The Ministry of Transport has taken into consideration this EU Directive and since Romania is
a member state of the EU, it has issued order no. 779/2002, transposing Directive 2000/59/EC
into the national legislation. Thus, the national legal framework offers the ports the main
guiding lines with which the stakeholders have to comply in order to ensure the efficiency of
their operations and services. The Order no. 779/2002, includes as well relevant provisions on
tariffs and costs which must be considered as a key-element in the Waste Handling Plan.
At the national level, the key legal regulations are:
The National Waste Management Strategy (NWMS)
The National Waste Management Plan (NWMP)
The sustainable transport strategy for 2007-2013 and 2020, 2030
The Sectoral Operational Programme Transport (SOP-T 2007-2013)
Other related conventions to which Romania is a member state
The Law no. 6 / 06.01.1991 – For the adherence of Romania to the Basel Convention on the
Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal
Law no. 17 / 7.08.1990 – Regarding the judicial status of the interior maritime waters, the
territorial sea and Romania’s contiguous area and Emergency Ordinance no. 130 / 12.11.2007
– For the amendment and completion of Law no. 17 / 1990 regarding the judicial status of the
interior maritime waters, the territorial sea and Romania’s contiguous area for transposition
of Directive: 2005 / 35 / EC.
Law no. 107 / 25.09.1996 – Water Law
Decision no. 472 / 09.06.2000 – Regarding certain measures for the protection of water
quality
Law no. 310 / 28.06.2004 – For the amendment and completion of the Water Law no. 107 /
1996 Surface and underground waters
61
Law no. 112 / 04.05.2006 – For the amendment and completion of the Water Law no. 107 /
1996, 107/1996 for Directive: 2000 / 60 / EC, modified by Directives 2008 / 32/ EC and 2008
/ 105/ EC and by Decision no. 2455 / 2001 / EC.
Law no. 14 / 24.02.1995 – For the ratification of the Sofia Convention on Cooperation for the
Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River, adopted on 29.06.1994 - The Convention
for the protection of the Danube
Government Decision no. 646 / 27.06.2007 – the approval of the Administrative Agreement
regarding the cooperation between Romania’s Ministry of Transport and Austria’s Ministry of
Transport, Innovation and Technology in the field of Danube navigation and waterway
administration, signed in Vienna, on the 19.04.2007.
Institutional arrangements
At the national level and in the studied area, the main responsibilities rely on the following
authorities:
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Changes
Ministry of Transport
National Environmental Protection Guard
National Environmental Protection Agency
Romanian Naval Authority
Regional agencies for environmental protection
Environmental Protection Agency in Galati
County Commissariats in Galati
Galaţi Harbor Master’s offices
National Company – Maritime Danube Ports Administration S.A. Galati
River Administration of the Lower Danube Galaţi
Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority.
Initiatives, actions and measures to prevent and control pollution coming from navigation
The Romanian competent authorities are enforcing stricter regulations, transposing as well
directives and participate in the process of implementing the international conventions,
agreements, best practices and procedures.
There are restrictions for vessels that can not rely on delivering their waste at port reception
facilities for not being allowed to discharging the ship waste at sea.
The port authorities of Galati (in the Prut Barlad river basin), Constanta, Midia, Mangalia,
Tulcea and Braila have assessed their environmental and safety situation, have developed and
are implementing previously developed waste management plans for the reception, handling
and treatment of ship-generated waste an cargo residues, and have harmonized their
regulations, codes of practice and standards for environmental protection, safety, handling
and storage of dangerous goods, emergency procedures and contingency plans with EUregulations and standards.
All these positive improvements will facilitate the implementation of the new International
Convention on ship waste management, under finalization, and the adoption of the
harmonized international concept for ship waste management in Romania.
Furthermore, Romania
treatment and disposal,
Prevention of Pollution
deliver their wastes in
collection facilities.
is creating port reception facilities for ship waste collection,
in line with the requirements of the International Convention for the
from Ships (MARPOL 73/78). Thus, vessels have the obligation to
ports and the ports have the obligation to provide proper waste
Galati, located in the Prut Barlad River Basin, on the left bank of the Danube, 80 Km away
from the Danube Delta, has 4 ports, one for passenger transport and three for cargo
transport.
62
Galati is Romania’s second important port, having the possibility to connect to the Black Sea;
it is located on the maritime stretch, and includes:
a) The Mineral Port Galati
b) The Old Commercial Port Galati
c) The Docks Port Galati
d) New Basin Port Galati.
At Galati port there is complex depollution ship that plays an important part in the collection
of ship generated waste and in interventions in case of major accidental pollution incidents
with oil products in the port basins and the Danube.
According to the National Strategy for Sustainable transport for 2007-2013 and 2020, 2030,
issued by the Romanian Government, the Ministry of Transport, the priorities in the naval
sector for 2007 - 2020 are focused on the modernization/development of the naval transport
infrastructure, transport safety, while also consolidating ports as intermodal hubs that
support the gradual development of the intermodal cargo flow network and the development
of safer and more environmental-friendly naval transport services.
The prevention of intentional or operational oily and greasy waste should be supported by
implementing large scale programmes as well as by educating the public or applying more
efficient legal action.
AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION
Water quality issues in Romania are less affected by the use of fertiliser in agriculture than by
the poor infrastructure of the sewage system. Although there was an overall extensive trend,
and low use of chemical products in agriculture, some agricultural lands had been affected by
an improper use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, by irrigations, drainages, or by
applying inadequate mechanical works, reasons for which the environment components
(especially soil and water), were affected on reduced surfaces.
Therefore, the concentration of organic substances and ammonium in the ground waters is
recognized as an important environmental problem in the basin.
The pollution coming from agriculture is mainly through nitrates from surface and ground
waters pollution with nitrates implemented. Individual farms and small holders use manure as
the cheapest and best available fertilizers. The use of chemical fertilizers has therefore
dropped. In 2000, the average consumption of chemical fertilizers was 36 kg per hectare (in
relation to total arable land), about 4 times less than in 1989, while in 2009 was 28 kg per
hectares. Individual households often do not hold sealed collection pits for animal effluents
for livestock breeding, allowing the nutrients, and especially nitrates, to dissolve into the
ground water. Moreover, such pits are not emptied for collection and disposal.
Agriculture and animal production are polluting the surface water by nutrients - In the
Romanian part of the Prut basin the significant sources of pollution from agriculture, are
diffuse sources, which represents 64.8% of the total diffuse emission. A number of 10
reservoirs in the Prut river basin
presented
a
degree of
eutrophication
(2009 data), due to the wastewater, point sources and diffuse sources in agriculture.
Additionally, the abandonment of agricultural land and use of unsuitable farming practices,
which occurred due to the lack of knowledge or limited financial resources, had a negative
influence upon biodiversity and determined the occurrence or accentuation of soil erosion
phenomenon.
In the Prut river area - supplementary measures are needed for achieving WFD objectives
water bodies mainly in sub-basins: Bahlui - Podu Iloaiei - Holboca and Vaslui - Satu Nou - av.
Vaslui. The proposed measures include: application of the code of good agricultural practices
in non-vulnerable areas.
63
Due to the existing strong inter-linkages between the sources of nutrient emissions and
measures to reduce respective pollution with those from organic pollution, the program of
measures in Prut – Barlad river Basin includes measures related to the improvement of
wastewater treatment and the application of BAT for industry and agriculture. It also includes
measures to control diffuse nutrient pollution, measures to reduce phosphate emissions from
household laundry and dishwater detergents, and, finally, measures addressing the nitrogen
pollution from atmospheric deposition.
The most relevant measure addressing nutrient pollution from agriculture is the
implementation and enforcement of the EU Nitrates Directive.
The EU Nitrates Directive (ND) intends to reduce water pollution caused by nitrates from
agricultural sources. Romania carried out the designation of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs)
and the introduction of a strengthened range of measures in the NAP that farms within NVZs
must comply with. The action programmes include the maximum amounts of animal manure
that can be applied to land every year, which is equivalent to 210 kg N per ha for the first
NAPs and 170 kg N per ha for the next ones. Also Codes of Good Agricultural Practice (CGAP)
were elaborated and are mandatory in the NVZs and voluntary outside the NVZs.
For Romania, based on the assessment and recommendations of the European Commission,
through the Decision 221 983 from 26.06.2013, the Interministerial Commission for the
implementation of the Action Plan for the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources, approved the Programme of Action for the protection of
waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, to be applied to the
whole country, without having the obligation to establish Nitrates Vulnerable Zones. It means
that in Prut Barlad River basin, the same territorial approach will be implemented.
The Strategy for Development of Agriculture and Rural Development (RDP) of Romania for the
period 2014-2020 is harmonized with the growing complexity of the EU legislation, especially
with strategy " Europe 2020 – An European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth" - March 2010, the "Common Policy Reform”, October 2011, " Declaration on the New
Age of Global Science" in November 2011, World Forum for Science (Budapest) and other EU
or international documents.
The RDP is centered on the three key challenges of transforming and modernizing the
agriculture and forestry production and processing sectors, to maintain and enhance the
quality of the rural environment, and to ensure adequate economic and social conditions for
the rural population. The RDP is coherent with the three main goals of the National Strategic
Plan, namely:



To improve the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector;
To maintain and enhance the quality of the environment and rural areas through the
sustainable use of agricultural and forestry land;
To enhance the quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy.
The basic measures with relevance for agriculture are i.a. measures required under the
relevant Community legislation (e.g. action plans and codes of Good Agricultural Practice on
fertilization under the Nitrates Directive, application of best available techniques in intensive
farming of pigs and poultry).
Specific measures to control pollution from agriculture in the basin include:
- the capacity of manure facilities must exceed the necessary storage with one month,
considering the longest prohibition period for applying fertilizers (for example: if the
prohibition period is of 6 months, the manure facility must have a capacity to store the
quantity of manure collected for 7 months).
- maximum 170 kg of nitrogen of organic fertilizer per hectare and year. Also, in the sanitary
and hydrogeological safeguard zone, the fertilizers are forbidden to be applied or handled.
- measures against erosion: buffer stripes
64
- all farms with more than 100 animal equivalent (A.E.= 500 kg) are obliged to elaborate the
manure management plans. Nutrients register should have all farms with more than 8 animal
units.
- training programs of agricultural consultants and farmers for promoting the Code of Good
Agricultural Practice based on farm-level demonstrations, also, awareness and information
campaigns.
At the reference year 2009, in the River Basin Prut Barlad, ABA Prut – Barlad provided the
application of the Code for Good agricultural practices, as supplementary measures, for 9
agricultural units, in support of reaching WFD objective regarding nutrient reduction.
In addition in line with WFD Annex VI B, the application of the code of good agricultural
practices is proposed at the agglomeration Vaslui. Finally, the sewage rehabilitation at the
Hospital Codaiesti is proposed to be achieved by 2015.
In 2011, the application of the Code for Good agricultural practices as supplementary
measures, for non NVZ for localities Soleşti, Micleşti, Deleni, Ciorteşti, Tanacu, Codăieşti,
Dobrovăţ, Schitu Duca, Ciurea (9 agricultural units) has the deadline 2018.
The other measures - the application of the code of good agricultural practices proposed at
the agglomeration Vaslui, and the sewage rehabilitation at the Hospital Codaiesti has to be
achieved by 2015.
At the end 2012 none of the planned supplementary measures had started, due to the lack of
funds. However, efforts are ongoing and the deadline for meeting the WFD objectives is
2015, respectively 2018.
CONCLUSIONS
Following the implementation of measures addressing the priority topics in Prut – Barlad
river basin – untreated wastewater in rural areas, pollution coming from navigation, and
agricultural pollution, in the first implementation cycle a decreasing pollution level for
almost all pollutants till end of 2015, except for nitrogen compounds was expected.
However for the second implementation cycle all the objectives which were not met have
been postponed for 2018 or even 2021.
To address the nutrient pollution in the studied area, basic measures representing the
minimum requirements to be complied with in a river basin, and as well supplementary
measured shall be implemented.
Basic measures (fulfilling the UWWTD, including in the rural areas, and EU Nitrates Directive)
are the main basic measures contributing to nutrient reduction in the River Basin Prut Bârlad.
The implementation of the EU UWWTD significantly contributes to the reduction of nutrient
point source pollution.
Romania will benefit from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for
financing the rural development programmes which includes the nutrient reduction measures.
In connection with pollution coming from navigation, the proper ship waste management
presents an opportunity not only to avoid the detrimental impacts associated with waste, but
also to recover resources, realize environmental, economic and social benefits and to
contribute to the sustainable development.
The benefits and opportunities form proper ship waste management are recognized in
connection with the triple bottom lines of environment (such reducing the risk of pollution),
financial benefits (waste is a resource which can be recovered and reused), social/community
impact, due to the protection of public health.
65
WATER MANAGEMENT IN PRUT RIVER BASIN - MOLDOVA
This chapter presents:

a general view on the pilot Put River Basin including an analysis of the geographical,
climatic, geological, hydrological, hydrogeological and ecological characteristics.

the demographic and economic aspects

the use of surface and ground water resources, land and subsoil assets which largely
determine the ecological status of the basin of the Prut River.

issues related to the methodology and infrastructure of hydrological monitoring and
water quality monitoring
LEGISLATION
On 26th of October 2013 in the Republic of Moldova came into force the new Water
Law, published on 26th of April 2012 in the Official Monitor of the Republic of Moldova,
substituting the Water Code. Even though there are deficiencies in it to be removed, the law
is based on European standards for the management and protection of water and it aims to
create a legal framework for the management, protection and efficient use of surface water
and groundwater based on the assessment, planning and participatory decision making,
determining water use rights and promoting investments in the water sector. This law
transposes partially the Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework
for Community action in the field of water policy and is partially harmonized with the Council
Directive Nr. 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban wastewater treatment, Directive
Nr. 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, the Directive Nr. 2006/7/EC of 15 February 2006
on the quality of bathing water, Nr.2007/60/EC of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and
management of flood risks, Nr. 2008/105/EC of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality
standards in the field of water policy, and it creates the necessary legal basis for
management, protection and water use.
Management principles of water resources are included in Art. 6 of the Water Law and
correspond to those of EU legislation:
 the principle of participation of water users, local and central public
authorities, civil society and other stakeholders in planning and decisionmaking on the use and protection of water resources;
 the principle “the polluter pays";
 precautionary principle as justification to avoid taking action where the lack of
full scientific certainty cannot be used;
 sustainable water use principle;
 principle of the economic value of water, meaning that the economic value of
water resources and their management must be recognized by the introduction
of cost recovery mechanisms for managing water resources.
A special responsibility for the protection and water management (art. 9) falls to the
water management administration which has the mission to take measures for
implementation of the legislation and to the river basin district committee (art. 10) that
develops measures to be included in the management plan of the river basin district and
achieving management objectives.
According to art. 12 the central body of public administration in environmental field
supports the participation of public and private institutions, NGOs, mass-media, associations
of water users, citizens.
Obviously, water protection is of decisive importance for society and the environment.
For this purpose, the law foresees pollution prohibition (art. 34), control of use (art. 56) and
water pollution (art. 57), priority hazardous substances prohibition (art. 35), environmental
quality requirements for water (art. 37), treatment requirements and regulation of discharge
66
of wastewater (art. 39-41). Also, in order to achieve good results there have been adopted 17
bylaws to the Water Law among them: Regulation on monitoring systematic evidence of the
surface waters and groundwater’s status (GD 932 of 20.11.2013); Regulation on surface water
environmental quality requirements (GD 890 of 12.11.2013), Regulation on the procedure for
the management plan drafting and revising, approved by the Republic of Moldova Government
Decision no. 866 of 01.11.2013.
The Water Law stipulated the joint management of international water resources based
on bilateral treaties and/or multilateral agreements to which Republic of Moldova is a party.
The outlined efficient structures capable of solving the problems are the government,
the central organ of public administration in the environmental field, water management
administration and river basin advisory committees.
For each district an Advisory Committee is created.
According to the Government Decision No. 867 of 01.11.2013 for approving the RegulationModel regarding the constitution and functioning of the district Committee, the Committee is
composed of 19 members:
 A representative of the central authority of the environment local administration;
 Two representatives of the administrative authority for management of water
resources;
 Two representatives of the State Hydrometeorological Service;
 A representative of the State Ecological Inspectorate, of the environmental agencies
from the afferent districts to the respective river basin;
 A representative of the Fisheries Service;
 Two representatives of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova;
 A representative of the Ministry of Health, among specialists of the Public Health
Centres of districts included in the respective river basin;
 Two districts representatives;
 Two Mayors, from which one City Mayor and one Village / Parish Mayor;
 A representative of water users from the respective river basin district, elected
according to water use and the impact of wastewater discharged on water resources;
 Two representatives of sub-basin Committees;
 A representative of the environmental Non-governmental Organizations established or
operating in the respective river basin district.
Improving the state of transboundary waters through various forms of collaboration has
as legal support an important chapter on international cooperation on transboundary rivers:
on water resources management at international level (art. 59) and Cooperation Actions (art.
60).
Additionally and by 2016, the new Water Act foresees the development of national
RBMPs for two river basin districts of (i) the Danube-Prut and Black Sea and (ii) the Dniester
River.
WATER MANAGEMENT IN PRUT RIVER BASIN - REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
The general trend of the WFD is that the EU country should strive as much as possible
in such a case to apply the same approach that should be used if the country that shares the
transboundary river basin belongs to the EU member states.
According to art. 3-4 of the WFD, Member States shall ensure that the requirements of
this Directive for the achievement of the environmental objectives established under Article
4, and in particular all programmes of measures are common. For international river basin
districts the Member States concerned shall together ensure this coordination and may, for
this purpose, use existing structures stemming from international agreements.
The Commission shall take measures to facilitate the identification of programmes of
measures by request of the relevant Member States. Art. 3-5: Where a river basin district
extends beyond the territory of the Community, the Member State or Member States
67
concerned shall endeavour to establish appropriate coordination with the relevant nonMember States, with the aim of achieving the objectives of this Directive throughout the river
basin district. Member States shall ensure the application of the rules of this Directive within
their territory.
In accordance with Article 13 (River Basin Management Plans-RBMP), Member States
shall ensure that a river basin management plan is produced for each river basin district lying
entirely within their territory. In the case of an international river basin district, as Prut River
Basin is, extending beyond the boundaries of the Community, Member States shall endeavour
to produce a single river basin management plan, and, where this is not possible, the plan
shall at least cover the portion of the international river basin district lying within the
territory of the Member State concerned. In the Republic of Moldova the elaboration of the
Prut River Basin District Management Plan has as the legal support Water Law nr. 272 of
23.12.2011 which entered into force on 26.10.2013 and the Regulation on the procedure for
the management plan drafting and revising, approved by the Republic of Moldova Government
Decision no. 866 of 01.11.2013.
There have been some attempts of elaborating the Prut River Management Plan, but
they didn’t come to an end due to the lack of financial support, well trained specialists, etc.
In the frame of the EPIRB project it was signed on March 14, 2014 the “Contract for
combining Moldovan part of the Prut RBMP with the Ukrainian part to be provided by the UA
contractor and thus producing an integrated transboundary River Basin Management Plan of
the Prut Basin (PRBMP) within the limits of Ukraine and Moldova” between Hulla&Co. Human
Dynamics KG (Client) and Institute of Ecology and Geography of the Academy of Sciences of
Moldova (IEG ASM) (Contractor). The purpose of the project is the development and
presentation of integrated transboundary Prut River Basin Management Plan for confirmation
at basin, national and regional levels. The main phases and deliverable of the process are
shown in the table below.
Phase
Phase-1: Identification of
Pressures and Impacts and water
bodies at risk
Phase-2: Identification of
National and Basin Wide Program of
Measures
Phase-3: Draft Development
of River Basin Management Plan
Deliverables
Pressures and Impacts report
Water bodies at risk report
Environmental Objectives report
Programme of Measures report
Economic Analysis and prioritised measures
report
Draft River Basin Management Plan
Integrated transboundary Prut River Basin
Management Plan (MD-UA)
Until now the project deliverables were: “Pressure and impacts report” and “Water
bodies at risk report” developed by the Institute of Ecology and Geography of the Academy of
Sciences of Moldova. The draft of the Prut River Management Plan should be available in
March 2015, prepared by the same institution.
In accordance with Art. 14 (Public information and consultation), Member States shall
encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of this
Directive, in particular in the production, review and updating of the river basin management
plans.
According to the “Inception Report” of the EPIRB project, the PRBMP draft will be
presented to the project expert team, and through public consultation procedure, to the
stakeholders and all interested persons for analysis, evaluation and proposal of
recommendations regarding quality and improvement draft of PRBMP.
During the inception phase of the project the following main project counterparts were
identified, who are also part of the main stakeholders and who have indicated already their
commitment in the process:
 Leading Beneficiary Institutions: Ministry of Environment;
 Other Key Beneficiary Institutions/Agencies: Agency “Apele Moldovei” (within
Basin Water Management Authority) and State Hydro meteorological Service,
68
Agency of Geology and Mineral Resources, SE “Moldavian Hydrogeology
Expedition”.
The stakeholder consultation meeting on significant water management issues was held
on 29 July, 2014, in Chisinau, Moldova, within the framework of the National Coordination
Committee meeting16.
Also, the public consultations of the PRBMP are established to be held in May 2015 17.
The public will be informed through the following tools:
 EPIRB project web site (www.blacksea-riverbasins.net/ , up to date
information, documents and draft documents placed regularly on the specific
web pages/ „microsites” for the pilot basins (http://blackseariverbasins.net/en/pilot-river-basins ) and used also for public awareness
activity;
 website of the competent authorities (Ministry of Environment Moldova:
http://mediu.gov.md/index.php/en/ ; State Agency “Apele Moldovei”
http://www.apelemoldovei.gov.md/?l=ro
 In the Flow twice-yearly newsletter of the EPIRB project, including also specific
information of the pilot basin activities;
 EPIRB project leaflets;
 links will be made with other relevant web sites (e.g. websites of relevant
governmental organizations http://www.dbga.md/, scientific institutions as
Institute of Ecology and Geography of Academy of Science of Moldova
http://ieg.asm.md/ , NGOs, NGO: Eco-tiras: http://www.ecotiras.org/ ;
Miscarea Ecologica din Moldova: http://www.mem.md/ ; Aarhus Centre, DCP
WWF, as well as with relevant project web sites);
 articles published in local and national media, and information given through
TV and radio channels;
 Press releases;
 direct e-mail lists used to reach key stakeholders; (REC Moldova; Aarhus
Centre, platform run by EcoContact in Moldova);
 different events related to the project or related to other projects, activities
or events when information can be disseminated, or which can be used for
public awareness raising, outreach activities etc., such as World Water Day,
Danube Day, Black Sea Day etc.
 photos, videos about the pilot basin (assets, risks, challenges, etc.).
Depending on the feedback from the public consultation and the experts’ team, draft
will be reviewed, completed and modified. After PRBMP completing and approving, work
team will select the necessary information from PRBMP for the Danube RBMP.
HYDROGRAPHIC NETWORK
The Moldavian part of the basin is a relatively a narrow strip with a length of 340 km, a width
up to 70 km (average width of 51km) and it is characterized by a variety of physical and
geographical features. These differences are largely attributable to the geological structure,
geomorphological and climatic conditions of the basin.
Prut River Basin within the limits of the Republic of Moldova – has a total area of 8140 km2, in
which there have been delineated 83 river water bodies, with a total length of 2152 km. The
average length of RWBs is 24,3 km, only 2 RWBs have a length over 100km, the average RWBs
basin area is 94 km2, 61 RWBs basins have an area less than 100 km2.
The surface water bodies have been designated as follows:
- 71.98% natural water bodies (WB)
- 27.14% heavily modifies WB (HMWB)
- 0.88% artificial WB
16
http://blacksea-riverbasins.net/en/pilot-basins/prut-basin
17
http://blacksea-riverbasins.net/en/public-consultation-prut-%E2%80%93-moldova-chisinau
69
Figure 18 - River water bodies of the Prut River Basin in the limits of Moldova
Source: State Hydrometeorological Service
In Moldova Republic Prut River basin is characterized by moderately continental
climate, with short, warm, little snow winters, long, hot summers and low quantities of
precipitations falling mainly in the warmer months in form of short rains.
Climate
Prut River basin is characterized by moderately continental climate, with short, warm, little
snow winters, long, hot summers and low quantities of precipitations falling mainly in the
warmer months in form of short rains. The latest cause in some years significant floods,
sometimes with damages for the national economy and population.Due to the large variability
of the weather, some years which are arid significantly affect the flow and the hydrological
regime of the Prut River basin.To the main climatic factors (solar radiation, the total
circulation of air masses, the underlying surface, including the role of the Carpathians and
70
the Black Sea) should be added also the consequences of global warming, which is likely to
prejudice the abnormally frequent alternation of warm and cold, wet and dry periods.
Water resources in Moldova
By origin lakes of the Prut River
basin are divided into natural and
anthropogenic. Within the basin there are
located about 1400 natural and artificial
lakes.
Natural lakes are located primarily
in the Prut River valley. Typically they are
very small in size, shallow in depth, and
often covered with marsh and hydrophytic
vegetation. Only four of these lakes have a
surface larger than 2 km2. By origin, they
are two types: floodplain lakes and
naturally impounded lakes.
Lakes in the section from Cahul to
Giurgiulesti are preserved even today.
The largest Prut floodplain lake is
Beleu Lake, which is located in the lower
reaches of the Prut between the villages of
Valeni and Slobozia Mare. During drought
periods, it has an area of about 6,26 km 2
and maximum depth of 1,2 m; while during
floods, it has a maximum area of 9,5 km2
and maximum depth of 2,8–3,0 m.
Naturally impounded lakes have
formed as a result from landslide processes.
They do not exceed a few hectares in area
and 1,0–1,5 m in depth. These can be found
in the landscape reserve “Suta de Movile.”
Human made water accumulations
created for different economic needs
(fisheries, irrigation, power generation,
recreation, etc.), as well as to regulate
river flow and control floods. They are
about 1350, with total area of 75,3 km 2.
They fall into two conventional categories:
ponds and reservoirs.
Ponds
are
small
water
accumulations, created in the valleys of
small rivers, primarily for local needs.
Ponds in the Prut basin in Moldova count
about 1300. Characteristically, reservoirs
created on small rivers have unequal spatial
Figure 19 - Reservoirs area related to water
distribution. They comprise 1.5–4% of the
bodies catchment area
total area of RWBs catchments in the north
of the study region, and only 0.5–1.5% in
the south (fig. 12).
Ponds and reservoirs in a big number were constructed in the small rivers floodplain
and they have modified the hydrological regime of the Prut River basin. In the central part of
the Prut River Basin more than 30% on the river lengths is impounded by the reservoirs, the
share decreases to the south and is stable in the north
Reservoirs conventionally have useful water capacity of over 1 million m3. Reservoirs
have been constructed on both small and large rivers to regulate river flow and to meet
various economic needs. Reservoirs in the Prut basin number 46, with combined (projected)
volume of 825,52 million m3.
71
Estimates show that due to siltation, the total volume of reservoirs has decreased by
an average of 0,50% per year, and the volume Costesti Reservoir – by 0,58% per year, making
its effective volume in 2011 approximately 594,4 million m 3.
The reserves of groundwater within the basin are 137,38 million m 3/year of which are being
used 50,61million m3/year as follows: 39,84million m3/year as household water (78,32%),
10,16 million m3/year as technical water (20,09%) and an amount of 0,71 million m3/year
(1,58%) is used in heath-medical-recreational purposes.
HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Surface waters - rivers
Examination and determination of surface water resources is based on stationary and
automatic network of hydrometric stations and posts (hydrological monitoring), leading
monitoring of water regime river systems. Modern hydrological monitoring network in the Prut
River basin consists of 9 quantitative (Q) and 5 level (H) stations, also there are 4 posts on the
Costesti-Stînca reservoir. The average density of the hydrological network on the left bank
tributaries of the Prut River is 1 post at 1173 km 2, which does not meet modern requirements
for reliable water resources study.
Materials on the measurement of river flow on the Prut River, within the territory of
Moldova, are existing only for three monitoring points with different periods of continuous
observation. The most complete set of data (55 years) are contained in the post Ungheni. The
series of continuous observations of the flow of the Prut River are short and do not exceed 28
years for the following posts: Leova, Costesti and Sirauti. The task of a reliable assessment of
surface water resources in the catchment area of the Moldavian Prut River is accomplished
for annual flow measurements at the posts: Sirauti, Costesti, Ungheni and Leova to a single
period (1945 to 2010), which covers two intrasecular cycles. As a basic-analog section it is
presented the hydrometric post near Ungheni city, for which there are long-term observations
from 1945 to 2010.
Table 6 - Results of determining of surface water resources Prut River statistical
parameters
Quantitative characteristics of the water resources of the Prut
River in sections:
Characteristics
Sireuti v.
Costesti, HP
Ungheni c.
Leova c.
Estuary
Catchment area, km2
9230
11800
15200
23400
27540
Norm of Annual
Discharge: water flow,
m3/s;
77,7
83,0
86,7
90,8
93,7
volume, km3/zear;
2,45
2,62
2,74
2,78
2,96
runoff, l/s.km2;
8,42
7,03
5,71
3,88
3,40
runoff layer, mm
266
222
180
122
107
The coefficient of
variation, Cv
0,33
0,32
0,34
0,34
0,34
The asymmetry factor,
Cs
2Сv
2Cv
2Cv
2Cv
2Cv
2,92
3,01
3,28
3,44
3,55
2,35
2,54
2,63
2,75
2,84
The discharge 25 %
sufficiency, km3/g.
Same 50 %
72
Same75 %
1,86
2,04
2,05
2,15
2,22
Same95 %
1,30
1,47
1,37
1,43
1,48
Figure 20 - Water resources of the Prut River at Sirauti and Ungheni posts
Monitoring in the Prut River Basin
Environmental monitoring - a complex system by which the government systematically
monitors the state of the environment, natural resources and anthropogenic impact.
Monitoring is based on both temporal and spatial terms, and thus is able to provide
information and legal framework for rapid solve problems related to the environment.
Surface water monitoring
Surface water quality monitoring in the Republic of Moldova was conducted beginning
with the 60’s of the last century, but systematic and comprehensive character he acquired
only in the 80’s, with an emphasis on the monitoring of transboundary rivers: Nistru and Prut.
Ever since the main purpose of monitoring is to determine the level of contamination of
surface waters, to identify cases of extremely high pollution, to monitor pollution sources, as
well as to send timely notifications to local and central authorities authorized to take
decisions for the elimination or mitigation of the effects.
The State Hydrometeorological Service is the institution assigned by law 18at national
level to monitors the quality of components of the environment throughout the country, and
which has the following priorities:
 monitoring of surface water quality and determining the level of
contamination;
 rapid detection and reporting of cases of high and extremely high levels of
pollution;
 notification in urgent mode the governmental and local authorities, as well as
ministries and departments responsible for decision-making;
 systemic information on surface water quality on the territory of the Republic
of Moldova.
Surface water quality monitoring at national level is carried out on the basis of legal
acts, among which the most important are the Laws of the Republic of Moldova:
 Water Law, nr. 272 of 23.12.2011;
18
Water Law, no. 272 of 23.12.2011; Regulation on monitoring systematic evidence of the surface and ground waters’
status (GD 932 of 20.11.2013); Regulation on surface water environmental quality requirements (GD 890 of
12.11.2013)
73
Law on Environmental Protection nr. 1515-XII, June 16th 1993;
Law on Hydrometeorological Activity, nr. 1536-XIII from 25 February 1998;
Law on Protection Zones and Strips of water, rivers and reservoirs, nr. 440-XIII
from April 27, 1995;
 Law on Natural Resources, nr. 1102-XIII from 6 February 1997;
 Law on drinking water, №272-XIV of 10 February 1999;
 Law on Access to Information, №982-XIV of 11 May 2000;
And Government-decrees:
 Regulation on monitoring systematic evidence of the surface and ground waters’
status (GD 932 of 20.11.2013);
 Regulation on surface water environmental quality requirements (GD 890 of
12.11.2013);
 On some Measures for Regulating the use of aquatic basins nr. 1202 from 8
November 2001;
 On approval of program for the development Water Management and hydromelioration in the Republic of Moldova for 2011-2020 nr. 751 from 05.10.2011
 On measures establishing riparian areas and files of protection for rivers and
water basins, nr 32 from 16.01.2001.
Systematical monitoring of surface water quality in the Prut River basin was carried
out in 13 control points until 2013 (fig. 18). Beginning with 2014 there was established
another monitoring program for the Prut River Basin in accordance with the EU WFD 2000/60
which consists of 30 monitoring stations: 8 points situated on Prut River, 1-.artificial lake, 2 –
natural lakes and 19 – on tributaries.
Transboundary monitoring on the Prut River with Romania is conducted according
with the Regulation of bilateral cooperation with the National Administration “Apele
Române” and Basin Department Prut-Bârlad (Iasi)in seven monitoring points:
 joint monthly monitoring sampling and equivalent exchange of information
with experts from Romania is being conducted at the following sections:
Ungeni city, Valea Mare and Giurgiulesti villages;
 quarterly sampling monitoring and equivalent exchange of information with
experts from Romania is being conducted at sections: Sirauti, Costesti, Leova,
Cahul.
Transboundary monitoring on the Prut River with Ukraine: Since 2009, there is conducted
quarterly joint monitoring sampling and exchange of information on Prut River with Ukraine.
The program of joint water sampling at the border between the Republic of Moldova and
Ukraine has been prepared by the working group and agreed with the laboratories that should
be involved in joint sampling and sharing of information. Together with the Nistru - Prut River
Basin Water Resources Management (Cernauti town) it is conducted sampling and exchange of
information on the Prut River at the monitoring station “Mamaliga-Criva” (border crossing).



