---

---

Global International
Waters Assessment
Thematic report

---

---

Global International
Waters Assessment
Transboundary Waters in the
Black Sea-Danube region;
Legal and fi nancial
implications
GIWA report production
Language editor: Megan Nordgren
Maps & GIS: Niklas Holmgren
Design & graphics: Erno Lahtinen

---

Global International Waters Assessment
Transboundary Waters in the Black Sea-Danube region;
Legal and fi nancial implications.
Published by the University of Kalmar in co-operation with the
Finnish Ministry of Environment and the Institute for Economic
Research on Firms and Growth - MI (National Research Council
of Italy)
© 2005 University of Kalmar
ISBN: 91-89584-48-1
University of Kalmar
SE-391 82 Kalmar
Sweden
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in
any form for educational or non-profi t purposes without special
permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement
of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for
resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without
prior permission in writing from the University of Kalmar.
CITATIONS
When citing this report, please use:
Paleari, S., Heinonen, P., Rautalahti-Miettinen, E. and D. Daler, 2005.
Transboundary Waters in the Black Sea-Danube region; Legal and
fi nancial implications. University of Kalmar, Kalmar, Sweden.
DISCLAIMER
This publication has been peer-reviewed and the information herein
is believed to be reliable, but the publisher does not warrant its
completeness or accuracy.
Printed and bound in Kalmar, Sweden, by Sunds Tryck Öland AB.

---

Contents
Preface
9
Executive summary
10
Abbreviations and acronyms
11
Introduction
14
The Danube ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
The Black Sea ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
The current legal and institutional framework
21
The Danube River Basin................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
The Black Sea ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Co-operation between the Black Sea and the Danube countries................................................................................................................................... 27
Other relevant multilateral water conventions/ institutions ............................................................................................................................................ 28
The EC Water Framework Directive and its implementation in the Black Sea region
29
The Water Framework Directive................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
The Danube River Protection Convention and the Bucharest Convention as compared to the EU Water Framework Directive .......... 33
First steps towards the implementation of the WFD in the Black Sea region............................................................................................................. 36
The implementation of the WFD by new EU Member States and accession countries that are part of the Danube River Basin ........... 37
Concurrence on the WFD by third countries of the Black Sea region............................................................................................................................ 39
The main institutional problems aff ecting the implementation of the WFD in the Black Sea region .............................................................. 40
Costs, benefi ts and the role of international assistance from the perspective of
implementation of the WFD
42
The costs of compliance with EU environmental and water legislation ...................................................................................................................... 43
The benefi ts of compliance with EU environmental and water legislation................................................................................................................. 44
Financing investments in the environmental and water sector: the role of international assistance .............................................................. 46
Assistance from the European Union......................................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Assistance provided by other international fi nancial institutions .................................................................................................................................. 51
Conclusions
52
CONTENTS
7

---

---

Preface
The riparian countries of the Black Sea have agreed to collaborate under
environmental improvement of the Black Sea, particularly as the non-
the Black Sea Commission with the goal of mitigating the sea's problems
EU countries in the region have stated that they will comply with it.
and restoring its environment. However, due to the transitional nature
Consequently, an assessment of how the Black Sea region countries
of the economies of the riparian states following the collapse of
have implemented the WFD is an important task in the overall GIWA
the Soviet Union, there are limited fi nances available for countries
assessment. The goal of this report is to provide such an assessment and
to fully comply with cleanup objectives. The Global Environmental
to thereby contribute to the fulfi lment of the objectives of the BSERP.
Facility, GEF, has therefore funded the Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery
Project (BSERP). UNEP/The Global International Waters Assessment has
This analysis has been carried out by UNEP/GIWA Global International
been asked to participate in BSERP and provide a scientifi c assessment
Waters Assessment in collaboration with the Institute for Economic
that can guide the process of mitigation.
Research on Firms and Growth - MI (National Research Council of Italy)
and the Finnish Environmental Institute (SYKE), which has provided the
The EC Water Framework Directive (WFD), which is mandatory for EU
expertise and information about the WFD and its implementation in
member states and assignation states, can also provide the basis for
transboundary waters.
Dag Daler
Scientifi c Director
UNEP-GIWA
PREFACE
9

---

Executive summary
The Black Sea and the Danube River Basin have faced severe
focuses on EU accession countries of the Black Sea region, but other
environmental degradation over the last 30 years. Since the beginning
Danube/Black Sea countries that are not EU Member States are also
of the 1990s, the countries of the region, with the fi nancial assistance
evaluated.
of the international community, have started to cooperate in order to
promote the sustainable use of transboundary water resources. As
The report discusses the institutional and legal aspects related to the
a consequence, the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea
implementation of the WFD in the Black Sea region. It presents the
against Pollution and the Danube River Protection Convention were
multilateral arrangements and institutional structures for the protection
signed in 1992 and 1994 respectively. The two conventions have
of transboundary waters that have been adopted in the region.
led to the establishment of several institutions that have developed
concrete measures and initiatives to protect the region's shared water
The analysis focuses on the comparison between the existing regional
resources.
conventions/institutional structures and the requirements of the WFD
and the progress of the Danube/Black Sea countries in adapting their
In 2000, the European Union adopted the Water Framework Directive
laws and regulations to comply with the WFD. The report also discusses
(WFD, 2000/60/EC), which is intended to be the cornerstone of a new
the fi nancial aspects related to the implementation of the WFD and EU
EU water strategy. The Directive, based on 25 years of EU regulatory
water legislation in the Black Sea region.
experience in the water sector, introduces innovative principles,
mainly the management of water resources using river basins as a
management unit. The WFD must be transposed and implemented
not only by Member States, but also by candidate countries by the date
of their accession.
This report provides an overview of the Black Sea region and its
environmental problems. It presents the region's socio-economic
characteristics and examines the water services of the Danube/Black
Sea countries. Additionally, it describes the environmental status of the
Danube River and of the Black Sea, exploring the main causes behind
the region's water pollution and environmental degradation.
This report analyses the process of implementation of the EU Water
Framework Directive in the Black Sea region from the legal, institutional
and fi nancial points of view. The region includes the Danube River Basin
countries, the Black Sea coastal states and Belarus. The work mainly
10
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

Abbreviations and acronyms
A Austria
AC Activity
Centre
AEWS
Accident and Emergency Warning System
AG Advisory
Group
AG CBD
Advisory Group on the Conservation of Biological Diversity
AG ESAS
Advisory Group on the Environmental safety Aspects of Shipping
AG FOMLR
Advisory Group on Fisheries and Other Marine Living Resources
AG ICZM
Advisory Group on the Development of Common Methodologies for Integrated Coastal Zone Management
AG IDE
Advisory Group on Information and Data Exchange
AG LBS
Advisory Group on control of pollution from Land-Based Sources
AG PMA
Advisory Group on Pollution Monitoring and Assessment
APC EG
Expert Group on Accident Prevention and Control
BAT Best
Available
Techniques
BEP Best
Environmental
Practices
BG
Bulgaria
BIH Bosnia-Herzegovina
BOD Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
BSC
Black Sea Commission (Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution)
BSEP
Black Sea Environmental Programme
CAP Common
Agriculture
Policy
CARDS
Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation
CE Current
Expenditure
CEEC
Central and Easter European Countries
CIS
Common Implementation Strategy
COD Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
CY Cyprus
CZ Czech
Republic
DABLAS Task Force Danube and Black Sea region Task Force
DDT Dichlor
Diphenyl
Trichlorethylene
DRB Danube
River
Basin
DRPC Danube
River
Protection
Convention
EBRD
European bank for Reconstruction and Development
EC European
Commission
ECO EG
Expert Group on Ecology
EE Estonia
EEA European
Environmental
Agency
EEC
European Economic Communities
EECA
Eastern Europe and Central Asia
EECCA
Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia
EEE Environmentally-related
Expenditure
EG Expert
Group
EIB European
Investment
Bank
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
11

---

EMIS EG
Expert Group on Emissions
Environment DG
Environment Directorate General (European Commission)
EPDRB Environmental
Programme
for
the
Danube
River
Basin
EPE Environmental
Protection
Expenditure
EPI Environmental
Protection
Investments
EU European
Union
FLOOD EG
Expert Group on Flood Protection
FRY
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
G Germany
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GEF Global
Environment
Facility
GNI
Gross National Income
H Hungary
HCBs Hexachlorobenzene
HCHs Hexachlorohexanes
HR Croatia
ICPDR
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
IFI International
Financial
Institutions
IPPC
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
JAP
Joint Action Programme for the Danube River Basin
JDS
Joint Danube Survey
JTWG
Joint ad-hoc Technical Working Group
LIFE Financial
Instrument
for
the
Environment
LT Lithuania
LV
Latvia
MA Malta
MD Moldova
MLIM EG
Expert Group on Monitoring, laboratory and Information Management
N Nitrogen
NIS
Newly Independent States
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
P Phosphorus
PAHs Polyaromatic
Hydrocarbons
PCA
Partnership and Co-operation Agreement
PCU Project
Co-ordination
Unit
PL Poland
RBM EG
Expert Group on River Basin Management
REC Regional
Environmental
Centre
REReP Regional
Environmental
Reconstruction
Programme
RO Romania
SAP Strategic
Action
Plan
SIP
Strategic Action Plan Implementation Programme
SK Slovakia
SLO Slovenia
TDA Transboundary
Diagnostic
Analysis
TF Task
Force
TNMN Trans-National
Monitoring
Network
TPE Transboundary
Pollution
Eff ects
TU Turkey
UA
Ukraine
UNECE
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNDP United
Nations
Development
Programme
UNEP United
Nations
Environment
Programme
WB World
Bank
WFD Water
Framework
Directive
WG Working
Group
WSSD
World Summit on Sustainable Development
12
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

List of figures
Figure 1
The Black Sea Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 2
Population connected to sewerage system and untreated municipal wastewater, by country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 3
Annual benefits of full compliance with the water directive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
List of tables
Table 1
Matrix of direct transboundary relationships within the Danube Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 2
Annual abstraction of raw water from the Danube River Basin (million m3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 3
Estimation of pollution from point sources (tonnes/ year) in the Danube River Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 4
The consumption of fertilisers in Danube countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 5
Black Sea population, by country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 6
Directives to be repealed by the WFD.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 7
Main deadlines set out by the WFD.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 8
Important requirements of the WFD as compared to the DRPC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 9
Status of transposition/implementation of the WFD in the Danube/Black Sea new EU Member States and accession countries.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 10
Transitional arrangements concluded by the Danube accession countries in the water sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 11
List of EU directives subject to comparative analysis within the Dnieper River Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 12
Total investments for compliance with the CEEC (billion EURO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 13
New estimates of environmental financing needs in candidate countries (million EURO).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 14
Checklist of the types of costs incurred to implement the WFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 15
Benefits of compliance: the acquis communitaire related to water and the associated level of analysis required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 16
Total benefits over the benefit period (until 2020), by media, by candidate country (million EURO). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 17
Water benefits qualification, quantification and monetisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 18
Estimated environmental investment needs and expenditure ­ UNECE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 19
CARDS assistance to Danube countries in water related sectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
List of boxes
Box 1
Environmental status of the Danube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Box 2
Nutrients and eutrophication in the Black Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Box 3
Pollution of the Black Sea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Box 4
Expert Groups under the ICPDR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Box 5
Main goals established by the Danube Declaration (13 December 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Box 6
Criteria that define "good" as a status for surface waters and groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
LISTS OF FIGURES, TABLES AND BOXES
13

---

Introduction
The catchment area of the Black Sea region comprises more than
report. Major tributaries of the Danube are the Inn, the Drava, the Tisza,
2 million km2, entirely or partially incorporating 22 countries
the Sava, the Morava and the Prut (Figure 1).
(Albania, Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Georgia, Hungary, Italy,
Direct transboundary relationships in the basin are summarised in
Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Serbia-
Table 1. The axis labelled "Source countries" denotes countries that
Montenegro1, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine). It is
are directly upstream of other countries and that discharge water and
composed of the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov and three main river
pollution to downstream countries. The axis labelled "Direct recipient
basins: the Danube, the Dnieper and the Don.
countries" denotes countries, which are directly downstream of other
countries and which receive water and pollution from them.
The main goal of this report is to examine the possibilities of the
EU Water Framework Directive in promoting water management
The geography of the Danube River Basin is very diverse. It includes
in the whole Black Sea catchment area. However, the report will
high mountain chains, wide plains, sand dunes, large forested or marshy
mainly focus on the Danube River Basin and the Black Sea coastal
wetlands and, very specifi cally, karst topography and the river's extensive
states in part because most of the Danube countries and the Black
delta. The Danube delta covers an area of some 4,100 km2 and is a
Sea coastal states, are already involved in the EU enlargement
comparatively young formation. About 6,500 years ago the delta was a
process and are directly interested in the implementation of the
shallow cove of the Black Sea coast, but it was gradually fi lled by river-borne
Directive.
silt. The delta continues to grow seaward at a rate of 24 to 30 m annually.
Climate and precipitation vary signifi cantly and they continuously shape
the basin's landscapes. Generally the Danube Basin is dominated by a
The Danube
continental climate. The mountain chains receive the highest annual
precipitation, while the inner and outer basins and the delta region
General description of the Danube
are very dry.
The Danube fl ows about 2,850 km to the Black Sea, draining about
817,000 km2. It has about 300 tributaries, of which 30 are navigable. The
Dams and reservoirs are found in all mountainous areas of the Danube
basin of the Danube is the second largest in Europe and incorporates
Basin, while most navigation canals and irrigation networks are
parts of Albania, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech
concentrated in the lowlands along the central and lower Danube.
Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania,
Hydropower use and energy production varies substantially from
Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine and Serbia-Montenegro. Five of
country to country. The total capacity in the Danube Basin is in the
the 18 riparian states (Albania, Italy, Macedonia, Poland and Switzerland)
order of 29,200 MW. The biggest hydropower dam and reservoir system
have areas smaller than 2,000 km2 and are therefore not covered in this
is located at the Djerdap (Iron Gate) gorge (117 km long), and began
production in 1970.
1 Upon the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the remaining confedera-
tion of Serbia and Montenegro was reconstituted in 1992 as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(FRY). The FRY was then reformed and renamed in 2002 to Serbia-Montenegro. In this paper we
generally refer to the country as Serbia-Montenegro. However, with regard to tables and figures
The reservoirs trap some 20 million tonnes of sediments per year, thus
and when commenting on data presented by tables/figures we quote the same country name
used by the related source.
serving both as an important nutrient sink and a concentration of
14
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

ro
Minsk
i
p
n
D
Do
Belarus
Germany
n
Poland
Pripyat'
Russia
Czech Republic
Kh
a
op
esn
D
er
Danube
Kiev Dn
Munich
ipr
Kharkiv
o
Dn
Vienna
Slovakia
iest
Seve
Volga
Switzerland
er
Yu
rskiy
-D
zh
Ukraine
Don
D
on
Austria
Ca
Pru
n
ets
i
na
t
ny
pr
l
y B
o
T
Donets'k
Dr
isa
ug
Dnipropetrovs'k

ava
Budapest
Hungary
Slovenia
Rostov-on-Don
s
za
Moldova
Ti
Odesa
Croatia
Dnipro
s
a
Ti
Sava
Romania
Kuban'
Bosnia &
Urup
V
Herzegovina Belgrade elik
Bucharest
a
Elevation/Depth (m)
M
Serbia & orava
4 000
Montenegro Sofiya Bulgaria
2 000
Georgia
1 000
500
Istanbul
100
zil
Ki
0
Ankara
-50
Turkey
-200
-1 000
-2 000
0
500 Kilometres
© GIWA 2004
Figure 1
The Black Sea Basin.
hazardous and toxic matter for pollution originating upstream in the
Navigation is a traditional activity on the Danube. All Danube dams
Danube catchment. At the same time, sediments are prevented from
between Regensburg (Germany) and Iron Gate serve navigation needs.
travelling downstream, which has created erosion problems.
The tributaries are also used for navigation. This includes the Drava,
the Tisza, the Sava and the Prut. Moreover, three artifi cial waterways
(the Danube-Tisza-Danube Canal, the Danube-Black Sea Canal and the
Table 1
Matrix of direct transboundary relationships within the
Danube Basin.
Rhine-Main Danube Canal) have been built on the Danube (Figure 1).
Direct Recipient Countries
Source countries
G
A
CZ
SK
H
SLO
HR
BIH FRY
BG
RO
MD UA
Main demographic and economic characteristics
Germany
X
of the Danube countries
Austria
X
X
X
X
Czech Republic
X
X
According to offi
cial fi gures from 1996/1997, the population of the 13
Slovakia
X
X
Danube countries was about 223 million, and the population living in
Hungary
X
X
X
the Danube Basin about 81 million. Hungary is completely in the basin,
Slovenia
X
X
while 97% of Romania's territory is within the basin. In comparison,
Croatia
X
X
X
Bosnia Herzegovina
X
X
Ukraine and Germany have not more than 6% and 11% respectively
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
X
X
X
of their population living in the Danube River Basin. The average
Bulgaria
X
X
population density in the basin was 101 people/km2.
Romania
X
X
X
X
X
Moldova
X
X
Ukraine
X
X
X
X
The extremely dissimilar degree of economic development of the Danube
*
X
X
X
countries results in great disparities in country-specifi c GDP. Austria and
Note: the asterisk (*) refers to countries with small areas and discharges in the basin. These countries
are Albania, Italy, Poland and Switzerland. (Source: PCU 1999a)
Germany have the highest GDP, as well as the most advanced industrial
INTRODUCTION
15

---

Table 2
Annual abstraction of raw water from the Danube River Basin (million m3).
Total without
Public water
Industry
Agriculture
Cooling
Other
State
Year
cooling water
supply systems
Mining
Irrigation
water
purposes
Bosnia Herzegovina
1997
57
7
49
ND
ND
ND
Bulgaria
1996
234
ND
211
17
176
6
Croatia
1994
104
16
79
9
242
0
Czech Republic
1995
162
54
97
11
67
0
Hungary
1996
1,148
41
171
935
4,417
0
Moldova
1996
114
17
7
79
0
11
Romania
1996
7,388
1,237
4,647
1,504
2,600
ND
Slovakia
1997
879
49
747
83
0
0
Slovenia
1995
14
8
1
4
51
0
Ukraine
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
1997
1,152
271
457
424
5,300
ND
Germany
1997
164
34
130
0
1,512
0
Austria
1997
1,300
0
1,300
0
1,300
0
Total
12,714
1,734
7,896
3,067
15,665
17
Total(%)
100
14
62
24
123
0
Note: ND=No Data. (Source: PCU 1999a)
and tertiary sectors, while the share of their agriculture sector ranged,
The extent and the standard of wastewater treatment greatly diff er from
in 2001, from 1 to 2%. The four new EU countries (the Czech Republic,
country to country. From this point of view, the Danube countries can
Hungary, Slovakia, and Slovenia) have a lower GDP as well as strong
be categorized as follows:
industrial and tertiary sectors. The remaining countries are characterized
Germany, Austria, Slovakia and the Czech Republic: less than
by very diff erent GDP values and by a leading agriculture sector.