74
Figure 21 - Surface Water Monitoring on the territory of Republic of Moldova
Source: State Hydro meteorological Service
Transboundary monitoring on the rivers Prut and the Danube within the Transnational
Monitoring Network (TNMN), International Commission for the Protection of Danube River
(ICPDR). Within the the Transnational Monitoring Network (TNMN) on the Prut River there are
selected 5 monitoring points (Sirauti, Costesti, Braniste, Valea Mare and Giurgiulesti) to be
analyzed monthly by 73 hydrochemical parameters and 21 indicators of quality for sediments.
The quality of surface waters in the limits of the Prut River Basin was assessed based
on the Regulation on Environmental Quality requirements for surface waters, GD. 890 of
12.11.2013 which partially transposes Annex V and Annex X of WFD and provides the values
for temperature, acidity/alkalinity, dissolved oxygen, chemical and microbiological
parameters and is an obligatory working tool for authorities responsible for water
management and environmental protection to evaluate quality of water resources.
75
In 2013 N-NH4 concentration was higher in the Northern part of the Prut River where
it inflows from Ukraine to the territory of the Republic of Moldova. It corresponds to III
quality class and then, due to dilution and low pollution in the limits of the Republic of
Moldova, the quality class increased to II and was relatively stable. N-NH4 concentration
increases in small rivers (Ciuhur, Lapusna), only Sarata river being at III quality class.
Concentration of BOD in Prut River basin water does not have essential changes in the
period 2012-2013. Nevertheless it is essentially increases in Prut River tributaries (Sarata,
Lapusna and Ciuhur), where the highest value is 9,4 mgO 2/l (Sarata River).
Table 7 - Variation of qualitative parameter values (NH4, BOD, total phosphorus,
mineralization), 2012-2013 years, percentiles
Regulation on Environmental Quality requirements for surface waters,GD nr.890 from
12.11.2013
Quality
N-NH4,
mg N/l
parameter
Stations
On Prut River
2012
CBO5,
mgO2/l
2013
2012
2013
Ptotal,
mg P/l
2012
2013
Mineralization,
mg/l
2012
2013
Prut r.-Criva v.
0,64
0,35
3,10
2,36
0,08
0,0473
617
472,7
Sirauti v.
0,53
0,46
3,23
3,27
0,07
0,062
492
476,3
Braniste v.
Ungheni c.
0,07
0,10
0,218
0,224
2,64
2,16
2,608
2,667
0,07
0,14
0,0447
0,0826
457
471
428,9
533,7
V.Mare v.
0,25
0,328
3,00
3,581
0,17
0,3064
569
667,4
Leova v.
Cahul v.
0,30
0,18
0,293
0,2
2,46
2,44
2,374
2,332
0,12
0,12
0,2338
0,07
551
541
695,6
643,4
Giurgiulesti v.
0,36
0,197
2,81
2,633
0,11
0,1436
540
633
Tributaries
Ciuhur river
0,26
0,492
6,85
6,796
0,239
1230
Lapusna river
3,3
0,456
5,89
5,226
0,165
4263
Sarata river
0,13
0,3
6,20
9,408
0,25
3
0,30
6
0,18
0,184
3206
1237,
2
2437,
1
3760,
6
Concentration of phosphorus for Prut River represents stable values and indicate
mainly Ist water quality class except for the region of confluence of Prut River and its
tributary Jijia which is situated in Romania. Dramatic decrease of water quality from I-st class
to III-rd class can be explained by polluted waters of Jijia possibly because produced by
accidental pollution.
Small rivers (Sarata, Ciuhur) are the most affected by pollution with sulphates, fact
that is observed in the tables 17 and 18.
Table 8 - Variation of qualitative parameter values (pH, O2, SO4, NO3), 2012-2013 years
Regulation on Environmental Quality requirements for surface waters, GD nr.890 from
12.11.2013
76
Quality
O2,
mgO2/l
pH
parameter
Stations
on Prut River
Prut R. -Criva
v.
Sirauti v.
Braniste v.
Ungheni c.
Valea Mare v.
Leova v.
Cahul v.
Giurgiulesti v.
Tributaries
Ciuhur River
Lapusna River
Sarata River
2012
2013
2012
2013
SO4,
mg/l
2012
N-NO3,
mg N/l
2013
2012
2013
8,34
8,548
8,34
7,76
92,3
96,82
1,39
0,907
8,35
8,50
8,53
8,44
8,50
8,50
8,29
8,623
8,58
8,437
8,434
8,588
8,428
8,343
7,00
7,70
7,43
7,10
8,3
6,85
7,03
8,317
8,205
7,852
7,571
7,699
7,616
7,49
115
89,4
109
132
125
126
131
112,6
89,2
136,5
194,8
201,5
184,2
185,8
1,28
0,83
0,89
1,38
1,39
1,23
1,41
1,227
1,186
1,275
2,019
2,009
1,64
1,986
8,75
8,41
8,65
8,704
8,454
8,662
14,16
8,14
9,77
8,321
5,748
6,809
317
1582
1288
363,5
1098,3
1618,7
0,05
2,112
4,785
2,454
From specific pollutants in 2013 it was encountered oil products in all monitoring
points, the biggest value was registered at Valea Mare v. - 0,90 mg/l, which exceeds 18 times
the maximum allowable concentration. Analyzing the overall situation easily one can notice a
major influence on the quality of Prut River exercised by the right tributary Jijia River.
Prut River is one of the main water resources of the Republic of Moldova. The hydro chemical
analyses during the 2012 – 2013, show that Prut River basin water quality corresponds to the
III-rd class (moderately polluted) to the V-th class (very polluted) especially on tributaries
(table 9, fig. 22).
Based on the analyzes made monthly it can be seen that the most polluted periods are
winter and spring, when the highest values of monitored parameters are recorded, a fact that
can be explained by decreasing of Prut river flow in this period and increasing of volumes of
waste water discharges in the rivers.
Regulation on Environmental Quality requirements for surface waters, GD nr.890 from
12.11.2013
Chemical
r.Prut, s.Criva
r.Prut, s. Sirauti
r.Prut, s.Braniste
rPrut, or. Ungheni
r. Prut, s.Valea Mare
r. Prut, or.Leova
r.Prut, or.Cahul
r.Prut, s.Giurgiulesti
baz.Costesti, or.Costești
lac.Manta, s.Manta
lac.Beleu, s.Slobozia Mare
r.Ciuhur, s.Horodiste
r.Lapusna, s.Sarata Razesi
r.Sarata, s.Vilcele
Table 9 - Water quality classes for Prut River
Source: State Hydro meteorological Service
Institute of Ecology and Geography
III
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
III
IV
V
V
and tributaries
Biological
II
II
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
IV
IV
V
77
Figure 22 - Prut River basin water
bodies’ quality classes
Source: State Hydro meteorological
Service
Along
with
chemical
monitoring, Prut River basin is being
monitored since 1976. It is well
known that water quality, its
biological integrity is determined by
the
state
of
biocoenosis.
Environmental monitoring according
to the hydrobiological elements
provides the possibility of direct
evaluation of the status of aquatic
ecosystems and allows to observe
long-term processes of change on
organisms in aquatic ecosystems and
to determine all complex human
impact.
Analysis
of
biological
elements establishes the saprobity of
the aquatic environment, indicating
the degree of organic pollution with
elements of decay, toxic pollution
for certain organisms and presents
an integrated picture of the
ecological status of water quality.
In the composition of
hydrobiological
elements
for
assessment of ecological status of
aquatic ecosystems, are included the
following groups of organisms:
bacterioplancton,
phytoplankton
including
chlorophyll
“a”,
zooplankton,
macrozoobenthos,
phytobenthos and macrophytes. For
hydrobiological elements there are
taken 2 or 3 samples per year from
each section.
Prut River’s phytoplankton is
composed of species from the
following
taxa:
Cyanophyta,
Bacillariophyta,
Chlorophyta,
Heterokontophyta şi Euglenophyta.
During 2013 the composition of phytoplankton in samples taken from Prut River was consisted
of 120 species from which: Bacillariophyta - 72; Chlorophyta - 29; Euglenophyta - 10;
Cyanophyta - 9; Heterokontophyta - 1. The saprobic index of algae found took values from
1.85 to 2.57 situating the quality of the river in the limits of te II-nd class („good”) for all
monitoring sections, excepr Prut-near Giurgiulesti village where it coresponds to the III-rd
quality class („moderatly poluuted”)
Chlorophyll “a” monitoring shows that the best quality of water Prut River has on the
sector beginning with Ungheni and finishing at Leova (average 1,27μg/l), while the most
polluted were the monitoring points near Sirauti village and Cahul town (average 3,51 μg/l).
78
Frecvenţa, %
The activity of phytoplankton photosynthesis in Prut River corresponds to the mesotrophic
type aquatic ecosystem.
The zooplankton community comprises species from four taxonomic groups: Rotifera,
Harpacticoida, Cladocera and Copepoda. Ussualy there are present organisms with different
saprobic levels. The most abundant were oligosaprobic species: Alona rectangula, Filinia
cornuta, Polyarthra dolichoptera, Canthocampus bidens. Anyway there are found frequently
also oligo-betamezosaprobic organisms as Lecane luna, Notholca squamula, Daphnia
cucullata, Bosmina coregone; or even some beta-alphasaprobic species: Brachionus
calyciflorus, Cyclops strenuus (fig. 21).
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Harpacticoida
Cladocera
Copepoda
Rotifera
Secţiunile de prelevare
Figure 23 - Frequency of the main zooplanktonic taxonomic groups in Prut River in 2013
The water quality can be assessed also analyzing the benthic community: algae and
macroinvertebrates. The benthic algae community consists of: Cymbella helvetica,
Stephanodiscus atraea, Amphora ovalis, Synedra ulna, Rhoicosphenia curvata, Melosira
varians, Gyrosigma acuminatum, Diatoma vulgare, Cocconeis pediculus, Cymatopleura solea,
Caloneis amphisbaena, Navicula menisculus, Nitzschia recta, etc. Alphasaprobic species
(Nitzschia acicularis, N. palea, Navicula cryptocephala, N. pygmaea) were determined in
places with increased organic content. It was stated that the sample collected near Cantemir
town during Joint Field Survey “Prut-2013”was showing that the quality of water is worst
herein comparison with the other Prut River sections. This could be possible taking into
account that in this region might be discharged large amounts of pollutants due to the
increased impact of the town. Here should be mentioned the railroad bridge and the customs
office which have also an impact on the quality of water.
The basic structure of benthic community of Prut Riverconsists of the following taxa:
Oligochaeta, Chironomidae, Mollusca (Viviparus viviparus, Esperiana esperi, Unio tumidus,
Theodoxus fluviatilis, Unio pictorum, Physella acuta, Radix peregra, Lithoglyphus naticoides,
Stagnicola palustris, Dreissena polymorpha, Pisidium casertanum), Insect (Heptagenia sp.,
Gomphus vulgatissimus, Potamophylax sp., Tabanus sp., Hydropsyche instabilis, Corixa sp.,
Haliplus sp., Mesovelia furcata), Crustacea (Corophium nobile, Limnomysis benedeni,
Gammarus kischineffensis, Dikerogammarus haemobaphes).
79
Indicele saprobic
2.2
2.1
2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
Secţiunile de prelevare
Figure 24 - Macrozoobenthos saprobic index in Prut River for 2013 year
During 2013 vegetative period the saprobic index of benthic organisms varied between
1.79-and 2.13. According to the Regulation on Environmental Quality requirements for surface
waters, GD nr.890 from 12.11.2013, Prut River water quality class is assessed as the second
class “good”, while the first class “very good” was only for Prut – Sculeni, (fig. 23).
I
Quality classes
III
II
I
Bacterioplankton
Phytoplancton
Zooplankton
Phytobenthos
Macrozoobenthos
Figure 25 - Water quality classes for Prut River according to hydrobiology in 2013
HYDRO MORPHOLOGICAL MONITORING
Currently, the infrastructure of hydro morphological monitoring includes 21 posts, of
which 17 posts are located on the Prut River, 6 on its tributaries and 4 posts – on the reservoir
Costesti-Stanca. Within the framework of the Moldovian-Czech project "Monitoring of surface
water and flood protection in the Prut River basin" with the help of Government of the Czech
Republic and the Czech Development Agency, in 2012 there were established 11 automatic
hydrological stations. This will significantly improve the reliability of hydrological monitoring
in the future on the tranboundary river, which will provide public authorities, economic
agents and the population with operational information, warnings of possible floods or other
hydrological and technological risks.
The hydro morphological monitoring and assessment for the river network in the
Republic of Moldova as a whole and in the basin of the river Prut in particular, has not been
conducted so far due to lack of finance and insufficiency of equipment and specialists. The
latest information on spatial position of the Prut river bed goes back to 2007, when the last
80
orthophoto plans of the national territory was taken. In the meantime, two powerful floods of
2008 and 2010 changed the river bed significantly.
As for the tributaries, their beds were digitized based on the orthophotos taken in
2007. It appeared that their location is different from the one, provided on topographic maps
of the twentieth century.
Unfortunately, no regular monitoring over deformations of the bed and suspended
sediment flow has been conducted so far. Long-time average annual data for a number of
parameters of hydrological monitoring within the basin are shown in table 1.13.
The JFS 201319 results have shown that hydro morphological alterations considerably
affect the ecological status of rivers. The most significant pressures in Prut pilot basin are the
interruption of the river continuity by dam construction and water abstraction. All small
tributaries are regulated (cascades of dams) and usually are not in good ecological conditions.
PRESSURES, IMPACT AND RISK ASSESSMENT
One of the key objectives of the Water Law, stipulated in its first article, is to
prevent further deterioration, protects and improvement of aquatic ecosystems and, with
regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the
aquatic ecosystems.
Water Law and normative documents drawn up in accordance with it serve as support
in reforming the system of management of water resources by:
- Developing management plans for water resources in the river basin districts;
- Achieving and maintaining good status of surface water and groundwater;
- Defining five classes of surface water quality taking into account a wide set of
chemical, microbiological and biological parameters;
- Establishment of protection zones located within the river basin district;
- Establishment of environmental objectives;
- economic analysis of water use taking into account the principle of cost recovery of
water services;
- Taking measures to gradually reduce wastewater discharges, emissions and losses
of priority hazardous substances etc.
In 2014 there have been delimited 83 water bodies in the Prut River District:
 15 on Prut River
 68 on tributaries (figure 25).
The impact on water bodies within the Prut River Basin can be divided into two groups:
1. Modification of hydrological regime of the water bodies within the basin
Natural – regular floods, earth flows and mudflows.
Anthropogenic – excessive control of the river flow through the construction of dams and
reservoirs, ponds, small HPPs; establishment of flood protection facilities in the form of
dams, dikes, bypass channels; water abstraction for household use, irrigation and industry;
deforestation; removal of gravel; navigation; rafting and uncontrolled development of the
floodplain.
2. Modification of qualitative characteristics of ground and surface water recourses
Natural – high natural turbidity of the water in the lower reaches of the river due to ground
ablation during rainfalls.
Anthropogenic – wastewater discharge which is untreated or insufficiently treated by the
municipal sewage treatment plants (concentration of ammonium ions, nitrite ions, BOD,
copper, and iron exceeds the MAC in the water bodies downstream of the discharge points
from sewage treatment plants of all the cities within the basin); diffuse pollution coming
19
Conducted in summer 2013 in the frame of the EPIRB project
81
from the agricultural land, livestock farms, landfills; water saturation with nutrients due to
high concentration of organic matters in the water during the summer period as a
consequence of low oxygen content in the water.
During the pressure and impact analysis a special attention was paid to the surface
water bodies, which correspond with Prut River main tributaries and which are heavily
modified by hydro-morphological alterations especially by flow regulation and reservoirs
construction. These activities influence negatively on ecological status of water bodies and
create difficulties to identify Maximum Ecological Potential for these water bodies.
Another problem, which was analyzed in more detail, is assessment of impact of insufficient
treated wastewater from industry and agriculture. The territory of the Republic of Moldova
(together with the Prut River Basin) is affected by frequent droughts and characterized by
insufficient water resources especially in the Southern part where the water resources still
are a serious concern for country development.
According to the “Analysis of pressures and impacts on water bodies and assessment
of water bodies at risk of failing the environmental objectives in the Prut River Basin”
prepared by Institute of Ecology and Geography of the Academy of Science of Moldova, almost
all water bodies in the Prut River Basin are considered at risk of failing the environmental
objectives (table 21, figure 1-6).
This can be explained by the fact that almost all water bodies are subject to specific
types of pressure: pollution, particularly diffuse pollution from agriculture, point pollution
caused by wastewater discharge, morphological alteration: possible (illegal) water
abstraction, impoundment effect and flow regulation.
Analysis of water bodies at risk was made
by attributing to water bodies the type of risk and
respective colour: green, orange, red (tab. 21)
according to recommendation from Guidance
Document addressing hydro morphology and
physico-chemistry
for
a
Pressure-Impact
Analysis/Risk Assessment according to the EU WFD.
The same approach was used when creating the maps
Risk
Colour
value
Low risk
green
1
Moderate risk
yellow
High risk
red
Table 21. Types of risk
2
3
from this report.
HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL ALTERATIONS:
According to impoundment/reservoirs effect, of the total number of surface water
bodies (WB), 20 water bodies are not affected by reservoirs at all and only 11 WB are poorly
influenced by reservoirs and are included in group of water bodies not at risk (tab. 22). They
are represented by the Prut River (there is only one reservoir -Costesti-Stinca) and some of its
tributaries, which are located in the plateau areas, where the construction of reservoirs is
more problematic. 30 water bodies are subject to moderate risk (ex. Ciuhur, Sarata, etc.),
and 22 water bodies are subject to high risk. Water bodies at risk are predominantly located
in the North, most of them being within the limits of the Middle Prut Plain (Caldarusa,
Glodeanca, Ustia, Girla Mare, Soltoaia, etc.). Here, as a result of construction of dams in the
1950-1990s, about 1500 reservoirs have been created.
Table 10 - Hydro morphological alterations. Pressure: Impoundment / Reservoir Effect
Source: Institute of Ecology and Geography
<10 / No
Impounded length of RWBs, %
10.01-30
>30
reservoirs
Number of RWBs
Percentage, %
Total lengths, km
Percentage, %
11 / 20
30
22
13/24
36
27
296 / 755
657
444
14/35
31
21
82
The highest water abstractions from the Prut River are recorded in the most
populated districts and, respectively, the most industrialized–Edinet, Ungheni and Cahul.
During the last 20 years water abstraction decreased by almost 13 times and for now does not
represent a high pressure on water resources. One of the main problems are unauthorized
abstractions of water from small and medium sized rivers, because this phenomenon exists
(but there is no official information about it) and in dry periods it can create unsatisfactory
conditions for rivers state all RWBs were attributed to category possible at risk (tab. 23).
Another problem associated with the impact on the water resources is the unauthorized use
of the surface water and, most of all, groundwater in rural areas, violations of sanitary
protection zones of wells, lack of water meters, etc.
Table 11 - Hydro morphological alterations. Pressure: Abstraction of water
Moderate
High
water
Abstraction
No abstraction
abstraction or
abstraction
NO info
Number of RWBs
83
Percentage, %
-
100
-
Total lengths, km
-
2152
-
Percentage, %
-
100
-
The dams have both a positive influence, through its function of flood protection, and
negative influence by increasing the velocity of the river flow. The main dams have been built
in lowland regions-middle and lower part of the Prut River Basin. Thus, according to length of
dams, related to length of the RWBs, Cahul, Cantemir, Leova, Hîncesti districts are
highlighted (all in the lower course of Prut River) and Făleşti and Glodeni districts (in the
middle course of the Prut River). Water bodies possible at risk are in number of 4 with a
length of 318 km and only one RWB is at risk with a length of 55 km (tab. 24, fig. 27, fig. 30).
Table 12 - morphological alterations. Pressure: Embankments
Length of dams related to river
<30/ No dams
30-70
lengths, %
Number of RWBs
8/70
4
>70
1
Percentage, %
10/84
5
1
Total lengths, km
307/1472
318
55
Percentage, %
14/68
15
3
The density of irrigation canals depends on the specifics of landscape, having the
same spatial distribution as protection dams. The biggest irrigation systems are located in the
lowlands, within the limits of Cahul, Cantemir, Leova, Hincesti districts. These are increasing,
due to expansion of irrigated areas projects, so that the influence of this factor will increase.
At present total number of water bodies at risk is 4 but the total lengths of these water
bodies is 391 km (tab. 25, fig. 27, fig. 30).
Table 13 - Hydro morphological alterations. Pressure: Canals
Density
of
canals
network, <0.1
/
No
0.1-0.3
km/km2
canals
Number of RWBs
31/42
6
>0.3
4
Percentage, %
37/51
7
5
Total lengths, km
715/873
173
391
Percentage, %
33/41
8
18
83
DIFFUSE POLUTION:
One of the most significant sources of diffuse pollution is agriculture, which
contribute to groundwater and surface water pollution including typical agricultural
contaminants, such as nutrients from fertilizers, pesticides and other plant protection
products. Considering the type of land use, the Prut River Basin is presented as a typical
agrarian region, only 3 of water bodies are at possible risk. The remaining 80 water bodies are
in obvious risk of pollution (tab. 26, fig. 26, fig. 29).
Table 14 - Diffuse pollution. Pressure: Agriculture
Driver: Agriculture
<0.1
0.1-0.3
>0.3
Number of RWBs
-
3
80
Percentage, %
-
4
96
Total lengths, km
-
60
2092
Percentage, %
-
3
97
The number of animal livestock has a low and moderate impact on RWBs. 58 of water
bodies do not have any risk of alteration, especially those situated in the plains of the Middle
and Inferior Prut. But, 25 water bodies in the region of Edinet, Nisporeni and Cantemir
districts are at possible risk (tab. 27, fig. 29, fig. 30).
Table 15 - Diffuse pollution. Pressure: Animal livestock
Driver: Animal livestock
<0.3
0.3-1
>1
Number of RWBs
58
25
-
Percentage, %
70
30
-
Total lengths, km
1313
839
-
Percentage, %
61
39
-
Table 16 – Point pollution. Presure: Total share of wastewater in the river (Sww)
Source: Institute of Ecology and Georgraphy
Total share of wastewater in
0.05-0.1 /
<0.05
>0.1
the river
No data
Number of RWBs
42
4/36
1
Percentage, %
51
5/43
1
Total lengths, km
1343
71/727
10
Percentage, %
62
3/34
0.5
POINT POLLUTION:
The water quality is influenced by the discharge of untreated or insufficiently treated
waste water from sewage station sinto the natural receivers. The highest volumes of
untreated waste water derived from the localities which have water supply but do not have
sewerage systems and wastewater treatment stations. Most of water bodies do not have any
risk of alteration and only 1 is at potential risk of pollution and is located near Edinet Town.
84
Specific wastewater in the river
<1
1-1.5
>30
Number of RWBs
14
1
68
Percentage, %
17
1
82
Total lengths, km
519
78
1556
Percentage, %
24
4
72
Table
Point
pollutio
n.
Pressure
:
Specific
17
wastewater in the river (Dww)
Source: Institute of Ecology and Georgraphy
Specific wastewater discharge is based on the total number of inhabitants in the
water bodies and the minimum flow. Taking into account that in the Prut River basin the
number of population is high and minimum flow is low, 68 of water bodies are at risk of
alteration. On the other hand, 14 of the water bodies do not show any changes.
The overall pressure was calculated by summing up all types of pressures with specific
risk criteria by attributing to water bodies a coefficient according to the type of risk from 1
(low risk) to 3 (at risk).
Hydro morphological pressure was assumed to be a sum of all pressures:
impoundments/reservoir effect, hydro-peaking, water abstraction, levees and irrigation
channels, in total it gave a sum of 15 points and respectively to low pressure the RWBs of 1-5
points were attributed, to moderate pressure those with 6-10 points and to high pressure
those with 11-15 points.
The same procedure was execute when analyzing the pollution pressure: agriculture,
animal livestock, total and specific water discharge, in total the sum is 12 points and
respectively to low pressure the RWBs of 1-4 points were attributed, to moderate pressure
those with 5-8 points and to high pressure those with 9-12 points.
Overall pressure is a sum of points of hydro morphological alteration and pollution
pressure rise to maximum 27 points. Classification of RWBs under different pressure was
executed like in previous steps by dividing the total number to 3 classes.
The influence of hydro morphological alteration is low for 26RWBs (especially the Prut
River itself) and is moderate to 57 water bodies (most tributaries). There are no RWBs at high
pressure.
The influence of pollution sources (diffuses and point pollution) in comparison with
hydro morphological alteration is higher on surface water bodies. Of the total number of
water bodies, there are not RWBs with low pressure; 37 water bodies are subject to moderate
pressure and 46 water bodies - high pressure. The water bodies at high pressure are
tributaries that flow through large urban centers, where a high amount of untreated
wastewater discharges is present(Larga, Ciuhur, Draghiste, Lăpusnita, Nîrnova, etc).
Summing these pressures all 83 RWBs are subject to moderate pressure. All these data
will be reassessed during the integration of data and results from Ukrainian side of the basin.
Table 18 - Human pressure/impact
Pressure: Hydromophological alteration and pollution (Principle: Sum of parameters)
Low pressure
Moderate pressure
High pressure
Total
Total
Pressure
Number
Total
Number
Number
lengths,
lengths,
of RWBs lengths, km of RWBs
of RWBs
km
km
Hydromophological
26
644
57
1508
alteration (HA)
Percentage, %
31
30
69
70
Pollution (P)
-
-
Percentage, %
Overall pressure (OP)
-
-
37
1137
46
1015
45
53
55
47
83
2152
-
-
85
Percentage, %
Figure 26 - Pollution pressure on RWBs
(Principle: Sum of parameters)
100
100
Figure 27 - Hydromorphological alteration
pressure on RWBs (Principle: Sum of
parameters)
86
The most important principle for
identification of water bodies at risk of
failing the environmental objectives is
the
principle
One-Out-All-Out
(described in Guidance Document
addressing
hydromorphology
and
physico-chemistry for a Pressure-Impact
Analysis/Risk Assessment according to
the EU WFD). This approach is based on
the principle that each pressure that
exceeds one of the risk criteria has an
effect on the risk status of the entire
water body. The entire affected water
body needs to be put at risk to fail the
environmental objectives in case a risk
criterion is exceeded at a distinct
location in a water body.
Almost all water bodies in the
Prut River Basin are considered at risk
of failing the environmental objectives
(table 31, fig. 29-30). This can be
explained by the fact that almost all
water bodies are subject to specific
types
of
pressure:
pollution,
particularly diffuse pollution from
agriculture, point pollution caused by
wastewater discharge, morphological
alteration: possible (illegal) water
abstraction, impoundment effect and
flow regulation.
Figure 28 - Overall pressure on RWBs
(Principle: Sum of parameters)
Source: Institute of Ecology and
Geography
87
Table 19 - RWBs at risk. Pressure: Hydromophological alteration and pollution
(Principle: One-out-all-out)
Not at risk
Possible at risk
At risk
Total
Total
Total
Number
Number
Number
lengths,
lengths,
lengths,
of RWBs
of RWBs
of RWBs
km
km
km
Hydromorphologic
57
1317
26
835
alteration
Percentage
69
61
31
39
Pollution impact
1
50
82
2102
Percentage
1
2
99
98
Overall impact
1
50
82
2102
Percentage
1
2
99
98
Figure 29 - RWBs under risk of failing of environmental objectives based on
pollution and hydromorphological alteration (Principle: One-out-all-out)
88
Figure 30 - RWBs under risk of failing of environmental objectives
(Principle: One-out-all-out)
89
Detailed description of river water bodies at risk can be found in Annex 5 of the report
“Analysis of pressures and impacts on water bodies and assessment of water bodies at risk of
failing the environmental objectives in the Prut River Basin”.
PROTECTED AREAS AND WETLANDS WITHIN THE PRUT RIVER BASIN
According to the EU Water
Framework Directive (WFD), for each
river basin when developing a program of
measures in order to improve the water
quality there should be created a register
of protected areas. In the WFD, the term
"protected areas" is much wider than the
traditional concept of these areas as
national parks, reserves, etc.
The register shall contain the
following types of areas: places intended
for the abstraction of drinking water for
human consumption; specialized areas
for the protection of economically
significant aquatic species; recreational
zones and places for swimming; sites,
especially
sensitive
to
pollution,
including: areas with high demands on
protection of water and soil from
agricultural nitrate pollution and areas
with high requirements for municipal
wastewater
treatment;
specially
protected natural areas which serve as
habitats for living organisms, where the
maintenance or improvement of water is
necessary to protect them.
In this regard, in the register of
specially protected areas of the Prut
River basin, there are included:
1.
20
Designated places for potable water
from the surface water reserve of the
Prut River basin which are under
control of municipal water canal.
These include20:
 Water intake from Edinet city
(IM
"Apa-Canal"
SA)
withdrawn 1662,2 thousands
m3 (2010);
 Glodeni Sugar factory (IM
"MAGT VEST" SRL) -310,5
thousand m3 (2010)
 Ungheni
city
water
abstraction(IM
"Apa-Canal"
SA) - withdrawn 2 304,5
thousands m3 (2010);
 Leova
town
water
abstraction(IM
"Apa-Canal"
Figure 31 - Protected areas and wetland in
the Prut River Basin
Information about local water extraction for irrigation and technical needs from ponds, reservoirs, and
directly from the river Prut is limited.
90
SA) - withdrawn 221,0thousands m3 (2010);
 Cantemir town water abstraction(IM "Apa-Canal" SA) - withdrawn 130,0thousands
m3 (2010);
 Cahul town water abstraction(IM "Apa-Canal" SA) - withdrawn 1 898,3 thousands
m3 (2010), (fig. 6).
2.
The specialized areas for the protection of economic aquatic species include fish farm
from Crihana village, Cahul district and reservoir Costeşti -Stinca.
3.
According to the Decree of the Government of the Republic of Moldova Nr.737 from
11.06.2002 on the regulation of recreational areas, in the basin of the Prut River the list
of recreation zones of national importance includes Recreation Area Costeşti (Costeşti,
Riscani district).
4.
For areas with high requirements for municipal wastewater treatment in the basin of Prut
there should be attributed primarily to the cities where there are no treatment facilities –
these are Briceni, Costesti, Bratuseni, Ocniţa; and second –to the places where there is
discharged insufficiently treated wastewater, or where there is no system of biological
wastewater treatment, such as Lipcani, Edinet, Falesti, Ungheni, Cantemir and Leova.
5.
According to the Law of the Republic of Moldova from February 25, 1998 Nr.1538-XIII "On
the fund of natural areas protected by the state" there are more than 100 protected
natural sites within the Prut River basin. Within the basin are located:
a. Scientific reserves