10% of non-treated wastewater is discharged;
Hungary, Moldova: between 10 and 20% of non-treated
Water use, wastewater and water tariffs

wastewater is discharged;
A tally of national abstractions of raw water from the Danube Basin
Romania, Ukraine, Bulgaria and Slovenia: between 30 and 40%
is presented in Table 2. Most of the total water abstracted from the

of non-treated wastewater is discharged;
Danube Basin is used for cooling purposes.
Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-Montenegro: more than

80% of non-treated wastewater is discharged.
The data provided by the National Review Reports (1998) indicate that
the total volume of wastewater discharged to the Danube River Basin is
Both water and wastewater tariff s2 are extremely diff erent from country
about 12.6 billion m3 a year. This total wastewater volume is composed
to country and there is usually a signifi cant gap between the relatively
of 7.4 billion m3 (59%) of wastewater from public sewerage systems and
low (and often still subsidized) tariff s for the population at large and the
5.2 billion m3 (41%) of industrial and agricultural wastewater directly
high (in some case extraordinary high) tariff s for industry. Moreover, in
discharged into the river system.
many accession countries there was a marked increase in prices during
transition, resulting in lower water use.
Table 3
Estimation of pollution from point sources
(tonnes/ year) in the Danube River Basin.
Causes leading to environmental problems
Sector pollution
Municipal
Industry
Agriculture
Total
The Danube River Basin is under great pressure from diverse human
BOD
250,683
73,072
323,755
activities, which can be allocated to the municipal, industrial and
COD
605,667
245,183
850,850
agricultural sectors. An estimation of the total pollution from point
N
179,000-222,000
43,000-55,000
10,000-15,000
232,000-292,000
sources is presented in Table 3.
P
34,900-44,000
6,200-10,700
2,000-4,100
43,100-58,800
(Source: PCU 1999b)
The municipal sector has an important infl uence on the environmental
quality of the Danube River Basin, since 60% of the overall amount of
2 Water tariff is the price a customer connected to a central water supply system has to pay to the
water utility for one m3 of water consumed. Wastewater tariff is defined as the price a customer
wastewater comes from this sector. The type and rate of applied
connected to a central sewerage system has to pay to the utility for the discharge of one m3 of
wastewater.
wastewater treatment varies widely (Figure 2). Germany and Austria,
16
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

countries, are required to implement many diff erent legal acts that
Population connected to
Untreated municipal
sewerage system (%)
wastewater (%)
regulate industrial activities from an environmental perspective. These
100
legal acts are not only directly related to water quality, but they also
cover waste management, chemicals, industrial pollution control, and
80
risk management.
60
More specifi cally, there are many interlinked causes related to the
40
industrial sector that contribute to water pollution. These include the
use of dirty and obsolete technologies, the discharge of wastewater
20
without pre-treatment, the shortcomings of the management system
0
and the inadequate disposal of wastes and hazardous substances.
A
D
CZ
SK
H
SLO
HR
BIH
YU
RU
BG
UA
MO
Figure 2
Population connected to sewerage system and
Agriculture is a traditionally prominent economic sector, especially
untreated municipal wastewater, by country.
in the middle and lower Danube Basin countries. It covers diff erent
(Source: PCU 1999b)
activities, including crop production, livestock, fi sh farming, and forest
both of which have implemented the EC Urban wastewater treatment
management. In earlier times, large quantities of cheap fertilisers and
Directive (91/271/EEC), have achieved a good level of emission
pesticides were used, causing degradation of rivers and groundwater.
reduction.
Poor land management also encouraged soil erosion.
Another important cause of water pollution and environmental
The situation has changed since the early 1990s. In the fi rst place, due to
degradation comes from municipal solid waste. In the Danube
the economic crisis and to the reduction of agricultural subsidies, there
countries, except for Germany and Austria, municipal solid waste
has been a signifi cant reduction in the total agricultural and livestock
has usually been dumped in unauthorized and uncontrolled sites or
production which, along with a decreased application of fertilisers
together with industrial and even hazardous waste.
(Table 4) and pesticides, has resulted in some positive changes for the
environment.
Industry, including mining and energy production, represents, after
services, a major economic sector throughout the region. This sector
Secondly, environmental legislation in support of adequate agricultural
abstracts water from the Danube River Basin system at a rate of 12.7
practices began to be developed after 1990. The ongoing process toward
billion m3 per year; an additional 15.4 billion m3 per year are withdrawn
EU accession is a major motivating factor in this sense. The harmonisation
for cooling purposes. Out of the former fi gure, 62% is abstracted for
industrial and mining purposes. Moreover, according to the list of hot
Table 4
The consumption of fertilisers in Danube countries.
spots compiled by the Danube Pollution Reduction Programme (1999),
Fertiliser consumption
State
(Hundreds of grams per hectare of arable land)
there are 220 industrial hot spots within the Danube Basin, unevenly
1978-1981
1997-1999
distributed among the countries. Romania alone has 122 hot spots.
Austria
2,615
1,774
Bosnia Herzegovina
/
663
On a general level, the environmental impact of the industries depends
Bulgaria
2,334
381
both on the structure and the performance of national economies and
Croatia
261
306
on the eff ectiveness of national legislation and institutions. Moving
Czech Republic
/
951
from the upper towards the lower Danube countries, there are visible
Germany
4,249
2,485
diff erences in the performance of national economies, which can
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
1261
/
be seen to have a pattern with the EU Member States in one group,
Hungary
2,906
832
Moldova
/
279
accession countries in another and third countries in the last. This
Romania
1,448
325
pattern is also visible at the environmental level, as the economic
Slovakia
/
716
transition has often resulted in a switch from heavy industries towards
Slovenia
/
4,442
less-polluting lighter industries and services. With regard to the legal/
Ukraine
/
151
institutional aspects, EU Member States, as well as the accession
(Source: World Bank 2002)
INTRODUCTION
17

---

of agricultural legislation with the EU acquis communitaire has already
Box 1
Environmental status of the Danube.
been completed in many respects. However, several gaps still exist,
Ecological status
· The saprobity (Standard ONORM M 6232) of the Danube, assessed on the basis of the zoobenthos,
especially in institutional frameworks and in rural fi nancial systems.
varied between water class II (moderately polluted) and II/III (critically polluted). The Danube showed
good water quality (class II) all the way to Budapest. Arms and tributaries were found to be more
polluted and reached water quality class III (strongly polluted) or worse.
Although the changes have produced positive environmental
· With regard to phytoplankton, high values indicated eutrophic conditions in the middle reaches,
impacts, it should be underscored that agriculture still makes a great
particularly downstream of Budapest, as well as in some tributaries (the Iskar, the Velika Morava, the
Ipoly, and the Sio). In some tributaries (the Jantra, the Russenski Lom, the Arges, the Siret and the
contribution to water degradation in the Danube countries. The most
Prut) high concentrations of nutrients indicated eutrophic conditions, but only low phytoplankton
biomass values were found, probably due to some inhibitory effects.
important causes of point and diff use sources discharges from the
· The microbiological results showed faecal pollution reached the highest values in the tributaries (the
agricultural sector are the inadequate use and application of pesticides
Russenski Lom, the Arges, the Siret and the Prut). Lower bacteria values could be observed in the
upper Danube Basin, as well as in and downstream of the Iron Gate reservoir. Higher levels were found
and fertilisers, the discharge of liquid waste from farms without pre-
in the middle part, particularly downstream of Budapest and Beograd.
treatment, the leakage of on-site septic tanks and inappropriate forest
Chemical status
management and land use. Models and expert forecasts show that the
· According to the TNMN for most of the heavy metals, the general pattern is increasing from the upper
and middle to the lower Danube; the heavy metals content in some tributaries is higher than the
implementation of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) in accession
content in the Danube itself. The contamination is rather high in case of lead and copper, with 57.3%
of values for lead and 56.7% of values for copper above the target limit The contamination of the
countries will lead to moderately higher agricultural and livestock
Danube itself for cadmium and mercury is characterised with 47.4% of values exceeding the cadmium
production, so that environmental pressure generated by this sector
target level and 36.6% of values exceeding the mercury target level. In tributaries, the situation is
better for cadmium, but worse for mercury.
could rise again in the near future.
· The results of the JDS show that contamination by chromium, lead and mercury is rather low. Instead,
serious contamination of the Danube and several of its tributaries with copper, nickel and particularly
arsenic was observed.
Environmental problems in the Danube River Basin
· The organochlorine compounds (lindane and DDT) show the same spatial profile, with an increasing
As reported by the Strategic Action Plan for the Danube River Basin
pattern from the upper and middle to the lower Danube; with respect to levels that exceed the target
value for lindane (23.8%) and for DDT (70.5%). The pesticide atrazine is undetectable at most of the
1995-2005 (PCU 1999b), the core environmental problem of the Danube
monitoring sites along the Danube, but 12.5% of the data are above target limit. In tributaries, 30% of
values are above the target; chloroform values are above the target limits by 29.0% in the Danube and
River Basin identifi ed by the Danube countries can be described
39.5% in tributaries.
as "ecologically unsustainable development and inadequate water
· The concentrations of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediments were usually lower than
the quality target, while their concentration in mussels showed an increasing trend as one moved
resources management". The core problem is generated by diff erent
downstream to the Danube delta. The highest concentrations were measured in mussels collected
causes, such as: inadequate management of wastewater/solid waste,
from tributaries in the middle reaches of the Danube.
ecological unsustainable industrial activities, and inadequate land
management and improper agricultural practices. Such a problem
produces, on the one hand, three direct consequences:
Transboundary environmental effects
pollution of surface/groundwater,
According to EEA (2003), at European level, the new EU Member
eutrophication,
and
States and accession countries of the Danube Basin have the highest
accelerated
runoff /erosion.
dependency on external water resources (about 70% of their total
resources). Transboundary relationships within the basin make each
These consequences have, on the other hand, the following main
Danube country very vulnerable to water pollution and degradation
eff ects:
generated by the others.
decline in quality of life,
human
health
risks,
Transboundary pollution eff ects (TPE) can be seen with respect to all
degradation
of
biodiversity,
economic sectors. In the municipal sector, major towns that are situated
economic
decline,
and
directly along the river systems and that discharge large amounts of
reduced availability of water.
untreated wastewater are often the cause of TPE. The downstream
countries, as a consequence, face problems of limited use of water
Water quality in Danube has recently been examined by the Trans-
resources and risk for human health and biodiversity. In the industrial
National Monitoring Network, TNMN (ICDPR 2001) and the Joint Danube
sector, TPE have been observed in the whole Danube Basin, and are
Survey, JDS (ICDPR 2002). The TNMN Report is based on data collected
more pronounced in the middle and low sections. Agriculture activities
in 1996-2000. The JDS was conducted from August to September 2001
also result in transboundary eff ects, which might primarily aff ect surface
and it has produced a consolidated picture of the Danube and its major
water, causing pollution and thereby presenting a threat to the health
tributaries in terms of water quality. The main results are summarised
of the downstream water quality and biota.
in Box 1.
18
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

The areas most aff ected by the TPE described are the Danube delta
runoff to the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. This, in turn, has caused a
and, ultimately, the Black Sea. About 340 million m3 of Danube water
reduction in the freshwater and sediment infl ow into these areas, with
pour into the Black Sea every year, passing through the delta and
concomitant coastal erosion and changes in salinity.
representing more than 50% of the sea's total riverine infl ow. The
Danube delta is an environmental buff er between the Danube River
In a major part of the Black Sea Basin, the climate is similar to the
and the Black Sea, fi ltering out pollutants and permitting both water
Mediterranean (warm humid winters and hot dry summers). The
quality conditions and natural habitats for fi sh in the delta and in the
south-eastern part, surrounded by the mountains, is characterised by
environmentally vulnerable shallow waters of the north-western Black
a humid subtropical climate (abundant precipitation, warm winter, hot
Sea. Additionally, it is Europe's broadest remaining natural wetland, with
summer). In general, the Black Sea Basin climate is favourable for tourism
unique ecosystems with extensive reed beds, forests, sand dunes, and
and resort activities.
grasslands. It is home to several rare bird species, an important resisting
point for migrating birds, and is rich in fi sh and unusual fl ora.
Main demographic and economic characteristics
of the Black Sea countries
The whole catchment area of the Black Sea has about 160-170 million of
inhabitants, almost half of whom are from the countries of the Danube
The Black Sea
subbasin. The population of the six coastal states living in the Black Sea
region is about 110 million (Table 5).
Geography and hydrological factors
The Black Sea is a very isolated sea, and due to its geomorphologic
Most of coastal areas are densely populated and even over-populated
structure and specifi c hydrochemical conditions, it is very vulnerable
during the summer season. According to estimates based on national
to pressure from land-based sources of pollution. Eutrophication is
census statistics, permanent human population along the Black Sea
one of the most serious problems facing the Black Sea and one of the
shores came to 16-20 million in the 1990s, with some 4-12 million per
key explanations for its environmental decline. However, the loads of
year of these represented by tourists. These data do not include people
nutrients entering the Black Sea from the Danube have fallen in recent
inhabiting the coasts of the Azov and Marmara Seas, or the citizens of
years due to several reasons: the collapse of the economies of many
Istanbul.
of the Danube and former Soviet countries, the dramatic reduction in
the use of fertilisers in many middle and lower Danube countries, and
The economies of the Black Sea countries are characterised by a robust
considerable improvement in the treatment of wastewater in the upper
agriculture sector and by large disparities in GDP, GDP growth and
(Germany and Austria) and central Danube countries (Czech Republic,
GNI per capita values. In 2001, the GDP ranged from 3.1 billion USD
Hungary, Slovenia, and Slovakia).
in Georgia to 309.9 billion USD in Russia. In 2002, the GNI per capita of
Turkey was almost four times that of Georgia.
The Black Sea has a surface area of 423,000 km2, with a total volume of
547,000 km3 and a maximum depth of around 2,200 m. The Black Sea is
The water sector in the Black sea countries
an almost entirely landlocked sea (Figure 1). At the north-eastern corner,
There is a substantial diff erence in water availability among the coastal
the Kerch Strait links the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov, which has an area
states. Apart from Russia, the annual renewable water resources range
of 40,000 km2 and an average depth of 8 m. In the southwest, the outlet
from 211.9 BCM (billion m3) in Romania to 21.3 BCM in Bulgaria in
to the Mediterranean is via the Bosphorus Strait.
Table 5
Black Sea population, by country.
Black Sea population
Black Sea population
Country
More than 300 rivers fl ow into the Black and Azov Seas, including
(Millions)
(% of the total)
the second, the third and the fourth major European rivers, namely
Bulgaria
5,5
5
the Danube, Dnieper and Don. The estimated annual volume of river
Romania
23
20.6
Ukraine
47.1
42.2
discharge entering the Black Sea fl uctuates from 294 to 480 km3. Vast
Turkey
7.8
7
quantities of silt are brought by rivers, resulting in low transparency
Russia
26.1
23.4
of coastal waters especially in the north-western Black Sea area and
Georgia
2
1.8
in the Sea of Azov. The construction of dams for irrigation and power
Total
111.5
100
generation purposes has resulted in a substantial net decrease in the
(Source: European Commission 2001a)
INTRODUCTION
19

---

absolute terms, and from 12,035 m3/capita in Georgia to 2,680 m3/capita
Box 2
Nutrients and eutrophication in the Black Sea.
in Bulgaria in relative terms. Most of the water resources come from
· Eutrophication, caused by nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) is the primary problem of the Black Sea.
rivers that have signifi cant seasonal and annual variability, including
· It started particularly in the late 1960s, when fertiliser use grew markedly and urban settlements were
increasingly sewered, but nutrients were not removed from sewerage.
droughts and risk of fl ooding. The distribution of water is uneven not
· The economic crisis that began in 1991, however, resulted in opportunites for improvement of
only in time, but also in geographic space and does not correspond to
ecosystems: farmers were unable to apply the quantity of fertilisers used in the former economies and
many large polluting industries were forced to close. As a consequence, a decline in nutrients resulted.
the population distribution.
· The main sectors responsible for nutrient inputs are municipal and agricultural.
· In agricultural sector, the transition to a market-oriented economy has caused a significant reduction
in the total production of agriculture and livestock, with some positive consequences for the
On average, about 65% of the land area of the Black Sea countries is
environment. Additional improvement has arisen from the enforcement of the EU Nitrate Directive
found in international basins. The dependency ratio from transboundary
91/676/EEC in the MSs.
· The economic impact of algal blooms and, in particular, of harmful and toxic ones, include the value
waters is very high in Romania (80%) and Ukraine (62%). With reference
of damage to wild fish and shellfish stocks, and reductions in tourism and associated industries.
to water use, agriculture is the prevailing sector in Bulgaria, Georgia
Eutrophication, along with overfishing, pollution and Mnemiopsis leidyi's invasion, contributed to
the dramatic declines in landings from the middle 1980s to 1991. From 1992, a slight upward trend
and Turkey, while industry is the largest water user in Romania, Russia
in fish catches began and landing levels have since recovered. However, the economic return has not
recovered. Employment in the fishery sector has been vastly affected.
and Ukraine. Except for Turkey, which has experienced a 40% increase,
· With regard to the tourist sector, the number of people vacationing on the sea has dropped
water use has signifi cantly dropped during the last decade in all the
substantially in recent years. Furthermore, eutrophication was the direct cause of the destruction of
the Phyllophora ecosystem in the north-western shelf. Such destruction, in turn, not only affected the
other countries of the region, partly as a result of higher water prices
entire Black Sea, but ecosystem in the north-western shelf. Such destruction, in turn, not only affected
and partly as a result of economic decline.
the entire Black Sea, but also had an economic impact on those industries that used gelatine extracted
from Phyllophora.
The population that is connected to water supply networks ranges from
Box 3
Pollution of the Black Sea.
95% in Bulgaria to 65% in Georgia, while the population that has access
· Oil pollution in the Black Sea is predominantly concentrated in the coastal area around stationary
to sewerage ranges from 86% in Russia to 52% in Romania. The lack of
sources, such as river mouths, sewerage outfalls, harbours and industrial plants. Accidental and
operational spillage of oil and petroleum products from vessels contributes to pollution in both inshore
wastewater treatment facilities contributes to the poor quality of water
and offshore areas.
resources in most Black Sea countries. Moreover, where wastewater
· Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have been found in bottom sediments near Odessa, the Danube
coastline, and in Sochi (Russia). With regard to concentrations in marine waters, the Black Sea
treatment plants exist, they often are not working properly.
Commission (2002) has reported high concentrations of PAHs in different areas.
· Synthetic pollutants are represented by organohalogens such as DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls
Environmental problems of the Black Sea
(PCBs), hexachlorohexanes (HCHs), and hexachlorobenzene (HCB), mainly from agriculture, industry
and municipal sewage. Their levels in the seawater and sediments in some coastal appear to be quite
The Black Sea is aff ected by severe environmental degradation. In 1995,
high.
· The source of radioactive pollution is the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986. Anthropogenic radionuclides
the Black Sea was rated as having the highest concerns in fi ve out of
were introduced to the sea mainly by atmospheric precipitations and rivers. In the 1990s, the Black
seven environmental categories, the worst of any of the European
Sea showed relatively high concentrations of radionuclides. The preliminary results of the Marine
Environmental Assessment of the Black Sea Region (IAEA) underline that radioactivity levels have no
seas (Stanners and Boudreau 1995). Some signs of recovery have been
significance in terms of human health and environmental safety.
observed in the last years, but eutrophication remains a severe problem
Due to a poorly developed tourist infrastructure and the illegal disposal from marine transport and
households, the Black Sea and its coasts seem to be subject to very high levels of solid wastes, although
(Box 2).
the littering of beaches and ultimately marine waters is illegal in all the coastal states. Almost all Black
Sea cities and settlements currently discharge their effluents into the marine environment directly or
via rivers. The estimated total volume of sewage comes to over 571 million m3 per year (Mee 1993).
The main causes of seawater pollution (Box 3) come from point and
diff use land-based sources, river run-off , atmospheric deposition,
and intentional and accidental discharges from vessels. Many coastal
Because of the severe economic problems experienced by almost all of
municipalities and industries discharge their wastewater directly to the
the countries in the region, many industrial plants were closed during
sea with inadequate or no treatment.
the last ten years. Since restructuring is usually not feasible for industrial
installations that have reached the end of their economic life and a shift
The industrial sector plays an important role with regard to most of
to cleaner technologies is even more diffi
cult, technologies that are
the forms of pollution illustrated in Box 3. After services, industry,
currently in use are frequently outdated, unsafe, and highly polluting.
including mining and energy production is the major economic sector
throughout the region. The metallurgy, mining and chemical industries,
along with the energy sector, are the most polluting and contribute
to water contamination through untreated or inadequately treated
wastewater discharge and through pollution from accidents.
20
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

The current legal and
institutional framework
The Danube River Basin
The Convention on cooperation for the protection
and sustainable use of the Danube River
The Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and the Sustainable
The fi rst legal/institutional framework for cooperation in protecting the
Use of the Danube River (Danube River Protection Convention or DRPC)
Danube water environment through joint measures was established
was signed on 29 June 1994 in Sofi a by eleven of the Danube riparian
with the signing of the Bucharest Declaration in 1985. The next step, the
states and the European Community. It came into force on 22 October
adoption of the Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Use of
1998.
the Danube River, was taken in 1994 in response to the need to develop
an international water protection strategy for the Danube River. With
The Convention implements the UNECE Framework Convention on the
its entry into force in October 1998, the Convention became the key
Protection and Use of Transboundary Water Courses and International
legal instrument for regulating cooperation and transboundary water
Lakes on a regional basis (Helsinki, 1992). Moreover, it supersedes the
management in the basin.
Bucharest Declaration for the Protection of the Danube River against
pollution (1985). The contracting Parties to the DRPC are:
To facilitate its implementation, the International Commission for the
the European Community;
Protection of the Danube River was established as the main decision-
Austria and Germany, which are EU Member States;
making body of the Convention. The Commission's work is supported
the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovak Republic and Slovenia, which
by a Permanent Secretariat and by diff erent Expert Groups and Working
are new EU Member States;
Groups.
Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania, which are accession countries;
Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro, and Ukraine, which can be
In 1994, the Danube countries adopted a Strategic Action Plan, which
considered as third countries.
provides directions for achieving the goals of regional integrated water
management expressed by the Convention. The Strategic Action Plan
Bosnia-Herzegovina is currently an accredited observer and it is
has recently been reviewed (ICPDR 2000).
completing the process to become a full Contracting Party to the
Convention. Many international conventions/institutions (such as the
In December 2004, the fi rst ICPDR Ministerial Meeting took place
Black Sea Protection Convention) are also accredited observers.
in Vienna, bringing to the approval of the Action Programme
for Sustainable Flood Protection, the Danube Declaration, the
The Convention applies to the surface waters and the groundwater
Memorandum of Understanding for the Tisza River Basin and the
in the catchment area of the Danube River. In particular, the following
Danube Analysis as required by the EU WFD "Roof Report 2004" (ICDPR
activities and measures are subject to the Convention, as far as they
2005).
cause or are likely to cause transboundary impacts:
THE CURRENT LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
21

---

the discharge of wastewater, the inputs of nutrients and hazardous
The Contracting Parties, taking into account the proposals from the
substances, both from point and non-point sources, as well as heat
International Commission, are charged with setting emission limit
discharge;
values for hazardous substances and nutrients contained in the
planned activities and measures in the fi eld of water construction
effl
uents of targeted industrial sectors and for municipal wastewater.
works, in particular regulation, as well as run off and storage level
control and ice hazard abatement, as well as the eff ects of facilities
The Convention includes provisions regarding periodic inventories
situated in or beside the watercourse on its hydraulic regime;
of the relevant point and non-point sources of pollution within the
other planned activities and measures for the purposes of water
catchment area. Based on these inventories, the Contracting Parties
utilisation, such as exploitation of hydro power, water transfer and
are to establish a list of further prevention and abatement measures
withdrawal;
to be taken step by step. The inventory of emissions and the list
the operation of the existing hydrotechnical constructions;
of measures to be taken should form the basis for developing
the handling of substances hazardous to water and the
joint action programmes. The Contracting Parties are requested
precautionary prevention of accidents.
to monitor the progress made in the implementation of the joint
action programmes by establishing periodic progress reviews.
The Convention is also applicable to fi sheries issues and inland
Joint monitoring programmes are also to be carried out by the
navigation if problems of water protection against pollution caused by
Contracting Parties.
these activities are concerned. The Contracting Parties are charged with
achieving the goals of sustainable and equitable water management,
The Contracting Parties are to provide for coordinated or joint
including the conservation, improvement, and the rational use of
communication, warning and alarm systems on a basin-wide context.
surface waters and groundwater in the catchment area as far as possible.
Contact points are to be designated in case of emergency events like
Additionally, they are charged with making all possible eff orts to control
accidental pollution or fl oods. The relevant authorities are to establish
the hazards originating from accidents involving substances hazardous
joint emergency plans.
to water, fl oods and ice on the Danube River. Finally, they are charged
with reducing the pollution loads of the Black Sea from sources in the
The Convention lays down the provisions for the establishment of
catchment area. To this end, the Contracting Parties shall establish
an International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
measures aimed at sustainable development and environmental
(ICPRD); the framework of the Commission is to be used to allow the
protection of the Danube River. Such an objective is directed to ensure
Contracting Parties to cooperate to implement its objectives.
the sustainable use of water resources for municipal, industrial and
agricultural purposes, as well as the conservation and the restoration
Five Annexes form an integral part of the Convention: Annex I defi nes
of ecosystems and other requirements that aff ect public health.
the concept of Best Available Techniques (BAT) and Best Environmental

Practices (BEP); Annex II lists the industrial sectors and hazardous
The Contracting Parties are charged with developing, adopting and
substances that fall under the scope of the Convention; Annex III
implementing relevant legal, administrative and technical measures in
provides general guidance on water quality objectives and criteria;
order to ensure effi
cient water quality protection, sustainable water use
Annex IV describes the structure and procedures of the International
and to prevent, control and reduce transboundary impact. In this regard,
Commission and Annex V outlines the arbitration procedure.
the following measures shall be taken:
recording of conditions of natural water resources within
The institutional structure of the DRPC
the catchment area, applying agreed-to quality and quantity
The Conference of the Parties represents the highest level body of
parameters;
the DRPC. It meets upon the recommendation of the International
adoption of legal provisions concerning wastewater discharges;
Commission and is responsible for reviewing policy issues concerning
adoption of legal provisions for reducing input of nutrients or
the implementation of the Convention. It can adopt recommendations
hazardous substances from non-point sources;
and decisions, provided that at least three-quarters of all Contracting
harmonisation of regulations for a high level of protection;
Parties are present.
adoption of measures to avoid the transboundary impacts of
wastes and hazardous substances in particular originating from
The International Commission consists of delegations nominated by
transport.
the Contracting Parties. It is the main decision-making body under the
22
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

Convention and it ensures its implementation, through the adoption
Box 4
Expert Groups under the ICPDR.
of decisions and recommendations.
· The Expert Group on River Basin Management (RBM), which defines and prepares the activities the
ICPDR should towards the implementation of the WFD in the Danube River Basin;
· The Expert Group on Ecology (ECO), which carries out activities related to the conservation,
The ICPDR meets two to three times a year either in Plenary or as a
restoration and sustainable management of aquatic ecosystems and those terrestrial ecosystems
and wetlands directly depending on them. This Expert Group should also contribute to the
Steering Group. ICPDR sessions, as well as the work of the Expert Groups
implementation of the ecological provisions of the WFD;
and the development and implementation of projects, are supported
· The Expert Group on Emissions (EMIS), which focuses on the reduction of pollution resulting from
emissions into the waters of the Danube and its tributaries. A priority issue is the harmonisation
by a Permanent Secretariat that has its headquarters in Vienna.
with the EU water policies, e.g. compliance with the WFD list of priority substances;
· The Expert Group on Monitoring, Laboratory and Information Management (MLIM), which is
responsible for issues concerning water quality assessment and classification, including the
According to the Convention, the International Commission establishes
operation of the Transnational Monitoring Network Analytical Quality Control. Special activities of
a Standing Working Group and, for certain fi elds of work or specifi c
this Expert Group related to the Joint Danube Survey and the investigation of the Tisza River have
been completed and the final technical reports have been prepared and published;
problems, standing or ad hoc Expert Groups. The Standing Working
· The Expert Group on Accident Prevention and Control (APC), which is involved in the operation of
Group and the Expert Groups consist of experts nominated by
the Accident and Emergency Warning System (AEWS) and the communication of alarm/warning
messages during accidents. An additional task is related to pollution prevention and precaution-
delegations. Actually, six standing Expert Groups cover technical issues
ary control in the whole Danube River Basin;
(Box 4). Some of the Expert Groups are supported by other specialised
· The Expert Group on Flood Protection (FLOOD), which prepares and implements an action plan for
sustainable flood protection in the Danube River Basin.
sub-working groups. Finally, there is an ad hoc Expert Group that
addresses administrative matters arising from the implementation of
the DRPC and an ad hoc Tisza Group that is responsible for developing
the improvement of the ecological and chemical status of the
a Tisza River Basin Management Plan, incorporating fl ood protection
water;
and water quality objectives.
the prevention of accidental pollution events;
the minimisation of the impact of fl oods.
Measures and activities under the framework
In order to achieve these goals, the Contracting Parties and/or the
of the DRPC
ICPDR agreed to introduce some measures along with specifi c
Before the adoption of the DRPC, in 1991, the Danube Basin countries and
deadlines, in order to. reduce pollution, restore wetlands and
internationally active donors launched the Environmental Programme for
fl oodplains, to cooperate in the fi eld of monitoring, to minimise
the Danube River Basin (EPDRB), which was funded through EU (Phare/
the impact of fl oods, and to improve river basin management as
TACIS) and GEF resources. A Task Force (TF) and a Programme Coordination
a means to improve water quality and quantity, according to the
Unit (PCU) were created for the implementation of this programme.
requirements of the EU WFD.
The major achievement of the fi rst phase of the Programme (1992-1996)
The ICPDR and its Expert Groups have carried out several long-term
was the approval of a Strategic Action Plan (SAP), which was adopted
activities under the framework of the SAP, the SIP and the JAP. The
in December 1994, when it was still unclear when the DRPC would
following are particularly notable among all the activities to date:
have entered into force. The SAP provides directions and a framework
Accident Emergency Warning System (Inventory of accident risk spots):
for achieving the goals of regional integrated water management as
The Inventory (June 2001) reported and ranked 611 potential
expressed by the DRPC. The main specifi c targets of the SAP are:
accident risk spots in nine countries.
to reduce the negative impacts of activities in the Danube River
Inventory of old contaminated sites in potentially fl ooded areas: The
Basin and on riverine ecosystems and the Black Sea;
basin-wide inventory was completed in 2003.
to maintain and improve the availability and quality of water in the
Inventory of protected areas: These are the protected areas designated
Danube River Basin;
under EU regulations (Natura 2000). Countries that are not members
to control hazards from accidental spills;
of the EU had to select protected areas under national regulations.
to develop regional water management cooperation.
Emission inventories: These inventories are in compliance with Art.
5 of the EC WFD, which requires information on the type and scale
The Strategic Action Plan Implementation Programme (SIP, 1996-
of signifi cant anthropogenic pressures, including point and diff use
2000) supported the implementation of the SAP. In 1999, a resolution
sources of pollution. The inventory of municipal and industrial
was taken to review the SAP and, as a consequence, a Joint Action
discharges was updated in 2003 (reference year 2002). An outline
Programme for the Danube River Basin (JAP, 2001-2005) was adopted by
for a fi rst agricultural point sources inventory (reference year 2002)
the ICPDR, in November 2000. The main aims of the JAP are:
has also been produced thus far.
THE CURRENT LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
23

---

Monitoring programmes: At present this includes 61 stations placed
The Black Sea
in 12 countries.
Environmental cooperation in the Black Sea region is based on the
Finally, it should be noted that, ten years after the signing of the DRPC,
Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution, which
the ICPDR decided for the fi rst time to convene an Ordinary Meeting at
was signed in 1992 by the six coastal states. The Convention provides for
the Ministerial level, which took place in Vienna on 13 December 2004.
the establishment of a Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea
This meeting has produced four important results:
whose main task is to promote its implementation. The Commission is
The adoption of the Danube Declaration, which recognises the
supported by a Permanent Secretariat and by many other bodies.
progress achieved thus far in the Danube River Basin management
and sets new goals and objectives to be reached in the coming
Under the framework of the Convention, two important Ministerial
years (see Box 5);
Declarations have been adopted (the Odessa Declaration of 1993 and
The adoption of the Action Programme for Sustainable Flood
the Sofi a Declaration of 2002), along with a Black Sea Strategic Action
Protection, established by the FLOOD EG, which defi nes the main
Plan. The progress made in implementing the Strategic Action Plan
principles and objectives for sustainable fl ood protection for the
in the 1996-2001 period has been assessed in a recently published
entire basin of the Danube River, along with a timeframe;
report.
The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding by the countries
of the Tisza River Basin (Hungary, Romania, Serbia-Montenegro,
The Convention on the Protection of the Black
Slovakia and Ukraine), who have committed themselves to an
Sea against Pollution
integrated cooperation under the umbrella of the ICPDR (see par.
The Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution
2.4).
(or the Bucharest Convention) was signed in 1992 by the six coastal
The approval of the WFD Roof Report 2004 (Part A ­ Basin wide
states (Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, the Russian Federation, Turkey and
overview), which responds to the requirements of the WFD (Art.
Ukraine) and entered into force in 1994. The Convention applies to the
5, Annex II and Annex III), regarding the fi rst characterisation and
Black Sea proper, even if it is open for accession by any non-Black Sea
analysis of the Danube River Basin District (see par. 3.3).
state, provided that the non-Black Sea state is invited by all Contracting
Parties and that it is interested in achieving the aims of the Convention
and in contributing substantially to the protection and preservation of
the marine environment of the Black Sea.
The Contracting Parties are charged with ensuring the Convention is
Box 5
Main goals established by the Danube Declaration
enforced and applied in those areas of the Black Sea where they exercise
(13 December 2004).
their sovereignty. Moreover, they must individually or jointly take, as
· To implement the EU WFD, including the development of a coordinated River Basin Management Plan
appropriate, all necessary measures to prevent, reduce and control
for the Danube Basin by 2009;
· To reduce further the risks from floods through the implementation of the Action Programme for
pollution of the Black Sea (Art. 5 par. 2). Finally, when entering bilateral or
Sustainable Flood Protection;
multilateral agreements for the protection and the preservation of the
· To reduce the total amount of nutrients entering the Danube and its tributaries to levels consistent
marine environment of the Black Sea, they must endeavour to ensure
with the achievement of good ecological status in the Danube;
· To stop, by 2015 at the latest, all discharges of untreated wastewater from towns with more than
that such agreements are consistent with the Convention.
10,000 inhabitants and from all major industrial installations;
· To phase out entirely the discharge of those substances that have been identified as constituting the
highest risk to the aquatic ecosystems in the Danube Basin and to reduce significantly the discharge of
The Convention requires the Contracting Parties to meet more specifi c
other pollutants;
obligations in the following areas:
· To reverse the trend of physical degradation of aquatic ecosystems by returning sections of the Danube
and its tributaries to a more natural state;
Pollution from hazardous substances;
· To protect, conserve, and restore the biodiversity and diverse habitats of water-dependent ecosystems;
Pollution
from
land-based
sources;
· To improve monitoring systems and the availability of data, in particular in relation to the assessment
Pollution
from
vessels;
of transboundary impacts;
· To ensure that the development of the agricultural sector in the Danube Basin does not lead to a
Pollution in emergency situations;
degradation in the environmental quality of the river and its tributaries;
Pollution
from
dumping;
· To take all the reasonable measures to prevent industrial accidents resulting in dangerous substances
being released into surface or groundwater;
Pollution
from
activities on the continental shelf;
· To carry out in 2005 a review of the operational structures of the ICPDR.
Pollution from the atmosphere;
24
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

Protection of the marine living resources;
The BSC is assisted in its activities by a permanent Secretariat with
Pollution from hazardous wastes in transboundary movement;
coordinating functions. The establishment of the BSC Secretariat was
Scientifi c and technical cooperation and monitoring.
delayed until October 2000.
In order to achieve the purposes of the Convention, the Contracting
The BSC has established several subsidiary bodies. There are, in
Parties shall establish a Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea
particular, two ad hoc Advisory Groups, seven Advisory Groups (AG)
against Pollution (BSC), to be assisted by a permanent Secretariat.
organised thematically; and an Activity Centre (AC) and a national focal
point for each AG. The purpose of the AG is to provide the BSC with the
The Annex to the Convention lists substances and matters whose
best possible advice and information on topics, which are key to the
discharge into the sea from any source is strictly prohibited. Three Protocols
implementation of the Convention and of the related Strategic Action
are integral parts of the Convention: a) the Protocol on the protection of
Plan (SAP, see below). The various AGs are as follows:
the Black Sea marine environment against pollution from land-based
AG on the Environmental Safety Aspects of Shipping (AG ESAS)
sources; b) the Protocol on cooperation in combating pollution of the
AG on Pollution Monitoring and Assessment (AG PMA)
Black Sea marine environment by oil and other harmful substances in
AG on the Control of Pollution from Land-Based Sources (AG LBS)
emergency situations and c) the Protocol on the protection of the Black
AG on the Development of Common Methodologies for Integrated
Sea marine environment against pollution by dumping; d) the Protocol on
Coastal Zone Management (AG ICZM)
the biological and landscape diversity protection, all signed in 2003.
AG on the Conservation of Biological Diversity (AG CBD)
AG on Fisheries and Other Marine Living Resources (AG FOMLR)
The institutional structure of the Bucharest
AG on Information and Data Exchange (AG IDE)
Convention
The Conference of the Contracting Parties meets upon the
Each of these AG is supported by a specifi c Activity Centre and by
recommendation by the BSC and, if necessary, within ten days at the
specifi c national focal points. Moreover, two ad hoc AGs have been
request of one Contracting Party under extraordinary circumstances.
created for the purposes of implementing the SAP:
The primary function of the Conference is to review the implementation
ad hoc Working Group on the WFD, which aims at harmonising
of the Convention and of Protocols upon the report of the BSC.
national legislation with the EU WFD and;
ad hoc Joint Black Sea ­ Danube Technical Working Group, which was
The BSC consists of one representative from each Contracting Party, who
established to assure the implementation of the technical measures
may be accompanied by alternate representatives, advisers and experts.
of the Memorandum of Understanding (see par. 2.3), signed at the
It meets once a year. The most important functions of the BSC are:
ministerial meeting in Brussels, in November 2001.
to promote the implementation of the Convention, recommending
such amendments to the Convention/Protocols that may be
The Odessa Declaration and the Black Sea
required;
Environmental Programme
to make recommendations on measures necessary for achieving
After the Bucharest Convention was signed in 1992, but before its entry
the aims of the Convention;
into force, the Ministries of the Environment of the six Black Sea countries
to elaborate on criteria pertaining to the prevention, reduction
approved the Odessa Declaration (1993), in order to set goals, priorities
and control of pollution of the marine environment and to the
and the timetables needed to bring about environmental actions. The
elimination of the eff ects of pollution;
document is largely based upon Agenda 21 (the UN Conference on
to cooperate with competent international organisations, especially
Environment and Development, 1992). It has established, in particular,
with a view to developing appropriate programmes or obtaining
the adoption of measures concerning:
assistance in order to achieve the purposes of the Convention.
hazardous
substances,
disposal of radioactive materials,
Decisions and recommendations of the BSC are to be adopted
pollution from ships,
unanimously by the Black Sea states.
transboundary movements of toxic wastes,
natural
resources,
emergency response plans,
assessment and monitoring,
THE CURRENT LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
25

---

integrated
coastal
management
zone,
themselves to substantially reduce these inputs by the year 2006,
environmental impact assessment,
seeking fi nancing from donors where necessary.
arrangements for future cooperation.
The decline in economic activities that the Black Sea countries are facing
In June 1993, a three-year Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP)
has caused an overall pollution reduction from industrial and agricultural
was launched, with the fi nancial support of GEF and the EU (Phare and
pollution sources. Moreover, these countries have developed strategies
TACIS). The three overall objectives of the Programme, (which was later
to address pollution reduction that are directed at construction/
extended for an additional two years) were: a) to improve the capacity
reconstruction of wastewaters treatment plants, introduction of modern
of the Black Sea countries to assess and manage the environment;
treatment/processing technologies, and introduction of resource saving
b) to support the development and the implementation of new
technologies and cost recovery. The issue of insuffi
ciently treated sewage
environmental policies and laws; and c) to facilitate the preparation of
was given special attention in the plan.
sound environmental investments.
The Protocol on the protection of the Black Sea environment from
The most important achievement of the BSEP was, however, the
pollution coming from land-based sources has not been fully
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), which can be considered
implemented. The framework legislation, regulations and licensing
the fi rst step in creating the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan. Prior to the
system, based on the "polluter pays" principle, were enforced in all
launching of the BSEP, there was a lack of objective information on the
Black Sea countries long before the adoption of the SAP. However, these
causes of the Black Sea environmental crisis and on options available
measures are not suffi
cient for successful enforcement due to existing
to policy makers for its protection and restoration. The TDA fi lled this
economic problems. Moreover, payments for environmental damage
gap by providing a systematic scientifi c analysis of the root causes
and discharges are not usually used for environmental protection funds
of environmental degradation in the Black Sea. The document was
or environmental protection and remedial measures.
fi nalised in June 1996.
The national policies in the Black Sea countries are aimed at waste
The Black Sea Strategic Action Plan and the first
minimisation, reuse, recycling and recovery of landfi lls. The major
Report on its implementation
legislative and regulatory tools for waste management are adequately
Based upon the fi ndings of the TDA, the Strategic Action Plan (SAP),
developed in the Black Sea countries and include basic laws, regulations,
adopted in 1996, defi ned policy measures, actions and timetables
and programs.
for setting up and achieving the environmental objectives of the
Bucharest Convention. The SAP focuses on three major issues that are
The fi nal provisions on pollution of the SAP cover future monitoring
closely interrelated:
of the state of the Black Sea. A "State of Pollution of the Black Sea"
the reduction of pollution;
report will be prepared and published every fi ve years, beginning in
the management of living resources and
1996. Moreover, a Black Sea Monitoring System will be established in
sustainable
human
development.
compliance with the Bucharest Convention. Data regarding actual and
assessed contaminant discharge measurements from point sources,
The fi rst Report on the progress made in implementing the SAP was
rivers, and, where possible, diff use sources, is to be compiled and freely
published in 2002; it covers the 1996-2001 period. The main conclusions
exchanged every fi ve years, beginning in 1996.
of the assessment are as follows:
Although the collection of data on actual discharges is a common
The SAP recognises that solving the problem of eutrophication requires
practice in the Black Sea countries, a regional reporting system has not
action to reduce the nutrient loads entering rivers across the entire
yet been established.
basin. Therefore it calls upon all states in the basin to agree on common
water quality objectives for the Black Sea and a strategy of stepwise
With respect to sustainable human development, the SAP states that
reductions in loads until the objectives are reached.
by 1998, all Black Sea coastal states will adopt criteria for environmental
impact assessment and environmental audits that will be compulsory
A list of sixty sources of pollution hot spots was prepared and agreed
for all private and public projects. These criteria are to have to been
to by the Black Sea countries. In the SAP, these countries committed
harmonised by 1999.
26
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