“Prutul de Jos”, near Slobozia Mare village, Cahul district with the area1691
hectares;

"Padurea Domneasca" with an area of 6032, situated in Glodeni and Falesti
districts.
b. Natural reserves - quite numerous

forest reserves such as Rososani, Baurci, Ciobalaccia, Dancu, Nemțeni, Sărata
Galbenă, Caracui, Sărata-Răzeși, Poganesti,Ostianovca, Seliste-Leu, Cabac,
Zberoaia-Lunca, Ocnița, Mestecanis, Climauti, Stanca, Pociumbeni, Lucaceni,
Șaptebani, Vadul lui Isaac şi Flaminda;

two complex reserves - Cantemir and the aquatic ecosystem "Lebeda Alba";

13 landscape reserves;

four resource reserves;

one multifunctional use reserve -Floodplain meadow with marsh vegetation;

A wetland of international importance –Lakes of the lower Prut (Nr. 1029 in
the Ramsar List – fig. 6).
c. In the pilot basin there are located also many natural monuments:

19- geological and paleontological;

1- hydrological;

25- botanical
In the Prut River basin there are encountered a number of rare mammals (roe, doe, red deer,
spotted deer, Central European forest cat, otter, European mink, stone marten, forest
marten, badger, weasel, forest ferret, etc.), birds (goshawk, golden eagle, sparrow, large
spotted eagle, lesser spotted eagle, red egret, yellow egret, small gull, red-crested pochard,
curly pelican, pink pelican, etc.), reptiles (Eskulapov’s snake, quad snake, marsh turtle, etc),
fish (sturgeon, stellate sturgeon, small chop, big chop, Danube salmon, burbot, etc.). In this
zone there can be found also numerous species of rare, including endemic, plants listed in the
Red Book of the Republic of Moldova (Alnus glutinosa, Alnus incana, Pyrus elaeagnifolia,
91
Astragalus (4 species), Bellevalia sarmatica Centaurea angelescui, Centaurea thirkei,
Cypripedium calceolus, Linum basarabicum).
Geomorphology
Prut River Basin is located within the upland of Moldova, where, according to the
morphology and absolute elevations of relief can be distinguished several forms of relief of
second order represented by hills and plains (fig. 1). Maximum absolute elevation of relief
reaches 424 m in Codri plateau and a minimum of about 2.4 m near the mouth of Prut. An
important characteristic of the river basin is the depth of incision of river systems or the
relative height of the relief.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATION IN THE PRUT RIVER BASIN
Considering the numerous cross-border impacts on the water quality and flow, a
special role in the protection and rational use of water resources, in the assessment of
hydrological risks and ecological state of the river basin, as a whole, is being played by
international cooperation and implementation of international and regional projects.
Being a transboundary river, Prut River basin is subject of several agreements in the
context of international cooperation such as:
•
Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International
Lakes (Water Convention, Helsinki, 1992)
•
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat
(Ramsar, 1971)
•
Convention on Co-operation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the River Danube
(Sofia, 1994)
•
Agreement between the Government of Romania and the Government of the Republic of
Moldova with regard to the Cooperation in the Area of Protection of Fish Resources and the
Regulating of Fishing in the Prut River and Stanca-Costesti Artificial Lake (Stanca-Costesti,
01.08.2003)
•
Agreement for the Establishment and Management of a Cross-Border Protected Area
between the Republic of Moldova, Romania and Ukraine in the Danube Delta and the Lower
Prut Nature Protected Areas (Bucharest, 05.06.2000)
•
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Moldova and the Government of
Ukraine on Joint Use and Protection of Transboundary Waters (Chisinau, 1994)
•
Agreement between the Government of Romania and the Government of the Republic of
Moldova on Cooperation for Protection and Sustainable Use of Water Resources of the Danube
and the Prut (Chisinau, 28.06.2010)
•
Regulation of water quality monitoring of the Prut River within the framework of
bilateral cooperation between Romania and the Republic of Moldova (1992).
On Prut river basin, Moldova and Ukraine have also agreed through bilateral agreements, such
as:
•
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Moldova and the Government of
Ukraine on Joint Use and Protection of Transboundary Waters (23.10.1994)
•
Regulation on cooperation between Moldova and Ukraine on trans-boundary water
monitoring, concluded during the 14th Meeting of Plenipotentiaries on implementation of the
1994 Agreement of the Government of the Republic of Moldova and the Government of
Ukraine (Costesti, Riscani District, Moldova, 15.06.2012).
92
BULGARIA
Bulgaria is a country located in South East Europe with a population of 7.28 million and
territory of 110.9 thousand sq. km.
The Bulgarian coast is characterized by low cliffs separated by sandy beaches. Accumulations
of sand are common along the shoreline between headlands. Large beaches are located at the
mouth of the Batova River (the Albena Beach), Golden Sands, Varna Bay, the mouth of the
Kamchia River (the Kamchia – Shkorpilovtsi Beach), Obzor, Nessebur, Pomorie, Sunny Beach
and Atanassovski Beach. Smaller beaches, generally less than 3 km in length, have formed at
the Taukliman Bay (the Rusalka Beach), Touzlata Beach (Balchik), Chaika Beach, St.
Constantine and Elena Beach, Byala Beach (Byala, Bourgas Region), Bourgas Beach (Bourgas),
Mandrenski Beach (Bourgas) and south of Bourgas down to the border with Turkey.
Behind the beaches lie extensive liman and lagoon lake systems, which are important to a
wide range of wild animals and birds. Many of these areas are protected under national or
international conservation schemes and economic activities are prohibited there. These are
some of the most important ecologically sensitive areas along the Bulgarian coast. The
UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and Nature Reserve Kamchia occupies 842 ha in an area of
floodplain forests and dunes at the mouth of the Kamchia River, an important European bird
area with unique ecosystems. The Ramsar sites, protected under the Convention on Wetlands
of International Importance, are internationally important wetlands, especially as waterfowl
habitats. These are the nature reserve at the mouth of the Ropotamo River and Maslen Cape
(1000 ha), Lake Durankulak (350 ha) and Atanassovsko Lake (1600 ha). The sites are important
stopping and wintering areas for ducks, geese, swans and many other wildfowl species.
Nature reserves along the coast established under the national legislation to protect
ecologically sensitive areas are: Cape Kaliakra (688 ha) – headland with vertical limestone
cliffs, which has important bird nesting places, caves inhabited by various animals, and a
marine territory of valuable ecosystems; and Baltata (500 ha) – coastal woods and important
bird sanctuary. The Cocketrice Bank (760 ha) in the shallow waters opposite the town of
Nessebur, a place well-known for its benthic communities, is the second Bulgarian marine
protected area under the national legislation. On the list of protected sites are Lake Shabla
(300 ha) Lake Vaya (28 000 ha), Mandrensko Lake (1000 ha) and Varna Lake (1700 ha). On the
territory of the coastal nature parks of Golden Sands (1320 ha) and Strandja (116 068 ha)
there are various nature reserves and protected sites.
The protection of all these varied environmentally sensitive areas is a difficult task as the
pressure of industry, urban development and the tourist industry for their own place in the
coastal area is great.
POLLUTION OF THE BLACK SEA
Scientists have identified several serious problems for the Black Sea associated with various
types of pollution. Their impact can be observed along the Bulgarian coast. One of the most
important is the eutrophication phenomenon or the over-fertilization of the sea by
compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus (also called nutrients), largely as a result of pollution
from agricultural, domestic and industrial sources. This is the most significant process
degrading the Black Sea. Eutrophication has changed the structure of the Black Sea
ecosystem. It has been estimated that the six coastal countries contribute about 70% of the
total amount of nutrients flowing to the Black Sea as waste from human activities. Some of
this amount and nearly all of the remaining 30% (from the countries with no direct access to
the sea) enter the Black Sea through the Danube River.
Another major problem is the discharge of insufficiently treated sewage waters, which results
in microbiological contamination and poses a threat to public health. Oil pollution threatens
the Black Sea coastal ecosystems and the levels of pollution are unacceptable in many coastal
areas and river mouths. Oil enters the marine environment as a result of operational or
accidental discharges from vessels, as well as through insufficiently treated wastewaters from
land based sources. Other toxic substances such as pesticides and heavy metals appear mostly
93
as ‘hot spots’ near well identified sources. Heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, chromium
and lead are usually associated with waste from the heavy industry and ash remaining from
burning coal for generating electricity. Pesticides enter the sea mostly through rivers and
streams due to agriculture. Radioactive substances have been introduced to the Black Sea in
small quantities from nuclear power plants and in more significant amounts after the nuclear
power plant disaster in Chernobyl in 1986. An unusual form of pollution from ships is the
introduction of exotic species, mostly through exchange of ballast waters or other
wastewaters. Introduced by accident into the Black Sea they proliferate in the new
environment for lack of natural predators that can limit their numbers. The final major type
of problematic pollutants is solid waste, dumped into the sea from ships and some coastal
towns. Any floating or semi-submerged waste inevitably ends on the seashore. Therefore the
Black Sea beaches tend to accumulate a lot of garbage, which is unsightly and presents a risk
to the health of humans and marine species.
All pollution problems described here have analogues on the Bulgarian coast. Almost all
riverine inputs in the Black Sea are enriched in organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus
compounds and heavy metals. Most of the rivers discharging into the sea from Bulgarian
territory contain industrial and sewage effluents. A total of some 0.3 cubic km of effluent is
discharged annually, of which 33% is discharged directly into the sea. An estimated 70% comes
from industry and 30% from sewage waste. Some 30% of the total volume of effluent is
subject to primary and secondary treatment before discharge.
River inputs and sewage effluent discharged into the sea are the principal source of
eutrophication and algal blooms, associated with using up seawater oxygen and the death of
many marine inhabitants. Effluents from the oil refinery and plant in Bourgas are discharged
into Lake Vaya and then into the Bourgas Bay. This area of the coast is now unsuitable for
recreational use.
BIODIVERSITY
Formerly “dead” areas of the NW Shelf bed are once again colonised by biota, with evidence
of biodiversity continuing to increase. The once massive area dominated by Zernov’s
Phyllophora (a red seaweed) field has decreased hugely in area over the last few decades,
having been replaced by other, opportunistic macroalgae. However, there are encouraging
signs that in recent years this decline has either slowed down and recovery may actually be
beginning at some sites. However, during the last two decades, the area covered by eelgrass
(Zostera) has decreased tenfold in shallow waters.
Further, all coastal margin habitats are considered to be in a critical status in at least one
country; both types of pelagic habitat (neritic and open sea) are considered critical in at least
one country; and 13 of 37 types of benthic habitat are considered to be critical in at least one
country. Those habitats most at risk include the neritic water column, coastal lagoons,
estuaries/deltas and wetlands/saltmarshes.
The invasion of Mnemiopsis leidyi (a comb jelly) contributed to a catastrophic decline in fish
productivity in the late 1980s/early 1990s. The subsequent invasion of another comb jelly
(Beroe ovata), which feeds on the original invader, means that opinions are now split as to
whether Mnemiopsis still has a major impact on fish communities and catches.
Between 1996 and 2005 a total of 48 new alien species were recorded, which represents over
22 % of all registered aliens. The majority belong to phytoplankton (16) and zoobenthos (15),
followed by zooplankton (8), fish (5), macroalgae (3) and mammals (1). This increase in
invasive aliens suggests a serious impact on the Black Sea native biological diversity, with
negative consequences for human activities and economic interests.
FISHING
Fish is one of the most important Black Sea resources. About 137 fish species are known to
inhabit the Bulgarian coastal waters and no more than 10 are of commercial significance. In
the 1960-s there were about 26 commercial fish species in the Black Sea.
The upwelling of nutrient rich waters supports the abundance of the plankton population off
94
the Bulgarian coast. The phenomenon favors the proliferation of plankton communities, which
cold water fishes like sprat, anchovy Danube shad and some others follow and feed on.
Upwelling also favours the spawning and hatching of several economically important fishes
and transports fish eggs to the surface. The Black Sea fisheries however have deteriorated
dramatically because of changes to the ecosystem as a result of eutrophication, overfishing
and the arrival of ‘alien’ species like the Mnemiopsis Leidyi.
Eutrophication has led to a massive loss of entire ecosystems and the mean average weight of
bottom living animals per square meter has decreased. This means less food for many of the
bottom-dwelling species such as the sturgeons, which literally ‘graze’ on the small animals
inhabiting the seabed communities. Upwelling and eutrophication initially produce an
increase in phytoplankton thus providing food for some of the smaller short-lived species of
fish, like the sprats and anchovies. In terms of fishery economics, however, these are rather
low value species and they do not fetch the same prices as bluefish, bonito and turbot.
Commercial fishes in the Bulgarian waters are either local resident species or migratory
species visiting the region during their northward bound spring passage from the Sea of
Marmara or the Anatolian coast to the spawning grounds in the Danube Delta. The main
resident species are the sprat and turbot, and the most important migratory economic species
is the horse mackerel. Marine fisheries in Bulgaria are based on 10 fish species with landings
exceeding 100 t - anchovy, horse mackerel, spiny dogfish, gobies, mullets, bluefish, bonito
and rapana sea snails. The largest Bulgarian catches are based on local species - sprat,
gobies, spiny dogfish and turbot. For some species there are annual prohibitions for
commercial fishing during important breeding periods or a full ban is imposed on their fishing.
Such was the case with turbot, which was forbidden for fishing during the 1990 - 1994 period.
In 2003 the quota for turbot catch was 50 t and it was distributed among 10 fishing
companies. The quota for 2004 was reduced to 40 t. The Institute of Fisheries and
Aquacultures in Varna drafted the limitation proposal for the catches of the local commercial
fish species. It was approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and the Executive
Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture introduced fishing quotas based on this proposal. In
recent years landings greater than 1000 t have been realized only from sprat and sea snails.
Maximum Bulgarian catches (t) of major commercial fishes in the Black Sea
Species Maximum catches (t)
Sprat
Population type
18880 local
Gobies 580
local
Turbot 460
local
Mullets 96
local
Whiting 454
local
Danube shad
233
migratory
Horse mackerel 1809
migratory
Anchovy
784
migratory
Spiny dogfish
153
migratory
Bonito 3194
migratory
Bluefish 696
migratory
The species included in the regional Red Data Book for the Black Sea enjoy special protection
regime enforced by the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Waters. The fishing of
protected species is totally banned except for scientific research purposes.
95
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
The coastal zone is an area where great numbers of human activities demand use of the
coastal space and therefore it has a special role in protecting the sea. The sea has a profound
influence on the coastal environment and its use by the people. But human use also has a
profound influence on the environmental state of the coastal waters. The habitats of many
plant and animal species in the coastal zone are more numerous than other places in the sea.
For the people the coast is the area where they come into contact with the sea. The
environmental health of the coast has a direct influence on the health of the local population
and the tourists. The coastal zone is particularly vulnerable to pollution and damage, both
direct and indirect, from human activity. The destruction or pollution of habitats there can
destroy or drive away dependent species thus influencing the entire food chain all the way up
to humans. Insufficiently treated wastewaters may contain pathogens, as for example the
microbiological contaminants causing hepatitis-A or meningitis. The poor quality of coastal
waters has a negative influence not only on life in the sea but also on tourism and the whole
coastal economy.
The economic activity of municipalities along the Black Sea is of particular significance for
protecting the sea. The future of many plant and animal populations as well as human
welfare depends on the wise decision-making for the future made in those municipalities.
It is a pity that the Black Sea coast provides plenty of evidence for unwise planning. One
economic use of the coastal zone quite often denies opportunities to other activities. The
construction of coastal highways limits the development of coastal tourism and wildlife
reserves. The construction of hotels on the beach and in the immediate vicinity of the shore
puts a burden of waste from human activities on the environment and the quality of the
beach and the coastal waters deteriorate.
Problems for the Bulgarian coastal zone abound. The growth of beach resorts like Golden
Sands, St Constantine, Sunny Beach and others is a reason for concern. In Sinemoretz, within
the Strandja Nature Park and in the Ropotamo Nature Reserve, the restrictions on
construction are not observed. Powerful interest groups are trying to take entire sections of
the coast that contain the most significant biodiversity. Many hotels, both new and old
discharge much of their waste straight into the waterways without treatment. Even this
changing of the local environment can have huge effects. Industrial enterprises also
contribute to the coastal pollution. Farming can cause nutrients and pesticides, harmful to
the marine environment and human health, to be washed into the water through runoff. The
felling of trees can lead to unstable topsoil, leading to erosion, which has become a very
serious problem for the Bulgarian coast. Even dams and dikes can stop the flow of important
sediments into the sea, thus weakening beaches that act as normal storm breakers.
One of the reasons for the chaotic development of our coast is the fact that so far the
interests of all legitimate users have not been recognized. All too often the various
administrations and businesses pursue their narrow interests without much communication
between each other and without discussing their future plans. To protect the coast however
we need to make long term integrated planning and to recognize the legitimate interests of
all users that may be affected by a certain change. The process is well known as Integrated
Coastal Zone Management. It involves compromise and insurance of strict environmental
standards. The construction of an industrial complex or a port on the coast would be
incompatible with the development of tourism and may also destroy some valuable protected
territory. It is difficult to take into account everybody’s demands, though it is of particular
importance for powerful business interests to realize that the cheapest option may not always
be the most sustainable. The instruments for implementation of the Integrated Coastal Zone
Management is the effective enforcement of regulations and environmental impact
assessment, which is a method of consideration of all possible environmental effects resulting
from a given project or policy.
CHEMICAL POLLUTION
An assessment of pollutant loads from river and large direct municipal/industrial discharges
was made. However, the pollution loads data are very incomplete, BOD5 being the only
96
parameter (apart from nutrients) that is routinely monitored from major point sources and
rivers. Relatively high contamination levels of some pesticides, heavy metals and PCBs are
present at specific sites in the Black Sea, with illegal dumping/discharges (particularly of
agrochemicals) being recognised as a particular problem. The historically poor enforcement
of discharge standards and a failure to consider the Sea itself as a receiving water-body for
discharges to river are considered to be the principal reasons underlying the pollution status
of the Sea.
A huge increase in the volume of oil being transported across the Black Sea and oil/gas
extraction from beneath the Sea itself have greatly increased the risk of oil pollution. This
presents two types of problem: (i) localised chronic pollution stemming from frequent but
minor releases of oil; and (ii) acute pollution resulting from major oils spills. Remote sensing
data show that the majority of oil spills occur along major shipping routes, suggesting that
shipping, rather than land-based oil installations have been the principal cause of concern.
However, a single large spill from ships, platforms or land-based oil installations could
severely impact biota and the economies of all coastal countries.
RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS IN BULGARIA
As an EU member state since 1 January 2007, Bulgaria is obliged to fulfil its Accession Treaty
commitments, of which harmonization of Bulgarian legislation with the European law. Also, to
reach the identified targets Bulgaria is taking into account its commitments under Agenda 21,
the Rio Conventions, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Johannesburg Plan of
Implementation and the Rio+20 conference and also the UNECE Water and Health Protocol .
The compliance with the UN proposed global goals for water and the EU Water Framework
Directive (WFD) goal of reaching “sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of
available water resources” for all Community waters by 2015 requires from Bulgaria extensive
efforts in meeting a number of objectives, such as preventing and reducing pollution,
promoting sustainable water use, environmental protection, improving aquatic ecosystems
and mitigating the effects of floods and droughts. The participants at the national
consultation agreed that the identified targets, through the UN and EU policy processes,
objectives such as timely and adequate provision of clean water and sanitation services,
improving water management, and preventing, controlling and reducing water-related
diseases, are part of current and post-2015 national strategies/programs. The problem is its
implementation. The applicability of the Sustainable Development goals (SDGs) at the country
level is recognized through the acceptance of the official targets and requirements imposed
by international legislation and agreements. The National Strategy for the Management and
Development of the Water Sector in Bulgaria, adopted in November 2012 by the Parliament,
is built on the following criteria, taking into account social, economic and environmental
conditions:
- Economic efficiency of water use. Water should be used for maximum performance possible,
considering the increasing shortages of fresh water of good quality and limited financial
resources;
- Equality. Access to water in adequate quantity and quality is a fundamental right of all
people;
- Environmental sustainability. Use of water resources in such manner that does not
compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs with the same
resource.
The Strategy outlines measures to ensure continuous access to water in terms of climate
change (droughts and floods), starting from the water source to the discharge, namely:
- Increase in water flow from watersheds applying best practices to increase the flow and
reduce evapotranspiration. Management of forest watersheds and land use which affect the
physical distribution and water quality should be taken into account in the overall planning
process and management of water resources;
97
- Integration of the activities in the up–stream and down-stream of the rivers. Recognition of
the vulnerability of downstream water users in the up-stream activities is required. In this
case management affects both natural systems and those associated with human activities;
- Establishment of an appropriate system of facilities to ensure annually adequate water
quantity and quality from available water sources (dams and reservoirs) and to reduce the
loss of pure natural water requiring additional treatment for next usage;
- Implementation of environmentally friendly methods and technologies for cleaning without
introduction of additional compounds harmful to nature and allowing recirculation of water.
RIVER BASIN DIRECTORATES AND DISTRICTS
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) entered into force in 2000 and aims to protect all
surface and ground, transitional and coastal waters in the EU. It uses the principle of river
basin management and its aim is to achieve good environmental status of all Community
waters by 2015. The WFD requires from Bulgaria extensive efforts in meeting a number of
objectives, such as preventing and reducing pollution, promoting sustainable water use,
environmental protection, improving aquatic ecosystems and mitigating the effects of floods
and droughts. The EU policy processes has objectives such as timely and adequate provision
of clean water and sanitation services, improving water management, and preventing,
controlling and reducing water-related diseases, are part of current and post-2015 national
strategies/programs.
The Bulgarian Water Act, promulgated in the Official Gazette No. 67/27.07.1999, became
effective on 28.01.2000. It regulates the ownership and management of waters within the
territory of the Republic of Bulgaria as a national indivisible natural resource and the
ownership of the water development systems and facilities.
The objective of this Act is to ensure integrated water management in the interest of society
and for protection of public health, as well as to create conditions to: ensure a sufficient
supply and good quality of surface waters and groundwater for sustainable, balanced and
equitable water use; reduce the pollution of waters; protect surface waters, groundwater and
Black Sea water; eliminate the pollution of the marine environment with natural or synthetic
substances; reduce the discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances; eliminate the
discharges, emissions and losses of priority hazardous substances; prevent or reduce the
harmful consequences for human life and health, the environment, cultural heritage and
economic activity associated with water-related damage and loss.
The regulation of relationships associated with ownership of waters, water sites and water
development systems and facilities are based on the following principles: public significance
of water as a valuable natural resource; multiple-purpose use of waters and water sites with
a view to serving economic interests without prejudice to public interest and to existing
rights; protection of the right to ownership of waters, water sites and water development
systems and facilities, insofar as the exercise of such right does not interfere with the
integrity and unity of the hydrological cycle and of the natural aquatic system; exercise of
the right to ownership in a manner ensuring the technological unity of the water development
system.
The water management in Bulgaria is carried out on a national and basin level. There are four
river basin districts - Danube, Black Sea, East Aegean and West Aegean . Six-year river basin
management plans - RBMPs (2010-2015) have been developed based on integrated water
resources management (IWRM) in accordance with the WFD and the Bulgarian Water Act.
The Bulgarian state policy on water management is carried out by the minister of the
environment and waters. The National Assembly adopted a National Strategy for Management
and Development of the Water Sector, which laid down the main objectives, stages and
methods of development. The latter was adopted on 21.11.2012 with time perspective until
2037, and includes short, medium and long term action plan.
Water Management Directorate (WMD) under the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water
is responsible for the water management and for the implementation of the European
environmental legislation, including Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and
98
management of flood risks and Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for the
community action in the field of water policy. As a country in the lower part of the Danube
recently suffering from floods, the country is significantly interested in the project.
WMD is responsible for the implementation of the convention on the cooperation for the
protection and sustainable use of the Danube River and has a national representative from
the Ministry in the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.
WMD responsible includes the central administration “Water Management” Directorate, an
Executive Agency for Environment, four River basin Directorates, 15 Regional inspectorates
and regional laboratories for environment.
There are four river basin districts and respectively four Basin Directorates in Bulgaria. The
directorates are responsible for the application of the river basin management principle. Two
of the districts – the Danube and the Black Sea – include territories draining in the Black Sea.
The other two – the East Aegean and the West Aegean – drain in the Aegean. The management
of waters on basin district level is implemented by means of River Basin Management Plans
(RBMP). The plans comprise measures, priorities and objectives, the application of which can
ensure the achievement of ''good ecological status of waters".
The stakeholders in the management process are represented at the basin council. The Basin
Council is a consultative committee supporting the activities of the Director of the Basin
Directorate. The Basin Council includes representatives of government institutions,
municipalities, water users, and environmental non-government organizations from the
respective basin region, as well as representatives of scientific institutes.
Black Sea River Basin Management District
Bulgaria participates in the Black Sea Basin 2007 – 2013 JOP of the EU with two planning
regions – North Eastern and South Eastern. They almost completely coincide with the territory
of management of the Black Sea Basin Directorate with seat in Varna. The Danube Basin
Directorate with seat in Pleven includes territories in the Black Sea catchment area.
99
The territory given in pale yellow is part of the Black Sea catchment basin – the Danube and
the Black Sea river basin management districts
Map of the four river basin management districts in Bulgaria
Administrative division in the Black Sea basin district
The mission of the Black Sea Basin Directorate is to introduce integrated water management
through the basin management principle of waters in order to achieve their good ecological
status by 2015. According to the Water Act, a Basin Council was established on 25.09.2003
with the aim to to support the activities of the Black Sea Basin Directorate. The composition
of the Basin Council is determined according to Article 8, par. 2 of the Rules of Basin Council.
It includes a total of 30 principals and 30 alternates.
In compliance with the WFD implementation the Minister of Environment and Waters has the
river basin management plan for the Black Sea River Basin Management District an integral
part of which are the monitoring and control mechanisms and measures. There are nine river
basins in the Black Sea river basin district in Bulgaria.
100
The Black Sea River Basin District covers the catchment areas of the rivers flowing into the
Black Sea from the northern to the southern border, and the territorial sea of the Republic of
Bulgaria, including inland waters. The territorial sea includes the 12-mile sea area of 6358
square kilometers, opposite the Bulgarian coast from Cape Sivriburun to the north to the
Rezovska River in the south. Its coast has a total length of 378 km. To the west, the Black Sea
Basin District borders on the Danube and the East Aegean basin districts.
It includes the territory of 46 municipalities in eight districts - Varna, Dobrich, Shumen,
Targovishte, Burgas, Yambol, Razgrad and Sliven. The area covers 14.7% (16 568 square
kilometers) of the the country and 100% of the territorial sea. The main rivers that flow into
the Black Sea are 18, divided into nine river basins. The largest of them are the Kamchiya,
the Batovska, the Provadiiska, the Ropotamo, the Veleka and the Rezovska River. There are
two types of lakes on the coast – lagoons and lymans, 8 reservoirs, 40 underground water
bodies and 7 water bearing horizons.
The Danube River Basin district is the largest in the country with area of 47 235 km2, which is
42.5% of the territory of Bulgaria. The population living in the area is 44% of the total
population of the country. It is part of the International Danube river basin. Danube River
Basin Directorate-Pleven (DRBD) is administrative structure for integrated water management
on basin level. The activity of DRBD is coordinated and observed by Bulgarian Ministry of
Environment and Water. The Directorate has a few main functions: management of surface
and groundwater through establishment of River Basin Managements Plans; regulation through issue of permits for water use and use of water body; control and observation of
conditions and parameters of permits; submission of information to the wide public and
involvement of population in the decision making process. The main purposes in activity of
the institution are: integrated management of water for interest of society and for protection
of human health; achievement of good status of water; stable use of water. The
administrative center of DRBD is Pleven as furthermore for facilitation and achievements of
purposes 4 regional offices are situated - in Sofia, Ruse, Vraza and in Veliko Tarnovo. The
Region of DRBD is a part of territory of international Danube Basin and the activities of water
management are fulfilled in conditions of transnational coordination in the frame of
International Commission for Protection of Danube River. The significant element of activity
101
of DRBD is implementation of Water Framework Directive /2000/60/EU/ and Directive on the
assessment and management of flood risks /2007/60/EU/. For implementation of Water
Framework Directive, DRBD established River Basin Management Plan for Danube district with
main goal – achievement of good status of water until 2015.
The management of waters on basin district level is implemented by means of River Basin
Management Plans (RBMP). The plans comprise measures, priorities and objectives, the
application of which can ensure the achievement of ''good ecological status of waters".
Specific issues in water management in the Black Sea Basin have been identified as a result of
consultations with stakeholders, discussions at the Basin Council and subsequent analysis of
the proposals. The most specific problems identified were: pollution from untreated sewage,
agricultural practices, illegal dumpsites and landfills, morphological changes and others.
These problems are largely caused by various economic activities. The identification of those
significant problems made possible the setting of targets and the identification of measures
to achieve good status of the waters.
Specific issues identified in the BSBD:
1. Need for reconstruction, modernization and construction of wastewater treatment plants
and urban collectors
2. Worn water network - high water losses;
3. Poor condition of riverbeds - fouling, old trunks, etc;
4. Pollution from agricultural practices
5. Pollution from livestock farms
6. Pollution from dumpsites and landfills not complying with the legal requirements;
7. Problem determination of sanitary protection zones, the more precise determination of the
cadastral material, coordination of private sources in the forest.
The categories of water bodies WB under the WFD are: rivers, lakes, transitional waters,
coastal waters, heavily modified and artificial water bodies. The heavily modified water
bodies are subject to substantial modification of the physical characteristics due to human
activity. Depending on the type of water bodies they can be heavily modified rivers or lakes.
Based on the above, the distribution of surface water bodies by category in the Black Sea
River Basin District, Bulgaria is as follows:
- Lakes (transitional waters) - 5;
- Heavily modified water bodies - lakes / ponds (transitional waters) - 22;
- Artificial water mirror – 4;
- Heavily modified water bodies - rivers – 19;
- Coastal waters – 13;
- Rivers - 90.
The RBMP of the Black Sea Basin Directorate includes a program of measures to achieve its
environmental objectives featuring: construction, repair and maintenance of infrastructure
for water supply and sanitation; prevention of water pollution from various sources of
pollution, industry, agriculture, landfills; economical exploitation of water resources through
preventive measures for the conservation and maintenance of water quantities; protection of
marine waters.
102
Measures for the Black Sea River Basin District
European Community
legislation
EU WFD
(2000/60/ЕС)
Directive
on
environmental
quality standards in the
field of water policy
(2008/105/ЕО)
Legislation of
the
Republic of
Bulgaria
Water Act
(Official
Gazette no.91 /
2002).
Measures
Main
1. Monitoring and evaluation of the program of
measures to RBMP.
2. Conduct surveillance and operational
monitoring.
3. Conducting internal monitoring.
4. Building, restoration, management and
operation of monitoring stations.
5. Nationalization of abstraction facilities for
mineral waters.
6. Maintenance abstraction facilities for mineral
waters.
7. Evaluation of the operational resources of
groundwater.
8. Ensure a minimum admissible flow in rivers
(ecological minimum).
9. Update RBMP.
10. Informing the public.
Additional
1. Control of abstractions.
2. Feasibility study for the design of new
reservoirs to store surface water in river basins
with low usability / under 10 - 15% of / the
annual flow.
3. Develop scientifically based standards for
water consumption for irrigation needs for the
purposes of issuing permits for water abstraction
4. Control of the ecological flow.
5. Controls the release of water from XTC.
6. Control over compliance with conditions of
discharge permits and if necessary - to review
the arrangements.
7. Preparation balneo therapeutic evaluation of
mineral waters.
8. Restore the original volume of the dam.
9. Maintain dam
10. building desalination plants of sea water for
drinking water
11. Renovation and completion of irrigation
systems.
12. Construction of water-saving drip irrigation.
13. Study and assess the reasons for the poor
state of the water.
14. Study and assess the potential for using
underwater infusions of fresh water in the Black
Sea and lakes
15. Development of a classification system for
transitional waters
16. Develop a common methodology for
determining the ecological minimum.
17. Develop fiscal incentives at national level for
the introduction of mechanisms and practices
103
for water efficiency
18. Development of adequate pricing policy of
full cost recovery to achieve the objectives of
the RBMP
19. Development of adequate pricing policy
taking into account the "polluter pays principle"
in the event of contamination and / or causing
environmental damage
The first plans for river basin management in Bulgaria cover the period from 2010 to 2015.
They are reviewed every 6 years. The basin directorates had to identify problems related to
water management till 22.12.2013 and draft a new RBMP till 22.12.2014. The directorates are
obliged to make public the existence of this information and to publish it on their websites.
They are required to hold public consultation.
The directorates report annually on the implementation of the RBM Plans. The Black Sea basin
directorate at the final basin council in 2013 reported problems of the establishment of
sanitary protection of underground and surface water sources, construction of sewerage and
wastewater treatment plants in small settlements, afforestation, improving hydrological
regime and reducing eutrophication of wetlands, invasive species, stocking and use of dams as
sinks for nutrients. All aspects related to drinking water supply and waste water treatment
are still top priorities, especially the construction of sewage and water treatment facilities,
especially in small towns or villages under 2,000 inhabitants.
The first classification of marine bathing waters in Bulgaria in accordance with the
requirements of the European Bathing Waters directive should be completed by the end of
the bathing season of 2015 (October). The bathing waters have to meet at least the
requirements for classification as "satisfactory".
MSFD IN THE BLACK SEA RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT DISTRICT – IN BULGARIA
The Decree for the Protection of the Marine Environment was issues by the Bulgarian
government in connection with the implementation of the MSFD in 2010. It defined the
method and procedure to achieve and maintain good environmental status in marine waters.
The Black Sea Basin Directorate is the responsible authority.
The first Marine Strategy will be developed for a period of ten years and will be updated
every six years. Competent authorities in the preparation, adoption, implementation and
monitoring of the Marine Strategy are ten state administrations. Each one of them is related
to various aspects of the use and management of marine waters (such as fishing, shipping,
bathing areas, tourism, oil, gas, construction, etc.). Representatives of those administrations
form an Advisory Council on the protection of the environment in the marine waters of the
Black Sea. It is chaired by the Minister of Environment and Water. The council shall consider
and endorse the draft Marine Strategy program of measures and submit it for adoption by the
Council of Ministers, as well as monitor and analyze the progress of implementation. The
Council shall coordinate the activities of administrations and stakeholders in the
implementation of the strategy and program of measures.
In April 2013 the Initial Assessment for the marine environment of the Black Sea was
published. It was late and it lacked data about a good number of elements of the marine
environment.
Issues of concern are the plummeting populations of black mussel and turbot in terms of
marine resources and increased human intervention and impact on nearly all components of
the marine environment in the regions "cape Kaliakra - Cape Galata" and "Cape Emine - Cape
Sozopol". The results are consistent with the availability of large cities and resorts with
developed them in industry, tourism, transport sectors and the servicing infrastructure. The
programme of measures for the Marine Strategy is under preparation. The governors of the
104
three maritime districts of Varna, Burgas and Dobrich took steps towards the formation of a
comprehensive National Maritime Strategy. They signed a Memorandum of Cooperation on the
Black Sea policy, which aims to unite the efforts of different authorities and to organize
institutional cooperation, leading to the creation of a strategic document. In proposed and
approved the establishment of the Advisory Board, which together with representatives of
ministries and departments, included two experts from each of the three districts.
HOT-SPOTS ANALYSIS
A review of planned and proposed capital investments on pollution point sources identified
from the 1996 TDA has shown disappointing results. Of the 50 investments initially identified,
only 12 have been completed and 2 are no longer required. A decade later, work is in
progress on another 10 point sources, but over half of the capital investments originally
identified have either been insufficiently funded or not funded at all. Capital investment
costs to address the identified 50 hot-spots were originally estimated to be almost $400
million. By the end of 2005 at least $143 million had been spent on addressing these point
sources, with a further $340 million planned to be spent by the end of 2015.
LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
National environmental legislation is relatively strong, but the enforcement of this legislation
has been less robust. The division of responsibilities for environmental monitoring and
protection between different ministries and intra-ministerial organizations is sometimes overcomplex and could be simplified in some countries at least.
In Bulgaria and Romania, EU Accession and membership has been good news for the
environment. Turkey is in the initial stages of its EU accession negotiations and is keen to
fund the capital investments and adopt the best agricultural practice regulations required, so
further environmental improvements should accrue in the future. However, there is a need
for improved cooperation between the Environment and other Ministries in all countries.
105
GEORGIA
The country can be divided into two main river basin groups:


The Black Sea Basin stretches in the western part of the country. The internal
renewable surface water resources (IRSWR) generated in this basin are estimated at
42.5 km3/year. From north to south the main rivers are Inguri, Rioni and Chorokhi.
The main stream of the Chorokhi springs in Turkey (the Corub River) and the
estimated inflow is of 6.3 km3/ year.
The Caspian Sea Basin lies in the east of the country. The IRSWR generated in this
basin are estimated at14.4 km3/year. The main rivers are, from north to south, the
Terek and the Andiyskoye, which spring in the north of the country and flow northeast
toward the Russian Federation before flowing into the Caspian Sea; the Alazani, the
Iori and the Kura (which start in Georgia and flow into Azerbaijan in Lake Adzhinour),
before flowing southeast in Azerbaijan and then enters the Caspian Sea. Two
tributaries of the Kura River spring in Turkey: the Mtkvari, with an estimated inflow
from Turkey of 0.91 km3/ year, and the Potskhovi, with an estimated inflow from
Turkey of 0.25 km3/ year. The inflow of the Debet River, a southern tributary of the
Kura River, is estimated at 0.89 km3/ year from Armenia.
DEGRADATION OF THE BLACK SEA MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY AND HABITATS
The increase in invasive species has a significantly deleterious impact on the native Black
Sea biological diversity, with negative consequences for human activities and economic
interests. Between 1996 and 2005 a total of 48 new alien species were recorded.
Ineffective management of the coastal zone contributes to the degradation of the Black Sea
marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats. The Framework for National Integrated Coastal
Zone Management (ICZM) legislation and ICZM Strategy were elaborated but these documents
have not been adopted. Decreased amount of sediment flushed to the coast in the Chorokhi
river coupled with intensive sediment extraction from the coast for construction purposes
have caused cause erosion and degradation of the coastal zone. Coastal erosion caused by
wave action is already noticeable. Although Georgia introduced and implemented significant
coastal conservation measures both in coastal wetlands and in marine ecosystems (Kolkheti
National Park), considering the importance of the coastal biodiversity and habitats, more
efforts should be made to identify and designate areas which need protection.
The situation is extremely severe on the coastal zone of Apkhazia region. To meet the
infrastructural needs for the preparation of Sochi Olympiad 2014, vast amounts of
construction inert materials are being extracted from the coastal zone of this region. With
the further development of existing scenario the unique and vulnerable coastal zone of the
Black Sea will face irreversible dramatic consequences.
POOR WATER QUALITY
Georgia is a Party to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL). Obligations of the convention are not fully met especially in the main Port of
Georgia – Poti where there are no disposal and treatment facilities for ballast and oil
contaminated waters that pollute the Sea. The Black Sea is also polluted from the numerous
dumping sites that are mainly located at the banks of the rivers in the proximity of the Sea
and from the discharge of untreated municipal waste water. Water quality in the Black sea is
further deteriorated by other additional factors resulted from a very heavily used road
passing directly through recreational zones. Due to the fact that the road is narrow and the
speed is limited air pollution from cars is very high and this contributes to an increased
contamination of the Black Sea water. No permanent monitoring of bathing water quality is
conducted.
106
WATER RESOURCES AND THEIR USE: QUICK ASSESSMENT
Water resources are one of the most important natural resources of Georgia. There are 26 060
rivers with total length 58987 km. Small rivers with length less than 25 km and total length
50480 km are the assest of hydrographical network are. Thus, total water supplies amount for
65.4 km3. The biggest river in Georgia is Rioni, its annual runoff is 12.6 km3. There are large
rivers in Western Georgia like Inguri (5.9 km), Chorohi (8.9 km),Kodori (4.1 km), Supsa (1.4
km), Bzib (3.0 km) and others. In Eastern Georgia there are Kura (7.2 km), Alazani (3.1 km),
Aragvi (1.4 km), Big Liahvi (1.4 km), Khrami (1.0 km), lori (0.8 km) and others.
There are 850 lakes in Georgia, the total area is 170 km. There are 734 glaciers of a total
area of 513 km on the Main Caucasus Ridge. More than 250.000 ha are covered by swamps, of
which 220 000 ha in Western Georgia and 31000ha in its Eastern part.
There are 43 water reservoirs including 34 for irrigation and 9 for power generation. Total
useful capacity of all water reservoirs amounts for 2222. 6 mln.m3
Water supplies in glaciers, water reservoirs and swamps are 35km 3, thus total fresh water
resources amount for 100km3. Natural ground water resources amount for 18 km 3, including
67% in Western Georgia and 33% in its Eastern part. Hydropower resources constitute 91.1%
from total energy resources and other resources (wood, oil, gas, coal) constitute only 8.3%.
Theoretical energy of surface runoff is 228.5 bln.kWt.h and its capacity is 26.1 mln.kWt.h.
There is 3.27 bln.kWt.h/km2 including 5.06 bln.kWt.h/km 2 in Western Georgia and 1.73
bln.kWt.h/km2 in its Eastern part.
International water issues
In 1925, an agreement with Turkey was reached on the use of water from the Chorokhi River,
allocating half of the average surface water flow to each country. This agreement dealt only
with water flow and did not consider the sediment flow, estimated at 5 million m3/year.
About 46 percent of these sediments form the sand beach and are an important resource, as
tourism is a top priority to Georgia’s income. Turkey plans to construct a cascade of 11 dams
on the Chorokhi River, which will affect the sediment flow and thus the beaches on the
Georgian shore. Georgia tries hard to get the agreement reconsidered i.e it should not only
deal with the allocation of water but also address the sediment flow issue.
In 1997, Georgia ratified the agreement between the Governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan
on environmental protection. In 1998, Georgia ratified a similar agreement with Armenia.
According to both agreements, the governments will cooperate in creating special protected
areas within the transboundary ecosystems.
The implementation of the “Ecoregional Nature Protection Programme for Southern
Caucasus” is part of the Caucasus Initiative, launched by the German Ministry of Cooperation
and Development. The programme covers the three Caucasus countries, Georgia, Azerbaijan
and Armenia, and will facilitate the protection and sustainable use of water resources in the
region.
Measures are already being taken in support of the development of protected areas in
Georgia. Within the Black Sea Integrated Management Programme, supported by the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) and the World Bank, implementation of the system of protected
wetland areas in the coastal zone of Georgia is in progress (Tsiklauri, 2004).
From 2000 to 2002, USAID, in collaboration with Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI),
implemented the South Caucasus Water Management Project, designed to strengthen cooperation between water-related agencies at all local, national and regional levels, and
demonstrate integrated water resources management. In parallel, between 2000 and 2006,
the EU and the Technical Assistance Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS) have
developed the Joint River Management Programme on Monitoring and Assessment of Water
Quality on Transboundary Rivers; its aim is the prevention, control and reduction of transboundary pollution impact. The programme covers four basins, including the Kura River Basin.
In addition, regional organisations such as REC, Eurasia Foundation and numerous local
107
foundations are promoting national and regional activities in the field of water resources
management and protection (UNEP, 2002).
The main objective of the USAID/Caucasus-Georgia Strategic Plan (2004-2008) is to ensure
continued support for the South Caucasus Regional Water Management Programme as a
principal component of its regional conflict-prevention and confidence-building objectives. It
hopes to maintain the dialogue between the three countries that has already contributed to
confidence-building measures (USAID, 2006).
From 2002 to 2007, the NATO-OECD has developed the South Caucasus River Monitoring
Project. Its general objectives are to establish the social and technical infrastructure for an
international, cooperative, transboundary river water quality and quantity monitoring, data
sharing and watershed management system among the Republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia (OSU, 2008).
From 2012 the EU project “Environmental Protection of International River Basins Project
(EPIRB)“ intends to support further progress in the implementation of Integrated Water
Resources Management (IWRM) in the formulation of river basin management plans for
selected river basins and in the implementation of planning-related compliance monitoring
processes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The project’s stated
objectives are:

to improve the availability and quality of data on the ecological, chemical, and hydromorphological status of transboundary river basins, including groundwater;

to develop River Basin Management Plans for selected river basins/sub-basins
according to the requirements of the WFD.
The project Reducing Transboundary Degradation in the Kura-Araks River Basin, currently
being implemented by the UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre in collaboration with the
Global Environmental Facility (GEF), has involved four of the basin countries: Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Efforts are being made to involve
Turkey in the project. The project preparation phase is 18 months and began in July
2005. It is co-funded by Sweden. The project aims to ensure that the quality and quantity
of water throughout the Kura-Araks River system meets the short and long-term needs of
the ecosystem and the communities relying upon it. The project will achieve its
objectives by fostering regional cooperation, increasing capacity to address water quality
and quantity problems, demonstrating water quality/quantity improvements, initiating
required policy and legal reforms, identifying and preparing priority investments, and
developing sustainable management and financial arrangements.
Major water issues
Major issues are surface water pollution by wastes and irrational water use. Water pollution
is generated by human activity. It is caused by point and non-point sources.
Point sources:
1. Municipal wastes from cities and settlements.
2. Industrial wastes.
3. Wastes from hospitals, recreation and other health centers.
Non-point sources:
1. Surface wastes from agricultural fields.
2. Storm runoff from cities and landfills.
Municipal wastes from cities and settlements pollute water with organic matters, nitrogen
and phosphorus compounds. Most polluted rivers are Kura, Vere, Alazani, Algeti, Suramula
(Caspian Sea basin) and Rioni (Black sea basin).
108
There are centralized sanitation systems in 45 cities including 33 with treatment facilities.
Latter were built in 1972-1986 and mostly are out of operation, the rest work unsatisfactorily.
Biological treatment is practically absent.
2. Industrial wastes contribute with oil products, phenols, heavy metals, etc.
Most polluted rivers in the Kura basin are:
- Kura within Tbilisi and Rustavi (oil products, phenols, heavy metals);
- Mashavera (zinc and copper ions).
In the Black Sea basin:
- Kvirila (oil products and manganese ions);
- Rioni and its tributary Ogaskura (oil products, zinc and copper ions);
- Tkibuli (mechanical pollution from coal mining industry);
- Kubiszkali (oil products);
- Luhumi (arsenic ion).
Since 1992 due to economic crisis industrial production fall down to 15-20% of designed one
and consumed water reduced from 1542 mln.m 3 (1985) to 229 mln.m3 (1996). Presently, some
large plants start to operate and have some perspectives for development.
Food industries are concluded in centralized sanitation network and pollution depends on
efficiency of municipal services.
3. Presently, severe problems are caused by lack of waste water treatment facilities from
hospitals, recreational and other health centres. There are hospitals treating contagious
diseases in all cities and divisions in rayon hospitals and all these hospitals lack wastes
(disposal, storage, etc) and wastewater treatment facilities. Six hospitals treating TBC in
Abastumani are particularly dangerous because of the lack of treatment plants and wastes are
dumped directly into Ozhe and then Kura River. Two TBC related hospitals in Borzhomi have
biological treatment facilities which are not operational now and waste waters are released
to Gudzharula and then Kura river. In Tbilisi Center treating contagious diseases lack wasrtes
and wastewater treatment facilities, as well .
4. Agricultural wastes use mineral fertilizers and pesticides. The major water consumer is the
farming sector. According to data of 1987, there were 469.200 ha of irrigated lands including
409.200ha in Eastern Georgia (Kura basin) and 60 000 ha in its Western part (Black Sea basin).
In the 90-ies, in the frame of the political and economic crisis in the country, the land
restitution systems caused a problem, pumping stations and hydro structures were destroyed.
Funds allocated for O&M are unsatisfactory for repairing and rehabilitation that caused
irrigated area reduction.
In 1997 in the frame of the World Bank support project for irrigation and restitution systems,
rehabilitation has been prepared. Its implementation started in April 2002, its value being of
about $100 mln., allocated for this purpose. The project’s implementation lasted 12 years
and was achieved in three stages.
Potential pollutants are cattle breeding and poultry farms, most part of which is not
functioning now. But after their rehabilitation treatment facilities will be needed to install.
5. Storm runoff from cities and landfills also pollute surface waters. Landfills lack monitoring
, waste disposal treatment, and are mostly located along the river banks. Landfills, in all
cities, are "burning points", and do not meet water protection requirements. In 1996 WB
experts studied landfills in Tbilisi and prepared recommendations on special polygon for
garbage and special plant for its processing.
109
MAJOR OWNERS IN WATER SECTOR
In accordance with Georgian legislation, water resources are state property, and this means
licenses for water use. Major consumers are power systems and agriculture, heavily irrigated.
As it was mentioned before, Georgia is rich in hydropower resources. There are about 100
large and small hydropower stations with designed capacity of l0 bln.kwt.h- 20% of economic
potential. Presently, for different reasons, total capacity is of 4.5bln.kwt.h.
During the Soviet decades Georgia was included in common energy system that allowed to
provide all economic branches with electricity. At the moment, when Georgia is
implementing reforms in its economy, hydropower development became very important.
Small hydropower plants construction is recognized as priority but it is postponed due to lack
of funding. Hydropower plants, constructed during the Soviet regime, are old and need
rehabilitation but donors refuse to finance this sectorr. In past year Chinese investors
allocated money for construction of derivative Khadori hydropower plant in Alazani upstream,
with designed capacity 24000kwt.h, but the government lacks the funding to complete its
construction. Climatic conditions variability dictates necessity of land reclamation. In
Western Georgia with humid climate and intensive precipitation drainage is expedient. In
Eastern Georgia with arid climate irrigation is needed. By 1987 there were 469.200 ha of
irrigated lands (including 140.600 ha with water pumping) and 162.300ha of drained lands
(including 31.100 ha with mechanical drainage) under Water Department administration.
Presently, due to lack of financing for O&M irrigated and drainage are being reduced. About
89% of irrigated lands are irrigated with water lift using pumping stations, which technical
state is unsatisfactory. In 2001 187.200ha were irrigated including 850 000 ha with water lift.
Water diversion was 996172 --m3 from which 449248 m3 were supplied to the fields. Irrigation
systems efficiency is 0.46. Only 40 th.ha drained lands were used. Main sources of water are
Kura, Alazni, lori, Aragvi, Didi, Patara Liahvi, Ksani, Algeti rivers of Eastern Georgia. There
are 34 irrigation water reservoirs, which are also sources for irrigation. Major reservoirs are
Sion (325 mln.m3, useful volume is 315 mln.m3), Tbilisi (308.0 mln.m3, useful volume is 155
mln.m3), Algeti (65 mln.m3, useful volume is 60mln.m3), Zonkar (40.3mln.m3, useful volume
is 39.0 mln.m3), Jandar (54.28 mln.m3, useful volume is 25.03 mln.m3), etc. Total useful
volume of all irrigation water reservoirs amounts for 826 mln.m3, but many reservoirs are
filled with pumping stations, which are out of operation because lack of electricity. It worth
to note, that Jandar reservoir takes water from Kura river through Gardaban main canal.
From this reservoir 8.4 th.ha are irrigated in Azerbaijan through Akstafi reservoir. According
to agreement between Georgia and Azerbaijan water should be taken annually in amount of
100 mln.m3(including 30mln.m3 for irrigation in Gardabani Municipality of Georgia),
50mln.m3 are taken Akstafi rayon and 20mln.m3 remain in Jandar reservoir for ecological
equilibrium support. Taking into account, that WB since 2002 starts to finance rehabilitation
of reclamation network, could be expected, that after 10-12 years irrigation systems will take
water in amount of 1600-1900mln.m3 and irrigation systems efficiency improvement will
allow to use water rationally. In previous years industry was among major water consumers in
Georgia; now it works on 15-20% of past capacity. It is supposed, that in the near future it
will work for its full capacity.
WATER LEGISLATION IN GEORGIA
Water legislation in Georgia is based on Constitution of Georgia, ratified international
agreements, laws of Georgia "About environment protection", "About water" and other acts.
Law "About environment protection" has been accepted by the parliament on 10 December
1996. It is legislative act determining principles of natural resources management (including
water), licensing, common principles of supervision and control as well as ecological
normatives and economic mechanisms use in environment protection field. Law "About water"
was accepted by the parliament on 16 October 1997 and determines principles of warning and
"pollutant pays". According to this law, water is property of state and its use is permitted
under license. There are several types of licenses, among those:
- license for water diversion from surface and ground water bodies;
- license for wastes release to surface water bodies;
110
- license for surface water use for recreation and sportive purposes.
Special Inter-branch Expert Council under Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources is in
charge to issue licenses. "Tax Code of Georgia" was accepted by the parliament on 13 June
1997. It determines taxes for water diversion and wastes release to surface bodies. Tariffs for
43 matters are established. Rest of pollutants are paid according to special coefficients
dependant on their toxicity. "Rules on surface water bodies protection from pollution" are
approved by the order 130 of the Minister of Environment Protection. These rules determine
water quality standards for various categories of water bodies:
-drinking category includes bodies used for drinking purposes;
-municipal category includes water bodies used for recreation purposes;
- fish category includes water bodies used for fish breeding and migration.
For law "About water" violation supposes criminal, civil and administrative punishment.
Damage due to pollution is calculated according to "Provision on damage due to pollution of
surface water bodies" approved by the Minister's order dated 7 May 1998.
According to the changes made to the Georgian law on “water resources” on 25th of March
2013 (article 93, paragraph „H.E“), the Georgian government was tasked to prepare the bill
on “Water Resource Management” and submit it to the Parliament for consideration by 1st of
January 2014. The bill provides a legal basis for forming short and long term aims – in terms
of maintaining water quality and protection in Georgia.
The document includes all categories of water (rivers, lakes, underwater water, as well as
trans-boundary and territorial waters) and aims to accomplish the following objectives –
attaining high ecological status of water quality (“good status” of water) by 2018-2024 (during
the implementation of measures set by river basin plans) and providing rational (sustainable)
use of water resources across the entire country. The aforementioned has to be accomplished
by forming and implementing integrated river basin management plans and relevant measure
programmes3.
Accessibility of Environmental Information
The Aarhus Convention obliges the government bodies of involved countries to abide the legal
norms set by the convention:
• Be aware of the environmental information relevant to their function;
• Regularly collect and update environmental information;
• Actively promote certain environmental information;
• Divulge environmental information upon request.
In order for the public institutions to have enough time to gather and update environmental
information, there has to be an effective information gathering system in place. For this
purpose, the convention acknowledges the importance of existence of electronic databases,
lists, registries and archives and their free availability to the interested public.
According to the “L” subparagraph of the 6th article of the Georgian law on “Water Resource
Management”, in the field of water resource protection, the highest authorities within the
Georgian government are required to for create a fond related to water resources and their
use (within the framework of national fund established by the Georgian law on "Fossil"), as
well as its administration.
The bill does not specify which public establishment has to provide the creation of the
aforementioned fund. Apart from this, there is no mention of the obligations of government
authorities to make the fund accessible to the interested members of the public.
The document does not mention the obligation of the government authorities to, possess,
regularly gather and update the relevant information.
According to subparagraph “C” of the 8 th article of the bill, the “keeping records and
registration of usage of water of local importance self governing body territories” falls under
111
the competence of the self governing bodies. Similar to the previous case the bill does not
mention the necessity of the self-governing bodies to provide the information to interested
members of the general public.
The 6th paragraph of the 17th article of the bill identifies cases in which it is possible to limit
the right of general water resource use5, however the 7th paragraph obligates the self
governing bodies to publicise the terms of limitations in these cases. While, the mentioned
norm obliges the self governing bodies to publicise the information mentioned above, they do
not have the means of creating a mechanism to carry out this task.
In other cases, the bill does not specify what information is to be publicised actively, nor the
public body in charge of deciding.
Apart from the public establishments, it is to be noted that entrepreneurs also have a
significant amount of this information. The Aarhus Convention requires:
 Mandatory and regular supply of information to the appropriate public institutions;
 Create a basis for the entrepreneurs themselves to provide the information at their
disposal to interested members of the public.
Sub paragraph “C” of 22nd article of the law on “Water Resource Management” takes into
consideration to obligate surface water body abstraction permit holders to provide a record
of water use as stated by the norms. Sub paragraph “E” of the 2 nd paragraph of 22nd article
takes into consideration the necessity of water use monitoring for surface water discharge
permit holders. However, the bill does not specify the frequency at which the
aforementioned permit holders need to provide these records.
Involvement of the Community
Aarhus Convention obliges member states to provide access for the involvement of the larger
community to three basic environmental decision making processes:



Public participation in decision-making on specific work activities (permits, licenses);
Public participation in plans, programs and policies that are related to the
environment;
Public participation in the executive regulations and / or the process of creating
statutory documents9.
Apart from this, Aarhus Convention sets out the following obligations to the involved
governments to include the community in decision making process 10:








The right to participate in decision-making should be not only for the stakeholders,
but also to the public;
Public involvement in the decision-making process should be ensured at an early
stage, when all options are open and effective public participation is possible;
Public participation in the decision-making process should be based within a
reasonable timeframe;
The public concerned shall be informed in a timely and effective manner, with public
or individual notice, in environmental decision-making process, at its initial stage;
The public be given the opportunity to examine all the information needed to make a
decision for free and in a timely manner;
The public should be given the opportunity to submit comments, information,
analyses or opinions;
Due attention should be paid to public participation in decision-making process;
The public must be notified of the decision immediately by the government body. The
public should have the opportunity to become familiar with the text of the decision
with the reasons and considerations on which the decision is based.
112
The 19th article of the bill regulates rules and conditions that apply to issuing permits for
special use of surface water bodies. According to the first item of the said paragraph, the
permits will be issued in accordance with VII chapter of the law on “licencing and
permissions” and VI chapter of the Georgian General Administrational Codecs. The latter
regulates basic administrative production rules. But it is not successful in involving the public
in a timely manner.
The bill, in terms of involving stakeholders in the decision-making process of making water
resource management plans is limited to only those records. Involvement of the public in the
decision-making process in a timely, adequate and effective manner, as well as the feedback
from the public participation processes remain beyond the legislative regulatory capacity.
Also noteworthy is that, the bill says nothing about the possibility of public participation in
the development process of the executive regulations and/or legal documents of water
resources management.
Access to justice
Aarhus Convention establishes the right of access to justice:
• If an interested party’s requests for access to information have not been satisfied;
• If an interested party was unfairly refused the information;
• If an interested party in part or in full, received an inadequate answer for the requested
information11.
In addition, Aarhus specifies more stipulations that would provide further grounds for
appeals:
• Violation of the right of access to information;
• Violation of the right to participate in the decision-making process;
• Violation of environmental laws.
Aarhus Convention obliges member states to ensure the resolution of the appeal in court, or
other impartial body established by law at a national level. In addition, Member States are
under an obligation to make themselves available to the interested members of public, not at
excessive cost, procedures need to be timely and adequate.
The “Water Resource Management” bill does not provide special regulation in such case that,
an interested party’s requests for information related to management of water resources is
not fully fulfilled or if an interested party’s right to take part in the decision making process
is violated.
Conclusion
It can be stated that the “Water Resource Management” bill does not comply with some
components of the regulations set by Aarhus Convention in relation to availability of
environmental information and involvement of the community in the decision making process.
The “Water Resource Management” bill does not provide special regulation in such case that,
an interested party’s requests for information related to management of water resources is
not fully fulfilled or if an interested party’s right to take part in the decision making process
is violated.
In order for the interested members of the public to implement full environmental right as
envisioned by the Aarhus Convention, the bill must


Determine which of the information related to water resources, should be open and
which should have restrictions imposed on;
Determine
obligations
of
all
bodies
involved
to
provide
gathering/recording/owning/updating information on water resources ad make this
information available to the interested members of the general public;
113