Environmental impact assessments are fully integrated in the national
Co-operation between the
legislation of the Black Sea coastal states and are mandatory for new
Black Sea and the Danube
projects. Environmental audits, which have not received the same level
countries
of development, are not compulsory in Russia and Ukraine.
The SAP takes a positive approach towards promoting a "green agenda"
Institutional co-operation between the Black Sea and the Danube
for economic growth. It suggests that aquaculture and tourism are two
countries started in 1997 when representatives of the BSC and the
areas considered to have potential for economic growth in the Black Sea
ICPDR, with the assistance of UNDP/GEF and UNEP, set up a Joint ad-
and to benefi t the region in general. In order to avoid environmental
hoc Technical Working Group (JTWG) in a Meeting at Costanta (8-9
damage resulting from these activities, their development shall be
December 1997).
managed along common environmental norms, which were to be
established by 1999.
The broad mandate of the JTWG, which is still operative, is to reinforce
cooperation among the states of the Danube River Protection
With the exception of Turkey, environmental norms for aquaculture are
Convention and of the Bucharest Convention in relation to taking
still under development in most of the Black Sea countries. Regulatory
practical actions to protect the transboundary waters in the wider Black
norms should be established and control and monitoring systems
Sea Basin. In particular, the JTWG aims at creating a common base of
should be set up. The issue did not receive proper attention both on
understanding and agreement on the changes over time of the Black
the national and regional levels.
Sea ecosystem and the reasons for these changes, and to propose
practical goals and objectives for remedial actions to address them.
"Green tourism" is well developed in some specifi c areas of the Black
Sea countries. Moreover, environmental protection has become one of
To reach this goal, the following primary activities must be carried
the key principles of the Turkish tourism policy.
out:
an assessment of the nutrient loads to the Black Sea from all
The Sofia Declaration
sources in the Black Sea Basin, and their impacts on the Black Sea
In June 2002, the Ministries of the Environment of the six Black Sea
ecosystems;
countries adopted the Sofi a Declaration, by which they commit
an assessment of the nutrient loads to the Black Sea from the
themselves to further improve the Black Sea and the state of its marine
Danube River Basin, and their impacts on the Black Sea ecosystem,
and coastal ecosystems. In particular, an agreement was reached on
with an emphasis on the Black Sea shelf;
the following measures:
an analysis of other types/sources of pollution in the Black Sea and
to support at a national level the ratifi cation process for the Protocol
their impacts on the Black Sea ecosystem, with an emphasis on the
on biological and landscape diversity protection;
input from the Danube River;
to intensify member countries' endeavours to implement the SAP;
assemblage and assessment of the available information on the
to actively sustain the implementation of the Black Sea Ecosystems
likely response of the Black Sea ecosystem to specifi ed reduction
Recovery Project (see par. 4.5);
in nutrient loads; and
to improve the data collection and management process in the
recommendations for a joint mechanism to evaluate progress over
framework of the BSC;
time and report to both Commissions.
to strengthen work at the national and regional level in sectoral
integration in the environmental management, introduction and
The JTWG has promoted the adoption of another important tool
extensive use of economic environment management tools;
for strengthening regional cooperation. In November 2001, in fact, a
to implement and further develop and enlarge the scope of the
Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the ICPDR and
Memorandum of Understanding between the BSC and the ICPDR
the BSC. This document establishes a long-term and an intermediate
(see par. 2.3).
goal for the wider Black Sea Basin:
the long-term goal is to take measures to reduce the loads of
nutrients and hazardous substances discharged to the levels
necessary to permit the Black Sea to recover to conditions similar
to those observed in the 1960s;
THE CURRENT LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
27

---

as an intermediate goal, urgent measures should be taken
In January 1995, representatives of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine signed a
to prevent the loads of nutrients and hazardous substances
Memorandum in Kiev and GEF provided fi nancial assistance to the by
discharged into the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov from exceeding
which they applied to UNDP assistance in developing an international
those that existed in the mid 1990s (it has been specifi ed, however,
programme on environmental rehabilitation of the Dnieper River Basin,
that these discharges are only incompletely known).
implemented under the aegis of GEF. In June 1996, the Ministers of
the Environment from the Dnieper countries signed a joint statement
In 2001, the Ministers responsible for water protection in the countries
in Helsinki, expressing their intention to provide resources and share
of the Danube and Black Sea region signed a declaration (Declaration
equal participation in this programme. The long-term objectives of the
on Water and Water-related Ecosystems in the wider Black Sea region)
DRBP are: a) to remedy the serious environmental eff ects of pollution
announcing their aim to improve the water quality of the region, their
and habitat degradation of the basin, b) to ensure sustainable use of its
wish to strengthen cooperation and pursue regional priorities for water
resources and c) to protect biodiversity. Among the specifi c objectives
quality and improvement projects.
of the Programme are the creation of a transboundary management
regime and coordinating body, the formulation of a Strategic Action
Ministers also endorsed the European Commission's proposal to
Programme (SAP) and the building of the capacity needed for SAP
establish an informal Task Force for cooperation on water-related
implementation.
issues in the Danube and Black Sea Region (DABLAS Task Force, see
par. 4.4.6). It consists of representatives from the countries of the region,
Moreover, on 22 May 2003, the Ministers of the Environment of
the ICPDR and the BSC, other regional/international organisations active
Belarus, Russia and Ukraine signed a new Declaration to codify their
in the protection of water and water-related ecosystems in the region,
common political will to achieve sustainable use of the basin's natural
international institutions (such as the European Bank for Reconstruction
resources, preservation of its ecosystems and restriction/reduction of
and Development, the European Investment Bank, the World Bank,
transboundary pollution impacts. The Ministers stated their readiness to
UNDP/GEF, UNEP, and the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, as
prepare an international agreement to serve as the main organisational
examples) interested EU Member States, other bilateral donors and the
mechanism for ensuring stable international cooperation among
European Commission. The European Commission DG Environment
Dnieper countries, and which should defi ne the general principles,
includes the Secretariat of the Task Force. Its main tasks are:
goals, objectives and commitments of the signatories for the basin's
to support implementation of the Memorandum of environmental rehabilitation. Following such a Declaration, a draft
Understanding;
agreement has been prepared as well as a draft SAP.
to provide suggestions to the ICPDR and the BSC concerning
further strategic priorities;
It should be noted that most of the countries in this region have
to develop a series of concrete activities, including a short list
ratifi ed the 1992 Helsinki Convention on the protection and use of
of prioritised projects for the rehabilitation of the waters of the
transboundary watercourses and international lakes. The Convention,
region (the criteria for prioritisation are of both an environmental
which entered into force in 1995, establishes a framework for
and fi nancial nature).
cooperation between the member countries of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe on the prevention and control
of pollution of transboundary watercourses, from a perspective of
sustainable development.
Other relevant multilateral
water conventions/ institutions
Aside from the water conventions/institutions that we have examined
with reference to the Danube River Basin and the Black Sea, other
important initiatives are currently being carried out by the Dnieper
countries and by the countries sharing some Danube River subbasins
(such as the Sava and the Tisza subbasins).
28
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

The EC Water Framework Directive
and its implementation in the
Black Sea region
The Water Framework Directive
with the one of emission limit values; it promotes measures on quantity
to serve the purpose of ensuring good water quality; and it establishes
The Water Framework Directive: an integrated
the principle of the recovery of the costs of water services.
legislative approach to the water sector
Water is one of the most comprehensively regulated areas of EU
The WFD introduces an integrated legislative approach to the water
environmental legislation. A "fi rst wave" of legislation began with the
sector. In fact, it repeals diff erent directives belonging to the "fi rst
Surface Water Directive in 1975 and culminated in the Drinking Water
wave" of legislation, even if their fundamental provisions have been
Directive in 1980. These directives focused mainly on water quality
updated and fi tted into the unifi ed legislative framework shaped by
objectives for particular water types and uses such as fi shing waters,
the Directive itself. Other pieces of water legislation, instead, will remain
shellfi sh waters, bathing water and groundwater.
in force. Among the most signifi cant of these are the Bathing Water
Quality Directive (76/160/EEC), the Drinking Water Quality Directive (80/
A 1988 review of European water legislation found room for
778/EEC) and its revision (98/83/EC), the Urban Wastewater Treatment
improvement in a number of areas and gaps that had to be fi lled in a
Directive (91/271/EEC) and the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC).
"second wave" of water legislation, which developed an emission limit
value approach. This resulted in two new directives in 1991, namely
In general, full implementation of the relevant existing directives, as
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the Nitrates (from
long as they remain in force, seems to be a prerequisite for meeting
Agricultural Sources) Directive. The Integrated Pollution Prevention and
the WFD objectives. In particular, the implementation of EC legislation
Control Directive, IPPC (1996) was the last of these water directives.
for the protection of water is identifi ed by the Directive as a minimum
requirement.
From the beginning of the 1990s, there has been an increasing pressure
for fundamental reform of the European Community water policy, as
Table 6
Directives to be repealed by the WFD.
it was highly fragmented in terms both of objectives and means. The
Information exchange Decision (77/795/EEC)
resulting Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC, Decision 2455/
Surface Water Directive (75/440/EEC)
By December 2007
and its Daughter Directive (79/869/EEC)
2001/EC), based on a more holistic approach, is intended to be the
Fish Water Directive
cornerstone of the water strategy for the European Union.
Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC)
By December 2013
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) contains many interesting new
Fish Water Directive (78/659/EEC)
elements: it extends water protection to all waters; it adopts river basins
Shellfish Water Directive (79/923/EEC)
By December 2013
as water management units; it combines the use of quality objectives
Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC)
THE EC WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION
29

---

The WFD does more than make the whole of the EU's water legislation
prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the
more consistent. It also aims at coordinating this legislation with the
status of aquatic ecosystems and associated wetlands;
relevant international legal instruments, including those on pollution of
promotes sustainable water use based on long-term protection of
the marine environment (the UNECE Convention of 1992, the Barcelona
available water resources;
Convention, OSPAR, HELCOM, etc.).
aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic
environment, and
Integrated land, water, and ecosystem
contributes to mitigating the eff ects of fl oods and droughts.
management on a basin scale
Experience clearly shows that uses of land and water resources are
To this end, Art. 4 requires Member States to achieve "good" status for
closely linked, so that they must be managed together, with full
all waters (Box 6), with a few exceptions. In particular, water bodies that
consideration of biodiversity. This means that environmental objectives
are artifi cial in construction or where the physical structure has been
for rivers can be reached only if the land they fl ow through is managed
irrevocably and heavily modifi ed are required to achieve a status of
in a sustainable manner.
"good ecological potential". Demotions from "good" status are also
allowed in unforeseen or exceptional circumstances, such as fl oods or
In general terms, it should be noted that at the EU level, the importance
droughts. In these cases, Member States must take all practical means
of environmental integration is recognised in Art. 6 of the EC Treaty,
to restore the water body to its previous status. Member States can
which stipulates that "environmental protection requirements must be
also designate "protected areas" for specifi c water uses, where more
integrated into the defi nition and implementation of the Community
stringent objectives apply.
policies". The Council has identifi ed agriculture, transport, energy,
internal markets and development as priority areas where integration
Tools for the implementation of environmental
of environmental concerns can be improved or initiated.
objectives
One of the fundamental principles adopted by the WFD adopts is that
With specifi c regard to the water sector, the WFD's treatment of river
of water management at the level of the river basin, which appropriately
basins as a whole undoubtedly has the potential for integrated land
refl ects geographical and hydrological units, instead of administrative
and water management. In fact, the Directive requires each river basin
or political boundaries. Member States are to fi rst identify and assign the
district to carry out activities concerning both water use and land use/
individual river basins in their national territory to river basin districts,
biodiversity, such as: review of the impact of human activity on the
with coastal waters and groundwater assigned to the nearest or most
status of surface and groundwater (focusing on point and diff use source
appropriate district. A river basin covering the territory of more than
pollution); identifi cation of heavily modifi ed water bodies (which, as a
one Member State should be assigned to an international river basin
result of physical alterations by human activities, are substantially changed
district.
in character) and artifi cial water bodies (which are created by human
activities); to establish a register of protected areas; and to adopt measures
Member States should then appoint a competent authority to
to control and reduce emissions from point and diff use sources.
coordinate the implementation of the Directive for each river basin
district in their territory. The appointed authority is also responsible
It should be noted that, as stated by the Common Strategy for
for producing a river basin management plan. In the case of an
the Implementation of the Directive, the European Commission
international river basin district, each Member State shall identify the
(Environment DG) has committed itself to pursue further integration
appropriate authority for application of the Directive in the portion of
of the specifi c requirements of the WFD into other Community policies.
the district within its territory. Existing national or international bodies
Integration will be strengthened in some policy sectors (regional,
may be identifi ed by Member States as the appropriate authorities for
agricultural, fi sheries, development, marine, energy, transportation and
the above-described purposes.
internal market policies) most of which aff ect land management.
Additionally, Member States are to ensure that for each river basin
The environmental objectives
district or for the portion of an international river basin district falling
The fundamental purpose of the WFD is to establish a framework for the
within their territory, the following documents are prepared according
protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters
to technical specifi cations set out in Annex II and III:
and groundwater, which:
an analysis of its characteristics;
30
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

Box 6
Criteria that defi ne "good" as a status for surface waters
environmental objectives, such a programme has to be established
and groundwater.
by Member States for each river basin district or for the part of an
For surface waters, "good" status is determined using two criteria:
international river basin district within their territory.
1. "Good ecological status", which is defined by Annex V and has to be assessed using biological,
hydromorphological, and physico-chemical elements of quality.
2. "Good chemical status" that means the chemical status achieved by a water body under which
Specifi c provision is made in the WFD for obligatory coordination
concentrations of pollutants do not exceed the environmental quality standards established in Annex
IX, under Art 16 par. 7, and under other relevant Community legislation.
between Member States sharing an international river basin district (in
Annex IX makes reference to quality objectives set up by the Daughter Directives of the Dangerous
this case existing structures stemming from international agreements
Substance Directive (76/464/EEC), which has subsequently been replaced. Moreover, the Directive
provides a mechanism for renewing these standards and introducing new ones by means of a
may be used), especially with reference to the programmes of
prioritisation mechanism for hazardous chemicals. Art. 16 par. 7 thus requires the Commission to
measures. Member States are also charged with endeavouring to co-
submit proposals for quality standards applicable to the concentrations of the priority substances in
surface water, sediments or biota (Decision 2455/2001/EC).
ordinate responses for international river basins that are shared between
The quality objective and the emission limit value approaches are both used by the WFD (Art. 10). In
Member States and non-Member States.
fact, the Directive first requires all discharges into surface waters to meet emission limit values, based
on the best available technology, and as set out in the existing Directives. When these limits are not
sufficiently stringent to reach a quality objective or a quality standard, whether established pursuant
to the WFD or to any other Community legislation, then more stringent ones shall be established
The economic analysis required under Art. 5 should help to make
accordingly.
decisions regarding the most cost-eff ective combination of measures
For groundwater, "good status" is determined using the following criteria:
needed to protect water resources. A second purpose of the analysis is
1. "Good quantitative status" means that of the total annual recharge volume to a groundwater body,
a portion is needed to achieve the ecological quality objectives for connected surface waters or
to provide information on estimates of volume, investments, prices and
associated terrestrial systems such as wetlands. For good environmental management, the Directive
requires that only the volume above the amount required to sustain the surface ecology be available
costs of water services, to make the relevant calculations for the full cost
for abstraction.
recovery of water services.
2. "Good chemical status" is based on an assessment of general elements (such as saline intrusion) and
conductivity.
It should be noted that the case of groundwater is somewhat different from surface water. The
Each programme of measures includes compulsory basic measures, such
presumption in relation to groundwater is that it should not be polluted at all. For this reason, setting
chemical quality standards would give the incorrect impression that Member States are allowed to
as those measures required to implement Community legislation for the
discharge pollution up to an approved level.
protection of water; measures deemed appropriate for recovery of costs
for water services; measures to promote effi
cient and sustainable water
a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface
use in order to avoid compromising the achievement of environmental
waters and groundwater, and
objectives; measures to meet the requirements related to waters used for
an economic analysis of water use.
the abstraction of drinking water; controls over the abstraction of fresh
surface water and groundwater, and fresh surface water impoundments,
These documents play an important role in the development of both
including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement
the river basin management plan and the programme of measures.
of prior authorisation for abstraction and impoundment.
Once the river basin district has been characterised, Member States are
(Member States can be exempt from these controls, abstractions
then required to analyse the impact of human activity on the status of
or impoundments that have no signifi cant impact on water status);
surface waters and groundwater within that district, focusing on both
controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artifi cial
point and diff use source pollution.
recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies; for point source
discharges liable to cause pollution, a requirement for prior regulation,
Taking into account the characterisation of the river basin and the analysis
such as a prohibition on the entry of pollutants into water or of prior
of human impact as outlined above, the environmental objectives for
authorisation; for diff use sources liable to cause pollution, measures
each water body must be established, and the water bodies at risk of
to prevent or control the input of pollutants; for any other signifi cant
failing to meet these objectives should be identifi ed. Since this evaluation
adverse impacts on the status of water, measures to ensure that the
has to be made before monitoring programmes are put in place, the
hydromorphological conditions of the bodies of water are consistent
evaluation should essentially be conducted as a risk analysis. This
with the achievement of the required ecological status; a prohibition
information is then to be used to design monitoring programmes.
of direct discharges of pollutants into groundwater subject to some
specifi ed conditions; measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters
The results of the analyses required under Art. 5 are to be considered by
by those substances included in the list of priority substances and
Member States when preparing the programme of measures, which in
to progressively reduce pollution by other substances which would
turn is central to each river basin management plan. In order to achieve
otherwise prevent Member States from achieving the environmental
THE EC WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION
31