Determine public participation mechanisms in the decision-making process of water
management. In particular, how to ensure timely, adequate and effective
involvement of the interested members of public in the decision-making process.
Determine access to justice mechanisms in case an interested party’s requests for
information related to management of water resources is not fully fulfilled or if an
interested party’s right to take part in the decision making process is violated.
Monitoring
There is hydro-reclamation monitoring system under State Department of Hydrometeorology
in Georgia. Department carries out monitoring of air and surface waters. Before 90-ies
monitoring was carried out in 91 points. Department received hydro chemical samples from
47 points of Western Georgia (Black sea basin) and from 44 points of Eastern Georgia (Caspian
sea basin). Presently, full scale monitoring is impossible due to lack of financing. Monitoring
of wastes is performed by Monitoring Center and its regional laboratories. Analysis is done for
suspended matters, ammonium, oil products, heavy metals ions, etc.
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The following categories of surface water bodies are established based on water use
purposes:
- first category - water bodies used for drinking purposes;
- second category - water bodies used for recreation;
- third category - water bodies used for fish breeding.
For each category five classes of quality are established:
First class is very good quality (blue water colour). Pure oligotrophic water in natural
conditions; insignificant anthropogenic pollution is allowed. Water is characterized by stable
high concentration of oxygen close to full saturation. Low concentration of bioorganic
elements and bacteria facilitates salmon breeding. Protective water potential is very high.
Second class quality is good (green colour). It contains insignificantly -polluted mezotrophic
water and certain amount of organic matters from wastes after treatment. Water bodies are
well saturated with oxygen all round year. Protective potential is well maintained. Inflows do
not contain harmful matters.
Third class water quality is satisfactory (yellow colour). Temperate eutrophic water contains
insignificant amount of organic matters and bioorganic elements. Sometimes lack of oxygen
occurs. Protective potential is poor, contamination with harmful matters and microbes.
Harmful matters concentration varies from natural to toxic level.
Fourth class water quality is unsatisfactory (orange colour) and means: eEutrophic water
significantly polluted and contains organic, bioorganic and harmful matters. Sometimes lack
of oxygen is registered. Organic matters destruction and settling facilitate anaerobic
processes and cause fish perishing. Pollution exceeds protective potential. Microbes do not
allow use water body for recreation. Harmful matters negatively impact fauna and flora. For
fauna and flora harmful matters concentration varies from permanent to highly toxic level.
Fifth class water quality is bad (red colour): very highly polluted hypertrophic water, its main
problem is connected with oxygen regime, when lack of oxygen causes anaerobic processes.
Water body lack any protection and harmful matters concentration exceeds high toxicity level
for fauna and flora.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ON HEALTH
Safe drinking water supply is major issue for Georgia. Tapped water is in 85 cities (156 intakes
based mainly on ground water with total capacity 3.1mln.m3/day); 45 cities have sanitation
facilities including 33 with treatment system with total capacity 1.6 mln.m3/day (including
regional treatment facilities in Gardabani with capacity 1.0 mln.m3/day). Water supply
114
pipelines length is 9500 km and collectors for water disposal length is 4000 km. Presently, due
to difficult economic situation, critical situation takes place in most water supply systems.
Most intakes' sanitary state is unsatisfactory: 60% of water pipes and 50% collectors are fully
depreciated. Water quality control is weak and water quality sometimes does not meet
standards. More dangerous situation occurs in sanitation and treatment of industrial and
municipal wastes in cities and settlements. Treatment facilities mostly are out of operation
and destroyed. Because of that, wastes are released to surface water bodies. This is one of
the reasons for infectious illnesses growth, carcinogenic and mutant factors. Impossibility for
supply-sanitation facilities O&M is explained by the fact, that almost all water consumers
can't pay. Most part of population and state enterprises can't pay for water supply and
disposal and this create financial difficulties for facilities. This crisis situation is aggravated
by uncertainty in management sharing between center and local authorities. Many
settlements are provided with water from sources under administration of different bodies
and operation level is very low. Because supply and sanitation facilities are transferred to
local authorities, latter are obliged to develop this sector. But local bodies have not enough
competence to solve these problems. Severe and long under-funding leads to high loss of
reliability and generates low level of affordability of water saving equipment and water
waste- related technologies in order to provide for the ecological security of population.
Presently, Ministry of Urbanization and Construction is preparing the following laws: "About
drinking water and water supply", "About permission to Ministry to issue licenses on operation
of networks, structures and engineering equipment in water supply and disposal".
The above-mentioned laws aim at securing the population’s health protection and set rules
and regulations regarding the drinking water supply to population. But it is worth highlighting
that, if funding is not increased by at least three times, the existing funding sources will fail
to secure the present level of water supply.
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT IN WATER SECTOR IN GEORGIA
By signing the Association Agreement (AA) in June 2014, relations between the EU and
Georgia were brought to a qualitatively totally new stage. The Association Agreement with its
Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) foresees far reaching political and
economic integration with the EU by significantly deepening political and economic ties,
bringing Georgia closer to Europe. The EU and Georgia have also agreed an EU-Georgia
Association Agenda, which defines a set of priorities for the period 2014-2016 with a view to
implement the AA/DCFTA. The Agenda will help Georgia to fully enjoy the benefits of the AA,
which provisional application (notably its trade part) started as of 1 September 2014. The
provisional application is enabling the implementation of the most of the agreement, even
before the ratification procedures are completed in the National Parliaments of the 28 EU
Member States.
Under the AA Georgia committed to respecting the principles of sustainable development, to
protecting the environment and mitigating climate change, to continuous improvement of
environmental governance and meeting environmental needs. Besides political and economic
association the AA covers a broad range of topics, including regulatory approximation in the
field of environment, climate change and natural resources protection to some extent. The
environmental parts of the Association Agreement envisage a progressive opportunity for
gradual harmonization with EU environmental rules and standards with the objective to
protect environment and ecosystem and encourage effective environmental governance. To
prepare and facilitate the implementation of the Association Agreement the parties
negotiated an Association Agenda which creates a practical framework through which the
overriding objectives of political association and economic integration can be realized. It
should be noted, that one of the major obstacles to achieving environmental sustainability in
Georgia has always been the lack of relevant planning frameworks in the environmental field.
Without proper planning, goals reflected in the Association Agreement and the Association
Agenda cannot be achieved.
115
EU Water Directives (obligations of Georgia)
The obligations related to IWRM under Georgia –E.U association agreement are presented in
the table below:
Provision of Directive
Timeframe
Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water
policy as amended by Decision No 2455/2001/EC
adoption of national legislation
designation of competent authority/ies
and
within 4 years of the entry into force of this
agreement
identification of river basin districts and
establishment of administrative arrangements
for international rivers, lakes and coastal
waters (art. 3.1-3.7)
agreement
analysis of the characteristics of river basin
districts (art. 5)
agreement
establishment of programmes for monitoring
water quality (art. 8)
Provision related to ground water shall be
implemented within 8 years of the entry into
force of this agreement; Provision related to
surface water shall be implemented within 6
years of the entry into force of this
agreement
preparation of river basin management plans,
consultations with the public and publication
of these plans (art. 13 and 14)
agreement
Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks
and
agreement
undertaking preliminary flood assessment
(art. 4 and
agreement
preparation of flood hazards maps and flood
risks maps (art. 6)
agreement
establishment of flood risk management plans
(art. 7)
agreement
Directive 91/271/EEC on urban waste water treatment as amended by Directive 98/15/EC
and Regulation (EC) 1882/2003
and
agreement
assessment of the status of urban waste
water collection and treatment
agreement
identification of sensitive areas
agglomerations (art. 5 and Annex II)
and
agreement
preparation of technical and investment
programme for the urban waste water
collection and treatment
agreement
116
Directive 98/83/EC on quality of water intended for human consumption as amended by
Regulation (EC) 1882/2003
and
agreement
establishment of standards for drinking water
(art. 4 and 5)
agreement
establishment of a monitoring system (art. 6
and 7)
agreement
establishment of a mechanism to provide
information to consumers (art. 13)
agreement
Directive 91/676/EC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources as amended by Regulation (EC) 1882/2003
establishment
(art. 6)
of
monitoring
and
within 4 years of the entry into force
of this agreement
programmes
The provision related to ground water shall
be implemented within 8 years of the entry
into force of this agreement.
The provision related to surface water shall
into force of this agreement
identification of polluted waters or waters at
risk and designation of nitrate vulnerable
zones (art. 3)
The provision related to ground water shall
into force of this agreement.
The provision related to surface water shall
into force of this agreement
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CHOROKHI-ADJARISTSKALI RIVER BASIN
The Chorokhi-Adjaristkali river basin is located in Adjara Region covering the major part of it.
The Chorokhi River originates in Mescit Mountains, north-eastern Turkey , flows through the
cities of Bayburt, Ispir, Yusufeli, and Artvin, along the Kelkit-Çoruh Fault, before
crossing Georgia, where it flows in the the Black Sea, south of Batumi, few kilometres north
of the Turkish-Georgian border. The Adjaristskali is a right tributary of the Chorokhi River. Its
source is located in the Arsiani Mountains.
The Chorokhi-Adjarisktsali basin is bordered with Guria (North), Samtkhe-Javakheti (East),
Karchkhali Belt (South) and Arsiani belt (West).
The major part of the pilot basin is covered with mountains and deep gorges and coastlines –
with valleys (Kobuleti and Kakhaberi valleys). In the coastline valleys there is humid
subtropical climate with cold winters and hot summers. In the mountainous areas air is
humid, winter – moderately cold, and summers brief and warm. Adjara is distinguished with
its conveniently warm climate.
117
Figure 32 - Map of the Chorokhi-Adjaristskali River Basin
HUMAN ACTIVITIES
General Parameters. According to the latest available data, gross regional product
(measured as Gross Value Added – GVA by Georgian statistical accounting system) in Ajara in
2012 amounted to approx. 1,675.4 million Georgian Lari (GEL) or 7.8% of national GDP in basic
prices. This is the 4th largest regional product in Georgia after Tbilisi, Imereti, RachaLechhumi and Kvemo Svaneti and Kvemo Kartli regions.21 Per capita regional product was
approx. 4,363 GEL which is about 91.3% of Georgian per capita value (USD 2,623).
Major economic activities in the region are services (26% share of total GVA), construction
(12% of GVA) and trade and repair works (12% of total GVA). Agriculture, industry and,
transportation and communications make up about 7-8% of total GVA each.
Industrial facilities and businesses.
In accordance with 2011 statistics, among various enterprises, the largest number was
accounted to trade and repair SMEs, making up over 2000 in number. This was followed by
processing industries counting over 390 registered enterprises in 2011 and hospitality and
construction businesses counting about 360 registered enterprises each. In the processing
industry, food, beverage and tobacco production made up the largest share (40%) of total
industrial output, followed by processing and production of non-metal mineral products, e.g.
asphalt roofing (22%), timber processing and furniture manufacturing (14%) and textile
industries (12%).22 One of the largest industrial facilities is Batumi oil terminal that operates
185 tanks (300 m3- 10,000 m3 capacity each), with total amount of 581,000 tons of oil storage
capacity
21
22
Source:
National
Accounts
of
Georgia.
2012.
National
Statistics
http://www.geostat.ge/cms/site_images/_files/georgian/nad/krebuli.2012.pdf
Offie
of
Georgia.
Source: Ministry of Finance and Economy of AR of Adjara. http://www.mofea.ge/page.php?id=28
118
Dredging sand and gravel. It is noteworthy to mention that are numerous construction
companies that extract sand and gravel from the Adjaristskali river beds and banks. Last
years, such operations were undergoing on the Chorokhi River. However, in 2014 sand and
gravel extraction was stopped on that river due to the expiration terms of validity of the
licences issued. Below is given the table 4 of licences issued on sand and gravel extraction in
Adjara.
Agriculture. Given the shortage of land resources in Adjara, due to its mountainous terrain,
agriculture lands occupy only about 25% (72,862 ha) of the total land of the region, of which
52% are pastures.
Fisheries. There are 91 fish farms in Adjara, of which only 72 are currently operational. By
the year of 2011, fish production reached 277.2 t annually, while the maximum capacity of
these farms is 678 t.
CHOROKHI-ADJARISTSKALI RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN
The RBMP addresses the significant water management issues in the Chorokhi-Adjaristskali
River Basin posing risks to ecological, including: biological, general physico-chemical and
hydromorphological quality elements of the Water Bodies of the Pilot River Basin, through
setting a number of Environmental Objectives (EOs) and designing Programme of Measures
(PoM) to attain these EOs. The RBMP is a management tool for relevant decision-makers (the
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection, Adjara Environmental Directorate,
relevant line ministries) and other stakholders to implement/coordinate implementation of
time-bound feasible measures to protect, enhance and restore water resources in the
Chorokhi-Adjaristskali River Basin. Moreover, it may serve as a guiding document for donors to
make funding decisions around the PoM.
The the Chorokhi-Adjaristskali River Basin is first River Basin management plan which has just
been prepared by REC-Caucasus in cooperation with GREENTECS, Ltd. under the consultancy
assignment for the Development of the River Basin Management Plan for the ChorokhiAdjaristskali River Basin, which constitutes an activity within the EU-funded
project: Environmental Protection of International River Basins Project (EPIRBP),
commissioned by the Hulla&Co Human Dynamics KG, an implementing agent for the EPIRBP
project. The duration of the RBMP covers the period from 2015 through 2020, the first 6-year
planning cycle for Georgia, however this document still is a draft and has not been approved
by the government yet.
SURFACE WATER BODIES UNDER SIGNIFICANT POLLUTION PRESSURES IDENTIFIED
THROUGH DESK REVIEW OF INITIAL STUDIES
Following the thematic and geographic scoping of key drivers/water management issues,
pressures and impacts, further pressure-impact assessment was conducted at the water body
level through desk review, analysis and aggregation of results of preliminary risk assessment
contained in Water Body Delineation study and 1 st joint field survey of major physicochemical and biological parameters of water bodies as well as through spatial and qualitative
analysis of available relevant information on pollution pressures and impacts, including
current and historic water quality data. In total, as a result of preliminary studies and desk
review of their results, 12 surface water bodies were identified as being under the pollution
pressures.
As a result of preliminary risk assessment conducted under Water Body Delineation Study,
using site observation, experts’ judgement and spatial analysis of key drivers and related
pressures, 9 SWBs were identified as undergoing pollution pressures (release of non-priority
substances attributed to sand and gravel extraction, wastewater discharges, runoff from
landfills, etc.), including 4 SWB on the Adjaristskali River (Adj 103, 105, 109, 113), 2 SWBs on
the Chorokhi River (Cho 002, 003), 1 SWB on the Achkva River (Ach 002), 1 SWB on the
Korolistskali River (Kor 002) and 1 SWB on the Kintrishi River (005). Though, later on, the list
of SWBs under pollution pressures was modified based on recent data to exclude Adj 113, Cho
002 and 003, Kor 002 and Kin 005 and to include 1 SWB on the Dologani River (Dol202), 1 SWB
on the Tsoniarisi River (Tso 201) , 1 SWB – on the Shkhalta River (Skh 203) and 1 SWB on the
119
Chorokhi River (Cho 008) undergoing diffused source pollution pressures from sand and gravel
extraction and, leachates and surface runoff from solid waste disposal site near Batumi;
As a result of the analysis of water quality data (major physico-chemical parameters)
obtained through the 1st joint field survey of 24 SWB against physic-chemical parameters, the
study team identified 1 SWB on the Gorjomi river (Gor 202) and 2 SWBs on the Shkalta river
(Skh 201, 202) with non-compliances for NH4-N Georgian MACs23. Though when studied in
detail pollution sources for these impacts couldn’t be identified. Moreover, high ecological
status was designated to these SWB as a result of hydrobiological survey. Therefore, these
results might be considered as errors to measurements and need further double-checking;
As a result of the analysis of 2013 routine water quality monitoring data as well as historic
data (2005-2009) generated by the NEA, regular non-compliance of Georgian and EU water
quality MACs for BOD and nitrogen ammonia were detected for the Bartskhana and
Kubastskali Rivers (SWB: Bar 001) and the Korolistskali River (Kor 002). Moreover, excess for
total nitrogen and nitrites were also observed.
JFS data on hydrobiological parameters of 24 SWB, using Rapid Biological Assessment (RBA)
method24, showed “bad ecological status” against the macrozoobenthos (MZB) parameter only
for 1 water sample from the site (Cha004) located on the Chakvistskali River in v. Khala,
where water and MZB is significantly impacted by water intake (probably drying up during the
summer period); 1 sample was also assigned a “moderate ecological status”; it was taken
from the Adjaristskali River after Keda town (Adj109) where increased turbidity was detected
presumably, caused by sand and gravel extraction.
Table 20 - SWBs Undergoing Pollution Pressures in the Chorokhi-Adjaritskali River Basin
Discharge
#
1
2
WB
CODE
Description
Adj103
The
Adjaristskal
i River
reach from
Khulo
settlement
to the
confluence
with the
Kedlebi
River
Adj105
The
Adjaristskal
i River
reach from
Shuakhevi
settlement
to the
confluence
with the
ChvanisTska
Len
gth
11.
6
Area
Km2
279
5
882.
4
Point (P)
Diffuse
(D)
P
P
Pollution
Source/
Pressures
Urban
Wastewater;
Urban waste
water
discharge to
the river
Presence of
Empirical
Evidence on the
pressure/impact
Comment
Yes: (water use
accounting data
on wastewater
discharges)
Water use
accounting data
do not show
exceedances of
Georgian
regulations on
effluent
discharges;
However, this
information needs
doublechecking
through
calculations, given
the low reliability
of data
Yes: (water use
accounting data
on wastewater
discharges; JFShydrobiological
and general
physico-chemical
survey)
Water use
accounting data
do not show
exceedances of
Georgian
regulations on
effluent
discharges;
JFS showed high
ecological status
23
source: test report 106, 129. The National Environmental Agency. The Department of Environmental Pollution
Monitoring. Atmospheric Air, Water And Soil Analysis Laboratory
24
This implies determination of relative proportions of macroinvertebrates in the sample and comparison of these
data with expected proportions/numbers of organisms under reference conditions of the river type under
investigation. Other relevant factors such as the intensity of algal and/or weed development, water turbidity,
bottom siltation, substratum type, current speed (velocity), water depth, DO saturation, electrical conductivity
and pH, are also taken into account in the assessment procedure
120
li River
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Adj109
Cho008
Skh201
Skh201
Skh203
Tso201
Dol202
The
Adjaristskal
i River
reach from
Keda
settlement
to the
confluence
with the
Kalaskurici
River
The
Chorokhi
River,
downstream
Batumi
landfill
The Shkalta
River
The Shkalta
River
The Shkalta
River
The
Tsoniarisi
River
The
Dologani
river
of the SWB and no
violation of
Georgian and EU
MACs
4.4
1380
D&P
Urban
waste
water
discharge
to the
river and
-Sand and
gravel
extraction
from river
beds
3
20392
.
6
D
2
.
7
Unidentified
7
.
7
1
.
6
8
.
5
Municipa
waste
disposal
Unidentified
D
Sand and
gravel
extraction
from river
beds
D
Sand and
gravel
extraction
from river
beds
D
Sand and
gravel
extraction
from river
beds
Yes (JFS of
hydrobiological
parameters)
Increased
turbidity from
sand and gravel
extraction (JFS),
resulting in
medium biological
status against BMZ
No
BOD,(>5) Total N,
NO3,(>2.5) PO4( >
0.1),Total P
(>0.2), Cl,(>300),
NH4 (>0.4), TDS
(>800), Organics,
Heavy metals
Yes (JFS)
NH4-N MAC noncompliance as a
result of survey of
physic-chemical
parameters of the
rivers; High
ecological status
as a result of
hydrobiological
survey
Yes (JFS)
NH4-N MAC noncompliance as a
result of survey of
physic-chemical
parameters of the
rivers; High
ecological status
as a result of
hydrobiological
survey
No
Na,(>300),
Mg,(>100),K
Ca,(>100), Mn
(>0.5), Sb(>0.05)
SO4 (>300), &Cl
(>300) TDS (>800),
TSS, (>30)
Turbidity(>100
No
Na,(>300),
Mg,(>100),K
Ca,(>100), Mn
(>0.5), Sb(>0.05)
SO4 (>300), &Cl
(>300) TDS (>800),
TSS, (>30)
Turbidity(>100
No
Na,(>300),
Mg,(>100),K
Ca,(>100), Mn
(>0.5), Sb(>0.05)
SO4 (>300), &Cl
(>300) TDS (>800),
TSS, (>30)
Turbidity(>100)
121
9
10
11
12
Ach002
The Achkva
River mouth
reach
nearby
Kobuleti
Kor002
The
Korolistkali
River
outskirts of
Batumi
Bar001
The
Bartskhana
River,
outskirts of
Batumi
Gor202
The
Gorjomi
River
1.7
8.5
10.
1
2.6
38
9
250.2
D &P
Diffuse
source
pollutionnonorganized
wastewater
from
settlement
and solid
wastes
No
This information
needs
doublechecking
P
Industrial
wastewater
Yes (Routine
water quality
monitoring data)
Non-compliance of
Georgian and EU
MAC for BOD,
NH4-N, Total N,
NO3
P
Industrial
wastewater
discharges
Yes (Routine
water quality
monitoring data)
Non-compliance of
Georgian and EU
MAC for BOD,
NH4-N, Total N,
NO3
Yes (JFS)
NH4-N MAC noncompliance; High
ecological status
of the SWB.
Presumably,
measurement
error
Unidentified
Note: During the desk review of significant pressures and impacts, the study used aggregated
agriculture data aggregated for municipalities in order to identify diffuse source of
pollution. Based on the expert judgement pressures and impacts from agricultural non-point
sources on the SWBs were estimated.
SURFACE WATER BODIES UNDER HYDRO MORPHOLOGICAL PRESSURES, IDENTIFIED
THROUGH DESK REVIEW OF INITIAL STUDIES
Through analysis and aggregation of the findings of preliminary risk assessment conducted
under Water Body Delineation study as well as through spatial analysis of key drivers and
related pressures, 21 SWBs undergoing significant hydromporphological pressures were
identified, including 1 SWB (Cha004) on the Chakvistskali River due to drinking water
abstraction, 1 SWB (Kor002) on the Korolistskali River due to drinking water abstraction, 1
SWB (Chi202) on the Chirukhistskali River due to small HPP operations, 4 SWBs on the
Ajaristskali River (Adj 105, 109, 111, 113) due to past and on-going sand and gravel dredging
operations and 16 MW HPP operations, all 8 SWBs on the Chorokhi River (Cho001, 002, 003,
004, 005, 006, 007, 008) due to past sand and gravel dredging operations and river regulation