---

objectives for surface waters; any measures required to prevent
Recovery of costs for water services
signifi cant losses of pollutants from technical installations and to
The WFD introduces the principle of recovery of the costs of water
prevent and/or to reduce the impact of accidental pollution incidents.
services. According to Art. 9, Member States shall take account of the
recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and
When basic measures are not suffi
cient to achieve environmental
resources costs, with regard to the economic analysis specifi ed under
objectives, supplementary measures (a non-exclusive list of which is
Art. 5 and according to the polluter-pays principle.
provided by Annex VI Part B) can be designed and implemented.
The Directive does not clarify the meaning of either "environmental
The programme of measures and other detailed information regarding
costs" or "resources costs". A previous Commission Communication
the river basin district are presented in a key document called the river
on pricing policies for enhancing the sustainability of water resources
basin management plan. This plan includes, among other things, a
(COM/2000/477fi n.), however, has defi ned both the expressions. In
general description of the river basin district, a summary of signifi cant
particular, it underscores the following:
pressures and impact of human activities, a summary of an economic
that "environmental costs" represent the costs of damage that
analysis of water use, and a presentation in map form of the results
water uses impose on the environment and ecosystems and
of the monitoring programmes for the status of surface water and
those who use the environment (e.g. a reduction in the ecological
groundwater.
quality of aquatic ecosystems or the salinisation and degradation
of productive soils); and
In the case of international river basins (whether they fall entirely within
that "resource costs" represent the costs of foregone opportunities
the EU or extend beyond the boundaries of the Community), Member
that other uses suff er due to the depletion of the resource beyond
States are asked to ensure coordination and cooperation with the goal
its natural rate of recharge or recovery (e.g. linked to the over-
of producing a single international river basin management plan.
abstraction of groundwater).
Monitoring water body status
The second paragraph of Art. 9, which is more strictly binding, states
According to Art. 8, Member States are charged with ensuring the
that Member States shall ensure:
establishment of programmes for the monitoring of water status. For
that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users
surface waters, such programmes shall cover: a) the volume and level
to use water resources effi
ciently, thereby contributing to the
or rate of fl ow (to the extent this is relevant for ecological and chemical
environmental objectives of the Directive;
status and ecological potential) and b) the ecological and chemical
an adequate contribution of the diff erent water uses, disaggregated
status and ecological potential. Monitoring activities shall permit the
into at least industry, households and agriculture, to the recovery of
classifi cation of surface water bodies into fi ve classes consistent with
the costs of water services, based on the economic analysis required
the normative defi nitions of the WFD (high, good, moderate, poor
under Art. 5 and taking account of the polluter-pays principle.
and bad).
Moreover, it should be noted that, when establishing water pricing
There are three types of monitoring for surface waters: surveillance,
policies under Art. 9, Member States can take into account social,
operational, and investigative monitoring. For groundwater, monitoring
environmental and economic eff ects, as well as geographic and
programmes shall cover the quantitative and chemical status of water
climate conditions. This might be justifi ed in some cases, while leaving
bodies and their results should be used to classify groundwater into
room to manoeuvre. Secondly, Art. 9 does not prevent the funding
two classes consistent with the normative defi nitions of the WFD (good
of specifi c "preventive or remedial measures" in order to achieve the
and poor).
environmental objectives of the WFD. Therefore, Member States still
retain some latitude for subsidising some infrastructures, which, may
A detailed structure of various monitoring programmes has been
be reasonable in economic terms. Member States can simply decide
presented in the Annex V of WFD. Additionally, the CIS Guidance on
not to establish any water pricing policy for a specifi c water use activity
Monitoring presents a number of important applications for practical
(i.e. irrigation) as long as this does not compromise the achievement of
monitoring.
the Directive's objectives. But in this circumstance, Member States will
have to report the reasons behind such a derogation under the river
basin management plan.
32
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

Implementation of the WFD
In particular, key activities for the implementation process identifi ed by
The WFD sets out specifi c deadlines for each of the requirements, which
the CIS Strategic Document are: 1) information sharing, 2) developing
add up to an ambitious overall timetable. The key milestones of such
guidance on technical issues, 3) information and data management, and
timetable are 2009, when river basin management plans, including
4) application, testing and validation. In addition, under the CIS, three
programmes of measures, have to be fi nalised, and 2015, when the
multi-stakeholder consultative fora have been created, with the task of
environmental objectives have to be reached.
helping the Commission, respectively, to prepare daughter directives
on priority substances and priority hazardous substances; to prepare
The full implementation of the WFD by Member States also depends
proposals on criteria and defi nitions for groundwater; and to comply
partly on the adoption of new Community law for some areas, which
with its reporting obligations.
is required under the Directive itself. In addition to the list of priority
substances (which will have to be revised and updated), the Commission
shall issue other relevant legislative proposals concerning:
quality standards applicable to the concentrations of priority
substances in surface water, sediments or biota;
The Danube River Protection
measures and controls for the progressive reduction of discharges,
Convention and the Bucharest
emissions, and releases of priority substances;
Convention as compared to the
measures and controls for the cessation or phasing out of
discharges, emissions, and releases of the priority hazardous
EC Water Framework Directive
substances (that is, priority substances classifi ed in the related list
as hazardous); and
According to the Water Framework Directive, the Danube shall be
measures to prevent and control groundwater pollution.
assigned to an international river basin district. The Danube River
Basin, as defi ned by the WFD, is subject to two relevant regional water
In order to address these challenges in a cooperative and coordinated
conventions; the Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC), to which
way, the Member States, Norway and the Commission agreed a Common
the European Commission is a contracting party, and the Convention
Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the WFD just fi ve months after its the
on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution (the Bucharest
entry into force. The aim of the CIS is to develop supporting technical
Convention). The former covers inland surface waters, transitional
and scientifi c information to assist in the practical implementation of
waters and groundwater in the Danube catchment area, while the latter
the Directive. The guidance documents that have been prepared for this
concerns the Black Sea, including the coastal waters that are part of
purpose have an informal and non-legally binding nature.
the Danube River Basin, as shaped by the WFD. In addition, transitional
Table 7
Main deadlines set out by the WFD.
Year
Issue
Reference
2000
Directive entered into force
Art. 25
Transposition in national legislation
Art. 23
2003
Identifi cation of river basin districts and authorities
Art. 3
Analysis of the river basin districts: characteristics, environmental impact of human activity and economic analysis (Update by 2013 and review every 6 years thereafter)
Art. 5
2004
Register of protected areas established
Art. 6
2006
Monitoring networks and programmes operational
Art. 8
2008
Publication of draft river basin management plans
Art. 13
River basin management plans published (Revision and update by 2015 and every 6 years thereafter)
Art. 13
2009
Programme of measures established (Revision and possible update by 2015 and every 6 years thereafter)
Art. 11
2010
Pricing policies introduced
Art. 9
2012
Programmes of measures operational (New/revised measures under updated programmes to be operational within 3 years of their establishment)
Art. 11
2015
Environmental objectives met
Art. 4
(Source: European Council 2000)
THE EC WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION
33

---

waters also fall within the scope of the Protocol to the Bucharest
have not yet been developed. It is important to highlight that Art. 18
Convention on the protection of the Black Sea marine environment
of the DRPC allows the ICPDR to deal with all the tasks (not yet fully
against pollution from land-based sources.
specifi ed by the Convention) the Commission is entrusted with by
mandate from the Contracting Parties.
To avoid ineffi
ciencies and overlapping, there is a need for close
coordination among the measures provided by the above-mentioned
In addition, it should be noted that the integration of economics into
legal instruments and for cooperation among related institutions.
water management and policy that is provided by the WFD (Art. 5,
Institutional cooperation between the Black Sea and the Danube
Annex III, and Art. 9) is something new for the Danube River Basin.
countries is already taking place and has recently been strengthened
The DRPC requires the Contracting Parties to prepare and implement
through the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (see par.
"relevant legal, administrative and technical measures" (Art. 5) to ensure
2.3) by the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube
water quality protection and to control and reduce transboundary
River (ICPDR) and the Black Sea Commission (BSC).
impact. The Convention, hence, does not appear to use economic
instruments to reach its objectives.
The WFD also fosters international cooperation. Member States are
required at least to prepare a programme of measures and to produce
If we take the reverse point of view, focusing on those aspects of the
a river basin management plan for the part of an international river basin
DRPC that are not covered by the WFD or that are therein developed to
district within their territory; however, with regard to the area of the
a lesser extent, we can observe that a wide range of planned activities
river basin extending beyond the EU boundaries, Member States shall
and ongoing measures are subject to the Convention, while they play a
endeavour to establish appropriate coordination with relevant non-
minor role in the context of the WFD. With this regard, Art. 3 of the DRPC
Member States, with the aim of achieving the objectives of the Directive
lists, amongst others, planned activities/measures in the fi eld of water
and of producing a single international river basin management plan.
construction works; activities/measures for the purposes of water use
(such as water power utilisation, water transfer, etc.) and the operation
Table 8 gives a general overview of the work that has already been
of existing hydrotechnical constructions (reservoirs, water power plants,
carried out under the framework of the DRPC or which falls within
etc.). Without doubt, such measures/activities are also relevant for the
the scope of the Convention in comparison with the requirements
implementation of the WFD (in the fi rst place, they have to be taken into
of the WFD. Only the most important articles of the WFD have been
account when artifi cial or heavily modifi ed bodies are to be designated),
analysed.
but the Directive deals with them in a more marginal way.
Some of the principles and measures of the WFD are also incorporated
Furthermore, Art. 3 clarifi es the reasons for the interest of the DRPC in
into the DRPC, even if sometimes they are therein developed to a
the above-mentioned activities/measures, since it specifi es that they
lesser extent. The DRPC, like the WFD, adopts the river basin as its
are subject to the Convention "as far as they cause or are likely to cause
water management unit; it covers surface and transitional waters and
transboundary impacts". "Transboundary impact" is defi ned by the DRPC
groundwater (but not coastal waters); it aims at reducing pollution
as "any signifi cant adverse eff ect on the riverine environment resulting
through the combined use of quality objectives and emission limit
from a change in the conditions of waters caused by human activity and
values; it promotes some measures on quantity; and it regulates
stretching out beyond an area under the jurisdiction of a Contracting
cooperation in the fi eld of monitoring.
Party" (Art. 1). The fact that the Convention is primarily concerned about
the impacts that have a transnational character is due to the nature of
As a consequence, part of the work that is needed in order to
the Convention itself. In fact, international environmental conventions
implement the WFD in the Danube River Basin has already been carried
are often developed as a response to transboundary environmental
out. Although harmonisation and adjustment with the requirements
problems and as an attempt to solve them in a cooperative way.
of the Directive are still necessary, the WFD appears to set out more
stringent and far-reaching provisions in many respects, along with clear
On the other hand, the WFD focuses on the protection of waters as
deadlines as far as environmental water protection is concerned. Some
a whole, independent of the national or transboundary character of
of the related activities are not foreseen by the Convention (e.g. the
the environmental impacts and pressures. The Directive has, in fact, a
identifi cation of bodies of groundwater for which lower environmental
diff erent origin and performs partially diff erent functions as compared
objectives have to be reached), while others, although within its scope,
to the DRPC. It frames the fundamental principles of the EU water
34
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

Table 8
Important requirements of the WFD as compared to the DRPC.
WFD
Work already carried out or under the scope of the DRPC
(or of the Bucharest Convention, when specified)
Ref.
Requirement
Art. 3.1;
The DRPC has not been signed by all the countries in the river basin. Moreover, Danubian states with a share of less than 2,000 km2
Identification of the river basin.
Annex I
can only be given a consultative status.
Scope: inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters
Inland surface waters, transitional waters and groundwater are within the scope of the DRPC.
Art. 1
and groundwater. Territorial waters are covered with respect to
chemical status.
Transitional waters are also covered by the Protocol on the protection of the Black Sea environment against pollution from land-
based sources. Coastal and territorial waters are within the scope of the Bucharest Convention.
Identification of artificial or heavily modified bodies of surface
A map of the hydraulic structures and navigation routes of the Danube is available and can constitute an element in the designation
Art. 4.3
water.
of those surface waters.
Art. 4;
Establishment of a list of environmental objectives for surface and
This requirement is partially covered by the Strategic Action Plan (1994). Groundwater appears not to be considered.
Annex VII
groundwater.
Art. 5.1;
Analysis of the characteristics of the river basin district.
Some data are already available, even if there is the need to collect further information (especially with regard to groundwater).
Annex II
Work is in progress to fill existing gaps.
Art. 5.1;
Review of the impact of human activities on the status of surface
Some data are already available, even if there is the need to collect further information. Work is in progress to fill existing gaps.
Annex II
water in the river basin district.
Art. 5.1;
Review of the impact of human activities on the status of
Very few data are already available; hence, there is a need to collect further information. Work is in progress to fill existing gaps.
Annex II
groundwater in the river basin district.
Art. 5.1;
Economic analysis of water use for the river basin district.
This falls outside the scope of the DRPC.
Annex III
Art 6.1;
Establishment of the register of protected areas.
This refers to EC legislation. However, a map of protected areas has been established.
Annex IV
Art. 5.1;
Identification of bodies of water used for the abstraction of water
Art. 7.1;
With reference to groundwater, these bodies of water shall be identified according to Art. 6 of the DRPC.
intended for human consumption.
Annex II
A Joint Action Programme (2001-2005) has already been set up for the Danube, but it should be adjusted with regard to the
Art. 11
Establishment of a programme of measures.
requirement of the WFD.
Some of the contents of the plan are partially covered by the DRPC, but this instrument as a whole is something new for the Danube
Art. 13
Preparation of a single international river basin management plan.
states.
Art. 8.2;
A Transnational Monitoring Network has been set up. The concordance of the parameters should be checked. Monitoring
Establishment of a surface water monitoring network .
Annex V
programmes shall be established according to Art. 9 of the DRPC.
Art. 8.2;
Monitoring of groundwater has been carried out, in particular regarding nitrate, phosphate, chloride, sulphate, ammonia and
Establishment of groundwater monitoring network .
Annex V
phenol. The DRPC does not cover quantitative aspects. A monitoring network has not yet been established.
Annex II contains a list of hazardous substances the discharge of which from point and non-point sources shall be prevented or
Preparation of a list of priority substances selected amongst those
Art. 16.2
considerably reduced. The list is to be used for purposes that are partially different from the ones identified by the WFD. Moreover,
which present a significant risk to or via the aquatic environment.
concordance among the substances should be checked.
Establishment of environmental quality standards for priority
According to Art. 7.4 of the DRPC, contracting parties shall define water quality objectives and apply water quality criteria. General
Art. 16.7
substances (surface waters, sediments, biota).
guidance for setting quality objectives is provided in Annex III.
Establishment of emission limit values (ELV) for point and diffuse
According to Art. 7.1 of the DRPC, the contracting parties, taking into account the proposals from the ICPDR, shall set ELV for
Art. 10
sources.
individual sectors/industries and municipal wastewater.
Art. 9
Establishment of appropriate water pricing policies.
This appears to fall outside the scope of the Convention.
(Source: revised from ECOSYSTEMS.ltd 2000)
policy, ensuring a certain degree of coordination with all other relevant
signifi cant losses of pollutants from technical installations and to
Community pieces of legislation. The WFD is, thus, a very comprehensive
prevent/reduce the impact of accidental pollution incidents (Art. 11).
instrument and its implementation can be reached only through the
In general, because the WFD must be implemented by all EU Member
implementation of all the other EU water directives and decisions.
States in many diff erent river basins, it is not the most suitable piece
of legislation for addressing local or basin-specifi c environmental
It should be noted that the DRPC contains specifi c measures related
problems. The DRPC, like all the basin conventions, appears to be a
to the conditions and problems of the Danube River Basin. Great
more useful and fl exible instrument in this regard.
importance, for example, is given to warning/alarm systems and to
emergency plans in the case of events such as accidental pollution,
A fi nal important diff erence between the DRPC and the EU Directive
other critical water conditions, and fl oods and ice hazards, which have
concerns their implementation. It should be noted, in fact, that
frequently occurred within the basin. Warning systems are instead
although the transposition and implementation of the EU water
simply listed by the WFD, without further details, as a mandatory
legislation by Member States has usually been subject to substantial
requirement of the programme of measures, in order to prevent
THE EC WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION
35

---

delays, the EU is obviously better equipped than the ICPDR to make its
The importance of pollution from land-based sources has also
legislation enforced.
encouraged the Black Sea Commission to cooperate with the Danube
institutions and to establish common initiatives. The signing of the
The WFD covers all surface waters including transitional and coastal
Memorandum of Understanding (2001), as previously noted, is a
waters (to one nautical mile from the baseline). With respect to chemical
fundamental step in this respect. It is therefore possible to state that
status it also covers territorial waters (the 12 nautical mile zone from
integrated water and land management is a key feature of the Bucharest
the baseline). Coastal and territorial waters are within the scope of the
Convention, the DRPC (and the related SAPs), as well as of the WFD. In
Bucharest Convention, while transitional waters are within the scope
fact, the two conventions and the Directive, which treat the river basin
of the Protocol for the Convention on the protection of the Black Sea
as a whole, require the implementation of measures that aff ect both
marine environment against pollution from land-based sources.
land and water uses, thus highlighting that their management must be
considered collectively to make environmental progress.
While the WFD aims at protecting the water environment of river basins,
the purpose of the Bucharest Convention is to preserve the marine
In particular, in the case of the WFD, this kind of approach is strongly
environment of the Black Sea. The WFD, hence, considers transitional,
linked to the importance, at a Community level, of the principle
coastal, and ultimately territorial waters from a land-based point of view.
of environmental integration. With regard to the DRPC/Bucharest
The Bucharest Convention, instead, takes a more holistic approach,
Convention, it should be noted that the preparation of the two
focusing on the sea as a whole. Consequently, many provisions of the
related Strategic Action Plans has been strongly infl uenced by the
Convention and many initiatives that have been undertaken within
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), which has been carried out
its framework are of little relevance for the implementation of the
for the Danube River Basin as a result of the Environmental Programme
Directive. The measures related to the reduction/control of pollution
for the Danube River Basin, and for the Black Sea coastal states as a result
from vessels or to the conservation of biological diversity are good
of the Black Sea Environmental Programme. The aim of the TDA is to
examples of this.
produce a science-based assessment of key transboundary problems
and their root causes through a causal chain analysis. Both the Danube
However, the Bucharest Convention also recognises that pollution
and Black Sea TDA have stressed the importance of land use (agriculture,
from land-based sources is primarily responsible for the degradation
urbanisation, industrial activities, etc.) for the environmental problems
of the Black Sea environment. A Protocol on pollution from land-
of the Danube/Black Sea region.
based sources has been adopted and diff erent specifi c measures have
been introduced by the Strategic Action Plan (SAP). Looking at the
results that have been achieved so far, the fi rst Report on the progress
made in implementing the SAP (2002) underscores that the following
First steps towards the
components of the Protocol are still missing:
implementation of the WFD in
common emission standards and timetables for pollution
the Black Sea region
reduction;
common guidelines, standards and criteria dealing with special
characteristics of marine outfalls;
All the cooperating countries under the DRPC have committed
pollution prevention criteria and recommended measures for
themselves to making the necessary eff orts to implement the WFD
pollution reduction, control and elimination;
within their territory (ICPDR 3rd Plenary Session, 27-28 November 2000).
information exchange and reporting systems for pollution
As has already been stated, the ICPDR has been identifi ed by all these
reduction and related measures.
countries as a coordination platform.
With regard to the SAP, the Report observes that a regional monitoring/
The Expert Group on River Basin Management (RBM EG) has been
assessment program and common quality objectives for the Black Sea
created to prepare all related activities. One of its fi rst tasks has been
have not yet been agreed to. National monitoring programs have been
the development of a Strategic Paper for the river basin management
conducted by some coastal States within their territorial waters, but
plan. The paper deals with the defi nition of the institutional framework
the data are often irregularly collected and, as the programs are not
and coordination mechanisms at a national, bilateral, and multilateral
harmonised, they cannot be compared.
level. In addition, it describes an approach for the production of the plan
36
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

and reporting mechanisms to the European Commission. According
The implementation of the WFD
to the Strategic Paper, the Danube River Basin management plan will
by new EU Member States and
consist of:
accession countries that are part
The roof report, covering issues of basin-wide importance, and
The national reports, covering all national issues and those that
of the Danube River Basin
have been coordinated bilaterally.
Sub-basin plans are also envisioned for later in the process.
According to the criteria for membership established by the European
Council of Copenhagen of 1993, the candidate countries shall have the
In 2002, the RBM EG started working on a technical outline for the
whole acquis communitaire transposed, implemented and enforced by
roof report. The report (part A) published in 2003 has identifi ed the
the date of their accession. However, some transition periods can be
responsible authorities and established international relationships
agreed to during negotiations. As a general rule, transition periods may
for WFD implementation. A 2004 report (part A) has provided for the
be considered in exceptional cases, e.g. where fi nancially demanding
characterisation of both surface and groundwater (Art. 5 and Annex II
investments are required or where immediate compliance would have
of the WFD), for the inventory of protected areas (Art. 6 and Annex IV of
unacceptable social consequences. On the contrary, no derogations
the WFD) and for an economic analysis of water use (art. 5 and Annex
can be granted with respect to all internal market-related legislation
III of the WFD).
and all framework directives.
Other expert groups are also contributing to the implementation of
In the case of water legislation, the adoption of the WFD is non-
the WFD. For example, the Expert Group on Emissions is focusing on
negotiable, while several transitional arrangements were concluded
compliance with the WFD list of priority substances and on eff ects of
by the new EU Member States and the candidate countries that are
human activities on water, the Expert Group on Ecology is dealing
part of the DRB, covering mainly the Urban Wastewater Treatment
with ecological requirements of the WFD, and the Expert Group on
Directive (Table 10).
Monitoring, Laboratory and Information Management is concerned
with the articles of the WFD concerning the typology of surface water
The full implementation of the relevant existing directives, as long as
bodies, the defi nition of reference conditions and the likelihood that
they remain in force, is a prerequisite for meeting the WFD objectives.
these bodies will fail to achieve "good" status.
Therefore, the above-mentioned transitional arrangements are very
important during the discussions regarding adoption of the WFD by
With respect to the Black Sea institutions, it should be noted that an
the new EU Member States and the candidate countries. In particular,
ad hoc Working Group (WG) on the WFD has been set up under the
the Dangerous Substances Directive will be repealed by the WFD by
framework of the Bucharest Convention, with a view of harmonising
2013, while the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive will remain in
national legislation with the provisions of the Directive. However, so far
force. The fact that a transition period has been granted to Slovakia
no public information is available on the initiatives undertaken by such
and Romania for the implementation of the Dangerous Substances
a WG. Moreover, the Black Sea Commission has agreed to investigate the
Directive suggests that the candidate countries are also required to
consequences of the implementation of the WFD in the Strategic Action
comply with the water directives to be repealed.
Plan for the Black Sea, in order to adapt the plan to the obligations
resulting from the Directive. TACIS is providing fi nancial assistance for
As far as the implementation of the WFD is concerned, the EU Water
this initiative (par. 4.4.4).
Directors, during their meeting in Valencia of 10th June 2002, decided
to fully incorporate candidate countries into the joint process set up
by the CIS and enable their participation as equal members at all
levels. Moreover, the network of pilot river basins for integrated testing
under the CIS includes the Szamos international River Basin (part of the
Danube River Basin), which is located partly in Hungary (2%) and mostly
in Romania (98%).
At a national level, new EU Member States and accession countries
that are part of the DRB are working on both the transposition and the
THE EC WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION
37

---

Table 9
Status of transposition/implementation of the WFD in the Danube/Black Sea new EU Member States and accession countries.
Country
Information sources
Bulgaria
The new Water Act, in force since 28 January 2000, enters into national law important requirements of the WFD and changes fundamentally the way water is managed in Bulgaria. It orders
the regulation of water resources and quality in four river basin districts (the Danubian, the Black Sea, the East-Aegean and the West-Aegean districts). Additionally, it identifies four river
basin directorates as the new responsible management authorities, charged with information collection, database creation, water monitoring, water management, etc. A special regulation
concerning responsibilities, organisation of work and structure of the basin directorates was issued on January 2002. A basin council was also created for each basin directorate, to support its
EBDR and WB 2003
operation and to make contribute to the joint and balanced water management for the benefit of the population, human health, the preservation of the natural aquatic habitats and water
bodies, and sustainable development.
International Network
On the basis of the new Act, a licensing system was established for the use of water and water facilities, as well as a related fee for business purposes.
of Basin Organizations
The effective implementation of the Water Act requires the preparation and adoption of a series of regulations and corresponding implementing acts, some of which are currently under
2003
preparation (e.g. for the improvement of the permitting system, the development of a regulation system for tariff-setting for water services, monitoring, etc.). Moreover, fourteen regulations
have been introduced to translate the requirements of the other EU water directives. In this way the Bulgarian legislation has been harmonised with the EU provisions.
Now the challenge is to strengthen the capacity of the national and regional institutions involved in water management in order to achieve the effective implementation of the new legislation.
Czech Republic
A new Act on Water and the Act on Water Supplies and Sewage Systems were adopted in 2001, with the goal of aligning national legislation with obligations from all EC water directives.
At present, legislation is in place and in line with the acquis, except for bathing water and the WFD.
The necessary implementing structures are in place and functioning. However, due to the large number of bodies in the water sector, particular attention needs to be paid to the coordination
European Commission
between the various organisations involved.
2001b, 2002b, 2003c
Water quality monitoring also needs to be enhanced. The inventory of an authorisation for discharges of dangerous substances needs to be completed and programmes for nitrates and
dangerous substances need to be finalised and adopted by accession.
Hungary
Hungary has a long tradition of water management at a river basin level (in 1953 the central body of water administration, the National Water Authority, was established together with 12
regional water authorities, based on the basin principle).
European Commission
The transposition of EU water legislation has been completed with regard to nitrate pollution from agricultural sources, the discharge of dangerous substances, the quality of bathing water, the
2002a, 2003a
designation of wastewater agglomerations, and registration and reporting obligations concerning urban wastewater and sewage fines.
By the end of January 2003, Poland had crafted a document (publicly available) outlining its strategy for the implementation of the WFD; had completed the review of the existing national
WWF 2003
legislation as compared to the WFD; had started the elaboration of transposing law and had identified its river basin districts. The transposition process was scheduled to be finalised by the end
of 2003.
Poland
In 2001 Poland achieved significant progress in the coordination of national legislation with the EU water acquis, through the approval of three national laws: the Act on Environmental Law, the
Act on Water Law, and the Act on the collective water supply and water discharge systems.
The Act on Water Law, which is of major importance in the transposition process for the WFD, regulates the management of water resources in line with the principle of sustainable
Blacszczyk 2004
development. It aims at ensuring the good ecological status of water resources and identifies two basic river basins (the Vistula and the Oder River Basins), covering 99.5% of the territory of
Poland. The provisions of the Act of Water Law need to be specified in detail under executive regulation.
WWF 2003
By the end of January 2003, Hungary had crafted a document outlining its strategy for the implementation of the WFD (even if not publicly available); had completed the review of existing
national legislation as compared to the WFD; had started the elaboration of transposing law and, as mentioned above, had identified its river basin districts.
Romania
The Water Law of 1996 is the fundamental legal act on water management in Romania. It covers all water bodies and affirms that the protection, restoration and sustainable development of
water resources are actions in the public interest. It also establishes the river basin concept for the management of water resources, both surface and groundwater, and introduces water use
DANCEE 2003
rights through water management licenses and wastewater discharges for no more than 5 years.
In July 2000, about 35% of the water directives had been transposed; the most advanced were the directives on dangerous substances, on drinking water and on wastewater, while less
EBDR and WB 2003
advanced were the WFD (12%) and those related to fish water.
Since then, a number of laws have been adopted for drinking water, bathing water, pollution caused by nitrates, discharges of hazardous substances and integrated coastal zone management.
European Commission
A preliminary inventory of discharges of dangerous substances into surface waters has also been completed. A committee for the coordination and monitoring of the implementation of the
2003c
WFD has been set up. The approximation with the WFD was scheduled to be accomplished by 2003, via legislative amendments to the above-mentioned Water Law.
Two current institutional changes deserve attention. Firstly, at the end of 2002, the national company "Apele Romane" (Romanian Waters) was transformed into a Water Authority under the
UNECE 2001
national administration. Secondly, a recent government decision (20 September 2002) provides the Water Authority with the power to function as the central public authority in the water
sector and to undertake the implementation of EU requirements. This authority is responsible for the management of 11 river basins (through regional branches and local offices).
Slovakia
With respect to water quality, good progress has been made with the entry into force, in June 2002, of the Water Act, which transposes individual water directives, but does not fully transpose
the WFD.
European Commission
The Act on the Protection of People's Health, entered into force in January 2002, and its implementing decrees transpose the requirements for bathing water and drinking water.
2002c, 2003d
The Act on Public Water Supply and Sewage, entered into force in July 2002, partly transposes the Urban Wastewater Directive.
By the end of January 2003, Slovakia had completed review of the existing national legislation as compared to the WFD, while approval (a step further than "elaboration") of the transposing
WWF 2003
law was ongoing.
Slovenia
The Water Act, adopted in July 2002, regulates the management of the whole water system and provides for a special fund to be set up. It divides the country into two river basin districts: the
European Commission
Danube and the Adriatic districts. Some provisions of the WFD have also been transposed by means of secondary legislation.
2002d, 2003b
Slovenia legislation is now aligned with respect to the discharge of dangerous substances and surfaces waters intended for aquaculture.
Various decrees on water quality have been approved. Two programmes have been adopted concerning the collection and treatment of urban wastewater and the implementation of projects
Ministry of the
connected with the distribution of water.
Environment 2003
Turkey
In line with its efforts to adopt the European Community acquis, Turkey has already started preliminary activities to adapt its water legislation and administrative structure to meet the
challenging WFD objectives. However, there are still almost 50 laws related to water resources, including ones identifying responsibilities of related organisations. The current institutional
framework is not efficient and there are several problems of lack of coordination and overlapping duties in the same area by several organisations.
EBDR and WB 2003
In 2001, a project ("Implementing the WFD in Turkey") for assisting the Turkish Government in the transposition and implementation of the WFD began under the coordination of the Turkish
Ministry of the Environment and with the financial support of The Netherlands (MATRA Fund). The aim of this project is to foster collaboration among institutions and organisations responsible
WWF 2003
for water management in Turkey to reach a participatory and integrated approach in water management planning. The project will also help to define the river basin districts and to formulate a
pilot river basin management plan that will be replicable in other basins in Turkey.
38
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

implementation of the WFD. The collection of information about these
Commission are currently working on the implementation of the
national initiatives, which is already a highly problematic task for the
Directive. In particular, the Danube countries have committed to
old EU Member States, is even more complicated for new EU Member
making the necessary eff orts to implement the WFD within their
States and accession countries. Table 9 contains the publicly available
territory (ICPDR 3rd Plenary Session, 27-28 November 2000), while, from
information concerning the status of transposition/implementation of
the offi
cial point of view, the position of the Black Sea countries is less
the WFD and, to a lesser extent, of other EU water legislation in all the
clearly defi ned.
new EU Member States and accession countries that are part of the DRB,
including Poland. Turkey is also covered, although it is not part of the
The Report on harmonisation of environmental legislation of the
Danube River Basin, because it is relevant for the implementation of the
Dnieper River countries with the legislation of EU Member States has
WFD in the Black Sea region.
been recently produced within the framework of the Dnieper Basin
Environment Programme.
The adoption of the key provisions of the WFD should fi ll the gap
Concurrence on the WFD by
generated by the lack of statutory environmental water policy in the
third countries of the Black Sea Dnieper countries. The main expected results will be the application
region
of principles related to river basin management and the collection
of water fees along with their allocation for environmental water
protection purposes.
Third countries in the Black Sea region can be divided into two main
groups: the Balkan countries (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and
A third reason that explains the interest of some third countries in the
Montenegro plus Albania and Macedonia, which share a very limited
implementation of the WFD is their willingness to join the EU. The
part of the Danube catchment area, and the Newly Independent States
adjustment of national legislation to EU requirements can be described
(NIS), which include Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine.
as an expedient to speed the accession process. For example, it is
These countries play a role in the implementation of the EC WFD, for at
meaningful that the water legislation of Croatia was already consistent
least three main reasons.
with some of the principles of the WFD before EU leaders granted the
country offi
cial candidate status. The Croatian Water Law, issued at the
Firstly, all receive EU fi nancial assistance in order to improve national
end of 1995, divides the national territory into four water basins (the
water infrastructures/management, and the conditions under which
Sava River catchment area, the Drava and Danube catchment areas, the
such assistance is provided refl ect the fundamental principles of EU
Littoral and Istrian catchment areas, and the Dalmatian catchment area)
water policy.
plus Zagreb city. Each catchment area, which includes both surface
and groundwater, has been conceived as a territorial unit for water
Secondly, most of the countries are contracting parties to the DRPC,
management purposes.
the Bucharest Convention or both. The ICPDR and the Black Sea
It should be noted that most of the third countries of the Black Sea
Table 10
Transitional arrangements concluded by the Danube
region have stated their commitment to work towards convergence
accession countries in the water sector.
rather than approximation of their environmental legislation with the
Agreed deadline for
Country
Directive
EU. Compliance is an obligation of membership, which entails the full
implementation
Bulgaria
Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)
2014
alignment of national laws with the entire body of the EU law contained
Czech Republic
Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)
2010
in the acquis communitaire. Convergence is a somewhat diff erent
Hungary
Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)
2015
process. It means bringing two legal systems close together. Hence
Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)
2018
convergence implies that the main principles/features of one legal
Romania
Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC)
2015
system should be refl ected and integrated into the other legal system,
Dangerous Substances Directive (74/464/EEC)
2009
taking into account the specifi city of the latter and without necessarily
Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)
2015
Slovakia
adopting exactly the same requirements in details. In particular, many
Dangerous Substances Directive (74/464/EEC)
2006
NIS have expressed their interest in convergence in the Partnership and
Slovenia
Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive(91/271/EEC)
2015
(Source: European Commission 2004a)
Cooperation Agreements (PCAs), which were negotiated between the
THE EC WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION
39

---

NIS and the EU in 1992 to replace the Trade and Cooperation Agreement
Table 11 List of EU directives subject to comparative analysis
signed with the Soviet Union in 1989. Each PCA establishes a strong
within the Dnieper River Basin.
and comprehensive political and economic partnership between the
Document
Priority
EU and the partner country and includes an article that defi nes areas of
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
I
environmental cooperation.
Directive on Integrated Prevention of Pollution and Control (96/61/EC)
II
Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)
II
Most of Danube/Black Sea third countries have general legislation
Drinking Water Directive (80/788/EEC)
III
concerning environmental protection and water management,
Bathing Water Quality Directive (80/788/EEC)
III
which broadly outlines institutional expertise and relevant procedural
Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)
III
requirements. The main legal barriers to convergence towards the WFD
(Source: Dnipro Basin Environmental Programme 2003)
can be summarised as follows:
River basin approach: Although transboundary co-operation is
already well advanced for the Danube Basin and for the protection
Water use permits, discharge permits and related charge systems: Most
of the Black Sea, water management is not currently carried out
of the Balkan and NIS countries have adopted a water use permit
everywhere on a river basin basis.
system to regulate water withdrawals and a discharge permit
Water quality and effl
uent standards: The current NIS system of
system to protect water resources from pollution. These systems
standards is comprised of two main elements: environmental
are generally associated with payments for water use in the form
quality (ambient) standards and effl
uent standards. The former
of water abstraction and effl
uent charges. However, enforcement
defi ne the maximum allowed concentration of a substance in water
capacity is generally weak because of limited staff , budgets and
and are based on a criterion of zero human exposure, resulting
equipment but, more fundamentally, because of the fragile
in a set of comprehensive and ambitious standards, covering
fi nancial situation of many of the major water users and polluters
hundreds of pollutants; the latter represent the limits of pollutant
and the limited political support for regulatory agencies.
concentrations in effl
uent discharges and are aimed at ensuring
Ownership rights: The lack of clear allocation of property rights
that concentrations in the aquatic environment do not exceed the
and of decision-making responsibilities usually represents a key
applicable ambient standards. The inability of industry to meet
regulatory issue. In particular, in most NIS, local authorities own
the effl
uent standards necessary to comply with the ambient
the utilities, but the absence of a clear identifi cation of assets and
standards has led to a system of "temporary permits" which fi x
the defi nition of property rights over these assets creates obstacles
higher discharge limits, often in line with actual discharges. The
for effi
cient management and fi nancing in the sector.
standards system needs to be reformed in order to apply both the
standards, according to the combined approach suggested by the
WFD.
Updated standards: Most Balkan countries are in the process of
The main institutional problems
updating their system of environmental standards for water
affecting the implementation of
quality and effl
uents, to put them in line with EU standards. The
the WFD in the Black Sea region
challenge, also in this case, is to account for national circumstances
when complying with EU directives, to set up a limited number of
realistic standards that can be adequately monitored and enforced
The implementation of the WFD and of the other EU water directives
and to make sure that the benefi ts of new water-related regulations
in the Black Sea region is aff ected by diff erent problems, mainly related
exceed the costs of compliance.
to the legal, fi nancial and the institutional sectors. The past ten years

Monitoring: The number of hazardous substances regulated by the
have seen rapid and massive changes in the political and administrative
NIS exceeds the number of substances monitored. Moreover, due
systems and, consequently, in the way in which responsibilities and costs
to the lack of resources, there is no routine monitoring even for
for water management are distributed. A system dominated almost
contaminants that can be measured, and the main responsibility
exclusively by the state has been replaced by governance structures
for monitoring lies with enterprises themselves. The lack of reliable
based on decentralisation and greater levels of autonomy at the
data and the inadequacy of existing water monitoring systems are
regional/local level. As a result, diff erent elements essential to water and
also common problems in the Balkan countries.
40
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

river management are actually in the hands of several public authorities
governance of the Danube/Black Sea states, ranging from those which
and, sometimes, of private individuals, land-owners and companies.
remain highly centralised (such as Croatia), to nations where local and
regional authorities have been granted prime responsibility (such as
Unfortunately, decentralisation has often taken place before the
Hungary), to full federal systems (such as the German Bundeslander
establishment of a clear legal framework and the development of
and Swiss Cantonnes), which makes region-to-region cooperation and
institutional capacity for environmental management at the regional/
the identifi cation of counterparts more diffi
cult, as they do not have the
local level. Basic water laws and regulations have been generally subject
same kinds of responsibilities and expertise.
to repeated adjustments and modifi cations. These, in turn, have made
long-term planning and fi nancing diffi
cult and have generated an
Most of the public authorities across the region have identifi ed
unpredictability that is not attractive to private investors.
insuffi
cient funds as the principal reason for their inability to carry out
needed management reforms and infrastructure development. Since
Moreover, decentralisation has in some cases been accompanied
international resources are limited, most local/regional authorities
by disintegration. New ownership structures (especially concerning
still heavily rely on support from the state for both construction and
agricultural land tenure) and the transfer of control of water and sewage
maintenance of infrastructure and subsidising operational costs. Such
facilities to regional authorities have, from a certain perspective, made
support, however, is often unpredictable and is usually conditioned
the system more unstable and negatively aff ected the level of security
on the ability of the authority concerned to cover at least a portion of
and eff ectiveness of water resources management.
the costs. In this regard, the use of economic instruments, including
appropriate water tariff s, is a necessary element for eff ective water
The Black Sea region has been subject not only to decentralisation, but
management that needs to be strengthened throughout the whole
also to internationalisation. While this has led to greater responsibilities
region. Additionally, the involvement of the private sector in the
in the former situation for local and regional authorities, and greater co-
construction, operation and management of water and wastewater
operation at the inter-state level in the case of the latter, the practical
facilities can be an important source of fi nancing, effi
ciency and
links between these two processes have yet to be adequately built.
innovation, even if it may appear to have produced confl icting results
Even though in a highly inter-connected basin such as the Black
in the countries where privatisation has been carried out.
Sea, one region's problem is every region's problem, there is still
insuffi
cient emphasis on or institutional facilities for c-operation and
Finally, many public authorities report a severe lack of practical
experience sharing at the region-to-region level, both within and
knowledge and skills in water resources management and identify this
among the Danube/Black Sea states. The situation is complicated
problem as having the same importance as the lack of fi nancing.
by the diff erences among the systems of water administration and
THE EC WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION
41