from upstream HPPs and dams, 1 SWB (Mach106) on the Machakhela River due to HPP
operations, 1 SWB (Kik102) on the Kinkisha River due to HPP operations, 1 SWB (Dol202) on
the Dologani River, 1 SWB (Tso201) on the Tsoniarisi River, 1 SWB (Skh203) on the Skhalta
River and 1 SWB (Kin005) on the Kintrishi River due to past and on-going sand and gravel
extraction operations;
Of total SWBs undergoing significant hydromphplogical pressures, 5 HMWBs (Heavily Modified
Water Bodies)25 were identified, including 1 HMWB on the Adjaristskali River (Adj 111) and,
4 HMWBs downstream the Chorokhi River (Cho004, Cho006, Cho007 and Cho008)
within
entire 10 km section to the mouth, where the river is channelled and its banks reinforced by
concrete dams.
As a result of JFS of the hydromporphological parameters (stream flow data) of 24 SWBs, 17
water bodies were classified as of “high status”, 2 – as of “good status” and 2 – as of “poor
status”. These two last are: i) Cho002 - located on the Chorokhi River stretch that has the
25
A body of surface water which as a result of physical alterations by human activity is substantially changed in
character”.
122
significant impact on the hydrological regime due to HPPs upstream the Georgian-Turkish
border; ii) Cha004 – located on the Chakvistskali River stretch t h a t has the significant
changes in the hydrological regime due to the drinking water abstraction.
SURFACE WATER PRESSURES & IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH KEY DRIVING
FORCES/SIGNIFICANT WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES
SURFACE WATER POLLUTION PRESSURES AND IMPACTS
Following the identification of key driving forces and water management issues, possible
pollution pressures and impacts were assigned to them and tentative geographic locations of
driving forces/pressures identified, by using IMRESS’s driving force-pressure-impact screening
matrix. During this analysis data from the JFS I (2013) and JFS II (2014) that were conducted
under the EPIRB project along with datasets from the National Environmental Agency (surface
water monitoring programme) were used.
Table 21 - Surface water pollution pressure and impacts As a result of risk assessment of
SWBs, 41 SWBs “at Risk” and 24 SWBs “Possibly at Risk” were identified.
in the Chorokhi-Adjaritskali River Basin
River
Tsoniarisi, Shkalta,
Chirukhi, Dologani,
Adjaristkali
(Shuakhevi
municipality),
Chorokhi,
Kintrishi,
Korolistskali
Type of pressure
Non-point source
pollution
Specific pressure
Sand and gravel
extraction
Typical State and/or
mpact
Release of non-priority
substances, e.g.
sodium, magnesium,
potassium, calcium,
manganese, antimony,
sulphates and chlorides
and impacts on water
clarity through
increased turbidity and
TSS; Increased
turbidity and TSS;
Increased
concentrations of nonpriority substances;
changes in levels of
Dissolved Oxygen, pH,
and in the structure of
habitats and algae
Adjaristskali River,
downstream of
settlements: Keda,
Shuakhevi and
smaller
settlements;
Achkva river –
Kobuleti outskirts;
Bartskhana,
Korolistskali,
Kubastskali rivers
in outskirts of
Batumi
Point source
pollution
Untreated wastewater
discharges from
sanitation systems
Increased BOD,
decreased DO,
increased nutrients;
Changes in the
composition and
condition of algae in
freshwater ecosystems
and alteration of the
survival, reproductive
and competition
capacities of water
organisms
Downstream
locations of the
Point source
pollution
Untreated wastewater
discharges from
Increased BOD,
decreased DO,
Comment
Extraction
operations are
already
terminated in 2014
on Chorokhi,
Kintrishi and
Korolistskali
Multiple locations;
Sanitation systems
of settlements
serve less than
2000 persons each,
but more than
2000 persons in
total. They have
close locations and
are concentrated
in 1 watershed Adjaristskali;
Occurs during
normal operating
conditions and
continuously;
Water quality data
downstreams of
Adjaristskali do
not indicate on
water pollution,
while water
pollution is
observed for three
river in outskirts
of Batumi
Multiple locations,
water bodies and
123
basin: Bartskhana,
Korolistskali,
Kubastskali Batumi outskirts;
Achkva – Kobuleti
outskirts
Water
bodies/catchments
with perennial
cropland locationsKintrishi,
Chakvistskali, etc.
(Kobuleti and
Shuakhevi
municipalities);
Upstream
locations with
agriculture lands
(Shkhalta,
Gorjomi)
WBs located near
Batumi and
Kobuleti landfills
(Chorokhi,
Kintrishi);
-Downstreams of
basin having
impacts from
upstream
locations:
Kubastskali,
Bartskhana,
Korolistskali
industries: food
industries, oil terminal
Use of fertilizers
(predominantly
nitrogen) and
pesticides; agriculture
run-off
Diffuse source
pollution
Solid waste
disposal/dumping:
Leachates, seepage of
pollutants, surface
run-off
Diffuse source
pollution
increased nutrients;
Changes in the
composition and
and competition
capacities of water
organisms
Increased nutrients,
BOD, turbidity;
Changes in the
composition and
and competition
capacities of water
organisms
Increased BOD,
turbidity, decreased
DO; Increased
concentrations of
heavy metals, ions,
organics, PoPs;
Changes in the
composition and
and competition
capacities of water
organisms
rivers; Occurs
during normal
operating
conditions and
regularly; May also
cause gulp
discharges as a
result of industrial
accidents; Regular
exceedances of
BOD, NH4, total N
are observed;
Have direct impact
on the Black Sea
Multiple locations,
water bodies and
rivers, upstreams
and downstream
impacts; Occurs
regularly;
Chemicals are
washed down or
leached to streams
and rivers; Noncompliance with
MACs of ammonia
ions happen in
upstream locations
of the basin:
Shkalta, Ghorjomi;
Non-compliances
of MACs for
ammonia ions,
BODs, total
nitrogen, nitrites
are regularly
observed in
downstream
locations:
Bartskhana,
Korolistskali,
Kubastskali due to
impacts from
upstream locations
Non-compliances
of MACs for
ammonia ions,
BODs, total
nitrogen, nitrites
are regularly
observed in
downstream
locations:
Bartskhana,
Korolistskali,
Kubastskali due to
impacts from
upstream locations
IMPACT AND RISK ASSESSMENT
As a result of risk assessment of SWBs, 41 SWBs “at Risk” and 24 SWBs “Possibly at Risk” were
identified as can be seen in Table 22 - Summary of risk assessment results:
#
1
2
3
SWB
Achkva
Adjaritskali
Adjaritskali
SWB Code
Ach001
Adj 109
Adj 111
Risk category
At Risk
At Risk
At Risk
124
4
Adjaritskali
Adj102
At Risk
1
Adjaritskali
Adj103
At Risk
2
Adjaritskali
Adj104
At Risk
3
Adjaritskali
Adj107
At Risk
4
Adjaritskali
Adj112
At Risk
5
Adjaritskali
Adj114
At Risk
6
Bartskhana
Bar001
At Risk
7
Boloko
Bol102
At Risk
8
Batumi
BS
At Risk
9
Chakvistskali
Cha004
At Risk
10
Chakvistskali
Cha006
At Risk
11
Chirukhistskali
Chi202
At Risk
12
Chirukhistskali
Chi203
At Risk
13
Chorokhi
Cho001
At Risk
14
Chorokhi
Cho002
At Risk
15
Chorokhi
Cho003
At Risk
16
Chorokhi
Cho004
At Risk
17
Chorokhi
Cho005
At Risk
18
Chorokhi
Cho006
At Risk
19
Chorokhi
Cho007
At Risk
20
Chorokhi
Cho008
At Risk
21
Charnali
Chr102
At Risk
22
Chvanistskali
Chv201
At Risk
23
Dekhva
Dek002
At Risk
24
Dekhva
Dek003
At Risk
25
Diakonidze
Dia201
At Risk
26
Didi Tskali
Did301
At Risk
27
Dzhvelta
Dzh101
At Risk
28
Ghorjomistskali
Gor201
At Risk
29
Ghorjomistskali
Gor202
At Risk
30
Kinkisha
Kik102
At Risk
31
Kinkisha
Kik103
At Risk
32
Kintrishi
Kin005
At Risk
33
Kintrishi
Kin006
At Risk
34
Korolistskali
Kor002
At Risk
35
Machakhela
Mach 106
At Risk
36
Mechkhristskali
Mch102
At Risk
37
Medzhinisi
Med001
At Risk
38
Modulistskali
Mod301
At Risk
39
Shiganistskali
Shi302
At Risk
Skh202
At Risk
40
Shkalta
41
Tbeti
Tbe301
At Risk
42
Adjaristskali
Adj105
Possibly at Risk
43
Shkhalta
Skh203
Possibly at Risk
125
44
Tsoniarisi
Tso201
Possibly at Risk
45
Achkva
Ach002
Possibly at Risk
46
Adjaristskali
Adj106
Possibly at Risk
47
Adjaristskali
Adj108
Possibly at Risk
48
Adjaristskali
Adj113
Possibly at Risk
Aka202
Possibly at Risk
49
Akavreta
50
Chirukhistskali
Chi201
Possibly at Risk
51
Khirkhatistskali
Kac401
Possibly at Risk
52
Kintrishi
Kin004
Possibly at Risk
53
Medzhinisi
Med001
Possibly at Risk
54
Naghvarevistskali
Nag301
Possibly at Risk
55
Skhalta
Skh201
Possibly at Risk
Skh203
Possibly at Risk
56
Shkalta
57
Tbeti
Tbe302
Possibly at Risk
58
Vanistskali
Van301
Possibly at Risk
59
Dologani
Dol202
Possibly at Risk
60
Chakvistskali
Cha002
Possibly at Risk
61
Kedkedi
Ked202
Possibly at Risk
62
Kintrishi
Kin004
Possibly at Risk
63
Kozakisghele, Dekhva
Dek001
Possibly at Risk
64
Makho
Mak101
Possibly at Risk
65
Narvand
Nap301
Possibly at Risk
INITIAL PROGRAMME OF MEASURES FOR WATER BODIES “AT RISK” AND HMWBS
Measures for SWBR and HMWBs address major water management issues and aim at
attainment of environmental objectives aligned around these issues, during the period of
2015-2021. Major issues in the Chorokhi-Adjaristskali River Basin, as per Pressure-Impact
analysis are:
 point source pollution from sewerage systems and industries (food and oil);
 non-point source pollution from agricultural activities (use of agrichemicals,
unsustainable land use practices, etc.);
 non-point source pollution from livestock (high density of livestock per area of land,
etc.)
 hydro morphological alterations due to drinking water abstractions;
 hydro morphological alterations due to operations of small-size derivation type of
HPPs.
As outlined in the introduction of this report, the study distinguishes between basic
(structural and non-structural measures, and instruments or supplementary measures.
Basic structural measures for point and non-point source reduction include:
 Structural measures necessary for point-source pollution abatement (e.g. wastewater
collection and treatment as per EU directives);
126
 Structural measures necessary for agricultural non-point source pollution reduction
(e.g rehabilitation of drainage systems to reduce water induced erosion and
agriculture run-off);
Good practices and/or modern innovative technologies for diffused source pollution reduction
(e.g. establishment of organic farms, application of slurry using the hose-towed technique;
reduction of nutrient and pesticide discharge by creation of riparian buffer zones; erosionminimising soil cultivation: contour cultivation, direct sowing, mulch sowing with existing or
new equipment, cultivation primarily at right-angles to the slope, etc.);
Non-structural legal-regulatory and law enforcement measures to reduce point and non-point
source pollution (e.g. introduction of a new water law, based on EU WFD, setting of a new
effluent discharge limits in line with EU directives, review and revision of environmental
impact conditions regarding environmental spills, setting of norms for fertilizer and pesticide
use, etc. restriction of livestock grazing in water protection zones, etc.)
In terms of basic non-structural measures, the overarching measure common to all water
bodies and objectives is to adopt a new Water Law, based on EU WFD. It is known that the
law will be adopted and be effective from 2015 that will be followed by the development and
adoption of a number of sub-laws to implement the new Law. While the draft law, mandating
division of Georgia into river basin management districts and developing river basin plans as
per EU WFD requirements as well as permitting and licencing of effluent discharges as per
relevant EU directives is already in place, the development of several regulations, including
those related to the Division of Georgia in River Basin Management Districts, River Basin
planning procedures and steps and public participation is on-going and is supported by the
given project.
Supplementary measures for point and non-point source pollution reduction include soft
measures (e.g. monitoring, development and implementation of training programmes) to fill
data and capacity gaps identified during the JFS and previous studies as well as soft measures
to implement new Water Law and aid achievement of environmental objectives, e.g.
development of sub-laws and regulations, law enforcement, reseach and studies.
More specifically, these are:
 Elaboration of normative act on definition of ecological and chemical status of water
bodies;
 Elaboration of a regulation on Planning and Implementation of Water Resources
Monitoring Program;
 Strengthening monitoring system (Surface);
 Strengthening of national and regional inspectorate of the Environmental Supervision
Service of the Ministry of Environment;
 Promotion of organic farming through providing grants and soft loans to the farmers
as well as building their capacities in establishing and running such farms;
 Elaboration of a handbook for farmers on methodology for proper use of different
types of fertilizers;
 Establishment of action plans and codes of good agricultural practices for nitrate
vulnerable zones;
 Carrying out of investigation works for elimination of historical pollution of several
rivers under significant anthropogenic pressures.
 While structural measures for point source pollution reduction, particularly those
related to the construction of EU-compliant wastewater treatment plans require high
investments and longer-term: from 3 to 5 years of implementation (time for
infrastructure construction), non-point source pollution reduction measures may take
the form of demonstration projects and be implemented duration each.
Basic structural and non-structural measures to mitigate/eliminate major hydro
morphological issues are as follows:
127
 Adoption and implementation of new Water Law and, elaboration and adoption of a
methodology on assessment of environmental flow levels in rivers and streams.
 Review of permit conditions for existing HPPs;
 Review/recalculation of water abstraction quantity taking into consideration
ecological flow level in the river;
 Arrangement of fish passes and ensuring of proper operation of these structures;
 Review/recalculation of water abstraction quantity, taking into consideration
ecological flow level in the river;
 Effective water loss management - elimination of losses in Batumi water supply
system;
 Introduction of environmentally friendly technologies for hotels and guest houses for
drinking water consumption.
Supplementary non-structural measures/instruments for SWBR significantly impacted by HPP
operations and drinking water abstractions are as follows:
 Elaboration of normative act on definition of ecological and chemical status of water
bodies;
 Elaboration regulation on planning and Implementation of Water Resources Monitoring
Program;
 Strengthening hydrological monitoring system (Surface);
 Strengthening of national and regional inspection of environmental supervision;
 Review of tariff system of water supply;
 Set up payment system for water abstraction from the surface water courses;
 Review of current water abstraction regulation.
Table 23 summarises structural and non-structural measures proposed by the national study
team to achieve environmental objectives in the Chorokhi-Adjaristskali River Basin by 2021 as
per WFD.
Table 23 - Summary table of measures for SWBR in the Chorokhi-Adjaristskali River Basin
Water
Body
River
Water Status –
At
Risk/impact
on water
body
Objective
Basic measures
Supplementary
measures
Point Source Pollution
Adj
103
Ajaristskali,
near Khulo
settlement
Deterioration
of water
quality by
untreated
municipal
wastewater
To Improve water
quality against
following parameters:
BOD5,COD, NH4-H; Ntotal
and Ptotal by reduction
of
untreated/insufficientl
y treated municipal
wastewater discharge
1. Adoption of the new
draft Law on Water;
2. Renovation and of
sewerage systems of
Khulo town;
3. Construction of
wastewater treatment
plant (biological) for
Khulo town with a
design capacity in
consideration of 20%
population increase;
4. Elaboration of a
new (in compliance
with the EU guideline)
regulation on
Calculation of
Maximum Admissible
Concentration of
Effluents in discharged
1. Elaboration of
Normative act on
definition of
ecological and
chemical status of
water bodies;
2. Elaboration
regulation on
Planning and
Implementation of
Water Resources
Monitoring
Program;
3. Carry out
requirement of
existing Regulation
on the Protection
of Water Bodies
Against Pollution
128
Wastewater;
5. Introduction of onsite wastewater
treatment technologies
in hotels, municipal
buildings and
guesthouses.
4. Strengthening
monitoring system
(Surface);
6. Strengthening
national and
regional inspection
of environmental
supervision
7. Training of staff
in requirements of
new Water Law.
1. Adoption of the new
draft Law on Water;
2. Renovation of a
sewerage system in
Keda town;
3. Construction of
Kheda town with a
design capacity in
population increase
Adj
109
Ajaristskali,
near Keda
settlement
Deterioration
of water
quality by
untreated
municipal
wastewateran
d industrial
wastewater
(sand and
gravel
extraction)
To improve water
quality against
BOD5,COD, NH4-H; Ntotal
and Ptotal and
suspanded solids and
turbidity by reduction
of
y treated municipal
wastewater and
industrial wastewater
discharges
5. Construction of
Shuakhevi town with a
design capacity in
population increase
(this will have a
positive impact on
Keda as being at
upstream location);
6. Elaboration of a
new (in compliance
with the EU guideline)
regulation on
Calculation of
Maximum Admissible
Concentration of
Pollutants in
discharged
Wastewater;
7. Introduction of onsite wastewater
treatment technologies
in hotels, municipal
buildings and
guesthouses.
Adoption of a new
Water Law;
Kor002
Bar
001
Korolitskali
Bartskhana
Deterioration
of Water
Quality by
industrial
wastewater
from oil
terminals
To improve water
quality against
BOD5,COD, and oil
products (TPH) by
reduction of
y treated wastewater
discharges
Review of permit
conditions regarding to
accidental spills;
recalculate MPC of
wastewater
Ensure proper
operation of existing
treatment plant and
set up permanent
(automatic control)
monitoring systems;
Full-scale improvement
of wastewater
1. Elaboration of
Normative act on
definition of
ecological and
chemical status of
water bodies;
2. Elaboration
regulation on
Planning and
Implementation of
Water Resources
Monitoring
Program;
3. Carry out
requirement of
existing Regulation
on the Protection
of Water Bodies
Against Pollution
4. Strengthening
monitoring system
(Surface);
6. Strengthening
national and
regional inspection
of environmental
supervision
7. Training of staff
in requirements of
new Water Law.
Elaboration of
Normative act on
definition of
ecological and
chemical status of
water bodies;
Elaboration of
aregulation on
Planning and
Implementation of
Water Resources
Monitoring
Program;
Strengthening
monitoring system
(Surface);
129
treatment via modern
oil product removal
technology.
Strengthening
national and
regional inspection
of environmental
supervision
Carrying out of
investigation
works for
elimination of
historical pollution
of Korolistskali and
Bartskhana river s
(downstream of
the river).
Diffuse source pollution
Strengthening of
monitoring system
(Surface and
Groundwater);
Adoption of a new
Water Law;
Bartskhana
Bar 001
Boloko
Bol 102
Chakvitskali
Cha004
Chakvitskali
Cha 006
Chorokhi
Cho001
Chorokhi
Cho003
Chorokhi
Cho004
Chorokhi
Cho005
Chorokhi
Cho006
Chorokhi
Cho 008
Kozakisghel
e, (Dekhva)
Dek002
Ked202
Gvelistskali
(DzhochoTskali)
Kik102
kedkedi
Kik 103
Kinkisha
Kor202
Kinkisha
Dzh001
Application of slurry
using the hose-towed
technique;
Renovation of
agriculture drainage
systems;
Deterioration
of water
quality by
run off from
agricultural
lands
To improve water
quality against BOD,
nutrients (nitrates,
phosphates) and
pesticides by reduction
of nutrient and
pesticide discharges
Establishment of
traditional organic
farms;
Determination of
fertilizer and pesticide
use norms
Reduction of nutrient
and pesticide discharge
by creation of riparian
buffer zones;
Erosion-minimising soil
cultivation: contour
cultivation, direct
sowing, mulch sowing
withexisting or new
equipment, cultivation
primarily at rightangles to the slope.
Korolistskali
Elaboration of a
regulation on
Planning and
Implementation of
Water Resources
Monitoring
Program;
Elaboration of
Normative act on
definition of
ecological and
chemical status of
water bodies;
Financial subsidies
(grants, soft loans,
etc) for organic
farming;
Elaboration of
handbook for
farmers on
methodology of
proper using of
different types of
fertilizers and
pesticides;
Establishment of
action plans and
codes of good
agricultural
practices for
nitrate vulnerable
zones;
Training of
farmers in good
agricultural
practices and
organic farming;
Training of
decision-makers in
implementation of
a new water law.
Bar 001
Bartskhana
Kik 202
Kinkisha
Deterioration
of water
quality by
run off from
To improve water
quality against BOD,
nutrients by reduction
of nutrient and
Adoption of a new
Water Law;
Promotion of
installation of biogas
Strengthening
monitoring system
(Surface and
Groundwater);
130
livestocks
pesticide discharges
digesters for
households;
Avoidance of livestock
grazing in water
protection strips by
providing alternative
shading and water;
Restoration of range
and pasture lands and
revegetation of
floodplain zones.
Elaboration of a
regulation on
Planning and
Implementation of
Water Resources
Monitoring
Program;
Elaboration of
Normative act on
definition of
ecological and
chemical status of
water bodies;
Financial subsidies
( grants, soft
loans/microcredits
) for introduction
of biogas
digesters;
Setting
norm/guidelines
for livestock
grazing intensity.
Development of
guidelines for good
agricultural
practices;
Training of
farmers in
sustainable
livestock farming.
Hydro morphological Pressures
Reduction of
river flow;
Change in
channel and
bed bottom
morphology,
volume,
stream
velocity,
etc.;
Cha 004
Chakvitskali
Bank erosion,
accumulation
of sediments,
change in
chemical
composition
of water;
impacts on
ecosystems
by water
abstraction
for Batumi
WSS
Adoption of a New
Law;
Review/recalculation
of water abstraction
quantity, taking into
consideration
ecological flow level in
the river;
To improve hydro
morphological state
(hydrology, continuity,
morphology) of river
through ensuring
ecological flow in the
river and increased
water use efficiency
Elaboration and
adoption of
methodology on
Assessment of
Environmental Flow
Levels in Rivers and
streams;
3. Elimination of losses
in Batumi water supply
system;
Introduction of
environmentally
friendly technologies
for hotels and guest
houses for drinking
water consumption.
Elaboration of a
normative act on
definition of
ecological and
chemical status of
water bodies;
Elaboration of
regulation on
Planning and
Implementation of
Water Resources
Monitoring
Program;
Strengthening
hydrological
monitoring system
(Surface);
Strengthening
national and
regional inspection
of environmental
supervision;
Review of tariff
system of water
supply;
Settin up payment
system for water
abstraction from
the surface water
courses;
131
Review of current
water abstraction
regulation
Adoption of a new
Water Law;
Elaboration and
adoption of
methodology on
Assessment of
Environmental Flow
Levels in Rivers and
streams
Review of permit
conditions for existing
HPPs;
Kik 102
Kinkisha
Chi202
Chirukhistsk
ali
Adj111
Change in
hydrological
regime;
morphologica
l changes by
Operations of
derivation
type HPP
To improve hydro
morphological state
(hydrology, continuity,
morphology) of river
through ensuring
ecological flow in the
river and river bank
erosion control
Review/recalculation
of water abstraction
quantity taking into
consideration
ecological flow level in
the river;
Arranging/rehabilitatio
n of fish passes and
ensuring their proper
operation and
monitoring;
Implementation of
river bank erosion
control/prevention
activities (restoration
of floodplain zones,
putting of river bank
reinforcement
structures,
rectification of river
bed morphology,
etc.)26.
Elaboration of a
normative act on
definition of
ecological and
chemical status of
water bodies;
Elaboration of a
regulation on
Planning and
Implementation of
Water Resources
Monitoring
Program;
Strengthening
hydrological
monitoring system
(Surface);
Strengthening
national and
regional inspection
of environmental
supervision;
Review of current
water abstraction
regulation.
CONCLUSIONS
By setting higher priority to basic non-structural measures/instruments it is recommended to
get these measures implemented in a shorter period of time, e.g. in the period 2015-2017. In
addition, it in the nearest future, it is planned to achieve the third phase of rehabilitation
works for the city of Batumi for the period from 2015 through 2018 as well as to renovate
Keda sewerage system and construct a biological treatment plant there over a period from
2015 through 2016. Thus, this information is reflected in the RBMP.
Small-scale demonstration projects to abate point and non-point pollution and use water
more efficiently applicable on-farm, in hotels and guest houses, also ranked at high may be
implemented during the entire planning cycle of the RBMP.
Structural measures such as e.g. rehabilitation of drainage canals in the Kobuleti Municipality
received lower priority due to high cost and lower impact on ecological parameters. However,
by no means this should underscore the importance of these structural measures. It was
implied that the structural measures can be implemented on a later stage e.g. in the period
2018-2021.
As for competent authorities, we should differentiate various roles and responsibilities in
relation to the implementation of RBMP. For each of the role and type of measure there
might be one or several responsible parties.
26
This measure is relevant only to Adj 111, where 16-MW operational HPP is located
132
The typical roles for RBMP are:







Coordination of implementation of the RBMP;
Funding of RBMP;
Implementation of structural measures;
Implementation of non-structural measures;
Implementation of small-scale demonstration measures;
Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the plan, including monitoring
of water status;
Public outreach and advocacy.
Coordination role for the implementation of the RBMP is assigned to the Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia (MoENRP) and the Directorate for
Environmental and Natural Resources of Adjara Autonomous Republic, based on the statutes
of these agencies as well as based on the the new Water Code to be adopted in 2015.
The MoENRP through its National Environmental Agency and, Adjara Environmental
Department are responsible for monitoring implementation of the RBMP and water status as
per monitoring programme outlined in the RBMP.
Implementation of medium to large-scale public works (e.g. rehabilitation of drinking water
supply and sanitation systems, construction and proper operations of WWTPs, rehabilitation
of irrigation-drainage canals, etc.) rests upon the Adjara Water Companies and Adjara Roads
and Melioration Department.
Small-scale demo point and non-point source pollution abatement measures may be
implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture of Adjara Autonomous Republic, local CSOs,
including NGOs, farmers associations, CBOs and the private sector.
Implementation of structural and non-structural measures related to the reduction of pointsource pollution and hydromorphological pressures from existing HPPs and industries should
be a responsibility of operators/owners of HPPs and industrial facilities, while the compliance
assurance and control should be conducted by the Environmental Inspectorate of the Ministry
of Environment of Georgia.
Elaboration, adoption and implementation of legal, regulatory and financial mechanisms
should be a responsibility of the Parliament of Georgia (in case of the adoption and
enactment of laws) and relevant Line Ministries, including the MoENRP, Ministry of Agriculture
and the Ministry of Energy.
Public outreach and advocacy campaigns should be coordinated by designated competent
authorities (MoENRP and the Directorate for Environmental and Natural Resources of Adjara
Autonomous Republic) and carried out by the relevant line Ministries, Adjara government and,
Adjara and national-wide NGOs, e.g. REC-Caucasus, CENN, Global Water Partnership- Georgia
(GWP), Greens Movement, Ecovision, etc, media.
Finally, major financial support for the implementation of basic measures of the RBMP should
be provided by the Treasury, the Ministry of Finance of Georgia and the Ministry of Economy
of Adjara Autonomous Republic, multi-lateral and bi-lateral Development Banks, e.g. WB,
ADB, EBRD, KfW, bi-lateral and multilateral development agencies, e.g. EU, UNDP, USAID,
GIZ, Swedish Sida, Cida, JICA, etc., private sector, e.g. owners/operators of HPPs and
industrial facilities and, CSOs, including international and local NGOs, CBOs, farmers
associations, etc.
133
THE EVOLUTION OF WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN
TURKEY
The changes at local, regional and national levels in Turkey as well as some new
trends and conditions developing at global level require a throughout review of the water
resources policy in Turkey. It is important to analyse the water resource management of
Turkey taking into consideration its political and economic structure, and the adaptation
process to the EU legislation. The evolution of the EU WFD since 1970s should also be taken
into consideration in Turkey. The basic objectives and rules as well as the compatibilities and
differences with the water resources policy in Turkey are important as explained below.
Turkey has different needs, priorities and scarcities than those included in the
recommendations for an IWRM approach. Because of the legal obligations arising from the
accession negotiations with the EU, and given the fact that a strategic amount of its water
resources is transboundary, such as Tigris and Euphrates basins being the most important,
Turkey will manage the disparities of its national water management policies.
Since 1950s, comprehensive planning activities have been undertaken in Turkey
followed by the construction of physical structures to meet the energy and food needs of the
increasing population as well as for supporting the socio-economic development goals
expected to provide welfare for the citizens. Turkey has made considerable progress in
augmenting water supply. However, the political and economic crises of the 1970s, 1980s and
1990s put these investments on hold in early stages. Moreover, water needs for drinking,
agriculture, industry and energy purposes increased exponentially in the second half of the
20th century. In addition, the physical structures which were built to increase the water
supply caused degradation and depletion of natural resources such as water and land and
ended up in decaying the ecological systems from certain regions of the country.
Turkey’s water policy and water resource management started with the General
Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI). At the beginning of the 1960s, only 1.2 million
hectares of the 8.5 million hectares of the irrigable land were irrigated. Hence, in the 1960s,
the major objectives was to irrigate the fertile lands in the Southeastern Anatolia, which
comprise one fifth of the irrigable land in Turkey, via using huge water potentials of Tigris
and Euphrates rivers. The tendency to improve the hydroelectric potential of the country was
speeded up till to the oil crisis of the 1970s. Development of the hydroelectric power plants
gained importance in order to decrease the dependency on the imported oil. The increase of
the gap between demand and supply as a result of increasing population, rapid urbanization
and industrialization could not be coped with (Kibaroğlu et al. 2007).
Under the 1961 Constitution, government had pursued socio-economic development
initiatives aimed at dealing with the relative backwardness of the south-eastern region and
removing disparities between the developed regions of the country, namely the South-eastern
and Eastern Anatolia. This strategic movement included development of water and land
resources in the southeastern Anatolia through state investment. In this context, the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP), designed with the objective of increasing agricultural
productivity and hydroelectricity production by using the existing potential of water and land
resources. GAP has shifted from infrastructural development project into a project in support
of sustainable development with additional investment made in urban and rural
infrastructure, agriculture, transport, industry, education, health, housing and tourism.
Water based development is a catalyst for economic, social and environmental
changes. In the GAP, water resources development has enabled human-centered development
(Kibaroğlu 2004). Turkey is not a water rich country, with 1.300 m 3 per person per year (2013)
and an expected decline to 1.000 m3 in 2030. Turkey is moving from a relatively water rich
country to one where water availability will reach a critical level as it is now in 2014.
While Turkey’s major focus is on continuing water resource development because of
their economic and social potential, protection water-based ecosystems in rivers, lakes and
134
deltas, and water pollution control is increasingly acknowledged, but has yet to reach
satisfactory levels (Republic of Turkey 2003). However, both Turkey’s National Environmental
Action Plan and the 8th, 9th and 10th National Development Plan give priority to these issues.
Water management in Turkey envolves many actors at central level and disseminates
the legal status to different actors by developing water policies in the following way:
-
Ministry of Forest and Water Affairs is resposible about water resource
management and water infrastructure projects.
-
Ministry of Internal Affairs is responsible about water discharges, drinking water,
water plants.
-
Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources is responsible about wellness of water
resources and jeothermal water resources and mineral waters.
-
Ministry of Environment and Urbanization is responsible about monitoring water
plants and pollution.
-
Ministry of Foreign Affairs is responsible from transnational waters.
-
Ministry of Agriculture is responsible about irrigation agricultural land.
-
Ministry of Development is responsible about investment.
-
Ministry of Transport is responsible about ports.
-
The Irrigation Unions and Cooperatives in Turkey are responsible about land
irrigation. Irrigation Unions collect the member fee and use it for their
organisational sustainability and institutional resources.
-
TÜBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey),
universities, and research institutions are responsible about water investigations.
Universities are studying on monitoring researches on underground water
resources and surface water resources. TÜBİTAK is studying the analysis of water
quality, discharges, heavy metals, organic and inorganic material quantity.
Universities and TÜBİTAK are funded by the government. They are state funded
institutions.
EU WFD: BASIC PRINCIPLES AND REFLECTIONS ON TURKEY
Turkey, is in the process to achieve socio-economic development goals, and has not
been able to complete water development structures designed to meet the increasing
demands of drinking, irrigation water and energy needs. That is, contrary to the EU water
policies, Turkey still follows the hydraulic mission, which is mainly about supply
augmentation. Nevertheless, Turkey also experienced the negative impacts of wide spread
resources development. Hence, Turkey has adopted methods like demand management and
assessments of environmental impacts. Like many other countries, Turkey also has the
opportunity of analysing the successes and failures of the E.U development model its impact
on the water quality, impact that can even become an obstacle in the path of future
economic development, and using the knowledge and lessons learned can avoid most of the
mistakes made in the past by choosing new approaches, technologies and methodologies.
Within the context of “integrated river basin management,” WFD gives a priority to
the completion of “river basins management plans” until 2009 together with identifying
detailed negative “impacts” on ground and surface water in related river basins, and
“measures” and “sanctions” that will be put into practice for those impacts.
However, among the factors that play crucial role in developing the river basin
management plans, “existing situation” and “impacts”, and mitigation of these impacts come
to forefront; while “economic analysis”, which is deemed essential and strategic by Turkey,
remained in the last row.
Moreover, whereas EU defines “future uses” of water “risks,” Turkey does not regard
building of new infrastructures (dams and irrigation systems) for water resources
135
development as “risks.” Conversely, in Turkey building of new infrastructure is regarded by
the Ministry of Energy and also by the Ministry of Forestry and Water to have positive effects
on socio-economic development. Conducting river basin management plans in such a vacuum,
that is; in isolation from the macroeconomic analysis is not an appropriate policy in the IWRM
framework. Hence, in the opinion of the government the WFD has a “narrow” approach
concerned solely with “impacts” and “measures”. Because of the large geographical scale and
the 25 river basins in the country the WFD is not compatible enough for the management of
the general water resources in Turkey.
The Turkish case reveals the deficiencies or the gaps in the general principles of WFD,
indeed. Nevertheles, Turkey has to handle water resources development painstakingly by
taking into consideration environmental, social and economic impacts. This understanding
might also be used in formulating a possible future framework national law in the country
(Kibaroğlu 2006).
Water sector reforms have been on the agenda in Turkey since the 1980s. Some of
them have been already applied into practice. Yet, increasing water needs of various sectors
and the complex legal and institutional structures requires a thorough revision of water
resources management in Turkey. In conformity with these internal developments, reforms
demanded by the EU in the accession process have required this fresh reviewing of the issue
as well.
RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT IN TURKEY
Water resource management is affected by several key elements of the Turkish
legislation, such as the Bank of Provinces Law (1945), Constitutional Law of DSI (1954),
Groundwater Law (1968), and Environment Law No.2872 (1983). Although there are separate
enactments dealing respectively with matters such as rural and urban water supply,
groundwater, irrigation and hydropower, DSI coordinates water use at national level.
Any agency with either need for a potential development Project or if is investing
itself in a water-sector related activity has to cooperate with DSI and must obtain prior
approval from DSI, concerning the source and volume of water to be used for each Project.
Though DSI is the main executive agency for the government for overall water resource
planning, execution, and operation, at the user level, distribution of drinking water supply
and disitribution of hydropower through inter-connected systems are undertaken by municipal
water administrations.
There are 25 river basins in Turkey. The Ministry of Forest and Water Affairs has
established River Basin Coordination Commission (RBCC) in 2013 in order to manage water
resources from top to bottom in watersheds as a natural resource. The RBCC is responsible
from the management of water policies and is established in the center of Turkey. In each
river basin River Basin Authorities (RBA) has been established in 2013 and thus 25 RBA have
been established. The Turkish Ministry of Forest and Water is the board of the River Basin
Management Directorate. The general responsibilities of the River Basin Directorate is to
prepare the River Basin Plans and Action Plans, monitoring these plans, planning programmes,
making economic analysis for these plans, preparing the protection plans for drinking water in
basins, monitoring drinking water programmes, coordinating and planning the water resources
for sectoral activities, supporting researches for water resources, taking water statistics and
working on the legal basis for the development of management plans. The River Basin
Directorate is also developing political plans for the transboundary river basins to solve
conflicts and manage political risks. The 25 River Basin are the local coordination units under
the general directorate of the Turkish River Basin Unit.
The underground water action plan, the monitoring process of underground and
surface water protection law have been announced in 2013. The National Basin Strategy 20132023 have been studied and published in 2014. River Basin Protection Action Plans for the 25
river basins in Turkey have been completed. River Basin Protection Plans will be finalized at
the end of 2014. There are special studies for irrigation plans around Turkey.
136
Untill 2015, the water resources should accordingly reach the WFD objective. If this
objective will not be met by 2015, problems will be further studied and the deadline will be
postponed till 2027. With the cooperation and twinning projects between Bulgaria, Greece,
and Turkey RBM studies were carried out in 2014.
Figure 33 - 25 River Basins in Turkey
RIVER BASIN COORDINATION COMMISSION IN TURKEY
Differently from the traditional approach of water management in Turkey, watershed
management is a new methodology in water management in Turkey. Watershed management
concentrates not only on the quality and quantity but it also emphasizes social, economic and
ecological targets in order to achieve sustainability in a long run, as showed by the analysis of
the long-term planining methodologies. River basin management plans play key roles as these
type of planning manage to coordinate the efforts of different management authorities and
prevent overlapping of the coordination of the water resources in river basins.
The General Directory of Water Management continues its activities. The main tasks and
activities are as follows:
o Preventing, coordinating and management of water resource useage balance,
o Preparing integrated water management plans,
o Preventing water pollution through river basins,
o Monitoring,
o Preparing flood management plans according through river basins,
o Management of water resource distribution according through sectoral capacity,
o Following legal basis of water resources,
o Coordinating transboundary national waters according to international frameworks,
o Establishing national water data base and water information system.
The General Directory of Water Management first of all has specified 25 hydrological
river basins according to their geography and priorities in Turkey. On the basis of this plan
the development of river basin protection plans has started for the 25 river basins. 11 river
basin protection plans have been completed and submitted to be approved by the High
Planning Commission, 5 of them are still in the update process and 9 river basin protection
plans are still in preparation. For 13 river basin protection action plans the stakeholder
workshops are going to be held so far. The following river basin protection plans have been
completed between 2009 and 2011.
o Kızılırmak
137
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
North Eageaan
Great Menderes
Yeşilirmak
Sususrluk
Marmara
Konya Closed Basin
Small Menderes
Seyhan
Burdur
Ceyhan
During 2014, 4 river basin management plans will be prepared according to the
twinning Project together with Bulgary and Greece Authorities which are; Susurluk, MeriçErgene, Konya and Great Menderes Basins.
RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT DELEGATION
The Ministry of Forest and Water Issued Annex 9, Law of 17 October 2012 Number
28444 on the watershed protection and management plan preparation which will lead to the
establishment of river basin management delegations in Turkey for the 25 hydrological river
basins. The Water Management Coordination Upper Delegation is composed from
representatives who are the authorities in the river basin, such as the municipalities,
governorates, chamber of commerce and industries, and the university board.
138
COOPERATE GOVERNANCE
Cooperative governance is an approach that secures the involvement of a wide range
of actors from regional to global ones, in the water resources planning process, who are the
actors and the main users of water. Cooperate governance is a management style with a
cooperate structure that may include non-governmental organisations, local stakeholders,
local authorities, universities, representatives of enterprises, governmental organisations,
public bodies and the farmers and their associations. Governance means managing together
and in partnership.
An effective cooperative water resource management is the result of socio-economic
development and natural environment preservation. Turkey is adopting integrated water
resource management as a part of the integration process into European Union. The adoption
leads to positive benefits for urban waste water treatment and industrial waste water
management, the education of the civil society to increase the capacity of awareness for
environmental issues and water resource management. The adoptive regulations have
developed policies for the cooperate management of water in Turkey. There are 25 river
basins located in Turkey each of them being managed by the River Basin Authorities (RBA)
established in 2013.
According to the Irrigation Union Law the State Hydraulic Works is transferring the
usage of all the legal permits of water to the Water Farmer Unions according to their
demands. These unions are NGOs established by farmers in local areas in Turkey (6172 Rule,
8th March 2011).
YEŞILIRMAK RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Yeşilırmak is 519 kilometers long and is the second longest river in Turkey. Yeşilirmak,
which has given its name to the basin, arises from the Köse and Kızıldağ slopes within the
borders of Sivas, divides into three main branches called Çekerek, Tersakan, and Kelkit
Tributaries, and runs into the Black Sea from Çarşamba in Samsun. Yeşilırmak River Basin
covers an area of approximately 5% of Turkey, is the third in the ranking of 26 river basins in
the country with respect to their areas. The population of the river basin is 2.7 million (TUİK,
2013).
Yeşilirmak basin is composed of Yeşilirmak River and the Çekerek, Tersakan and Kelkit
tributaries. Individual models have been prepared for the main river and for the tributaries
while outflows of the tributaries have been used as inflows for the main river, and the
Yeşilirmak River Model, Çekerek Tributary Model, Çorum Tributary Model, Tersakan Tributary
Model and Kelkit Tributary Model have been developed.
Yeşilirmak having its source in Tokat provincial crosses Tokat, Amasya and Samsun
provinces then runs through the Çarsamba plain delta and discharges its waters into the Black
Sea. There are storage and diversion facilities consisting of 13 dams, 6 regulators, 12
irrigation projects, 7 hydroelectric power plants and 3 domestic & industrial water facilities
on the Yesilirmak River. The discharge of water from Yeşilirmak to the Black Sea is about
4968 hm³/year (Adıgüzel et al. 2007).
The maximum volume that has ever measured of Yeşilirmak River is 1914 m³/sec.
Floods occur due to the irregularity of the flowing regime of Yeşilirmak River, and when the
volume decreases, although the amount of the pollution caused by domestic and industrial
wastes does not change, the negative effects of this pollution over the environment (fish
deaths, odour, visual pollution, etc) becomes quicker and more destructive because of the
increasing ratio. Flood, erosion, domestic and industrial wastes that occur in the river basin,
where agriculture is an important means of subsistence, cause major problems and they
require rehabilitation. Getting into operation of Süreyya Bey Dam, whose construction over
Çekerek Tributary is currently continuing, is of great significance for stabilizing the flowing
regime of Yeşilirmak.
139
Yeşilırmak River Basin covers an area of approximately 5% of Turkey and is 519
kilometers long. Flood, erosion, domestic and industrial wastes occur in the Yeşilırmak River
Basin. In order to realize regional development within the framework of principles of
sustainable development and to protect and hand on the cultural and natural assets, it has
become necessary that a joint Project be carried out to solve the problems by coordination of
various organizations from one center. On these grounds “Yeşilirmak River Basin
Development Project (YHGP)” has been initiated in 1997.
Figure 34 - Yeşilirmak River Basin
Looking at the development process of YHGP, the point that has been reached today
is the outcome of the legal organizations of joint formations of local authority and civil
sensitivity through the process of sustainable development. This action plan is realized as a
result of a study in which local-civil approaches were discussed and different methods and
applications as to integration of local participation to this process were experimented.
The management of YHGP is executed by Yeşilirmak River Basin Development Union
(YHKB) which was founded in 1997 with the participation of Amasya, Çorum, Samsun and
Tokat provinces. It is the first local-regional development model and the first river basin
based service union in Turkey.
In order to realize in the Yeşilirmak River Basin the management of the river basin
and regional development within the framework of the principles of sustainable development.
Turkey has 26 NUTS II statistical regions . The Yeşilirmak River Basin region is a NUTS II region
named TR83, and overlaps with the Middle Black Sea Region. After Yeşilirmak River Basin
Development Project has been determined the State Planning Organisation (SPO) has
contributed to the establishment of Yeşilirmak River Basin Development Plan in 2007. The
YRBDU has involved in the coordination of EU Regional Grant Scheme Programme during 2005
– 2008 in the Samsun – Kastamonu - Erzurum NUTS II Regions. EU supported regional grants so
that regional development has been supported and the inter regional differences could have
been avoided. The fundamental goal was to raise the capacity of regional stakeholders to the
aim of struggling with regional disparities according to the developed regions. There were 3
main sectorial objectives:
i)
Local Development Initiatives
ii)
Small Scale Infrastructure
iii)
Small and Medium Sized Enterprises
140
Within the context of the programme there was cooperation between different centralized
and de-centralized authorities, which are the EU, SPO, Central Finance and Contract Unit
(CFCU), and the YHKB as the coordination regional agency (Mesci et al. 2007).
In 2007 YRBDU joined as a beneficiary to the Danube Task Force (DABLAS). The main
objective was to develop the Integrated River Basin Management Plan of Yeşilirmak River
Basin by the EU Grant and the coordination of DABLAS. The Yeşilirmak River Basin Integrated
Water Management Plan has been finalized in 2009 by the EU. On the other hand, the Turkish
Ministry of Forest and Water Affairs is working on the Yeşilirmak River Basin Management Plan
which is stil under process. The Ministry will also study the action plan afterwards.
Society plans, i.e. the Yeşilirmak Basin Management Master Plan, which is the regional
socio-economic Master Plan, showing all needs in all sectors and is the first regional socioeconomic plan. On the other hand, the IWRM Plan - and the Basin Protection Plan as included
in Turkish law is a part of the Basin Plan (IWRM) to be prepared by DSI. The Socio-economic
master Plan YHDP prepared by Dolsar subcontracted by the SPO, and the Yeşilirmak IWRM
Plan which was the next intermediary step before the Basin Plan (by DSI), and Basin
Protection Plan (by MoEF) have been prepared so that the Regional Development agency OKAMiddle Black Sea Development Agency is to develop and implement the regional socioeconomic master plan that was adopted in Turkish law. All of this is also in line with EC
directives and best practices in planning and management according to the WFD (Macquire
2011).
The objectives of the Yeşilirmak Integrated River Basin Management Plan:
1. To understand the existing water resources within the Basin:
-
To build a good conceptual understanding of the main characteristics of the basin
-
To describe (and model skeletal from where possible) the water regime within the
Yeşilirmak River Basin; assessing:
o
The atmospheric inputs
o
The surface water resources (and their existing regulation),
o
The ground water resources (and potential),
o
Water quality, and,
o
Overall water balance
2. To assess and model future scenarios:
o
Estimating the projected water demands necessary for the implementation of
the Socio-Economic development Master Plan of the Basin Area.
o
Assessing the actions necessary in order to most cost effectively achieve /
comply with water quality objectives (actions necessary for WFD compliance),
focussing on urban wastewater investments; and
o
Project future atmospheric inputs (including climate change scenarios)
o
Run model simulations on projected scenarios
3. To use the analysis carried out to assist answer the questions necessary to plan
the integrated management of water resources.
4. To set the framework within which a Basin Plan for WFD compliance will be
developed.
The outcomes of the Yeşilirmak IWRM Plan are as the following:
-
The water resources are borderline adequate at present. Climate change and/or
extra irrigation as planned in the socio-economic Mater Plan will push it over the
limit (without further regulation of flows),
141
-
In order to address the stress from climate change and/or increased demand from
socio-economic objectives it will be necessary to construct extra storage, which is
viable in terms of resources,
-
The main impact of climate change will be loss of snow melt in the spring – this
effectively deprives the basin of the equivalent of a large reservoir,
-
New reservoirs could compensate for snow storage and they could also increase
hydropower generation,
-
Groundwater is not important in the basin with respect to the quantity and it
would not be good idea for irrigation as the pumping costs usually make in
uneconomic,
-
Indsutrial discharges are controlled,
-
Soil erosion is controlled (a major contributor to phosphate loads),
-
Nutrients (N & P) from agriculture are controlled through best practices,
The Yeşilirmak Basin must improve its water use efficiency (in particular for
irrigation), and built new artificial water storage capacity in order to both support socioeconomic development and to off-set the loss of natural snow storage resulting from
projected climate change. This means that additional water demand for the proposed new
irrigated areas must come from water use efficiency gains from existing irrigated areas; and
new reservoirs must be constructed at a rate equivalent to the projected rate of snow storage
constructing approximately 1000 MCM of new storage every 30 years over the next 90 years.
This Yeşilirmak IWRM Plan focused on the actions and investments necessary to
achieve the Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) for ‘oxygenation’ and ‘nutrients’ which are
typically associated with high investment costs. Agriculture, industry and urban settlements
all contribute to the deterioration of water quality in these areas (Maquire 2011).
142
GLOSSARY OF TERMS EMPLOYED IN ENVIRONMENTAL
LITERATURE
Accountable, accountability: If you are accountable to a person or group of people, you must
be prepared to explain and justify your actions to them
Aquaculture: The cultivation or rearing of aquatic plants and animals.
Biological diversity (biodiversity)
A measure of the variety of the Earth's animal, plant, and microbial species, of genetic
differences within specie, and of the ecosystems that support those species. In the 20th
century, the destruction of habitats is believed to have resulted in the most severe and rapid
loss of diversity in the history of the planet. Over 100 world leaders at the 1992 Earth Summit
in Rio de Janeiro signed the international Convention for the preservation of biodiversity.
Conservation Area
An area where special planning regulations are applied or human activities regulated, with
the specific objective of protecting nature or an archaeological heritage.
Deforestation
The removal of natural forests.
Diffuse Sources
Substances introduced into the environment in a dispersed manner as a result of human
activity. Such substances may for example, be introduced through the atmosphere or from
extensive agriculture.
Economic Instruments
These include taxes, fees, levies, fines and the payments of incentives in order to encourage
a change in behaviour towards the environment or to raise funds for resolving environmental
problems.
Hot spot
In environmental texts, this term is generally employed to indicate a place with exceptionally
high levels of pollution. Occasionally it is confused with the activity (e.g. industrial plant)
which causes the pollution
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation. A group of concerned persons who form an independent,
non-profit organisation pursuing a particular agenda or objective (e.g. environmental
conservation, industry associations).
Odessa Declaration
A detailed programme of measures to protect the Black Sea signed in Odessa, Ukraine, by the
Ministers of the Environment of all six coastal countries in April 1993.
Point Source
A direct discharge to a water body. This may be in the form of a pipe discharging effluent or
may be the discharge point of a contaminated stream or river. In many texts the activity
causing the effluent is also described as the point source.
Precautionary Principle
Preventative measures are to be taken when there are reasonable grounds for concern that
an activity may increase the risk of presenting hazards to human health, harm living resources
and marine ecosystems, damage amenities or interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea,
even when there is no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship between the activity and
143
the effects. In other words greater caution is required to protect the environment when
information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate.
Stakeholders
People with an interest or involvement in a project or environmental issue, and/or who are
affected by its results.
Sustainable development
There are many different definitions of this concept but the basis of these is that
improvements in the quality of life should not be gained at the expense of the natural
environment or that of future generations.
Transparency
The quality of making something easily understood and recognised. A transparent policy is
one, which is understandable with no secrecy.
144
ABBREVIATIONS
BOD
EPIRB
HMWB
NH4
O2
P
SO4
NO3
PRBMP
RWB
JFS
SHS
WB
WFD
ANAR
BAP
BAT
BEP
BSC
CAP
CEE
CIS
CP
DDNI
DPSIR:
DRB
DRBD
DRBMP
DRP
DRPC
DWFF
EC
EAFRD
EPER
E-PRTR
EQS
EU
EU WISE
GEP
GES
GIS
ICPA
ICPBR
ICPDR
IED
IPPC
IRCM
IMPRESS
INHGA
MECC
MS
Biochemical oxygen demand
Environmental Protection of International River Basins Project
Heavily modified water bodies
Ammonium, as Nitrogen
Dissolved Oxygen
Phosphorus
Sulphates
Nitrate
Prut River Basin Management Plan
River Water Body
Joint Field Survey
State Hydrometeorological Service of Moldova
Water body
Water Framework Directive 2000/60
National Administration "Romanian Waters”
Best Agricultural Practice
Best Available Techniques
Best Environmental Practice
Black Sea Commission
Common Agricultural Policy
Central and Eastern Europe
Common Implementation Strategy
Contracting Party
Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development
Driver, Pressure, State, Impact and Response framework for environmental
analysis
Danube River Basin
Danube River Basin District
Danube River Basin Management Plan
Danube Regional Project
Danube River Protection Convention
Department of Waters, Forests and Fisheries
European Commission
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
European Pollutant Emission Register
European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
Environmental Quality Standards
European Union
European Union Information System on Water
Good Ecological Potential
Good Ecological Status
Geographical Information System
National Research and Development Institute for Soil Science, Agrochemistry
and Environmental Protection
International Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
Industrial Emissions Directive
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive
Romanian Institute for Marine Research, Constanta
Impact pressures assessment guidance
National Institute for Hydrology and Water Management
Ministry of Environment and Climate Changes
Member State
145
N
NRDP
ND
NGO
NVZ
OSPA
P
PE
POPs
PRTR
RBM
RBMP
RMRI
RR
SWMI
ToR
TP
UWWTP
UWWTD
WB
WWTP
WFD
WWTP
Nitrogen
National Rural Development Programme
Nitrates Directive
Non-governmental Organisation
Nutrient Vulnerable Zones
Soil and Agrochemical Studies Offices
Phosphorus
Population Equivalent
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
River Basin Management
River Basin Management Plan
Romanian Marine Research Institute
Roof Report
Significant Water Management Issue
Terms of Reference
Total Phosphorus
Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
Water Body
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Water Framework Directive
Waste Water Treatment Plant
146
BIBLIOGRAPHY
*** Administraţia Naţională „Apele Române”, Planul de management al spatiului hidrografic
Prut-Bârlad
*** PROIECTUL PLANULUI DE MANAGEMENT BAZINAL AL SPAŢIULUI HIDROGRAFIC PRUT-BÂRLAD
al II-lea ciclu 2016 - 2021 (http://www.rowater.ro/daprut/Plan%20management%20bazinal/Forms/
AllItems.aspxhttp://www.rowater.ro/daprut/Plan%20management%20bazinal/Forms/AllItems.aspx
*** (2009) Danube River Basin Management Plan (Basin-wide Overview) International
Commission for the Protection of the Danube River;
*** (2000), Directiva 2000/60/EC a Parlamentului şi Consiliului European care stabileste un
cadru de acţiune pentru ţările din Uniunea Europeană în domeniul politicii apei, Jurnalul
Oficial al Comunităţii Europene;
*** (2008), Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16
December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending
and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC,
84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council, Jurnalul Oficial al Comunităţii Europene;
*** Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) –
Guidance for the analysis of pressures and impacts in accordance with the Water
Framework Directive, European Commission;
Guidance on Overall Approach to the Classification of Ecological Status and Ecological
Potential, European Commission;
Guidance on Eutrophication Assessment in the context of European Water Policies,
European Commission;
Guidance on Exemptions to the environmental objectives, European Commission;
Economics and the environment. The implementation challenge of the Water Framework
Directive, European Commission;
*** Administraţia Naţională „Apele Române”, Aplicare a modelului WaQ pentru analiza
prognozelor de calitatea apelor pentru anul 2015 în vederea stabilirii corpurilor de apă la
risc;
*** Administraţia Naţională „Apele Române” – Administraía Bazinala de Apa Prut Sinteza
Calităţii Apelor - anii 2010 - 2013;
(http://www.rowater.ro/daprut/Sinteza%20de%20calitate%20a%20apelor/Forms/AllItems
.aspx sinteza de calitate 2010-2013).
*** Technical document: How to use Reportnet for reporting under the Urban Waste Water
Treatment Directive (271/1991/EEC)
http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/UWWTD_final.pdf
*** EU DABLAS project on municipal investments, www.icpdr.org
*** EEA Report No 8/201:European waters — assessment of status and pressures
147
***WISE, 'The Water Information System for Europe' (http://water.europa.eu) accessed 25
September 2012.
***EEC, 1991b, Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection
of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991,
p. 1–8) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=CELEX:31991L0676:EN:NOT)
***EEA, 2012h, Nutrients in freshwater (CSI 020) — Assessment created October 2012, EEA
Core set indicator no. 20, European Environment Agency (http://www.eea.europa.eu/dataand-maps/indicators/ nutrients-in-freshwater/nutrients-in-freshwater-assessment-published3)
***EEA, 2012i, Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters (CSI 021) — Assessment
published July 2011, EEA Core set indicator no. 21, European Environment Agency
(http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/ indicators/nutrients-in-transitional-coastaland/ nutrients-in-transitional-coastal-and-4)
***EEA, 2012f, Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2012 — An indicator-based
report. EEA Report No 12/2012. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
***EC, 2009c, 'Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC), Guidance Document No 21 – Guidance for reporting under the Water
Framework Directive', Technical Report — 2009 — 029, WFD Common Implementation Strategy
(http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/
framework_directive/guidance_documents/guidance_ guidance_report/_EN_1.0_&a=d)
***Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in
the EU, 2012
***Communication (COM(2007) 128 final) "Towards Sustainable Water Management in the
European Union"
***Commission Staff Working Document (SEC(2007) 362 final): "First report on the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC"
***Kavanagh, Patrick and Bree, Thomas 2009 Water Framework Directive programme of
measures: protection of high-status sites, forest, water and on-site waste water treatment
systems. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 109B, xx–xx. DOI:
10.3318/BIOE.2009.109.3.xx.
*** Implementation of the WFD Good practices as identified by the Member States
UBA Berlin 2004 Basic principles for selecting the most cost-effective combinations of
measures for inclusion in the programme of measures as described in Article 11 of the Water
Framework Directive
***DEFRA Project NT2507 Methods and measures to minimise the diffuse pollution
of water from agriculture - a critical appraisal Measures to minimise the diffuse pollution of
water from agriculture (Project NT2507) Final Report NT2507_1
***Phare (2000): Ship borne oily water and waste on the Danube: Feasibility Study. Final
Report. Phare Environment Consortium, Carl Bro International, Glostrup
***Guidance document No 3, Analysis of Pressures and Impacts, produced by working Group
2.1 - IMPRESS
***Guidance document addressing Chemical Status of Surface Water Bodies for a PressureImpact Analysis/Risk Assessment according to the EU WFD;
***Guidance Document addressing hydromorphology and physico-chemical aspects for a
Pressure-Impact Analysis/Risk Assessment according to the EU WFD;
148
Terms of Reference of the project;
***SHS Yearbook “Quality status of surface waters according to hydrochemical parameters on
the territory of the Republic of Moldova for 2012”;
***SHS Yearbook “Quality status of surface waters according to hydrochemical parameters on
the territory of the Republic of Moldova for 2013”;
Water Law, No. 272 of 23.12.2011;
***Regulation on monitoring systematic evidence of the surface and ground waters’ status, GD
932 of 20.11.2013;
***Regulation regarding environmental quality requirements for surface waters, GD No. 890,
12.11.2013;
***Act 2.2. report – Water Body Identification and Typology;
***Report “Analysis of pressures and impacts on water bodies and assessment of water bodies
at risk of failing the environmental objectives in the Prut River Basin”, Institute of Ecology
and Geography of the Academy f Science developed under the EPIRB project;
***Statistical yearbook of the R. Moldova, Department of Statistics and Sociology, Chisinau,
2012, 703 pages;
***State Ecological Inspectorate Yearbook “Environmental protection in the Republic of
Moldova” 2011-2013;
***Generalized reports on the use of water resources, the Agency "Apele Moldovei";
***Surface waters. Ecological Atlas. The water resources of the Republic of Moldova. Overcenco
A., Mihăilescu C., Bogdevici O., Gâlcă G. Chisinau, Știința, 2008, 208 pages;
***Methodological and legislative issues on environmental quality components monitoring
system functionality in Moldova, “Mediul Ambiant” magazine, Nr. 1 (55), 2011, p. 36-44;
Guidance on hydrobiological assessment methods for surface waters and sediments,
Abacumov N. K, Leningrad, 1983;
***Flora of the Republic of Moldova, Postolache G., Chisinau, 2005;
***Boboc N., Castravet T., Melniciuc O., Assessment of the influence of the human activity
types on the anual surface runoff. Journal of Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Life sciences,
1 (313), 2011, pp. 160-166;
***http://blacksea-riverbasins.net/en/pilot-basins/prut-basin;
***State Water Cadastre. Long-term data on the regime and resources of surface waters.
(1986), Leningrad;
***http://safer.emergencyresponse.eu/site/FO/scripts/myFO_contenu.php?noeu_id=106&lang
=EN
149

Project "Clean Rivers - Clean Sea! NGO actions for environmental

Transcription

Similar documents

Form For Candidates

GBYC Volunteer Sign Up Form

Sustainable Water Management in the Selenga-Baikal Basin

Page 1 TECTONOSTRATIGRAPHY AND NEOTECT ONIC

Field Trip to the Betic Zone and the Carboneras Fault System (SE

Building Code Training – August 30th at Burgundy Basin Inn

August 2015 - Wasatch Woolpack Handspinners

METCRAX - Home

AN EXPERIENCE OF Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS)

www.imprex.eu @imprex_eu