---

Costs, benefi ts and the role of
international assistance from the
perspective of implementation
of the WFD
The following paragraphs describe fi nancial aspects related to the
be discussed. The analysis will not be strictly homogeneous in terms
implementation of the WFD in the Black Sea region. Attention will
of geographical coverage. In particular, the discussion will centre on
be paid primarily to available estimates of the size of investments
new EU Member States and accession countries (including Turkey) as
in the water sector required to approximate to the Directive and to
far as costs and benefi ts from compliance are concerned, while all the
the EU water legislation, as well as the expected economic benefi ts.
countries of the region will be discussed with respect to international
Secondly, the fl ows of fi nancial resources provided by the EU and
fi nancial assistance.
international institutions for investing in water-sector infrastructures
and management in the countries of the Black Sea catchment area will
Table 12
Total investments for compliance with the CEEC (billion EURO).
Water
Waste
Total investment
Country
Air
Total/capita
Supply
Waste water
Tot.
Min.
Max
Total Min.
Total Max.
Poland
4.4
13.7
18.1
13.9
2.2
3.3
34.1
35.2
927
Hungary
3.5
3.1
6.6
2.7
2.1
4.4
11.5
13.7
1,306
Czech Rep.
2.2
1.1
3.3
6.4
8
3.8
10.4
13.4
1,427
Slovakia
1
0.9
1.9
1.9
0.3
1.6
4.1
5.4
760
Bulgaria
2.2
2.7
4.9
5.1
1.8
5.1
11.7
15
1,668
Romania
3.8
6.3
10.1
9.1
1
2.7
20.2
22
943
Baltic Total
ND
ND
ND
8.45
0.45
0.85
8.9
9.3
1,148
Estonia
0.13
1.38
1.5
ND
ND
ND
1.5
1.5
ND
Latvia
0.11
1.6
1.71
ND
ND
ND
1.71
1.71
ND
Lithuania
0.11
2.27
2.38
ND
ND
ND
2.38
2.38
ND
Slovenia
ND
ND
ND
0.69
1.15
1.15
1.84
1.84
ND
Total
17.5
33.1
50.5
48.2
9.7
22.7
108.4
121.5
1,140
Total Max (%)
14%
27%
42%
40%
19%
100%
Note: ND=No Data
(Source: EDC and EPE 1997)
42
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

The costs of compliance with
Table 14
Checklist of the types of costs incurred to implement
EU environmental and water
the WFD
Initial set-up costs:
legislation
- Establish new river basin management structures if none exist at present
- Undertake survey and monitoring work associated with data gathering
- Prepare the river basin management plans
- Consultation
In 1997, a report prepared for the European Commission by EDC & EPE
- Establishment of monitoring schemes if none exist at present, including the establishment of
laboratories
estimated that the costs of all investments needed to comply with
Capital expenditures:
the EU environmental acquis communitaire for drinking water supply,
- Laboratory capacity (if none exists)
- Construction of wastewater treatment plants with more stringent objectives than required by the
wastewater management (including sewerage), large combustion
Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) and of other relevant infrastructures (e.g.
animal waste storage facilities)
plants, and waste management were around 120 billion EURO for the
Ongoing running costs:
ten countries of Central and Eastern Europe and 71 billion EURO for the
- Costs associated with operating new facilities
- Monitoring and reporting costs
Danube accession countries (Table 12).
- Reviewing river basin plans
- Regulatory investigations and taking enforcement action
The above-mentioned data were refi ned in 2000 by several subsequent
(Source: European Commission 2004b)
assessments. Compared to the 1997 estimates, these recent studies
indicate lower values of between 80-110 billion EURO (Table 13). The
charges in line with the principle of full recovery. It also depends, in a
fi gure of 120 billion EURO, published in 1997, was basically calculated
major way, on the extent to which compliance with other water-related
using unit costs and per capita expected costs of infrastructure per
community instruments and other associated legislation has been or
sector. Subsequent assessments show that unit costs are lower than
is projected to be met, for example under the Urban Wastewater
predicted, while substantial investment in some candidate countries
Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC), the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC),
since 1997 has reduced the estimated gaps. On the other hand, the
and the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC). In fact, the full implementation of
new fi gures do not include the investment needs for some new and
the existing water directives, as long as they remain in force, and of the
forthcoming legislation, such as the WFD and the planned revision to
other relevant community legislation is a prerequisite for fully meeting
the Large Combustion Plant Directive (2001/80/EC).
the WFD objectives.
It should be noted that all the studies/reports described do not
Apart estimates for new member States and accession countries, only
specifi cally cover the costs of approximating the WFD. As the Directive
a few attempts have been made in order to estimate the costs of
is largely an over-arching framework for a number of other directives,
complying with the EU water legislation in the other Black Sea countries.
the costs of its implementation might in general be marginal. The
One of the most important is the study conducted for Khmelnitska
main types of costs are illustrated by Table 14; some of them (such as
Oblast in Ukraine (population 1,442,000), which evaluates the capital
the costs concerning the establishment of a river basin management
investment needed to comply with the Urban Wastewater Directive
structure and the establishment of monitoring schemes) seem to have
(91/271/EEC). The costs of upgrades and construction of wastewater
been lowered for the Danube countries by their participation into the
treatment plants amount to 88-141 million EURO. The total investment
DRPC and the related institutions.
needs, including the extension and development of the sewerage
systems, is 189.8 million EURO. The total investment needed to fi nance
However, the real cost impact of the WFD depends upon the extent
compliance with the Directive has been calculated to be around 132
to which the new Member States and the candidate countries have
EURO per capita.
already embarked on the process of providing/allowing for user
Table 13
New estimates of environmental fi nancing needs in candidate countries (million EURO).
Country
BG
CY
CZ
EE
H
LV
LT
MT
PL
RO
SK
SLO
Tot
1997 estimates,
1,118
122,618
15,000
-
13,400
1,500
13,700
1,710
2,380
n.a.
35,200
22,000
5,400
1,840
-
total cost
1,264
122,764
Recent figures,
6,600
4,118
1,480
22,100
79,260
8,610
1,086
-
4,406
-
-
1,600
130
-
22,000
4,809
2,430
-
total cost
9,400
10,000
2,360
42,800
110,001
(Source: European Commission 2001c)
COSTS, BENEFITS AND THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WFD
43

---

The benefits of compliance
Table 15
Benefi ts of compliance: the acquis communitaire related
with EU environmental and
to water and the associated level of analysis required.
Water directive
Level of analysis
water legislation
Water Framework Directive
2000/60/EC
Qualitative analysis
Dangerous Substances to
aquatic environment
74/464/EEC and amendments
Monetary assessment
Along with investment costs, the successful implementation of the
Urban Wastewater
91/271/EEC and amendments
Monetary assessment
environmental acquis will lead to considerable benefi ts for human
Nitrates
91/676/EEC
Monetary assessment
health and the environment in the new Member States and accession
Bathing Water
76/160/EEC
Monetary assessment
countries. A report prepared for the European Commission by ECOTEC
Drinking Water
80/778/EEC and amendments
Monetary assessment
(2001) explores the benefi ts of compliance in three ways:
Surface Water for drinking
75/440/EEC and amendments
Qualitative analysis
Qualitative benefi ts: what types of benefi ts arise from implementing
Measurement sampling of
the acquis?
drinking water
79/869/EEC and amendments
Not estimated
Quantitative benefi ts: what is the extent of these benefi ts?
Groundwater
80/68/EEC and amendments
Qualitative analysis
Monetised benefi ts: what is the economic value of the avoided
Fish Water
78/659/EEC and amendments
Qualitative analysis
costs?
Shellfish Water
79/923/EEC and amendments
Qualitative analysis
(Source: ECOTEC 2001)
Due to diff erent technical, ethical and methodological problems,
not all the qualitative benefi ts have been quantifi ed and not all the
amount to between 57 and 300 billion EURO, again with air pollution
quantitative benefi ts have been monetised. According to ECOTEC,
accounting for around half of the total benefi ts
the overall benefi ts over the period 1999-2020 for the ten CEEC, plus
Cyprus, Malta and Turkey from implementing EU environmental
For the ten CEEC, Cyprus, Malta and Turkey, the annual benefi ts arising
directives, amount to between 134 and 681 billion EURO, assuming full
from full implementation amount to between 12,5 and 69 billion EURO.
implementation is achieved by 2010. Reduced air pollution accounts for
At a national level, Poland, Turkey, the Czech Republic and Romania
around half of the total benefi ts.
stand to benefi t the most in absolute terms (Table 16).
For the Danube accession countries, the overall benefi ts over the period
With respect to the benefi ts related to the water sector, the qualitative
1999-2020 from implementing EU environmental directives by 2010
analysis highlights the types of benefi ts, divided into health, resources,
Table 16 Total benefi ts over the benefi t period (until 2020), by media, by candidate country (million EURO).
Air
Water
Waste Total
Country
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
BG
1,070
11,000
1,580
4,200
195
6,620
2,580
21,800
CY
290
1,400
260
960
75
730
630
3,050
CZ
7,100
35,050
15,230
24,050
925
11,200
23,260
70,300
EE
390
2,050
260
985
95
1,750
750
4,780
H
5,740
39,920
2,720
10,490
1,120
18,500
9,590
68,900
LV
485
3,120
380
1,340
50
1,070
915
5,500
LT
1,555
7,980
1,230
2,750
55
2,000
2,840
12,750
MT
75
390
125
460
30
390
230
1,250
PL
25,800
149,930
13,590
31,960
1,600
26,300
41,000
208,200
RO
7,590
56,950
3,960
12,150
825
26,300
12,380
95,400
SK
3,400
21,900
3,000
6,610
290
4,280
6,700
32,800
SLO
680
4,620
1,470
3,440
240
2,820
2,400
10,900
TU
21,220
94,440
8,640
33,200
750
18,000
30,600
145,600
Total
75,400
428,700
52,400
132,600
6,270
112,000
134,000
681,000
(Source: ECOTEC 2001)
44
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

ecosystems, social and wider economic benefi ts, resulting from
2,512 and 2,373 million EURO/year. The total benefi ts from improving
compliance with each directive (Table17, Step I). These benefi ts are
river ecosystem quality has been estimated only for some candidate
then quantifi ed and monetised (Table 17, Steps II and III) for fi ve water
countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania,
directives (Table 15). Only a qualitative analysis is provided for the Water
Slovakia and Slovenia), as it has not been possible to obtain suffi
cient
Framework Directive. Such an analysis highlights the fact that the most
data to derive a sensible estimate for some candidate countries. For
important benefi ts arising from the implementation of the WFD relate
the Danube accession countries total drinking water benefi ts range
to improvements in ecosystems (improved river water quality).
from 209 to 3,593 million EURO/year, while the total benefi ts related to
bathing/surface water and to river quality amount respectively to 1,028
The overall benefi ts for the candidate countries from implementing
and 1,638 million EURO/year.
these fi ve previously described water directives amount to between 52
and 133 billion EURO (between 28 and 61 billion EURO for the Danube
At a national level, the largest benefi ts of clean drinking water accrue to
accession countries), assuming full implementation is achieved by 2010.
Turkey and Poland. These countries are also the ones that benefi t the
The total annual benefi t of compliance has been estimated at around
most in terms of access to quality bathing and surface waters. As far
5.4 billion EURO/year upon full compliance (low estimate) and 13.6
as improved river ecosystem quality is concerned, the largest benefi ts
billion EURO/year (high estimate);
accrue to the Czech Republic, which stands to benefi t around 1.2
billion EURO/year, given the extent and quality of rivers in that country,
In absolute terms, the country that stands to benefi t the most from
and possibly infl uenced by diff erences in river grading system across
implementing the water directives is the Czech Republic. Poland also
candidate countries.
stands to benefi t signifi cantly. Turkey is the third largest benefi ciary
in the lower estimate (with 0.89 billion EURO/year), but the largest
under the upper estimate (around 3.4 billion EURO/year upon full
compliance).
With regard to the diff erent types of benefi ts, the total drinking water
benefi ts across the candidate countries range from 504 million EURO/
year to 8,734 million EURO/year, while the total benefi ts related to
bathing/surface water and to river quality amount respectively to
Drinking Water (M /year)
a) low estimate
Drinking Water (M /year)
b) high estimate
Bathing and surface (M /year)
Bathing and surface (M /year)
River quality (M /year)
River quality (M /year)
MA
MA
CY
CY
EE
EE
LV
LV
LT
LT
SLO
SLO
BG
BG
H
H
SK
SK
RO
RO
TU
TU
PL
PL
CZ
CZ
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Figure 3 Annual
benefi ts of full compliance with the water directive.
(Source: ECOTEC 2001)
COSTS, BENEFITS AND THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WFD
45

---

Table 17 Water benefi ts qualifi cation, quantifi cation and monetisation.
Qualitative benefits of compliance
Step I
Health
Resources
Eco-systems
Social
Wider economic
Household access to
Cleaner groundwater,
Angling and recreation
Increased tourism to recognised clean beaches;
Improved river
Description
and confidence in clean
surface waters and
in rivers, lakes and
reduced pre-treatment costs and attraction of
water quality
drinking/bathing water
bathing water
beaches
investment given locational quality
WFD
*
*
***
**
**
Dangerous Substances
**
**
***
***
**
Urban Wastewater
***
**
***
**
*
Nitrates
**
**
**
**
*
Bathing Water
**
**
**
**
***
Drinking Water
**
**
**
**
*
Surface water for drinking
*
**
**
**
*
Groundwater
**
**
**
*
*
Fish Water
**
***
**
**
**
Shellfish Water
*
**
**
*
*
Quantitative benefits of compliance
Step II
Health
Resources
Eco-systems
Social
Wider economic
Number of households
Reduction of contaminants in
Description
benefiting from improved
Likely changes in river water quality
Not quantified
Employment
surface water
water quality
Monetisation of the benefits
Step III
Health
Resources
Eco-systems
Social
Wider economic
Willingness to pay for clean
Willingness to pay for clean
Willingness to pay for improvements in
Description
Not monetised
Not monetised
drinking water
bathing water
river quality
(Source: ECOTEC 2001)
Financing investments in the
With respect to most accession countries, available data show that the
environmental and water
total environmental protection investments (EPI) between 1996 and
sector: the role of international 2000 represent a minor share of the total environmental investment
needs. Total EPI are part of the total environmental protection
assistance
expenditure (EPE), which also includes total current expenditure (CE).
Compliance with EU environmental requirements poses a major
According to Eurostat (2002), only the Czech Republic and Poland are
fi nancial challenge to new Member states and accession countries.
characterised by a high level of investments compared to their investment
To face such a challenge, these countries must, in fi rst place, rely
needs, both in general terms and with respect to the wastewater
on domestic sources of funding, in particular on public and private
sector. It should be noted that the Eurostat data cover the public
expenditures/investments in the environmental sector (European
sector (central and local government), industry (mining and quarrying,
Commission 2001c). In fact, EU support and other external assistance,
manufacturing, energy and water supply) and specialised producers
although important, are only able to meet a small proportion of total
of environmental services involved in waste collection and treatment
needs.
and sewage treatment.
46
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

Table 18
Estimated environmental investment needs and expenditure ­ UNECE.
Actual environmental
Total investment needs
Time that would be needed to comply
Prospects for financing
Min. average investment investment
Maximum length of
State
for full compliance (M
with total investment needs with 2000
investment needs with agreed
needs per year (M EURO)
expenditure in 2000/1
transition period
EURO)
expenditure level
transitional periods
(M EURO)
BG
8,610
Na (344)
90
2096
Na
CZ
6,600-9,400
660-940
559
2012-2017
2010
EE
4,406
339
46
2096
2013
H
4,118-10,000
275-667
475
2009-2021
2013
LV
1,480-2,360
99-157
11
2135-2215
2015
LT
1,600
107
53
2030
2015
PL
22,100-42,800
1,473-2,853
1,539
2014-2028
2015
RO
22,000
Na (880)
180
2122
Na
SK
4,809
321
82
2059
2015
SLO
2,430
162
97
2025
2015
Tot.
79,260-110,001
7,810-9,430
3,132
(Source: UNECE 2003)
Another study showing partially diff erent results has been recently
signifi cant share of their incomes to EEE (e.g. up to 3.1% in Moldova).
published by UNECE. It compares the updated offi
cial estimates of total
This is more than in some accession countries and most EU Member
investment needs (Table 18) in each accession country with Eurostat
States. Using this indicator, it appears that most EECCA countries are
data of that country's current level of environmental investments in the
more committed to improving environmental and water supply quality
last available year. It then contrasts the time that would be required to
than is commonly thought.
cover the estimated investment needs (if current levels of expenditure
remain unchanged) with the longest transition period agreed to for
One interesting policy issue is to what extent countries rely on their
any individual directive. With the exception of Poland and Hungary,
domestic funds in fi nancing environmental and water expenditures.
the current levels of environmental investments in new EU Member
Among EECCA countries, the domestic share of total environmental-
States/accession countries may not be suffi
cient to cover the offi
cial
related-expenditures (EEE) varies widely from country to country.
estimates of investment needs, according to the schedules contained
According to UNECE, Russia, Moldova and Ukraine fi nance more than
in transitional agreements.
90% of their EEE from domestic sources. Georgia appears to be more
dependent on foreign resources of fi nancing, which account for 62% of
A commitment to address environmental issues in other Black Sea
the total EEE in this country.
countries (excluding new EU Member States and accession countries)
can be illustrated by analysing environmentally-related expenditures
For many SEE countries foreign sources of fi nancing play a dominant
(EEE). According to UNECE, the countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus
role in fi nancing environmental investments. This is especially true for
and Central Asia (EECCA) with the highest total EEE are Russia and
Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Serbia-Montenegro, while in Croatia
Ukraine, which have the largest populations, the largest economies
and Macedonia domestic sources are relatively more important.
and the highest levels of industrialisation (EAP 2003). The data show, on
the other hand, that the environmental market is very small in Moldova
Finally, in the new EU Member States and candidate countries, external
and Georgia. Such a small market is unlikely to attract signifi cant private
sources of fi nancing, in particular pre-accession funds of the EU, are
fi nanciers in the short-to-medium term, since the transaction costs of
important, especially in small countries (such as Slovenia).
developing and marketing fi nancial products would be high relative to
the expected size of operations.
With respect to international environmental assistance to the Black

Sea region, a distinction should be made between bilateral donors
The EEE, as a share of GDP, refl ects the priority assigned to environment
(including individual countries, but also other institutions and
in the country's economy, and varies signifi cantly among EECCA
organisations such as the European Commission) and International
countries. Moldova, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia appear to devote a
Financial Institutions (IFI) loans. During the period from 1996-2001,
COSTS, BENEFITS AND THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WFD
47

---

the total bilateral environmental assistance to EU accession countries
internal market (i.e. putting a food safety structure in place, making
amounted to about 2.5 billion EURO, whereas in EECCA countries it was
frontiers secure, etc.), and b) co-fi nancing of investment in economic
0.8 billion EURO. Environmental assistance to EU accession countries
and social cohesion, through measures similar to those supported in
was boosted in 2000 and 2001 with pre-accession fi nancial instruments
Member States.
to support investments, mainly Ispa. Moreover, EU pre-accession funds
have been slowly replacing bilateral environmental assistance from
Ispa is the instrument for structural policies for pre-accession and
individual countries. This trend, coupled with the overall growth in
provides fi nancial support for investment in the areas of environment
bilateral assistance to EECCA countries, suggests that some "refocusing"
and transport in order to accelerate the compliance with EU legislation
towards EECCA has taken place.
in accession countries.
The total volume of IFI loans committed to environmental projects in
Environmental Assistance is focused on the "investment heavy
the period 1996-2001 has amounted to almost 4 billion EURO in EU
directives", which are related to drinking water, wastewater treatment,
accession countries and 1.3 billion in EECCA countries. Time trends in
solid waste management and air pollution. Up until the beginning
the commitments of IFI loans show larger annual variations due to fewer
of 2002, wastewater treatment was the main sub-sector, followed by
but larger projects, programming and project development cycles and
drinking water, sewage and solid waste management. In the fi rst year
local conditions.
there were no projects in the air pollution fi eld.
Sapard aims at supporting the eff orts made by the candidate countries
to prepare for their participation in the Common Agriculture Policy
Assistance from the European
(CAP) and the single market. It involves two major explicit operational
Union
objectives:
to help to solve the priority and specifi c problems in agriculture and
Pre-accession assistance: Phare, Ispa and Sapard
rural development;
In the period from 2000-2006, fi nancial assistance from the EU to the
to contribute to the implementation of the acquis communitaire
candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe is being provided
concerning the CAP and other agricultural priorities.
through three instruments: the Phare programme (Regulation 3906/
89/EEC) as revised in 2000, Ispa (Regulation 1267/99/EC) and Sapard
Sapard assistance focuses on 15 measures, among which each country
(Regulation 1268/99/EC). The overall pre-accession assistance has
should select its national priorities. These measures include water
totalled to about 3 billion EURO per year (1997 fi gures:1,620 million
resources management. However, according to 2001 data, of the Sapard
EURO from Phare; 1,080 million EURO from Ispa; 540 million EURO from
measures for the ten candidate countries, investment in processing
Sapard).
and marketing was the most popular with 26% of the total public
aid, followed by investment in agriculture holdings and investment
Phare focuses on two priorities: institution building and acquis-
in the rural infrastructure, with each just over 20%. Water resources
related investments. The fi rst priority, institution building, accounts
management was rarely ranked as a priority.
for some 30% of the budget and is defi ned as the process of helping
the candidate countries develop the structures, strategies, human
Pre-accession assistance for Turkey and the
resources and management skills needed to strengthen their economic,
MEDA Programme
social, regulatory and administrative capacity. An innovative tool that
Turkey receives EU pre-accession assistance via specifi c instruments,
was introduced to serve this purpose is the long-term twinning of
budget lines and procedures. From 1964 to 1981, it benefi ted from three
administrations and agencies. It is a very pragmatic, case-by-case
successive fi nancial protocols for a total value of 680 million EURO, made
method of reforming public administration. Several twinning initiatives
up of EC reduced-interest loans and EIB loans. Some of these resources
concern the implementation of the WFD.
were invested in water-related projects, mainly concerning irrigation
and dams.
The second priority, acquis-related investment, which accounts for 70%
of the budget, consists of two major types of activities: a) co-fi nancing
The MEDA Programme is the principal fi nancial instrument for the
of investment in all the equipment that is necessary to operate the
implementation of the EU Mediterranean policy as defi ned by the
48
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

Barcelona Declaration of 1985. Within this context, water is recognised
promotion of democracy, economic and social development and
as a priority issue. In the 2002-2004 period, about 4% of total MEDA
regional co-operation in the following fi ve priority sectors: a) justice
resources have been allocated to water supply and sanitation.
and home aff airs; b) administrative capacity building; c) economic and
social development; c) democratic stabilisation and e) environment
In the framework of MEDA I (1995-1999), a total amount of 376 million
and natural resources.
EURO were committed by the EU for Turkey, while European Investment
Bank (EIB) loans to the country under the New Mediterranean Policy
With respect to the Danube countries, for the 2001-2004 period, CARDS
from 1992 to 1996 and under the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership from
fi nancial resources have been allocated as follows: 395.4 million EURO to
1997 to 1999 totalled 554.5 million EURO. In the framework of MEDA II
Bosnia-Herzegovina, 267.3 million EURO to Croatia, 1,105.5 million EURO to
(2000-2006), Turkey will receive about 127 million EURO per year from
Serbia-Montenegro, 832.4 million EURO to Kosovo and 80 million EURO to
the EU. It will also be eligible for the EIB Euro-Mediterranean Partnership
regional programmes (which also cover Albania and Macedonia). Among
II, benefi ting from 210 million EURO per year. No detailed information is
the priority sectors, the ones that are particularly relevant for water
available about MEDA assistance to Turkey related to the water sector.
management/protection are "economic and social development" as well
as water and "environment and natural resources". Table 19 contains the
In December 1999, the Helsinki European Council stated that Turkey
Danube countries allocations in these sectors for the 2002-2004 period.
was an applicant for accession on the basis of the same criteria applied
to other candidate countries. Consequently, Regulation 2500/2001/
Assistance to Eastern Europe and Central Asia:
EC has refocused the Community's fi nancial assistance to Turkey on
TACIS
the priorities described in Turkey's Accession Partnership. The 2003
The TACIS programme provides grant-fi nanced technical assistance to
Accession Partnership lists among the short-term environmental
12 countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA), supporting the
priorities the transposition and implementation of the acquis related to
process of transition to market economies and democratic societies.
the framework legislation and water quality and the development of
Among eligible areas are Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Russia.
transboundary water cooperation in line with the WFD and international
In the fi rst nine years of its operation (1991-1999), TACIS committed a
conventions to which the EC is a party.
total of 4,226 million EURO, 20% of which was allocated to nuclear safety
and the environment (being the major receiving sector). In particular,
Assistance to South-Eastern Europe: Community
in the 2002-2003 period, 4% of TACIS resources has been allocated to
Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and
water supply and sanitation.
Stabilisation (CARDS)
Since 1991, the European Union has been the largest donor to South-
From 1991 to 1999, the fi ve Black Sea countries together received 78%
Eastern Europe (SEE). In May 2000, the European Commission made
of this fi nancing. Diff erent national, cross-border and regional projects
a proposal to simplify and accelerate fi nancial support to the fi ve
concerning water supply, wastewater treatment, water quality, and joint
countries of the region by replacing all previous programmes with a
river management have been fi nanced though these funds.
single new instrument: the Community Assistance for Reconstruction
Development and Stabilisation (CARDS). Under the Council Regulation
A Regulation (99/2000/EC), adopted in January 2000, opened a new
on CARDS (2666/2000/EC), adopted in December 2000, more than
phase of cooperation between the EU and its partner EECA countries,
5 billion EURO has been allocated to the region for the 2000-2006
with the goal of providing assistance totalling 3,138 million EURO
period, with assistance focusing on reconstruction and infrastructure,
until the end of 2006 and with a focus on certain key activities in the
Table 19
CARDS assistance to Danube countries in water related sectors.
Economic development (Million EURO)
Environment (Million EURO)
Country
2002
2003
2004
2002
2003
2004
BIH
13.4
2.4
14.1
6.5
10.1
1.4
HR
18
17.5
16.5
3
3
3
YU*
142
149
102.5
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Kos
101
30
18
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
* YU represents Serbia-Montenegro, excluding Kosovo
(Source: European Commission 2004a)
COSTS, BENEFITS AND THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WFD
49

---

region. The development of infrastructure networks, the promotion of
wastewater; 16% are aimed at pollution prevention and reduction and
environmental protection, the management of natural resources and
9% are aimed at planning and organisation for water management.
the development of rural economy are the most relevant activities with
regard to the water sector.
As protection of habitats and listed species is closely linked to water
quality, LIFE-Nature has also been important for EU water policy. The
At a regional level, TACIS has already given substantial fi nancial support
territorial approach for the network of protected areas, Natura 2000,
to several Danube/Black Sea programmes. The 2002-2003 programme
which LIFE Nature supports, is in line with the spirit of the WFD.
for regional co-operation required assistance to be focused, in the Black
Sea area, under the Regional Seas Programme, on the development of
Finally, LIFE Third Countries also plays a role, providing assistance to
river basin management plans, with approaches building as much as
eligible countries in order to create technical and human expertise
possible on the main elements of the EU Water Framework Directive.
capacities and organisation for the management of waters, as well as
In fact, the Black Sea Commission has agreed to investigate the
contributing to the development of water policies and programmes.
consequences of the implementation of the Directive in the Strategic
Action Plan for the Black Sea, with the view to adapt the plan to the
The DABLAS Task Force
obligations resulting from the Directive. Assistance was to have also
The DABLAS Task Force was set up in November 2001 with the goal of
been directed towards the promotion of sustainable management of
providing a platform for cooperation for the protection of water and
fi sh resources, biodiversity and reduction of environmental risks from
water-related ecosystems in the Black Sea region. This was in response
oil transport.
to an EC Communication adopted in 2001, which highlighted priority
actions required to improve the environmental situation in the area
Following the agreements on the EU-EECA Strategic Partnership
(see also par. 2.3).
on water for sustainable development at the World Summit of
Johannesburg and on the Environment Partnership Strategy for EECCA
The Task Force consists of representatives from the Danube/Black
countries at the "Environment for Europe" Ministerial Conference of Kiev,
Sea countries, the International Commission for the Protection of
it is expected that TACIS contributions in this area will increase.
the Danube River and the Black Sea Commission, other regional/
international organisations active in the protection of water and water-
LIFE: the Financial Instrument for the Environment
related ecosystems in the area, international institutions (such as the
Launched in 1992, LIFE (the Financial Instrument for the Environment)
EBRD, the EIB, the WB, UNDP, UNEP, GEF, the Stability Pact for South
co-fi nances environmental initiatives in the European Union and in
Eastern Europe, etc.), interested EU Member states, other bilateral
some accession and third countries. "LIFE III", which covered the 2000-
donors and the European Commission, which also holds the Secretariat
2004 period and had a budget of about 638 million EURO (Regulation
of the Task Force.
1655/2000/EC), has been extended (2005-2006) by Regulation 1682/
2004 with a further budget of 317 million EURO.
As part of its mandate, the DABLAS Task Force formed a Prioritisation
Working Group in March 2002, which developed a framework
LIFE consists of three thematic components: LIFE Environment, LIFE
for project fi nancing. A priority project list was then produced in
Nature and LIFE Third Countries. With respect to geographical coverage,
February 2003, using environmental and fi nancial criteria and
benefi ciaries from LIFE Environment and LIFE Nature are EU Member
comprising 30 water infrastructure investment projects.
States and EU accession countries that have decided to participate in LIFE
(all accession countries except for Bulgaria), while LIFE Third Countries
The EU Water Initiative
concerns third countries bordering on the Mediterranean and the Baltic
At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in
Sea (among which are Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Turkey).
Johannesburg, the EU signalled its intention to expand its role in the
Many LIFE projects are related to the sustainable management of
international eff ort to achieve water and sanitation-related targets, with
groundwater and surface waters. In particular, LIFE Environment has
the launch of the new EU Water Initiative. The Initiative, which is being
contributed to the drafting of the WFD, serving as a "demonstration
taken forward with the active involvement of EU Member States and
tool" in this fi eld. Out of a sample of 75 LIFE-Environment projects on
the European Commission, the European Investment Bank, the private
water, 43% are aimed at the management of river basins; 16% are aimed
sector and civil society, provides a platform for strategic partnerships
at the protection of groundwater; 16% are aimed at the treatment of
to achieve the following targets:
50
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

Halving by 2015 the proportion of people who do not have
World Bank (WB): As of 10 June 2003, the WB water-related projects in the
access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation (Millennium
Black Sea/Danube countries amounted to 526 million USD, with respect
Development Goal);
to projects under implementation, and to 384 million USD, with respect
Developing integrated water resources management and water
to proposed projects. Romania, Russia and Croatia were the recipient
effi
ciencies plans in all countries.
countries that benefi ted from the higher overall water-related assistance.
In the light of these objectives, the main priorities of the EU Water
Global Environmental Facility (GEF): GEF has promoted both national and
Initiative are to: a) evaluate the situation in diff erent countries and
regional projects concerning international waters in the Black Sea area.
regions, analysing the main shortcomings and fi nancial needs; b)
At a regional level, three important programmes have already been
prepare a coordinated action programme with a long-term fi nancial
implemented: the Environmental Programme for the Danube River
strategy providing specifi c targets to 2015; and c) establish a monitoring
Basin (1992-1996, Strategic Action Plan; 1997-2000, and the Danube
and reporting mechanism to measure progress in implementation and
River Basin Pollution Reduction Programme
to steer further action.
Finally, there are at least two international initiatives that have important
The Initiative is characterised by a strong regional focus. With regard to
fi nancial implications for the environmental/water sectors of the
the Danube/Black Sea countries, a partnership between EU and Eastern
Danube/Black Sea countries. First is the Environmental Action Programme
Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (EECCA) countries was endorsed at
for Central and Eastern Europe, adopted in 1993 at the "Environment for
the ministerial level during the WSSD. Following this agreement,
Europe" Ministerial Conference in Lucerne as a broad strategy to guide
a Working Group has been set up to address the two pillars of the
environmental reform in those countries.
partnership, which are: a) urban water supply and sanitation, including
fi nancing of water infrastructure and b) integrated water resources
The second initiative is the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe,
management, including transboundary river basin management and
adopted in 1999, at the EU's behest, and which is comprised of more
management of other water bodies, lakes and regional seas.
than 40 partner countries and organisations. The Stability Pact is
articulated in three Working Tables (WT I: democratisation and human
rights; WT II: economic reconstruction, cooperation and development;
WT III: security issues). The European Commission and the World Bank
Assistance provided by
were appointed to coordinate economic assistance measures for the
other international financial
region.
institutions
Working Table II is particularly interesting as far as water protection/
management is concerned, since it includes initiatives related both
Aside from the EU, a number of other international fi nancial institutions
to infrastructures and the environment. In particular, the Regional
provide assistance to the Danube/Black Sea countries in the environmental
Environmental Reconstruction Programme (REReP) was endorsed
and water sectors or play a role as coordinators of such assistance:
in 2000, with the European Commission as the lead agency and the
Regional Environment Centre (REC) for Central and Eastern Europe
European Investment Bank (EIB): "Environmental protection and
as the secretariat. In 2002 there were REReP projects underway or
improving the quality of life" is one of the fi ve main operational
completed to the value of 15 million EURO, the major donor being
priorities of the Bank. EIB investments in the water sector include
the European Commission. Several of such projects concern water
sewage collection and treatment, the supply of potable water and
protection/management.
fl ood protection schemes,in a context of sustainable integrated water
resource management, according to the objectives and principles of
the EU WFD.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD): as of May 1998,
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development had committed
540 million EURO of fi nancing in the municipal and environmental
infrastructure sector. Most of the funds were towards water projects.
COSTS, BENEFITS AND THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WFD
51

---

Conclusions
The countries surrounding the Black Sea have increasingly recognised
Water management is not currently carried out everywhere in the
the need to work together in order to promote sustainable use
basin.
of transboundary water resources. The Danube River Protection
The water quality standards systems need to be reformed according
Convention and the Convention of the Protection of the Black Sea
to the approach introduced by the WFD.
have developed concrete measures for water pollution. The EC Water
Monitoring systems need to be harmonised and inadequacies in
Framework Directive introduces water resource management principles
existing data need to be improved.
for river basins.
The system of water permits and ownership rights needs to be re-
evaluated.
This report describes the process of implementation of the EC Water
Framework Directive in the Black Sea Basin from the legal, institutional
In the countries where decentralisation has taken place before
and fi nancial point of view and makes comparisons among existing
the establishment of a clear legal framework and development
conventions in the basin.
of environmental management capacity, it has been diffi
cult to
fi nance the required rehabilitation and modernisation of the water
The EU WFD has proved to be an eff ective tool for improving water
sector infrastructure. However, investments and their successful
resources management, with respect to both water quantity and
implementation will lead to considerable benefi ts for human health and
quality measures in the member countries. It has also already shown
the environment. The fi nancial aspects related to implementation of the
favourable benefi ts in other Black Sea Basin countries. The WFD focuses
WFD and EU and other international institutions for investing in water
on the protection of waters as a whole, independent of the national or
sector infrastructures and management are described in this report.
transboundary character of the environmental impacts. In the Black
Sea Basin, waterways and their management have many similarities
The WFD introduces the concept of recovery of costs of water services,
regarding geography, hydrology and economic activities. Current water
including environmental and resources costs regarding the polluter-
pollution control mechanisms may serve as an acceptable foundation
pays principle. This will provide a long -term fi nancial basis for the
upon which new water resources policies created in accordance with
required investments. However in the short term, EU environmental
the WFD could be developed.
requirements pose a fi nancial challenge for the new member states
and accession countries, which must primarily rely on domestic
Most of the Black Sea third countries have general legislation regarding
sources of funding, particularly on public and private expenditures
environmental protection and water management. The implementation
and investments in the environmental sector. However, all countries in
of the EU Water Framework Directive is mandatory for the EU member
the Black Sea Basin receive EU fi nancial assistance in order to improve
states and other accession countries have committed themselves to
national water management the conditions refl ect the principles of the
making eff orts necessary to implement WFD. The main problems facing
EU water policy.
the implementation of the WFD in the Black sea basin are related to
legal, fi nancial and institutional constrains. The main legal barriers are
as follows:
52
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS IN THE BLACK SEADANUBE REGION; LEGAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

---

References
Black Sea Commission (2002). The state of the
European Commission (2001b). Regular Report from the
Action in the Field of Water Policy. Offi
cial Journal of
environment of the Black Sea: pressures and trends
Commission on Czech Republic's Progress towards
the European Communities 327, 22/12/2000.
1996-2000. Commission on the protection of the
Accession, SEC(2001)1746.
Eurostat (2002). Environmental protection expenditure
Black Sea against pollution, Istanbul, Turkey.
European Commission (2001c). The challenge of
in accession countires 1996-2000.
Blaszczyk, P. (2004). The challenge of implementing
environmental fi nancing in the candidate countries.
ICPDR (2000). Joint Action Programme for the Danube
the WFD in Poland. Institute of Environmental
COM(2001) 304 fi n.
River Basin, January 2001- December 2005.
Protection.
European Commission (2002a) Regular Report from
International Commission for the Protection of the
DANCEE (2003). Romania's road to accession: the need
the Commission on Hungary's Progress towards
Danube River. Vienna, Australia.
for an environmental focus. Danish environmental
Accession, SEC(2002)1405.
ICPDR (2001). Water quality in the Danube River. TNMN
assistance to Eastern Europe.
European Commission (2002b). Regular Report from the
Yearbook 2001.International Commission for the
Dnipro Basin Environmental Programme (2003).
Commission on Czech Republic's Progress towards
Protection of the Danube River. Vienna, Australia.
Harmonisation of environmental legislation of the
Accession, SEC(2002)1403.
ICPDR (2002) Joint Danube Survey. International
Dnipro River countries with the legislation of EU
European Commission (2002c). Regular Report from
Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.
Member States.
the Commission on Slovakia's Progress towards
Vienna, Australia.
EAP (2003). Trends in environmental expenditure and
Accession, SEC(2002)1410.
ICPDR (2005). The Danube River Basin District River
international commitments for the environment in
European Commission (2002d). Regular Report from
basin characteristics, impact of human activities
Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia, 1996-
the Commission on Slovenia's Progress towards
and economic analysis required under Article 5,
2001. Task Force for the Implementation of the
Accession, SEC(2002)1411.
Annex II and Annex III, and inventory of protected
Environmental Action Programme for Central and
European Commission (2003a) Comprehensive
areas required under Article 6, Annex IV of the EU
Eastern Europe.
Monitoring Report on the Hungary's preparations
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Danube
EBRD and WB (2003). Water resources in Europe
for membership.
Basin Analysis (WFD Roof Report 2004).
and central Asia, Vol I and II. European Bank for
European Commission (2003b) Comprehensive International Network of Basin Organizations (2003)
Reconstruction and Development and World Bank.
Monitoring Report on the Slovenia's preparations
The Network Newsletter N. 12, December 2003-
ECOSYSTEMS.ltd (2000). An analysis of regional
for membership.
January 2004
conventions for the protection of rivers compared to
European Commission (2003c). Comprehensive Mee, L. (1993). Saving the Black Sea, Programme for
the EC Water Framework Directive.
Monitoring Report on the Czech Republic's
the environmental management and protection of
ECOTEC (2001). The benefi ts of compliance with the
preparations for membership.
the Black Sea.
environmental acquis for the candidate countries.
European Commission (2003d). Comprehensive Ministry of the Environment (2003). Spatial Planning and
EDC Ltd. and EPE asbl. (1997). Compliance Costing for
Monitoring Report on the Slovakia's preparations
Energy, Environment in Slovenia 2002.
Approximation of EU Environmental Legislation in
for membership.
PCU (1999a). Causes and eff ects of eutrophication in
the CEEC pp109. Commissioned by EC DG XI, unit A4
European Commission (2003e). Report on Romania's
the Black Sea ­ Summary Report. Danube Pollution
- Technical Co-operation with Third Countries. EEA,
progress towards accession.
Reduction Programme, Programme Co-ordination
Europe's water: an indicator-based assessment, Topic
European Commission (2004a) European Commission
Unit.
Report 1/2003
Enlargement website. Retrieved from http://
PCU (1999b). Strategic Action Plan for the Danube River
EEA (2003). Europe's water: an indicator-based
europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/index_en.html
Basin 1995-2005 ­ Revision 1999. Danube Pollution
assessment. European Environment Agency, Topic
European Commission (2004b). Handbook for
Reduction Programme, Programme Co-ordination
Report 1/2003, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Implementation of EU Environmental Legislation.
Unit.
European Commission (2001a). Communication on
Retreived from http://europa.eu.int/comm/
Stanners, D. and Boudreau, P. (1995). Europe's
environmental cooperation in the Danube-Black
environment/enlarg/handbook/handbook.htm
environment ­ The Dobris Assessment, European
Sea region. COM(2001)615 fi n.
European Council (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the
Environmental Agency, Luxembourg.
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October
UNECE (2001) Environmental Performance Reviews
2000 establishing a Framework for Community
Programme, Romania.
REFERENCES
53

---

---

---

---